House of Commons
(2 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Prayers
(2 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Speaker’s Statement
(2 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Mr Speaker
Before we begin today’s business, I wish to thank the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) for withdrawing his invitation to the Russian ambassador to address the all-party group on Russia. I was very uneasy about the visit and did not think it appropriate to invite a Russian official who had said only weeks before that there would be no invasion. Therefore, I am grateful for that decision.
I would also like to thank the hon. Member for Henley (John Howell) for his successful efforts in ensuring the suspension of the Russian Federation’s right of representation in the Council of Europe.
I also say to all hon. Members, and all those who follow our proceedings: we stand in solidarity with Ukraine and its people and have raised their flag at the House of Commons. I will send around an email about further events planned this week to show our support for them and their fight for freedom.
Oral Answers to Questions
(2 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Priti Patel)
The whole House will be united in horror and revulsion at Putin’s war on Ukraine. I will update the House on the action that we are taking to help British nationals and Ukrainians and to hold Russia and Putin’s Government to account later in Question Time. For now, I want to reiterate the Government’s unequivocal support for the people of Ukraine, who are being truly heroic.
Daniel Zeichner
I echo the Home Secretary’s comments and am sure that we will extend a generous and gracious invitation to those fleeing from Ukraine.
In the year to September 2021, 1.7 million cases of antisocial behaviour were reported to the police. In Cambridge, I have more and more people coming to me with problems. We used to have police community support officers, who were a welcoming, reassuring, uniformed presence on our streets. Where are they now?
Priti Patel
Strong local policing is absolutely in the DNA of neighbourhood policing. The hon. Gentleman will be well aware that this Government are not only funding but backing the police, with almost £15.9 billion in this financial year, and increasing police numbers to 20,000. He will also know that his local police recruitment numbers have gone up and that his local force has already recruited 138 police officers.
Mr Steve Baker (Wycombe) (Con)
I was very pleased to see Thames Valley police launch a new recruitment campaign for PCSOs. Will my right hon. Friend join me in thanking PCSOs for all they do to support the people in Wycombe and across Thames valley and the whole country? Will she also join me in welcoming that campaign and encouraging people to apply?
Priti Patel
I agree and congratulate Thames Valley police force; it has exceptional leadership and all officers there and across the country are doing great work. That recruitment campaign is vital and is going incredibly well. We have just over 11,000 new police recruits and officers on the streets of England and Wales and the numbers will grow and grow. Of course, this is all about keeping our communities safe.
Emma Hardy (Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle) (Lab)
The PCSOs are doing a fantastic job of supporting residents with regard to the increase in car crime happening in one area of Hull. What particularly upsets residents, however, is seeing those criminals uploading videos to TikTok and celebrating their crimes. Will the Home Secretary update us on what her Department is doing to work with social media companies to help them identify evidence of criminality and support police investigations?
Priti Patel
The hon. Lady is right, and she will recognise that criminals who upload videos absolutely are pursued by the police and law enforcement agencies to bring them to justice. She asked specifically about work with technology companies and online platforms and providers. That is always ongoing, including through some of the wider work relating to the online harms Bill.
Anthony Mangnall (Totnes) (Con)
The increase in police officers in the south-west is welcome, but what is being done to tackle drugs, and will the Home Secretary meet me to see what we can do to stop antisocial behaviour happening in towns such as Brixham and Dartmouth?
Priti Patel
My hon. Friend is absolutely right; drugs are a scourge across society and they blight communities. We have a great deal of work taking place on drugs, and I will happily meet him and any colleagues to discuss that. Not only do we, first and foremost, have the county lines programme, but we believe in supporting individuals who suffer from addiction, and that is exactly what Project ADDER is doing.
Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Tom Pursglove)
The Government recognise that sexual violence is a devastating crime that has a long-lasting impact on victims. The Nationality and Borders Bill, which is part of our new plan for immigration, will strengthen our ability to protect vulnerable people. On 16 September, we published an equality impact assessment, which includes an assessment of the potential impact on people who may have experienced sexual violence.
Alison Thewliss
Last week, a joint letter with more than 60 signatories across Scottish civil society, including Rape Crisis Scotland, Amina Muslim Women’s Resource Centre, the Trafficking Awareness Raising Alliance, SAY Women and the Women’s Integration Network, criticised the Nationality and Borders Bill, saying:
“It is a gift to abusers and exploiters, and we have no doubt that it will harm survivors of sexual violence, gender-based violence and those who flee persecution.”
Scotland wants no part of the Bill. It is not in our name. Will the Minister take the opportunity to remove the Bill now?
Tom Pursglove
I hear what the hon. Lady says. I am sure that people in Scotland are as concerned as the Government are about people risking their lives in the hands of evil people smugglers, making dangerous crossings of the channel, and all the risks that that presents to life. The fact is that sensible discretion will be built into the whole approach, with various checks throughout, good reasons and a trauma-informed approach. That is precisely what we have committed to; it is exactly what we will deliver.
Holly Mumby-Croft (Scunthorpe) (Con)
Alexander Stafford (Rother Valley) (Con)
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Priti Patel)
As part of the violence against women and girls strategy launched last July, we are bringing forward legislation against stalking, forced marriage, female genital mutilation and wider domestic abuse. The strategy is overseen by the VAWG inter-ministerial group, which I chair.
Holly Mumby-Croft
Does my right hon. Friend recognise the importance of the continuing work of police and crime commissioner Jonathan Evison, his team and the Humberside police service on the You Are Not Alone campaign, which aims to raise awareness of support for victims of domestic violence and, indeed, perpetrators? I think that it is really important work, and I hope that she will recognise it.
Priti Patel
I thank my hon. Friend for her comment and for the work that the police and crime commissioner and her local police force are undertaking. The You Are Not Alone campaign was launched during the pandemic. I recommend it to anyone who is a victim of any form of domestic abuse or violence. It is a successful campaign, and I pay tribute to police and crime commissioners and to our police officers across the country, who have been supporting it and making sure that they provide support to victims of abuse.
Alexander Stafford
My right hon. Friend will be aware that the shadow policing Minister, the hon. Member for Croydon Central (Sarah Jones), has said:
“Harsher sentences don’t act as a deterrent.”
Will my right hon. Friend confirm that that is wrong, that harsher sentences actually do work, and that we are prepared to put domestic abusers and violent and sexual offenders behind bars for longer to make our streets, especially in Rother Valley, safer for women and girls?
Priti Patel
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It is right that we change our laws, have tougher sentences and make sure that perpetrators absolutely feel the full force of the law. He is right to make that case. The Government are also undertaking wider work on perpetrator behaviour and education campaigns across all Departments.
Dr Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) (Lab)
We all agree that women should be able to go about their lawful business free from intimidation and able to use public spaces, yet every day thousands are affected by protests outside abortion clinics that are designed to shame women out of their legal rights to healthcare. Will the Secretary of State meet me to ensure that we have consistency nationally on the situation and that protesters who seek to control women’s bodies and stop them making choices are stopped and moved away from the clinic gates?
Priti Patel
I commend the hon. Lady for much of the work that she has been doing. I would be very happy to meet her. All the points she raises are absolutely valid: women should be able to go about living their lives freely, safely and without harassment.
Ronnie Cowan (Inverclyde) (SNP)
The all-party parliamentary group on commercial sexual exploitation is conducting an inquiry into the pornography industry in response to growing concerns that online pornography is fuelling violence against women and girls. Will the Government establish the necessary legal framework to prevent and address the harm associated with the production and consumption of pornography?
Priti Patel
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. I agree with the sentiments that he echoes and would be very happy to meet him to discuss the matter. There are many, many legitimate concerns about pornography and the wider harms—age access, age verification and all sorts of issues, some of which the Government are picking up right now. The online harms Bill is one area, but there are other things that we can and should be doing.
Jess Phillips (Birmingham, Yardley) (Lab)
Since the publication of the VAWG strategy, rape charging has fallen to an all-time low, leaving more people accused of rape in communities than ever before. Operation Bluestone found that the monitoring of previous offenders was failing to use
“intelligence to establish whether suspects had been named in previous offences.”
Operation Soteria found that
“officers were not routinely monitoring known offenders of sexual crimes”,
leading to a “total lack of morale” among police. This week the inspectorate said that alleged rapists were escaping justice, citing a case in which an alleged rapist was acquitted after the police and the Crown Prosecution Service had failed to present evidence in court showing that he had allegedly raped two other people previously.
I ask the Home Secretary to set out for the House exactly where, in the strategy and in her plans, are the proper monitoring and offender management that will stop any offender, let alone the most violent and repeat rapists, because that is not even nearly happening now.
Priti Patel
As the hon. Lady will know, both the rape review and the criminal justice taskforce have been clear and explicit about the actions that are being taken across Government. Operation Soteria, which she mentioned, is being rolled out to 14 other police forces. It is important for us to fix these key gateways—the way in which the police investigate cases, the handovers to the Crown Prosecution Service, and how it all works throughout the criminal justice system—and that is being done as a result of the rape review and work with the Justice Secretary. [Interruption.] I hear the hon. Member for Aberavon (Stephen Kinnock) talking about “12 years”, but the rape review report was published last year. This Government are fixing many of the long-established problems in the criminal justice system that have led to some of the most appalling outcomes. We can all agree, if on nothing else, on the need to fix those appalling outcomes for rape victims.
Sarah Atherton (Wrexham) (Con)
North Wales police recently received half a million pounds of UK funding for the safer streets and safety of women at night campaigns. Having been out with the police on foot patrol, I ask my right hon. Friend to join me in congratulating Inspector Claire McGrady of Wrexham town police and Wrexham Council on acknowledging the issues involved, increasing CCTV and lighting provision, and providing a weekend welfare centre.
Priti Patel
My hon. Friend is right; the safer streets fund and many other initiatives that the Government are leading to protect citizens and the safety of women across our communities are making a difference. The work of police forces with police and crime commissioners demonstrates how targeted resources can keep the public safe, and give the public, including women, confidence in their communities.
Tony Lloyd (Rochdale) (Lab)
The Home Secretary has talked in a muscular fashion about the need for exemplary punishment of the perpetrators of violence against women and girls. She will recall her commitment to the deportation, where appropriate, of offenders in Rochdale, and indeed in other parts of the country. She also committed herself to meeting me to discuss the issue, and I still await that meeting. May I have an update?
Priti Patel
Absolutely. The hon. Gentleman is entirely right. I cannot speak about that case in the House, and he will know exactly why, but I will meet him to go through the specific details.
Kate Griffiths (Burton) (Con)
The work of organisations such as the Sexual Abuse and Rape Advice Centre in my constituency is vital. I have seen at first hand how SARAC supports survivors of rape and domestic abuse. Can my right hon. Friend assure me that she will work with such organisations to ensure that they have a chance to feed in their expertise on how we can support victims and tackle violence against women and girls?
Priti Patel
I congratulate my hon. Friend on the work that she has personally led in campaigning and raising awareness, and also on the work of her local organisations—I have visited her constituency in the context of other issues. The role of the third sector is vital; it provides an important gateway and a lifeline for so many, and of course the Government continue to support it.
Martin Docherty-Hughes (West Dunbartonshire) (SNP)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Kevin Foster)
While we do not plan a wider review, the Nationality and Borders Bill will make several changes to the British Nationality Act 1981, allowing people to acquire citizenship where they had previously been unable to do so because of historical anomalies.
Martin Docherty-Hughes
It is often overlooked that this political state shares a common travel area with our neighbours across the sheuch, as some of us would call it. I dare say that, from citizenship frameworks to asylum policy, this Government have a lot to learn from Ireland about implementing humane and just policy for those coming to the UK. What steps, if any, has the Department taken in recent days to learn from the best practice seen in the Republic of Ireland in terms of its legislative frameworks for citizenship?
Kevin Foster
We always look at the practices in other countries, and I would point out that our visitor route is more generous than the equivalent in the Republic of Ireland. I am actually meeting an Irish Minister later today. We are looking at how we can amend nationality law to make processing slightly easier so that we no longer need to look into people’s past immigration history, but we have already done that recently in relation to a grant of indefinite leave to remain or settled status under the EU settlement scheme.
James Gray (North Wiltshire) (Con)
I congratulate the Government on changing the rules last week with regard to Commonwealth soldiers, who will no longer have to pay for their citizenship if they have served for six years. That was a great decision and I thank the Government very much for it. Does the Minister agree that similar flexibility will be needed in the near future with regard to Afghan refugees who are based here? A young family came to see me in my surgery last Saturday. They are now well settled, but they are concerned about how long it will take them to get citizenship. And of course, quite soon, similar questions will be raised with regard to Ukrainians.
Kevin Foster
A lot of nationality law is in primary legislation, which limits some of the flexibility we have, but we will certainly be happy to consider what we can do to support those who want to take that step to become British citizens.
Holly Lynch (Halifax) (Lab)
On 8 August last year, the Home Office sent a family from Halifax back to Afghanistan on a voluntary return flight. That family felt they had no choice but to apply for the voluntary return scheme, having had their claim for asylum refused the year before. Kabul fell to the Taliban just seven days later, on 15 August. The family have three children—the youngest is just five years old. Can the Minister explain how the Home Office could ever have allowed this to happen? Can he confirm whether this has happened to others? Can he put on record that the five-year re-entry ban, which would ordinarily apply to someone who leaves the country via the voluntary return scheme, will not apply in these appalling circumstances?
Kevin Foster
I am obviously interested to hear of the case that the shadow Minister raises, and I would be interested to meet her to discuss it further, particularly if the family is in Afghanistan, as it may not be appropriate to share the details on the Floor of the House. I would be happy to meet her and have a conversation about the circumstances of that case.
Caroline Nokes (Romsey and Southampton North) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Rachel Maclean)
We fully recognise the concern that my right hon. Friend raises. In fact, that same concern has been raised by many Members across the House and many campaigners. We will do all we can to make streets safer for women and girls, and if that includes a new offence, so be it.
Caroline Nokes
I know that my hon. Friend the Minister agrees with the Law Commission that misogyny should not be a hate crime. Does she not also think it appropriate that she should agree with the Law Commission that public sexual harassment should be a specific offence? I would like to echo the words of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, who has just said that women should be able to live their lives
“freely, safely and without harassment”.
Can we stop looking hard at this and actually bring forward some legislation to make it happen?
Rachel Maclean
As I have just said, if the work we are doing with the Law Commission, legislators and others makes it clear that we need to make a new offence, that is exactly what we will do. I would like to draw my right hon. Friend’s attention to the work that the police are doing to keep women safer. They are recording more VAWG crimes, there is an increased willingness of victims to come forward and there are improvements in police recording. We know we have more to do, which is why this evening we are launching a national communications campaign to tackle the perpetrators of public sexual harassment.
Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)
But last week the Minister could not have been clearer in her view that the test as to whether there should be legislation in these areas was what the Law Commission said about it. She was absolutely clear that, because the Law Commission did not recommend that misogyny should be a hate crime, that should not be the law. Why is she not equally clear on sexual harassment?
Rachel Maclean
Let me be as clear as I can for the whole House. If there is a need for a new offence, we will bring it forward.
Mr Richard Holden (North West Durham) (Con)
I welcome the Government’s broad support for tackling violence against women and girls, including in public, and for banning virginity testing and hymenoplasty in the Health and Care Bill, which is going through the other place. I also welcome their backing for the private Member’s Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Derbyshire (Mrs Latham)—the Marriage and Civil Partnership (Minimum Age) Bill—to ban child marriage in England and Wales. Our Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill will look to extend some of those issues, for example by outlawing breastfeeding voyeurism and ensuring that violent offenders spend more time in prison. Does the Minister agree that, by voting against that Bill, the Opposition are failing to send the right message on protecting the victims of crime?
Rachel Maclean
I thank my hon. Friend for highlighting the sheer scope of the work we are doing to tackle these atrocious crimes. Violence against women and girls is appalling, and this Government are focused and united on stamping it out. I would like to see the Opposition voting with us this evening to support the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill. Given the very loud comments Opposition Members have made from a sedentary position, I expect to see them in the Lobby with us this evening.
Neale Hanvey (Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath) (Alba)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Kevin Foster)
We have introduced a new global points-based immigration system that works in the interest of the whole of our United Kingdom, including Scotland. We continue to deliver a comprehensive programme of engagement on the new immigration system, including with each of the devolved Administrations.
Neale Hanvey
President Zelensky’s formidable leadership and valour should inspire and humble us all. Like many MPs, I have constituents with family and close friends in Ukraine. Given the humanitarian crisis, will the Minister please advise us on what discussions are taking place with the Scottish Government to develop comprehensive, rapid accommodation for Ukrainian refugees, such as Ken Stewart and his family, across these islands now and in the coming days?
Kevin Foster
I briefly spoke with Neil Gray on Friday, ahead of potentially meeting more formally, about potential options for Afghan nationals currently in bridging hotels and those leaving Ukraine to be both housed and settled in Scotland. If there are individual cases at this stage, please feel free to bring them to my attention, and we will look into them.
Stephen Kinnock (Aberavon) (Lab)
I have had that since I was 13 years old, Mr Speaker. You are not the first, and I am sure you will not be the last.
The Opposition support the call of the Welsh and Scottish Governments for the UK Government to offer sanctuary to Ukrainians who are fleeing the horrors of war, but the UK Government’s response has, once again, demonstrated the toxic combination of incompetence and indifference that are the hallmarks of this Home Secretary and her ministerial team.
Over the weekend, the Minister, who is responsible for safe and legal migration, tweeted that the Ukrainians who are running for their lives should apply to come to our country on seasonal fruit-picking visas. That tweet was the modern-day equivalent of “Let them eat cake.” Thankfully he has deleted it, but will he now come to the Dispatch Box to apologise unconditionally for that tweet? Will he also offer swift, well-managed and safe sanctuary to these victims of Putin’s barbarity who require our support?
Kevin Foster
I am interested in contrasting those comments with what the Ukrainian ambassador said yesterday. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will shortly announce more. As I have already said, it was useful to have a constructive conversation with the Scottish Government on Friday.
Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP)
The Minister will have heard loud and clear during his call with Neil Gray on Friday that the Scottish Government fully support replicating the European model and lifting visa requirements for Ukrainian nationals now. The UK Government are now alone among our European allies in asking Ukrainians to jump through visa hoops to reach sanctuary here, and they are even more alone in legislating to criminalise, marginalise and impoverish those who seek asylum through their anti-refugee Bill. Surely basic human decency requires an urgent rethink on both counts.
Kevin Foster
My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will shortly say a bit more on what we are looking to do for Ukrainians. Yes, it was a productive conversation with Neil Gray, but one thing that would certainly help us to support more of those seeking asylum in this country would be if 31 of the 32 local authority areas in Scotland, including the hon. Gentleman’s own, were not refusing to be dispersal areas.
Luke Hall (Thornbury and Yate) (Con)
Jacob Young (Redcar) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Rachel Maclean)
The beating crime plan lays out the Government’s commitment to working with local agencies to drive down antisocial behaviour. We ensured that local agencies have flexible tools and powers to tackle it through the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014, and in the levelling up White Paper we announced that the safer streets fund will be expanded to include the prevention of ASB as one of its primary aims.
Luke Hall
There has been a spate of antisocial behaviour and a rise in burglary in Thornbury and, particularly, Alveston over the past few weeks. Avon and Somerset police has provided strong support and recruited 670 new officers in the last year and a half alone, which is very welcome, but what steps can my hon. Friend take to make sure these new officers do not just concentrate their activity in the core city areas but support rural south Gloucestershire, too? Will she meet me to discuss what more we can do to keep communities such as Thornbury and Alveston safe?
Rachel Maclean
I completely sympathise with my hon. Friend’s constituents, who are suffering from antisocial behaviour and burglaries. I welcome his acknowledgement that the Government have ensured that Gloucestershire has additional police officers. Those officers are deployed by the chief constable and the locally elected police and crime commissioner, so it is absolutely down to them. I am sure that my hon. Friend will be advocating most vociferously to ensure that they are targeting those additional officers where they are needed.
Jacob Young
Despite the best efforts of our fantastic police officers, the careless use of unlicensed off-road motorcycles is a huge aspect of antisocial behaviour in Redcar and Cleveland. The use of these bikes, largely by teenagers and young adults, has resulted in significant damage to private property and to the living environment for local people. Sadly, it often also includes the transportation of illegal drugs. Will the Minister commit to visiting Redcar and Cleveland with me to see the extent of the problem, speak with some of the people affected and help us devise a plan to tackle this criminality?
Rachel Maclean
I would be delighted to visit my hon. Friend’s constituency—perhaps I can visit the Gloucestershire constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Thornbury and Yate (Luke Hall) on my way there. My hon. Friend the Member for Redcar (Jacob Young) is absolutely right to highlight the detrimental impacts of this type of behaviour. Of course, our legislation gives those responsible the ability to deal with antisocial incidents. I understand that he faces a particular issue in Eston hills, so perhaps he can take me there and we will see what we can do together.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
Is the Minister aware that some kinds of antisocial behaviour sometimes become violent and that some of the young people swept into that have autism backgrounds? Is she concerned that under joint enterprise it is now believed that many young people are in prison who should not be there? Is she worried about joint enterprise and is she making any investigation to do something about it?
Rachel Maclean
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. On the broader issue of those suffering from autism, we absolutely are aware that a number of factors contribute to young people sadly being caught up in crime, either as perpetrators or as victims. We are working widely across government with our colleagues in the Department for Education and the Department of Health and Social Care, and I point specifically to the excellent work we are doing in the violence reduction units up and down the country and through the youth endowment fund, which targets and specifically funds projects to help young people avoid a life of crime. I would be happy to talk to him in more detail about the specific issue he raises with me.
Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Ind)
What assessment has the Minister made of the link between youth antisocial behaviour and a lack of youth-focused community spaces and initiatives? What discussions have taken place across Government about ensuring that communities have the resources to support young people before antisocial behaviour occurs or escalates?
Rachel Maclean
The hon. Lady will be aware that the issue of youth violence is a key priority for the crime and justice taskforce, led by the Home Secretary and the Prime Minister. My colleagues in the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport have recently allocated £540 million to additional youth services up and down the country, which is a fantastic initiative to enable young people to be engaged in productive activities so that they are not tempted by a life of criminality.
Tom Hunt (Ipswich) (Con)
I am very happy that Ipswich is getting £25 million through a town deal, but when I talk to town centre businesses and my constituents I find that many of them are very concerned about crime and antisocial behaviour. It is actually putting some people off going into the town, and in Dial Lane a number of businesses have had their windows smashed. Does my hon. Friend agree that as we support our town centres in coming out of the pandemic it is crucial that we tackle antisocial behaviour, and that one way in which we can do that in Ipswich would be by looking at the police funding formula for Suffolk, which I have banged on about quite a lot, to make sure that we get a fair deal and a bigger police presence in the town centre, so that businesses and my constituents feel 110% secure to spend money in the town centre?
Rachel Maclean
I am pleased to say that because of my hon. Friend’s ardent campaigning there are more police officers in his area. I wish to highlight for him the safer streets fund, which is exactly the kind of initiative that we are putting into town centres to tackle these issues, through things such as better street lighting, CCTV and additional security for residents. The latest round of our safer streets fund is focused on targeting violence against women and girls. That will specifically look at patrols, safer streets and training and the night-time economy.
Shabana Mahmood (Birmingham, Ladywood) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Rachel Maclean)
The beating crime plan laid out the Government’s commitments to working with local agencies to drive down antisocial behaviour and tackle the organised criminal business that often drives the most visible crime felt in local neighbourhoods.
Shabana Mahmood
Crooks, fraudsters and those with links to organised crime are exploiting loopholes in the law to access taxpayers’ cash in the exempt supported housing sector. The Minister for Crime and Policing is aware of the problem and he knows that the proliferation of this type of housing units is causing an avalanche of antisocial behaviour that is destroying neighbourhoods. He recently promised, when he visited Birmingham, that he would have urgent conversations with colleagues in the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities and the Department for Work and Pensions, but in the Opposition Day debate that took place in this Chamber last week there was no reference to any such conversations having taken place and no Home Office interest in this matter. Can the Minister tell us what steps are being taken by Home Office officials and Ministers after that visit to Birmingham by the Policing Minister to make sure that the Home Office plays an active, cross-Government role in shutting down the loopholes that causing chaos in communities?
Rachel Maclean
The hon. Lady will appreciate that my right hon. Friend the Minister for Crime and Policing is sitting next to me on the Treasury Bench, and I am sure that he would be delighted to follow up on those specific questions.
Stephen Metcalfe (South Basildon and East Thurrock) (Con)
As my hon. Friend knows, low-level drug use is sadly commonplace across many towns and cities in the UK. It is the scourge of my community and often acts as an escalator into more serious crime, but is yet rarely challenged by the authorities. Will she therefore agree to reinforce the message that drug use is illegal, that it should be treated as a crime and that it should carry an appropriate penalty enforced by police and courts alike?
Rachel Maclean
My hon. Friend will no doubt be aware of the robust and sweeping action that we have taken to tackle drug use, which is led by my right hon. Friends the Home Secretary and the Minister for Crime and Policing. The 10-year drugs plan sets out how we will eradicate drug taking from our country. Let me also highlight the work that we have done on county lines, which is a hideous scourge that affects many young people. Funded by Government, some of the work that has taken place has closed down county lines programmes—more than 1,500 lines—made more than 7,400 arrests and seized £4.3 million in cash.
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)
The Minister for Crime and Policing (Kit Malthouse)
It is important that the services that the police provide, whether digitally or face to face, are all accessible, so that everyone can come forward to report crime and interact with police officers in any way that suits their requirements. We are committed to giving the police the resources they need to fight crime and keep the public safe. That is why policing will receive up to £16,900 million in the coming financial year.
Justin Madders
Does the Minister agree that the police and crime commissioner for Cheshire needs to reconsider his priorities when he is talking about closing down Ellesmere Port police station to the public and getting rid of 40 police community support officers while, at the same time, giving his deputy a 33% pay rise despite their having been in the post for five months?
Kit Malthouse
As I understand it, there is a consultation ongoing about how the Cheshire police should interact with the public they serve. I would hate to jump to any conclusion about what may or may not be decided, but, Mr Speaker, you will be aware that all police and crime commissioners should be reviewing their property strategy in the light of the massive expansion in police officer numbers that they are seeing at the moment, to the extent that, in the next 12 months or so, we expect to see the highest number of police officers that the country has ever seen.
Sir Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)
The Minister for Crime and Policing (Kit Malthouse)
We are working with police and manufacturers through the national vehicle crime working group to tackle the theft of catalytic converters.
Sir Robert Neill
In many areas of the country, crime is going down. It is going down in many areas in Bromley and Chislehurst, but one area where it is not is the explosion in catalytic converter thefts in my constituency. Ours has been identified by the National Police Chiefs’ Council lead as one of the highest areas for this crime. These are not opportunistic thefts. Does my right hon. Friend agree that these are thefts by organised crime gangs seeking valuable metals that are sold for considerable amounts of money—platinum and palladium—carried out by men armed with baseball bats, threatening violence? Will he ensure that much greater priority is given to this crime and that we clamp down on the handlers of these stolen goods by greater enforcement of the Scrap Metal Dealers Act 2013?
Kit Malthouse
My hon. Friend, with his usual acuity, has put his finger on the button of this issue. It is cause for significant concern in parts of the country, and he is right that it is a product of prices in the metal market. He will be pleased to hear that just this month the British Transport Police co-ordinated a national week of intensification on acquisitive crime, looking particularly at catalytic converters, and that the work we have done on scrap metal dealers will go some way to dealing with the problem. However, we need to work much more closely with manufacturers to ensure that they do as much as they can to design out the theft of converters. Let us hope that in the years to come, as we all convert to electric vehicles, it will become a problem of the past.
Mary Kelly Foy (City of Durham) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Rachel Maclean)
The Government take all forms of hate crime seriously and we will shortly publish a new strategy setting out how we intend to tackle those abhorrent crimes. I assure the hon. Lady that we have sought views from Gypsy, Roma and Traveller communities.
Mary Kelly Foy
Following Ministers’ welcome criticism of Jimmy Carr’s abhorrent joke celebrating the genocide of Roma and Sinti people, the Traveller Movement said that if the Government were serious about reducing discrimination against GRT communities, they would scrap the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill. Does the Minister accept that it is hypocritical for Ministers to condemn racism from others while pushing through a Bill that the Government’s own impact assessment confirms will discriminate against Gypsy, Roma and Traveller people?
Rachel Maclean
I am afraid the hon. Lady is completely wrong about the Bill. It is a vital Bill to keep the public safe and protect them from sex offenders, violent rapists and other criminals. The comments she refers to were horrible, and it is clearly unacceptable to mock victims of genocide. We are clear that all forms of hate speech are unacceptable.
Marsha De Cordova (Battersea) (Lab)
Paula Barker (Liverpool, Wavertree) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Rachel Maclean)
Tackling violence against women and girls is a top priority for this Government. Our actions include publishing a cross-Government strategy on tackling VAWG, to be followed shortly by a complementary domestic abuse plan; bringing in world-class legislation to tackle stalking, forced marriage and female genital mutilation, as well as the landmark Domestic Abuse Act 2021; further increasing our funding for support services to £185 million a year by 2024-25; and making public spaces safer.
Marsha De Cordova
In December last year the Government rejected the recommendation to create a firewall to enable migrant victims to safely report domestic abuse to the police without fear of being reported to the immigration authorities. Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary and fire and rescue services said that that would be in the public interest. Can the Minister say how exactly the Government plan to protect victims too frightened to come forward, and to protect the public from the rapists and abusers left free to offend with impunity?
Rachel Maclean
Our domestic abuse plan and all the work we have done sets out clearly how we are going to protect the most vulnerable victims of domestic abuse, including those who may find themselves in the immigration system. We have support schemes for those women, and we take this seriously; we work extremely sensitively with our policing partners, who have specialist trained officers to recognise such cases and get support to the victims.
Paula Barker
Remarkably, despite all the talk on violence against women and girls, the Home Secretary and the Minister still fail to grasp that misogyny is the driving force behind it. The offending histories of many perpetrators reveal how they escalate from lower-level criminal behaviour—offences that many do not report because they do not think they will be taken seriously, such as exposure, street harassment and catcalling. Racism, homophobia and ableism are addressed in law, but no such protections are afforded to women and girls. Why do the Home Secretary and the Minister continue to turn a blind eye to the culture that exists and is the root cause of violence against women and girls?
Rachel Maclean
With the greatest respect, I think the hon. Lady completely mischaracterises the Government’s comprehensive, sweeping, serious and well-funded response to violence against women and girls, which she has heard me and the Home Secretary refer to earlier in this session. On the specific issue she raises, I highlight the fact that the police are recording more crimes of violence against women and girls, and there is an increased willingness of victims to come forward because of the work we and the criminal justice system have done. There is always more to do, but crime reporting in the VAWG sector is up by 12% to September 2021 on the same period of the prior year.
Sarah Jones (Croydon Central) (Lab)
We have heard lots of words on strategies, taskforces, roundtables and action plans, yet many victims will never see justice, and more and more criminals are getting away with it. The House of Lords has voted to introduce a new crime of sex for rent, which Labour Members support and will be voting for tonight. Will the Minister back us?
Rachel Maclean
My colleague the Policing Minister will be speaking to that amendment later, and we will be consulting on this specific issue. However, I want to highlight that there are already offences on the statute book to tackle this particular abhorrent form of behaviour.
Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Kevin Foster)
As I said recently in the House in response to an urgent question, the Home Office is awaiting the findings of the upper tribunal presidential panel, who are currently considering the case known as RK/DK, which we hope will bring further clarity to the ETS TOEIC issue. Once we have received and digested the judgment we will announce our next steps.
Stephen Timms
After 2014, over 30,000 overseas students lost their visas, accused of cheating in English language tests. It is now clear that the great majority of those students were entirely innocent. It is now over 12 months since the Home Secretary rightly told the Home Affairs Committee:
“We need to find a resolution”.
Why wait for the outcome of the court case? There is no need to delay. Why not now bring forward the resolution the Home Secretary has rightly promised?
Kevin Foster
Given that the judgment is believed to be fairly imminent, it makes eminent sense to wait for it and then announce our next steps fully taking into account what it says and what it concludes. As the right hon. Gentleman will be aware, given the passage of time we have already amended our guidance to make it clear that where a person’s right to a private and family life in the UK is relevant, the interception of a previous TOEIC test is not an invariable ground for refusal if they make an immigration application.
Mr Speaker
We now come to topicals. I have granted some extra time to the Home Secretary as she wants to make an important announcement.
Mary Robinson (Cheadle) (Con)
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Priti Patel)
Thank you, Mr Speaker.
Putin’s war on Ukraine is monstrous and unjustified. I am in regular contact with the Ukrainian Minister of the Interior and the ambassador to London. The United Kingdom stands firmly with the people of Ukraine, and, as this House would expect, Britain is stepping up to play its part in responding to the terrible situation on the ground in Ukraine.
The Government have already announced the first phase of a bespoke humanitarian route for the people of Ukraine. The new route responds directly to the needs and asks of the Ukrainian Government. Every conflict and threat situation is unique and requires a tailored response. Our new route will continue to keep pace with the developing situation on the ground and has so far already supported hundreds of British nationals and their families resident in Ukraine to leave. UK Visas and Immigration staff continue to work around the clock to assist them. The route has also enabled dependents of British national residents in Ukraine who need a UK visa to apply through the temporary location in Lviv or through the visa application centres in Poland, Moldova, Romania and Hungary. Over recent weeks teams have been surged to these areas and applications have been completed within hours.
We are in direct contact with individuals and we have also lowered various requirements and salary thresholds so that people can be supported. Where family members of British nationals do not meet the usual eligibility criteria but pass security checks, UK Visas and Immigration will give them permission to enter the UK outside the rules for 12 months and is prioritising all applications to give British nationals and any person settled in the UK the ability to bring over their immediate Ukrainian family members. I can confirm that through this extension alone an additional 100,000 Ukrainians will be able to seek sanctuary in the UK, with access to work and public services. We are enabling Ukrainian nationals already in the UK to switch free of charge into a points-based immigration route or to the family visa route. We are extending visas for Ukraine temporary workers in some sectors, and they can now stay until at least December 2022, primarily because no one can return to Ukraine. Anyone in Ukraine intending to apply under the family migration route should call the dedicated 24-hour Home Office helpline for assistance before making an application.
Britain continues to lead and is doing its fair share in every aspect of this Ukraine conflict. I urge colleagues not to attempt casework themselves, but to directly refer people to the helpline number. Duplication of effort would waste precious time and cause confusion. This is the best and most efficient way to help people.
Over the weekend, I have seen Members of this House calling for full visa waivers for all Ukrainians. Security and biometric checks are a fundamental part of our visa approval process worldwide, and they will continue, as they did for the evacuation of people from Afghanistan. That is vital to keep British citizens safe and to ensure that we are helping those in genuine need, particularly as Russian troops are now infiltrating Ukraine and merging into Ukrainian forces. Intelligence reports also state the presence of extremist groups and organisations who threaten the region, but also our domestic homeland. We know all too well what Putin’s Russia is willing to do, even on our soil, as we saw through the Salisbury attack and the nerve agents used on the streets of the UK. The approach we are taking is based on the strongest security advice. The Prime Minister has set out myriad other ways we are supporting Ukraine.
There will be other statements in the House today, but there are two other points I would like to add. The Nationality and Borders Bill is at Report stage in the other place. It contains provisions to allow visa penalties to be applied to specific countries that do not co-operate with the return of their nationals. I am now seeking to extend those provisions so that a country can be specified if it has taken significant steps that threaten international peace and security, have led or are likely to lead to armed conflicts or are in breach of international humanitarian law. The extension would draw on the precedents from the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act 2018. Those powers will be available as soon as the Bill receives Royal Assent. The sooner that happens, the sooner this House and all Members can collectively act.
We are ever mindful of the cyber-attacks and disinformation emanating from Russia.
Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)
If you want to do a statement, do a statement.
Priti Patel
I am sure the House would like to listen to the actual measures we are bringing in. The cyber-attacks and disinformation will be met with robust responses, and we have stepped up all international co-operation on that.
Finally, what is happening in Ukraine is utterly heartbreaking and profoundly wrong, but together with our international partners, we stand with the heroic Ukrainian people. Further work is taking place with diplomatic channels, and the Ukrainian Government have today requested that the Russian Government be suspended from their membership of Interpol, and we will be leading all international efforts to that effect.
Mr Speaker
We did try to arrange with the Home Secretary’s office that the statement should be up to 500 words. I think we will find that that was beyond 800 words; it took six minutes. I think the House would have benefited from an actual statement. If we cannot have one tomorrow morning, I suggest someone might like to put in for an urgent question, because I believe the House would benefit from that, as there was so much in what the Home Secretary said. I will be extending topicals.
Allan Dorans (Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock) (SNP)
Priti Patel
First, we will not be reconsidering the Nationality and Borders Bill. The hon. Gentleman has already heard about the amendments we will be tabling to deal with countries such as Russia and the actions of President Putin.
Scott Benton (Blackpool South) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Kevin Foster)
I recognise my hon. Friend’s concerns about the use of the property in Blackpool, which he has strongly expressed to me on previous occasions. We are looking to double the number of asylum decision makers and to take forward a programme of simplification and modernisation of processing to increase the number of decisions we make, cut down the backlog and reintroduce a service standard for the time taken for an initial decision.
Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)
The Home Secretary said that she was announcing a bespoke humanitarian route, but it is extremely unclear from what she said what the details actually are or who it will apply to. The Ukrainian people are showing great bravery, but we know that people, particularly mothers and young children and elderly parents, have left to find sanctuary. The UK has always done its bit to help those fleeing war in Europe and it will come as a relief to many people who have been calling for action if the Government are prepared to do more.
I must ask the Home Secretary, however, why there is so much confusion about it. The Russian invasion began five days ago and other countries responded with clear sanctuary arrangements immediately. Troops have been gathering since mid-January and British intelligence has been warning of an invasion for weeks. We have had a weekend of complete confusion. We still do not know what the arrangements are. Why was nothing worked out already? How on earth is the Home Secretary so poorly prepared for something that she has been warned about for so many weeks?
Priti Patel
Let me refute every single point that the right hon. Lady has made. All intelligence, rightly, has pointed to the invasion for a considerable time, and the Government have been working for that, as we know, in terms of the wider Government response. [Interruption.] If I can start to respond to some of those questions, all hon. Members would benefit from paying attention and listening.
When it comes to providing visas and support for Ukrainian nationals in the United Kingdom, our schemes have been put in place for weeks—there is no confusion whatsoever. They have been in place in countries switching routes. They have been well publicised and well documented. We have been working through our visa application centres. [Interruption.] Again, perhaps the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Jess Phillips) would like to listen, rather than being responsible for some of the misinformation that has been characterised and put out over the weekend. Those routes have been open and available.
A helpline has been available for weeks. We have had people working in the region and in country in Ukraine for weeks and weeks. We obviously closed down our operations in Kyiv, because we removed staff from there—
Mr Speaker
Order. We have to make some progress. We are on topicals; they are meant to be short. You had six minutes before. I call Yvette Cooper, briefly.
Yvette Cooper
The Home Secretary said that the routes have been in place, but she has been trying to get people to use existing visas, which do not work in a time of crisis. That is why her Immigration Minister was suggesting that people come and pick fruit.
At a time when many people want to stay close to the Ukraine, we know that there are family members or extended family members—people who have connections here in the UK—who want to come and join family and friends. They will still not know what the situation is as a result of the Home Secretary’s words today. Let me ask her something very specific about the elderly parents of people who are living here in the UK, who are not covered by her announcement yesterday. Will the elderly parent who tried to join her daughter in the UK, who was turned down and made to go away by UK Border Force at the Gare du Nord, be able to return to the Gare du Nord today and come safely to the UK?
Holly Mumby-Croft (Scunthorpe) (Con)
Priti Patel
My hon. Friend makes a very sensible point, because, of course, there is a conflict taking place. The work of the Government is absolutely right now to support the people of Ukraine, and in particular to support those who need to come over to our country.
Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP)
After this weekend I have to say that, not for the first time, I am struggling to understand what the Home Office is announcing and why it is announcing whatever it is. May I ask, for example, about my constituent who is fleeing Ukraine? Is he able to be accompanied by his mother-in-law, sister-in-law and niece? Again, why not do the simple thing and the just thing, and lift visa restrictions altogether?
Priti Patel
I refer the hon. Gentleman to the comments I have made already.
Greg Smith (Buckingham) (Con)
Priti Patel
My hon. Friend is absolutely right in the case he makes about mental health, and I know that he is doing some great work on this as well. We are doing a huge amount in Government, working with the Department of Health and Social Care in particular, focusing on mental health support, such as the TRiM—trauma risk management—programme and things of that nature. I know he has a particular interest in this, and it is something I would like to discuss with him further.
Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)
Priti Patel
There are no delays and bureaucracy, as the hon. Member has already heard me say, and on her last point, yes.
Simon Baynes (Clwyd South) (Con)
The Minister for Crime and Policing (Kit Malthouse)
I am more than happy to lavish praise on North Wales police, which does a fantastic job along the coast there, as do all our police officers up and down the country. I am pleased to say that we are making enormous progress on our recruitment programme. As I hope my hon. Friend knows, we are well over 11,000 now, and I expect to hit the 20,000 target shortly.
Zarah Sultana (Coventry South) (Lab)
Jo, a constituent, came to Britain in 2001 and served for five years in the Army, including in Iraq and Afghanistan, where he developed post-traumatic stress disorder. He served time for drink-driving offences, but he sought help for PTSD, stopped drinking and rebuilt his life. He now has two children in Coventry and no connections in Zimbabwe, his birthplace, where he was tortured the last time he was there. However, on Wednesday Jo is set to be deported to Zimbabwe, and I have had no reply from the Minister to my urgent correspondence on this case. So will the Home Secretary step in and stop Jo being deported from the country he has served and where his family lives to a place where he will be at risk of torture?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Tom Pursglove)
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her question. It is fair to say that casework inquiries on these matters are treated urgently, and it is one that will no doubt cross my desk within the coming hours. Of course, the flight in question later this week relates to individuals who have committed very serious criminality, but I will of course ensure that the individual case is looked at.
Dr Jamie Wallis (Bridgend) (Con)
The Minister for Security and Borders (Damian Hinds)
My hon. Friend is absolutely right about the importance of the review of the Computer Misuse Act. Since my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary launched that review last year, a number of very good and important suggestions have come forward, which we are currently reviewing. Meanwhile, of course, we continue always to update our approach, including to the National Cyber Security Centre and, more immediately, to the online safety Bill.
Dame Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
In the evidence the Home Secretary gave to the Home Affairs Committee on 2 February, she said that a major obstacle for accepting more people under Operation Warm Welcome for Afghans fleeing the Taliban was the lack of suitable accommodation because of Home Office contracts. The Select Committee has been warning about this for some time. I think that the Home Secretary has announced a bespoke humanitarian policy for those Ukrainians fleeing—[Hon. Members: “No, she hasn’t.”] Oh, perhaps she has not; I am sorry there is not a statement to clarify that. What I want to know is: what is she going to do about the lack of accommodation that the Home Office provides for asylum seekers and refugees in this country?
Kevin Foster
We are certainly concerned about the lack of suitable accommodation across the United Kingdom in terms of dispersal areas, which is why we are keen to sign up new areas to become dispersal areas. I am pushing my own council and, as I have already said, there are 31 out of 32 areas in Scotland that could do with signing up as well.
Chris Loder (West Dorset) (Con)
Kit Malthouse
I have committed before, and I am happy to do so again, that before the end of the Parliament we will produce a new funding formula to ensure that my hon. Friend’s constituency gets exactly what he deserves, as indeed he should.
Ms Diane Abbott (Hackney North and Stoke Newington) (Lab)
Does the Home Secretary accept that many Members of this House are dismayed that she did not make a statement in the normal way, so that she could have been questioned in the normal way? Does she further accept that that is not just disrespectful to the House of Commons, but it shows a lack of real concern for those desperate people escaping Ukraine?
Priti Patel
I completely reject the right hon. Lady’s latter point, and naturally I will always be happy to return to the House and take questions.
Esther McVey (Tatton) (Con)
Constituents in Tatton are increasingly concerned about the growing number and range of online fraud and scams, and the ability of Action Fraud to deal with them. Many of those crimes originate outside the UK, with some from hostile states such as Russia. What is the Minister doing to counter that?
Damian Hinds
My right hon. Friend is right, and we share her constituents’ concern. We are looking constantly to upgrade and improve Action Fraud, and I encourage her constituents to carry on reporting those instances of fraud. Together with the rest of our constituents, their forwarding of dodgy emails to report@phishing.gov.uk has so far led to 73,000 scams being removed.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
Will the Home Secretary publish her review into the tier 1 gold-plated visas? Will she suspend all tier 1 visas for people who have connections with the Putin regime, and will she look into the veracity of applications for British citizenship by Russian oligarchs who are connected with Putin?
Priti Patel
I think the hon. Gentleman knows my view and position on that, and of course the answer is yes.
Ben Everitt (Milton Keynes North) (Con)
Another young life has been tragically lost to a knife in Milton Keynes. Does the Minister agree that as well as record numbers of police on the streets, the courts and the Crown Prosecution Service need to work with the police to ensure that there are real deterrents to carrying a knife on our streets?
Kit Malthouse
My hon. Friend is right, and I am very sorry to hear of the crime that took place in his constituency. As he will know, the fight against knife crime is at the forefront of the Government’s priorities, and as he said, alongside deterrent sentencing and assertive and extensive policing, we need to work on long-term solutions to turn young people’s lives away from crime. I am pleased that I was able to visit the Thames Valley violence reduction unit last year to look at the extensive work it is doing to put in place exactly those kind of programmes.
Sanctions
(2 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Elizabeth Truss)
With permission, Mr Speaker, I wish to update the House on our support for Ukraine in the face of Putin’s premeditated, pre-planned and barbaric invasion. Ukraine has suffered horrific attacks. Missiles and air strikes have torn through apartment blocks. Tanks have rolled into once peaceful cities. Innocent people, including children, have lost their lives.
The situation is fluid, but as of today, Putin has not taken any major cities. The advance has been slowed by Ukraine’s fierce resistance. Putin’s invasion is not proceeding to plan. He expected to take cities quickly. He expected Ukraine to retreat. And he expected the West to be divided. Instead, his forces were met by the heroism of President Zelensky and the resolute determination of the Ukrainian people. He has been met by a united west, together with our friends around the world, and we have taken decisive action.
Today, we have acted with the US, the EU, Japan and Canada to cut off Russia’s central bank from our markets. The rouble has fallen by more than 40% as a result. As much as $250 billion has been wiped off the Russian stock market and, today, its stock market is closed. The EU, Germany, Sweden and others are following our lead in providing defensive weapons to Ukraine, and Germany has frozen Nord Stream 2.
Putin has been confounded by our collective response. That is why he is resorting to more and more extreme rhetoric. But, of course, the situation remains dire. The Government and people of Ukraine are facing a continued onslaught. The days ahead are likely to prove tougher still.
The UK and our allies will have to undergo some economic hardship as a result of our sanctions, but our hardships are nothing compared to those endured by the people of Ukraine. Casualty numbers are rising, and more than 300,000 people have already been displaced. This is a struggle for Ukraine’s freedom and self-determination, but it is also a struggle for freedom and democracy everywhere and for the survival of a Europe whole and free. We feel a particular responsibility as the UK is a signatory to the 1994 Budapest memorandum, which provided Ukraine with security guarantees.
This premeditated invasion, in violation of international law and multiple international commitments, cannot succeed. Putin must lose. We are doing everything that we can to stop him and to restore Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity. We will do this by backing Ukraine against unjustified aggression, by degrading the Russian economy and stopping it from funding Putin’s war machine, and by isolating Putin on the world stage.
First, we are backing Ukraine with defensive weapons, humanitarian aid and economic support. The UK was the first European nation to send defensive weapons to the country, and those weapons are being used today to halt Russian tanks and defend Ukrainian towns and cities. Our latest consignment of defensive support left Brize Norton over the weekend. We are also leading on humanitarian support. Yesterday, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister announced a further £40 million of humanitarian aid, which will provide Ukrainians with access to basic necessities and vital medical supplies. We call on Russia to enable humanitarian access and safe passage for civilians to flee the violence. The UK is also supporting Ukraine’s economy, including through £100 million of official development assistance and guarantees of up to $500 million in development bank loans.
Secondly, we are cutting off funding for Putin’s war machine. We are coming together with the US, the G7 and the EU to take further decisive steps. We have been joined by Australia, Singapore, Switzerland and many more. There is a growing list of countries who are determined that this aggression cannot stand. We have agreed that many Russian banks will be removed from the SWIFT system, kicking them out of international finance. That is the first step towards a total SWIFT ban. Our collective action against Russia’s central bank will prevent it from deploying its international reserves to mitigate the impact of our sanctions.
We are also launching a joint taskforce to hunt down the assets of oligarchs hit by our sanctions. The UK is proud to lead by example. We have already put in place the largest package of sanctions in our history. We have sanctioned Putin and Lavrov, Russia’s defence industry and a growing list of oligarchs. We have approved asset freezes on several Russian banks and we are banning Russian airlines and private jets from our airspace, but we are determined to go much, much further. We want a situation where they cannot access their funds, their trade cannot flow, their ships cannot dock and their planes cannot land.
Today, I inform the House that I will be laying two new pieces of sanctions legislation. The first will introduce a set of new powers against Russia’s financial sector, including powers to prevent Russian banks from clearing payments in sterling.
With over 50% of Russian trade denominated in dollars or sterling, our co-ordinated action with the United States will damage Russia’s ability to trade with the world, and as soon as this legislation comes into force, we will apply it to Sberbank—Russia’s largest bank.
I will also be imposing a full asset freeze on three further banks: VEB, Russia’s national development bank; Sovcombank, the third largest privately owned financial institution in Russia; and Otkritie, one of Russia’s largest commercial banks. We will bring in a full asset freeze on all Russian banks in days, looking to co-ordinate with our allies. The same legislation will prevent the Russian state from raising debt here, and will isolate all Russian companies—more than 3 million businesses—from accessing UK capital markets. Global giants such as Gazprom will no longer be able to issue debt or equity in London.
The second piece of legislation will ban exports to Russia across a range of critical sectors. This includes high-end technological equipment such as microelectronics and marine and navigation equipment. This will blunt Russia’s military-industrial capabilities and act as a drag on Russia’s economy for years to come. I appreciate the consequences of this step for British people and British businesses operating in Russia. The Department for International Trade and the Treasury will offer advice and guidance to affected UK businesses. My consular staff will continue to support British nationals in Russia, as well as those in Ukraine.
We will keep ratcheting up our response. More legislation will follow in the coming weeks, sanctioning Russian-occupied territories in the Donbas, extending more sanctions to Belarus, and limiting Russian deposits in UK banks. We will continue working through our hit list of oligarchs, focusing on their houses, their yachts, and every aspect of their lives. In addition, we will introduce the economic crime Bill tomorrow; my right hon. Friend the Business Secretary will set out more in the next statement in the House. This is all about flushing out the oligarchs’ dirty money from the United Kingdom. We will continue to work with our G7 allies to cut off the Russian economy and cut the free world’s dependence on Russian gas, depriving Putin of his key source of revenue.
Finally, we are leading the diplomatic effort to ensure that there is a chorus of condemnation against President Putin. In the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe, a key part of the European security architecture, 45 countries condemned Russia by name. At the UN Security Council on Friday, more than 80 UN members voted for, or co-sponsored, a resolution condemning Russia’s aggression. Russia stood alone in opposing it. Putin is isolated. No one is willing to back his war of choice. In recent days, I have spoken to my counterparts in more than 20 countries around the world. Yesterday, I met G7 Foreign Ministers. We were joined by Ukraine’s brave Foreign Minister, my friend Dmytro Kuleba. Everyone is clear that Putin must lose, and we will carry on increasing the pressure until he does.
We have all seen Ukraine’s determination to fight. Putin’s war could end up lasting for months and years, so I say to our Ukrainian friends, “We are with you. In Britain, and around the world, we’re prepared to suffer economic sacrifices to support you. However long it takes, we will not rest until Ukraine’s sovereignty is restored.”
I commend this statement to the House.
Mr David Lammy (Tottenham) (Lab)
I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of her statement, and for the briefing that she continues to give me on Privy Council terms.
We have all been inspired by the gallant and tenacious actions of Ukrainians in defence of their country. This is true courage under fire. President Zelensky has epitomised the bravery, dignity and resolve of a nation fighting back, and fighting for values that we all share—democracy, freedom and the rule of law. The Foreign Secretary is right when she says that Putin’s invasion is not so far going to plan, but does she agree that we must not let our focus slip for even a second? We will continue to stand united with our allies and partners, supporting Ukraine and opposing this outrageous campaign of aggression.
This morning, I had the honour, with the shadow Defence Secretary my right hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey), of meeting Ukraine’s ambassador. He thanks all sides of this House for the united opposition we have shown to Vladimir Putin’s illegal war and the support we continue to show for Ukrainian sovereignty. Putin is not only facing a united west; he is facing a truly United Kingdom. Together, we have enacted sanctions that are having a strong effect. The rouble has crashed by over 40%, the main borrowing rate is up 20%, and inflation is reportedly hitting about 65% per year. Oligarchs are being frozen out of their bank accounts and the central bank of Russia is being blocked from part of the $640 billion war chest that it holds in foreign reserves. Labour’s priority is to cut off Putin’s rogue state from our economic system and to undermine his campaign of aggression in Ukraine.
We recognise that on 24 February the European security order changed. Our continent faces a transformed strategic context. Our world is at the start of a new era. I pay tribute to the political courage shown by all our partners, particularly our allies in Germany who have recognised that by taking the difficult and brave decisions to provide Ukraine with lethal weapons for its fight and to commit to the significant increases in defence spending that this new reality demands.
Yesterday, President Putin raised the alert level of Russian nuclear forces. As the five nuclear weapon states, including Russia, reaffirmed in January, a nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought. What assessment has the Foreign Secretary made of that decision, given the understandable concern it will have caused among the public?
Turning to sanctions, we welcome the further steps the Government have announced today. Labour has been calling for some time for progress by the UK, the EU and the US on cutting off Russian banks from SWIFT. The moves finally to clamp down on dirty money—so long demanded by Labour and colleagues across the House—are long overdue. It is regrettable that it has taken so long and a crisis of this nature for such action, but we welcome the steps and will study them carefully. However, there is still more the Government can do.
The last time I stood at the Dispatch Box, I asked what steps the Government had taken to ensure that members of Russia’s legislature, the Duma, could be sanctioned. Still today, I am waiting for that answer. Similarly, although I welcome the Foreign Secretary’s action against Russia’s financial sector, the Government should go further to ensure sanctions can also be placed against Russia’s extractive industries, energy industries and technological industries. We must ensure that the insurance industry cannot underwrite and de-risk Putin’s war. As I said at my last time at the Dispatch Box, it is vital that the sanctions are broad enough to inflict damage on every aspect of Russia’s economy. We welcome the moves the Government have taken to ensure Russia is cut out of the SWIFT banking system, but can the Foreign Secretary explain what dialogue she has had with our allies on cutting the country out of the Visa-Mastercard system, too?
Finally, can the Foreign Secretary give assurances that Putin will also feel the consequences of his despicable actions in terms of international opportunities available to the country in sports and culture? The diplomatic unity of the west is crucial, but we must also widen the global coalition opposing the war. Some countries, such as Kenya, have spoken out with clarity and elegance against Putin’s imperialism, but others have stayed silent. Some are even allies of the UK and fellow democracies. What steps is the Foreign Secretary taking to ensure the widest possible range of voices speaks up in opposition to this war?
As well as commending the bravery of the Ukrainians defending their country, we must also praise the courage of the ordinary Russians taking to the streets of Moscow, St Petersburg and beyond under the threat of repression to show their opposition to this despot. This is the fifth day of fighting. Ukraine is still facing an all-out war from Putin’s army. It is a mark of the bravery of Ukraine’s forces that neither Kyiv nor Kharkiv have fallen. We salute their courage, and this whole House will continue to stand with them.
Elizabeth Truss
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his statement of unity; a strong message is going out to Putin and around the world that the United Kingdom is united in our support for Ukraine. We can see that from the demonstrations and from the public concern and interest in this appalling act of aggression and invasion that has taken place.
Yesterday, I joined a call with the G7 Foreign Ministers. We agreed that the sanctions that we had put in place so far are having an impact, but we need to do more. We need to work in unison and act in unity. We also agreed to increase the supply of defensive weapons in Ukraine.
The right hon. Gentleman is correct: Germany has taken courageous steps. It has transformed its energy policy and its defence policy, and we have seen a huge rising of public opinion right across Europe. I also want to praise Japan, South Korea and Singapore, which have put sanctions on for the first time.
I and my Foreign Office colleagues are putting in calls to Foreign Ministries around the world. We are encouraging more countries to put on sanctions and to speak out at the UN. The right hon. Gentleman is right that there are some countries that are democracies which should be standing up against the invasion of a sovereign democracy, and we are making that point to them day and night. What we are seeing is that Putin is completely isolated. There is nobody else backing him up in international forums and there is a growing group of countries prepared to put sanctions on and to supply defensive weapons. We are leading the charge in bringing those countries on board.
On the specific issues that the right hon. Gentleman mentioned, we have a hit list of oligarchs and Duma members that we are working through to sanction as soon as we can. Foreign Office officials are working through the night. We have extra lawyers and have tripled the amount of people in our sanctions department to make that happen. We are looking at more sanctions on the energy industry and the technology industry. We want to see a total ban on SWIFT transactions. We are encouraging our allies across the world to back that. We also want to see a full bank freeze in the coming days.
It is vitally important that we maintain unity with our allies. There are many countries that are heavily dependent on Russian oil and gas. The UK gets only 3% of its energy from Russian oil and gas. The figure for some countries is as high as 90% or 100%; we have to reduce that over time, and that is what we are working on through the G7.
I am very pleased that the right hon. Gentleman has backed the approach we are taking. I want to continue to work cross-party to do all we can to support the brave people of Ukraine and to make sure that Putin loses.
Mr Speaker
I call the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee, Tom Tugendhat.
Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge and Malling) (Con)
I very much welcome my right hon. Friend’s commitment. She has been working literally through the weekend, night and day, to get these sanctions right and to get them in place. Will she join me in assuring the Russian people that the moneys frozen—the moneys seized—which are, let us face it, very often stolen from them in the first instance, will be held and returned to the Russian people when this criminal conspiracy that laughably calls itself a Government falls and they actually have a proper Administration to which it can be returned? Will she also join me in urging many other countries around the world to join together and create a single fund from which a repayment mechanism can be created for the damage done to Ukraine and the rebuilding of Russia in due course?
Elizabeth Truss
My hon. Friend is right. Our issue is not with the Russian people, many of whom are now protesting against this appalling regime; it is with Putin and his cronies. That is who we are targeting with our hit on oligarchs. My hon. Friend is right that that money should be protected. I will look into the idea that he puts forward.
Alyn Smith (Stirling) (SNP)
I am grateful for sight of the statement. The SNP is part of the global coalition in defence of Ukraine in international law. I commend the Foreign Secretary and her Ministers on the openness with which they have dealt with Opposition Members. That trust will be reciprocated; this is too serious a time.
If anything, I urge more. I support the statement and we will support the sanctions measures as they come forward, but I urge more and I urge faster ambition, particularly on refugees. The UK needs to waive visas, not wave flags. The EU has really given the lie to the generosity of the UK’s response on refugees by waiving visas for three years for all Ukrainian nationals. The UK needs to do the same. I appreciate that it is not in the Secretary of State’s remit, but I really urge the Government to act on the issue, because it is certainly the one most raised with me.
The EU’s response through the civil protection mechanism and the peace facility dwarfs the UK’s. The EU has acted with one voice: 27 member states are acting together. I really urge the UK to complement those efforts and match their scale and ambition in its measures, which we support but wish to see more of.
I have some specific questions about sanctions. We all agree about tackling oligarchs, but what plans are there to tackle and target the family members of oligarchs? When we were in Kyiv recently, that was mentioned as a particularly effective way of putting on pressure. I also note that there will be an advice facility for UK businesses affected by the sanctions. Is any consideration being given to providing financial aid for UK businesses hit by the sanctions? That seems the morally correct thing to do.
The Foreign Secretary will be aware of reports of a Russian tanker heading for Orkney to pick up oil. Will the legal powers to impound such vessels be in place in time for us to do so?
Elizabeth Truss
I agree that we need to continue to do more on sanctions. We are working night and day, including with our allies, to get tougher sanctions, the full ban on SWIFT payments and the full asset freeze on banks, which we want to introduce in the next few days, as well as targeting the oil industry and the gas industry, which is ultimately the most important thing because it is funding Putin’s war machine.
As my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary said at Home Office questions, we are creating a new Ukrainian humanitarian route to enable families of British nationals to come to the United Kingdom. It will mean that an additional 100,000 Ukrainians can seek sanctuary in the United Kingdom.
Through the export support service, the Department for International Trade will be helping businesses. The Secretary of State for International Trade will lay out more details in due course.
Mrs Flick Drummond (Meon Valley) (Con)
Further to the latest announcement that Switzerland, Japan and other democracies are joining to impose sanctions, what more can we do to convince other democracies that have not condemned this atrocity or implemented sanctions to do so?
Elizabeth Truss
My hon. Friend is right. There is nobody in the world lining up with Vladimir Putin and his unprovoked invasion of Ukraine, but we need more democracies and more sovereign nations to stand up, because we cannot have a world where might is right and international law can just be ridden roughshod over.
We in the Foreign Office and Ministers across Government are making those points to our counterparts around the world, but this is where I think parliamentarians can help: many people in this House have good contacts with overseas Governments. We need to encourage those Governments to stand up and put sanctions in place. I had a call this morning with some Foreign Ministers who had never put sanctions in place before but are now considering it. There are many more who are on the verge of imposing sanctions. I strongly encourage Members across the House to get on the phone to those Ministers and those Governments, because this has created global outrage and we need to see that reflected in complete degradation of the Russian economy.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
Order. I am looking to run this statement for about an hour. Short questions and speedy answers would help us all.
Dame Margaret Hodge (Barking) (Lab)
I thank the Foreign Secretary for the progress that she is making. I ask just two questions. First, it is still unclear to me and, I think, to most members of the public whether members of the Duma can be sanctioned by this Government. Will the Foreign Secretary clarify that point for us? Secondly, it is not just Russia; jurisdictions such as Kazakhstan and Azerbaijan are also complicit in supporting Putin in his endeavours. Is she taking any action to sanction members of those jurisdictions?
Elizabeth Truss
Members of the Duma can and will be sanctioned. We are working through the list of members in the same way as we are working through our hit list of oligarchs. I will look into the issues surrounding Kazakhstan and other nations. We are already sanctioning Belarus, and we will shortly impose more sanctions on it for its complicity in this abhorrent invasion.
Mr Tobias Ellwood (Bournemouth East) (Con)
It is indeed day five of the fighting, but the bells of St Michael’s in Kyiv continue to ring as the Ukrainians thwart the progress of the Russian Red Army. Good on them: Slava Ukraini to our friends in Ukraine. But sanctions, although they are so important, will not be enough. May I urge the Foreign Secretary to see how we can widen the sanctions package internationally? Any sanctions that we impose will be mopped up by Russia’s new long-term friend China. The United Nations General Assembly is sitting today; may I urge the UK to table a resolution on sanctions which means that China is obliged to follow them along with everyone else?
Elizabeth Truss
This sanctions package has been agreed across the G7, which represents more than 50% of the global economy. That is a significant hit on the Russian economy, and it will help to degrade the Russian economy over time. The key issue is reducing dependency on oil and gas, but, as my right hon. Friend says, we must also ensure that there is no sanctions leakage into other countries. I have spoken to my Chinese counterpart. The Chinese did not vote with the Russians at the UN Security Council. I am making very clear to China, and to other major nations, their responsibilities to protect the sovereignty and self-determination of Ukraine, and we continue to put pressure on them.
Layla Moran (Oxford West and Abingdon) (LD)
The Foreign Secretary may be aware that last week I named 35 Russian oligarchs who are on the Navalny list, At the top of that list was Roman Abramovich, who curiously decided a couple of days ago—and said it out loud—that he wanted to transfer Chelsea football club into some kind of trust. The concern is, of course, that oligarchs are working with their lawyers and their accountants to do the same. Can the Foreign Secretary assure the House that we will not stop but will follow the money, and no matter where it may or may not be transferred, we will find it and we will seize it?
Elizabeth Truss
I can indeed assure the hon. Lady that that is exactly what we are doing. We have a very large team of people working through our hit list of oligarchs, and we are also looking at their properties and their ownership of yachts. We have already grounded their private jets. My right hon. Friend the Business Secretary will make a statement immediately after this about the economic crime Bill, which will give greater transparency to the opaque corporate structures operated by some of these people and organisations, and will bring much more clarity and sunlight.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)
I congratulate my right hon. Friend and all the team on their robust leadership in the course of this. It has brought a great deal of cheer in Ukraine.
My right hon. Friend also spoke about chasing the oligarchs. We should remind everyone that the oligarchs are mostly in possession of Putin’s own personal fortune, which is in the order of $200 billion to $250 billion, squirrelled away through their accounts. However, my right hon. Friend will be slightly hamstrung, because although we pursue the oligarchs and their money, it is still not an offence for those who have worked with them—their lawyers, their estate agents and all the others—to fail to yield the information about what deals they have done. Will she now, in the Bill, make it mandatory for all those in the chain immediately, when someone is sanctioned, to pass that information up directly, or they will themselves be committing a criminal offence?
Elizabeth Truss
My right hon. Friend has made a very good point. We are looking at what we can do to target the families of oligarchs, the people who work for them, the people who support them and the people who enable them, because ultimately all these people are supporting the Putin regime, and we ultimately need to stop the financing of that regime.
Mr Ben Bradshaw (Exeter) (Lab)
Will the Foreign Secretary name those London law firms that are sending her threatening letters to try to dissuade her from sanctioning Putin’s cronies, who are also their clients?
Elizabeth Truss
I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that it does not dissuade me when people send me letters; it encourages me when people send me letters, and they are on our list.
Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)
The armed forces and the people of Ukraine are fighting hard and fighting brave, and their courage is an inspiration to us and to all freedom-loving peoples around the world. On financial sanctions, I commend the Government for taking a lead in the west on those sanctions. Following on from the comments of the shadow Secretary of State on Visa, Mastercard and Diners Club, which are of course American companies, I have been on the phone this weekend to the US Congress, as the Foreign Secretary might expect. Can I ask her to get on the phone to Secretary Blinken to put pressure on him for perhaps a temporary ban in order that we have not only external pressure but internal pressure?
Elizabeth Truss
I congratulate my hon. Friend on his leadership of the all-party parliamentary group on Ukraine. We will be doing more with our friendship group for the Ukrainians to raise international support behind the Ukrainian cause. I can tell him that I have been on the phone to Tony Blinken on many occasions in the last few weeks. He is going to travel to Europe this week, and I will be meeting him. I will also be in the United States the following week. The UK does all it can to ensure that the G7 is moving forward in all these areas of sanctions, including financial services, and we will not rest until we have completely cut the Russian economy off, and cut it off from its supply of oil and gas money to ensure that Putin does not have the money to fund his war machine.
Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson (Lagan Valley) (DUP)
The people of Northern Ireland stand with the people of Ukraine and we commend the Government for taking a lead in the international community on many of these issues. The Foreign Secretary spoke of humanitarian assistance. Will that extend to the United Kingdom opening its doors to some of the refugees from Ukraine?
Elizabeth Truss
We are already donating £40 million of additional humanitarian assistance to Ukraine. We are also providing direct support in the neighbouring countries, helping our friends the Poles and the Slovaks with the exodus of refugees from Ukraine. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has announced that we will be supporting the immediate families of British citizens here—[Interruption.] I understand what the right hon. Gentleman is saying about further support for those refugees.
Jason McCartney (Colne Valley) (Con)
I spent yesterday afternoon with dozens of members of Huddersfield and Colne Valley’s Ukrainian community, along with other political figures from the area. They really welcome what we are doing on sanctions, as well as our humanitarian aid and military support, but one of the many questions they are asking is about visas. Can the Foreign Secretary please reiterate the announcement that was made in the last hour and explain what it means for getting those people’s families and loved ones back to the UK safely?
Elizabeth Truss
My hon. Friend is right to suggest that we have a very strong Ukrainian community right across the United Kingdom. We are determined to do all we can to support the Ukrainians in their fight for freedom and sovereignty. We are introducing the new Ukrainian humanitarian route, which responds directly to the needs and asks of the Ukrainian Government. This gives British nationals and any persons settled in the UK the ability to bring over their immediate Ukrainian family members. This extension alone will mean that an additional 100,000 Ukrainians will be able to seek sanctuary in the United Kingdom. I am sure that the Home Secretary will outline more details of the scheme in due course.
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)
I also want to say that I stand with Ukraine and support the Foreign Secretary in the measures she has announced this afternoon. I congratulate her on the unifying way in which she is doing that, but does she agree that the language we use is incredibly important in these delicate times? Also, can she say anything about the Commonwealth’s involvement?
Elizabeth Truss
The hon. Lady is right that language is very important. This war is not on behalf of the Russian people; this war has been instigated by President Putin, and it is very important that we focus on the personal agency that he has had in mounting this unprovoked attack on Ukraine. I understand that there is huge strength of feeling across the United Kingdom, and we reflect that in everything we do.
Mr Andrew Mitchell (Sutton Coldfield) (Con)
I thank my right hon. Friend for the announcement that she and the Prime Minister made about humanitarian relief. I urge her to join other European countries in helping to shoulder the financial burden of the humanitarian load on the frontline states. Most people who flee across the border want to stay as close as possible to the areas from which they have been driven, and all European countries must give the strongest support to those driven out in great fear and terror by this extraordinary and barbaric Russian behaviour.
Elizabeth Truss
The hon. Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams) asked about our friends across the Commonwealth, and I assure her that we are approaching them to secure their support for the sanctions, for the strong stance against Russia and for the Ukrainian people.
On the subject of humanitarian relief in neighbouring countries, we have sent teams to support Poland and Slovakia. We have launched our campaign, and we will launch a further public appeal to secure further humanitarian donations. In fact, I am due to meet my Polish counterpart in Geneva tomorrow, and we will be working very closely with our allies in eastern Europe to support the people of Ukraine.
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
I welcome BP’s decision to divest from Rosneft after I raised the issue with the Prime Minister last week.
International sanctions now include Russia’s civilian aircraft fleet. The UK has a part to play in their enforcement because, as of yesterday, 713 leased Russian aircraft are registered in Bermuda, a British overseas territory. For far too long, weak UK regulation of Londongrad and tax haven overseas territories has enabled Putin’s regime. What discussions has the right hon. Lady had with the British overseas territories to ensure the immediate and effective implementation of UK sanctions against Russia?
Elizabeth Truss
Like the right hon. Lady, I welcome BP’s divestment. We are working closely with the overseas territories to make sure that Putin’s oligarchs have nowhere to hide.
Alec Shelbrooke (Elmet and Rothwell) (Con)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that the sanctions regime must stay in place until every inch of Ukrainian territory is back in Ukraine’s control, including Crimea?
Marsha De Cordova (Battersea) (Lab)
Many of my constituents are affected by the war in Ukraine. Like me, they recognise the need for the toughest possible sanctions on Russia. The Foreign Secretary’s statement is welcome, but it does not go far enough. What steps is she taking to ensure that sanctions are imposed on the extraction and technology industries?
Elizabeth Truss
I announced today that export controls will apply to critical technologies, which will make it much harder to invest in the oil and gas industry, the technology industry and, of course, the military-industrial complex in Russia. The hon. Lady is right that the fundamental issue here is that Putin is reliant on oil and gas revenues, which is where we need to work with our G7 partners. Continental Europe is predominantly dependent on oil, gas and coal from Russia, and we need to help it to reduce that dependency so that Putin has nowhere to source his funds. That is what we are doing through the G7.
Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
As a matter of superior tactics, does my right hon. Friend accept that the right way to deal with a robotic, sneering psychopath firmly in the grip of small-man syndrome is not to impose sanctions in a piecemeal and gradually escalating way but to seek to inflict maximum economic pain at the earliest possible moment?
Elizabeth Truss
Yes is the answer, and that is what we are doing; we are pushing as hard as we can for the toughest possible sanctions. This is the biggest package of sanctions the UK has ever put in place in our history, and we want to do even more and we want to push it with our allies. Together with the G7, we represent half the global economy, and that is what will really shift Putin’s behaviour. That is what will really degrade the Russian economy and stop him being able to fund his war machine.
Kirsten Oswald (East Renfrewshire) (SNP)
Listening to the right hon. Lady’s comments, I am not entirely sure yet what the hold-up is with clarifying the plans to sanction Russia’s political ruling class—members of the Duma, Senate and presidential council; the top echelons of the security and defence services; and public television employees. Is she able to set out for us a little more about how soon we might see that happen, given the need for action to be swift, decisive and clear?
Elizabeth Truss
I assure the hon. Lady that we have a hit list of oligarchs and Duma members—those key personnel we are talking about. We will be announcing those as we build the evidence and case against them, but we need those cases to be legally watertight—that is what is important—so that when we hit them, the hit sticks.
John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)
Will the Government now allow and encourage more domestic production of oil and gas, to help reduce the cruel dependency of Europe on Russian energy?
Elizabeth Truss
We certainly are committed to using the UK’s oil and gas fields. Energy independence is vital. We also need to invest more in nuclear, which my right hon. Friend the Business Secretary is working on.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
May I offer the Secretary of State a little advice, as I have been in the House for quite some time? No one now likes oligarchs, but some important and substantial figures we call oligarchs in London and in this country are very intelligent people who are influential on Putin. Does she agree that she should consult them as a way of getting a voice of experience and reason to Putin, in order that we could get a better, peaceful resolution of this horrible crisis?
Elizabeth Truss
Let us be absolutely clear: this is unprovoked aggression by Putin, after months of warning that there would be severe consequences and a long-running conflict. I do not believe that this is somebody who is capable of reason on that level at this stage. We have to be tougher than tough. We have to be tough with our sanctions, and with the military aid that we and our allies are supplying, because it is only strength that Vladimir Putin understands.
Alicia Kearns (Rutland and Melton) (Con)
The UK and our allies have delivered meaningful economic strikes against Putin, but we now see the encirclement of civilian towns, the illegal and indiscriminate use of cluster weapons, Chechen militia and calls for more indiscriminate attacks. Will my right hon. Friend reassure me that we will maintain maximum pressure, map and record all atrocities for future prosecution and also commit to drawing up plans for what happens if we see the use of incendiary munitions or chemical weapons?
Elizabeth Truss
Regrettably, my hon. Friend is right; that is the type of action we are seeing being contemplated. Everybody involved, including Putin’s advisers and generals, should be aware that the International Criminal Court is already looking at this and at potential war crimes being committed, and we are urging a full investigation to take place.
Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)
I thank the Foreign Secretary for her statement. She talks about a hit list of oligarchs. She knows as well as I do that some of the individuals on that list are well-known and some are not so well known, but the one thing they all have in common is that they have all supported and continue to support Putin’s regime. Will she tell me about the timescale in dealing with some of these individuals? She says that she wants more evidence, but surely we have the evidence against certain of those individuals. What timescale is she talking about for when we will see lists of these individuals being printed and sanctions taken?
Elizabeth Truss
We have announced more than 120 businesses and oligarchs who have already been sanctioned. There is a list that we are working through, and we will be announcing more as soon as the evidence is ready.
Jeremy Hunt (South West Surrey) (Con)
May I commend the resolute approach being taken by my right hon. Friend and ask whether she will consider secondary sanctions—sanctions not against Russian entities but against entities in other countries that seek to profit from the gap left in trade—as it is totally unacceptable for others to profiteer from this invasion. The move will also increase the pressure on Russia, as it did successfully on Iran.
Elizabeth Truss
Yes, we are looking at that, and my right hon. Friend is 100% right.
Hannah Bardell (Livingston) (SNP)
I sat on the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Bill Committee and watched in horror as the right hon. Lady’s party walked away from the opportunity to sanction Russia on the flow of dirty money through the UK. I am sure that, with the benefit of hindsight, she and her party realise what a grave mistake that was. The action that she has announced is welcome, but will she now take action against Scottish limited partnerships, which are having a profound impact on many nations, and the secrecy havens that are the British overseas territories, notably the British Virgins Islands and the Isle of Man? Given her Government’s failure, surely these actions need to come now.
Elizabeth Truss
I thank the hon. Lady for her welcome of the economic crime Bill that we will be introducing tomorrow. My right hon. Friend the Business Secretary will be saying more about that in his statement.
Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)
Will the Foreign Secretary confirm that the secondary legislation being introduced is now in the Vote Office, or that it will be very soon? Will she also please confirm that, from a practical point of view, the consequences of this legislation will be set out in clear and simple language and in an easily understood way so that the people who are affected by it—British businesses and British individuals—can understand precisely and easily what is happening?
Elizabeth Truss
I can assure my hon. Friend that the legislation will be in the Vote Office as soon as possible. It is important that we get it absolutely right. He talks about businesses being affected. There will be advice through the export support service run by the Department for International Trade, making sure that businesses have all the information they need.
Mr John Whittingdale (Maldon) (Con)
Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the Russian people are being consistently lied to by Russian state media about both the scale of Russia’s military action and the resulting loss of life? Does she agree that that makes the role of the BBC World Service and other trusted media all the more important, and will she bear that in mind when considering any calls for taking action against Russian state media in this country?
Elizabeth Truss
My right hon. Friend is entirely right. There is, quite simply, a pack of lies being produced on Russian state media. He is also right about the vital importance of the BBC World Service and other services from which the Russian people can hear a more balanced and truthful version of events. He is also right about the consequences and the unintended consequences of preventing channels from operating in the UK as there could be reciprocation, which would then make it harder for the Russian people to hear the truth.
Ellie Reeves (Lewisham West and Penge) (Lab)
I have been overwhelmed by messages from constituents who are horrified by Russia’s action in Ukraine. This morning I visited Lewisham Polish Centre, which is doing brilliant work co-ordinating the local relief effort for those fleeing the country. What everyone I have heard from has asked for, however, is an assurance that we are putting forward the strongest possible package of sanctions, providing humanitarian relief for refugees fleeing to neighbouring countries and offering comprehensive safe sanctuary routes to the UK. May I press the Foreign Secretary to give us those reassurances today?
Elizabeth Truss
I can reassure the hon. Lady that we are doing all of those things. The sanctions that we currently have in place on Russia are the toughest, in terms of the size of the package, that the UK has put on any country in our entire history. Importantly, however, we are doing more; we are working with our allies to do more every day.
Brendan O'Hara (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
My constituents cannot understand why we still allow Russian state-owned oil tankers to use UK ports. The Russian state-owned oil tanker NS Century is currently at the Finnart oil terminal on Loch Long, a port adjacent to Coulport, which is a home to the UK’s nuclear arsenal. Why, when we are imposing such harsh economic sanctions on the Kremlin, are we continuing to allow Russian state-owned oil tankers to go freely about their business, particularly so close to this most sensitive military installation?
Elizabeth Truss
They will not be going about their business freely for much longer.
Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)
If the BBC World Service comes to my right hon. Friend to ask for additional funding to increase the broadcasting in Russia and among Russia’s supporters and allies, will she entertain and agree to such requests?
Elizabeth Truss
I will certainly entertain the request, and I will ensure it is value for money.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
I do not understand why Abramovich and Usmanov have still not been included on the sanction list. I do not really understand why the Prime Minister said last Thursday that we were not going to engage in cultural or sporting boycotts, because we certainly should—we should throw every single thing we have at the Russians. Finally, I do not understand why the Prime Minister also said last Thursday that we will not be sending any Russian diplomats back. Surely we should at least be cutting the Russian embassy here by a half or three quarters, if not deciding that the ambassador, who has lied through his teeth to this House, should go back home.
Elizabeth Truss
As I said earlier, we have a hit list of oligarchs that we are working through. My right hon. Friend the Culture Secretary is taking a very tough line on cultural activities, and we have seen a number of sporting events already cancelled.
Chris Grayling (Epsom and Ewell) (Con)
This is an incredibly tough time for the people of Ukraine, but it is also an incredibly nervous time for the people of the three Baltic states, who must undoubtedly feel that they are at risk. These are good friends of the United Kingdom and people who have had good relations with hon. Members across this House. Will my right hon. Friend join me in sending them a message that we are on their side, and will she do everything she can to ensure that we stand firmly alongside the Baltics in these nervous times?
Elizabeth Truss
My right hon. Friend is correct. We know that Putin does not just want to take over Ukraine and restore Russian hegemony over it; he wants to turn the clock back to the mid-1990s, when vast swathes of eastern Europe were under Russian control. That is one of the many reasons why it is so important that his ambitions stop in Ukraine. It is why we are not only supporting the Ukrainians but increasing our strength on the eastern flank. We have doubled the number of troops in Estonia and our allies are also stepping up to support the Baltic states, who are vital allies of the United Kingdom.
Cat Smith (Lancaster and Fleetwood) (Lab)
I welcome the sanctions that the Foreign Secretary has set out and her words about getting Putin’s dirty money out of UK finance, but can we also get it out of UK politics? Would she support the Conservative party’s handing back its £2 million from Russian oligarchs?
Elizabeth Truss
There is a big difference between Russian people and supporters of the Putin regime. It is important that we do not tar every single Russian, many of whom have gained British citizenship and are part of our political process, with the same brush.
Mark Logan (Bolton North East) (Con)
Hundreds of people rallied at Bolton town hall on Saturday. We have one of the most established Ukrainian diaspora communities in the UK outside London. Will the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office agree to meet the Association of Ukrainians in Great Britain to discuss the UK’s resolve for their friends and family? We are with them, and freedom will prevail.
Tony Lloyd (Rochdale) (Lab)
The House should commend the Foreign Secretary’s statement, but does she agree that with any sanctions regime it is the detail that ensures we can police it? In that light, will she look into the case of the plane of Mikhail Gutseriev, a friend of Putin who is already sanctioned under Belarus sanctions? The plane itself was sanctioned by the Foreign Secretary’s predecessor, but, I am told, landed twice at Luton airport. That cannot be right.
Felicity Buchan (Kensington) (Con)
I warmly welcome the leadership that the UK has shown in developing intranational sanctions, but will my right hon. Friend think about going a step further? At the moment, we are freezing the assets of those sanctioned. Would she consider putting a charge on to those assets, monetising the charge, and using the money raised to pay for the support of refugees in eastern Europe and ultimately to rebuild Ukraine?
Elizabeth Truss
I thank my hon. Friend for her very innovative idea and I will certainly have a look at it.
Dr Lisa Cameron (East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow) (SNP)
Will the Government be looking to address the fact that cryptocurrency may be utilised to try to mitigate the impact of some of the sanctions imposed? The all-party parliamentary group on crypto and digital assets, which I chair, is very keen to play a responsible role and support the Government in moving forward in that realm.
Elizabeth Truss
We have worked very closely with the Treasury on this package of sanctions, and we are certainly looking at tackling every possible route that could be used to undermine the sanctions, one of which is cryptocurrency.
James Sunderland (Bracknell) (Con)
The rhetoric and the statements coming out of the Kremlin this week would appear to indicate that the invasion is not going to plan from the Russian perspective. Could my right hon. Friend please convince the House that the UK, the US and all our allies will not blink when it comes to the global imperative to eject Russian forces from Ukraine, and of the need to ensure that Ukraine is restored as quickly as possible to a free, democratic and proud nation?
Elizabeth Truss
I am very clear that there is a tough road ahead. We are with the Ukrainian people. We know that this could last for some time. At yesterday’s meeting of G7 Foreign Ministers we were clear that this tough package of sanctions would increase. We will be doing more over the coming days and weeks. We will continue to put pressure on the Kremlin, and continue to supply defensive weaponry into Ukraine to support its people in their just cause of pursuing self-determination and sovereignty.
Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall) (Lab/Co-op)
Like Members across this House, I have been contacted by Vauxhall residents who want to express their solidarity with the people of Ukraine. Yesterday I attended a Racial Justice Sunday mass at the Church of the Holy Spirit, where a number of constituents raised with me the reports, which the Secretary of State may have seen, of African migrants in Ukraine trying to flee and being discriminated against. She mentioned that she will be meeting her Polish counterpart in the coming few days. Will she please raise the issue of those migrants in her discussions?
Craig Whittaker (Calder Valley) (Con)
I thank my right hon. Friend, who over the past few weeks has worked tirelessly along with the Prime Minister to do all they can to help to stop the regime of Putin, particularly through sanctions. Does she agree, though, that it is vital that we continue to work to plug the holes in our sanctions regime that allow Putin to ship oil from this country? Is there anything legally we can do to stop the ship that is currently in Orkney waiting to ship oil?
Elizabeth Truss
I am looking very closely at this with my colleague the Transport Secretary to get it addressed as soon as possible.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
I have to tell the Foreign Secretary that time is not on her side. The NS Challenger is due to berth at 6 am on Wednesday. In the past hour the Secretary of State for Transport has written to all UK ports requesting them not to grant access to Russian vessels. That is a very welcome move, but the House will have noticed that he used the word “request” rather than “instruct”. Can the Foreign Secretary tell me now, or get me early information, that if the terminal operators at Flotta in Orkney refuse to berth the NS Challenger they will not be left financially exposed as a result?
Elizabeth Truss
I am looking at this issue urgently with the Transport Secretary and I will get back to the right hon. Gentleman with that information.
Jane Stevenson (Wolverhampton North East) (Con)
When parliamentarians in this place see our counterparts in Ukraine taking up arms to defend their country, it is really sobering. Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is vital that we send the united and clear message that we will continue to support Ukraine for as long as it takes, even if that is for the long haul, and that this is a war that Putin cannot win?
Elizabeth Truss
We have seen the acts of incredible bravery from the Ukrainian population and Ukrainian politicians, including President Zelensky, who has led from the front. It is absolutely inspiring. Our message across the House today should be that however long it takes, however difficult it is and whatever difficulties we have economically, they cannot compare to the sheer hell that the people of Ukraine are going through. We will be with them through thick and thin, until Putin loses and until the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Ukraine are restored.
Liam Byrne (Birmingham, Hodge Hill) (Lab)
The whole House will welcome the Foreign Secretary’s ambition this afternoon, but can we speed up the process of hitting the people on the hit list? There are 23 people on the EU sanctions list who are not on the UK sanctions list as of this morning. The ban on trading in state bonds is in place in Europe, but not in the UK. The ban on import and export from breakaway regions is in place in Europe, but not in the UK. The asset freeze and travel ban on Duma members is in place in Europe, but not in the UK. The asset freeze and travel bans in place in Europe number 22, but there are just eight in the UK announced in the past few days. What further power and resources does the Foreign Secretary need for us to catch up with our American and European allies?
Elizabeth Truss
We are leading from the front. For example, we are banning clearing from Sberbank, which the EU is not doing at the moment. We are freezing more bank assets. We have advocated the SWIFT ban, and we want to get all our allies to agree to a SWIFT ban, but this is not a competition between us and our allies; this is a concerted endeavour, where all of us are doing all we can as quickly as we can to show unity and to deliver a massive hit to the Russian economy. The House will have seen the drop in the rouble today, and the impact that this unity is having. I strongly encourage colleagues across the House to support our package, which is unprecedented in United Kingdom history, and to put pressure on more countries to join us, but there are areas where we are going a lot further than our allies. There are some areas where they have gone further than us. We need to continue to make progress together. That is what sends a strong message to Putin.
David Morris (Morecambe and Lunesdale) (Con)
I pay tribute to the bravery of the Ukrainian people. Change often begins at home, and in this particular case, Alexei Navalny, the leader of the opposition, is currently incarcerated in prison in Russia. Does the Foreign Secretary agree that there should be stronger calls for him to be released, so that democracy can truly flourish in Russia once again?
Elizabeth Truss
My hon. Friend is correct about Navalny; he ought to be released. We have seen a terrible suppression of democracy, and we have also seen a terrible suppression of information in Russia, but despite that, we are seeing people in Russia come out on the streets, and we are seeing public figures speak out against the regime. That takes incredible bravery, and I congratulate them. I am humbled by the people in Russia who are prepared to risk their lives to stand up for freedom.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
Following on from that, we know how ruthless Putin can be when it comes to internal opposition. Yesterday was the seventh anniversary of the murder of Boris Nemtsov, Navalny is in prison, and I went out for the trial of Pussy Riot some years ago. What are we doing to offer support to people who will come under increased repression in Russia? We may not be able to directly support them, but what are we doing to try to bolster their courage and ensure they keep up the opposition to Putin?
Elizabeth Truss
We have always worked to support those who speak out in favour of free speech, free media and democracy in Russia, and we continue to do that. We congratulate those who are prepared to go out and protest against this regime’s appalling actions. Our concerns are not with the Russian people; our concerns are with Vladimir Putin and his regime.
Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)
I warmly welcome the leadership shown and the progress made by the Foreign Secretary and the Government with partners on intensifying economic sanctions. The announcements from Switzerland and Singapore were particularly important. What more does she think that we can do to persuade the United Arab Emirates to stand up more strongly for the principles of sovereignty and territorial integrity against unwarranted aggression?
Elizabeth Truss
I have had a phone call with my UAE counterpart to make exactly those points. Every country around the world should be aware that if this is allowed to happen—if a bigger and mightier country is allowed to invade a sovereign democracy with impunity—it could happen anywhere. This is about Ukraine, its sovereignty and democracy, and it is about the security of Europe, but it is also about global security and global rules. That is why every single country, including non-democracies, should care about ensuring that Putin loses in Ukraine.
Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)
I am pleased that the Foreign Secretary has urged Russia to enable safe passage for civilians to flee the violence, but does she recognise that her Government have to do far more to offer sanctuary to those fleeing? Limiting that to immediate family members is simply not good enough. The elderly grandmother of my constituent has been granted a UK visa, but has been told that she has to travel 300 miles from Kyiv to Lviv to get it stamped in her passport. I raised that with the Foreign Secretary last week, who told me to contact the Home Office, which I have to no avail. Since it relates to the operation of the embassy, can she help? Can she assure us that it will not be a repeat of the Afghanistan crisis where hon. Members were bounced between the Home Office and the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office with very little success while our constituents suffered?
Elizabeth Truss
Our ambassador, who is in Lviv, is doing a fantastic job in very difficult circumstances. We are doing all we can to support people in Ukraine. As I said, the case is a matter for the Home Office. I am very happy to take it and ensure that the Home Secretary is aware of it.
Mr Jonathan Djanogly (Huntingdon) (Con)
I realised that the Government really understood the nature of sanctioning oligarchs when the sanctions on Aeroflot were extended to private jets. In that vein, will my right hon. Friend consider banning insurance for Russian yachts and jets? It would have a worldwide application and make life a lot tougher for those concerned.
Elizabeth Truss
I thank my hon. Friend for his idea. Nothing is off the table.
Dame Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
I welcome what the Foreign Secretary said about banning Russian airlines and Russian ships from docking at our ports, but yesterday afternoon, a Russian-owned and Russian-crewed ship headed from Inverness to the Humber to dock. I know she has made it clear that she is in discussions with the Transport Secretary, but can she give some indication of when we will have sanctions to stop that happening? There was a huge amount of local opposition in the Humber to that ship.
Elizabeth Truss
The local opposition is right and we are working as fast as we can to deal with the issue.
Richard Drax (South Dorset) (Con)
I commend my right hon. Friend and her team for all their amazing work in the face of this appalling invasion. Does she agree that the best way to combat the worrying resurgence of Russia and China, and to reassure other countries, is to invest in not only our defence but our diplomatic reach around the world so that we can spread our values of democracy and freedom and proclaim them even more loudly?
Elizabeth Truss
Yes, that sounds like a petition to the Chancellor about the Foreign Office’s budget, which I wholeheartedly agree with and support. My hon. Friend is right that this horrific invasion is a massive wake-up call to the west about our defence and the need to invest in NATO. I am pleased to see Germany committing 2% of its GDP to NATO. We need everybody to commit to that and we need to look at what more we can do to strengthen NATO, because we have taken European security for granted and we cannot do that any longer.
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)
First, I congratulate the Foreign Secretary on the role that she has played in the collective effort the Government have made in seeking to show President Putin that his actions will not be tolerated. I think the fact that some countries that a week ago were not contemplating strict sanctions are now doing so is an important step. Just on the sanctions, I understand that the Foreign Secretary has to go through the legislative process and do the investigations of the people who will be targeted and so on, but many of them are named in the statement today and many others will guess who they are, so is she not concerned that, where assets are mobile and can be quickly hidden, action will be taken to avoid those sanctions?
Elizabeth Truss
I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that the ones named in the statement are either in our legislation or have already been sanctioned. The point about working with our allies across the world is that these people and organisations will have nowhere to hide.
Dr Kieran Mullan (Crewe and Nantwich) (Con)
India is a great friend of the UK and a leading democracy, and Indian communities prosper in democracies around the world, including of course in this country. Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is in India’s long-term interests to do everything it possibly can to ensure this invasion fails?
Elizabeth Truss
That is absolutely correct. Every sovereign nation that believes in fair play and the rule of law around the world should be doing all it can to stop Putin being successful in Ukraine. That includes India, China and every other country around the world.
Alex Sobel (Leeds North West) (Lab/Co-op)
As somebody who had a grandparent born and raised in Ukraine, this war does come emotionally quite close to me, as it does to everybody of Ukrainian descent in this country. From the 1990s onwards, British-headquartered legal, finance, audit and risk companies have helped to create the kleptocracy that exists in Russia. Many of them still have huge offices in Moscow, such as KPMG, PwC and Linklaters, and Ernst and Young actually put Rosneft on the London stock exchange. What action is the Foreign Secretary taking to ensure British companies withdraw from Russia and withdraw their support from the kleptocracy that exists and is funding the war machine, and to delist some Russian companies on the stock exchange?
Elizabeth Truss
We are running through a list, and we have already sanctioned over 120 businesses in Russia and oligarchs. We have prevented the Russian central bank from deploying its international reserves to counteract sanctions. We are freezing bank assets of vast parts of the Russian economy, and we will continue to do more to target individual companies with freezes and sanctions. As I have said, nothing is off the table, and we are working in train with our allies on all of this.
Matt Hancock (West Suffolk) (Con)
I congratulate the Foreign Secretary and the Government on the swift action they have taken, including the action against the Russian central bank, and I commend her for her work to go further. Frankly, however, is it not desperate and indeed pitiful to try to blame words from Her Majesty’s Government for the outrageous Russian escalation of dangerous rhetoric yesterday, because the truth is that it is imperative for the stability of the international order that Putin fails?
Elizabeth Truss
My right hon. Friend is right. The reality is that Putin has made these threats to distract from his unprovoked invasion of Ukraine. We are being targeted because the UK has been leading on measures both to support Ukraine and to degrade the Russian economy, and the Russians do not like it.
Sam Tarry (Ilford South) (Lab)
Earlier, we unfortunately had an opaque response to my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood (Cat Smith) on oligarchs’ financing of the Conservative party, and the right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford) has also raised the question of the £2.3 million of donations. Would the Foreign Secretary like to take this opportunity to commit today to giving that money from Russian oligarchs directly to charities that will be supporting Ukrainian refugees—not, I hope, in picking vegetables, but being in this country in safety?
Elizabeth Truss
As I have said, we cannot tar every single person of Russian origin with the same brush. We are targeting oligarchs close to Putin without fear or favour and freezing bank assets without fear or favour, and we will continue to do so.
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
I thank the Foreign Secretary for coming to the House to update Members. I understand that today she has banned travel from the United Kingdom to Russia. Have we also asked British citizens in Russia to return? Will she confirm that nothing is off the table economically, diplomatically or militarily?
Elizabeth Truss
We have moved our travel advice on Russia to red, which means that we advise against all travel. That is not the same as a ban; it is ultimately Government advice, but I strongly advise people not to go to Russia. That is very clear. On the wider issue, nothing is off the table on sanctions, and we are absolutely clear about that. We are pushing our G7 allies as hard as we can to get a full ban on SWIFT and on all bank assets, and to reduce dependence on oil and gas, which is ultimately the most important economic lever over Putin.
Chris Law (Dundee West) (SNP)
In the past eight years there has been a war, not just in the past few days. During that time, it has been not just military warfare, but a war of communications known as hybrid warfare. Yesterday, the EU decided to shut down RT and Sputnik. Just as the Foreign Secretary is leading in some areas, will she confirm that she will follow the EU and shut down RT and Sputnik immediately? Yesterday as I was watching it, there was a documentary completely about Nazification in Crimea in 2014. That is wholly untrue, but it is being put on our television screens today.
Elizabeth Truss
We are looking at what can be done with RT, but if we ban RT in the United Kingdom, that is likely to lead to channels such as the BBC being banned in Russia, and we want the Russian population to hear the truth about what Vladimir Putin is doing. There is a careful judgment to be made, and that is something the Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport is looking at.
Sally-Ann Hart (Hastings and Rye) (Con)
The vast majority of Russian people are like us. They want to earn money, provide for their families and be happy, but their President, Mr Putin, has taken them down a very dark path, and the world to the brink. Will my right hon. Friend join me in urging the Russian people, and those in the Kremlin who do not agree with Mr Putin, to do whatever it takes to bring Russia back from the brink and stop Putin?
Elizabeth Truss
I completely agree with my hon. Friend that we must do all we can to stiffen the resolve of those in Russia who are disgusted by President Putin’s actions in their name. That is why it is important to reach out through channels such as the BBC, and that we communicate clearly. The Foreign Office recently stood up its information unit, which provides communications to challenge disinformation from the Putin regime.
Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)
My constituent’s wife and child are currently fleeing the violence in Ukraine, and they hope to return home. Her sister, who is Ukrainian, and her two children aged 10 and four, are fleeing with them, because the home they had been living in was destroyed by a Russian bomb. Does the Foreign Secretary agree that that is precisely the kind of case where the United Kingdom, which has a long history of compassion and welcome to refugees, should be enabling that family, together, to return here?
Elizabeth Truss
It is appalling to hear about the horrific situation that the family of the right hon. Gentleman’s constituent find themselves in, and we must be welcoming to refugees from this appalling, pre-meditated war created by Vladimir Putin. I will take his inquiry to the Home Office and get him a response.
John Penrose (Weston-super-Mare) (Con)
Four years ago an inquiry was announced into the progress of golden visas that had potentially been misallocated. Will the Foreign Secretary confirm that anybody on her list who becomes sanctioned—I commend her on the ever-growing list of oligarchs who she is sanctioning—will have any golden visas that they may have been granted in the past summarily revoked?
Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)
The Giorgidze family, the Reckon family and many others in my constituency have family members and loved ones now in Poland or on its border. They want to know what conversations the Foreign Secretary has had with her counterpart in Poland about swift flights to bring those family members to the UK and—perhaps equally importantly—what conversations she has had with the Home Secretary on that matter.
Elizabeth Truss
We have been working closely with the Home Office on this issue as well as the Polish Government. In fact, I am due to meet the Polish Minister tomorrow to discuss it further. We have a forward team of Foreign Office officials in Poland precisely to help with such cases.
Mark Pawsey (Rugby) (Con)
I welcome the additional Government measures announced today, but will the Foreign Secretary recognise and indeed encourage the actions of UK individuals and companies who have chosen to dispose of investments and shareholdings in Russian companies, and not least BP’s disposal of its stake in Rosneft, which will come at a substantial cost to its shareholders?
Elizabeth Truss
I welcome the actions by companies who are dissociating themselves from working with the Putin regime, including BP’s divestment.
Stewart Malcolm McDonald (Glasgow South) (SNP)
We have all witnessed the horrifying war crimes taking place against the people of Ukraine. One would have thought, would one not, that there would have been at least some diplomatic expulsions in co-ordination with others as a result of that? However, the Foreign Secretary dodged the question from my good friend the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Alicia Kearns). Is her Department working on plans should those war crimes get worse and chemical weapons are deployed against the people of Ukraine?
Elizabeth Truss
Yes, we are working on that. We are working closely with the International Criminal Court, and the chief prosecutor has already issued a statement about the situation in Ukraine. We are determined that everyone in Russia close to Putin, who is in charge of this appalling invasion, should be aware that they could be prosecuted for war crimes for what they are doing. On diplomatic expulsions, of course we do not rule anything out. We are working closely with our allies.
Rob Butler (Aylesbury) (Con)
I very much welcome the Foreign Secretary’s robust statement on further sanctions on Russia and strong support for Ukraine. Deliberate misinformation and propaganda are part of Putin’s toolbox, so does she agree that while we must safeguard and respect free speech, social media companies have a responsibility to ensure that they are not propagating lies and that they must moderate the content on their platforms extremely carefully?
Elizabeth Truss
My hon. Friend is right. The Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport is looking closely at the activities of social media companies.
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)
I am pleased to hear that the Foreign Secretary will not be cowed by letters from oligarchs’ lawyers. She will know that, no matter how distasteful we might find it and how damaging it might be to those law firms’ reputations, even oligarchs are entitled to legal representation because that is part of what makes us a free and democratic society. Does she agree that the best way to deal with these issues is to ensure that the laws are watertight in the first place? Will she assure us that she has got the best, most expert lawyers available to ensure that no loopholes can be exploited?
Elizabeth Truss
The Foreign Office is currently full of lawyers working through precisely that point.
Jack Brereton (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Con)
I very much welcome the UK’s robust global leadership against Putin’s Russia. The high dependency on Russian energy in parts of Europe has been used by Putin to threaten many of those European countries. What more can the British Government do to help support those countries to reduce that dependency?
Elizabeth Truss
I am working closely with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy on helping those countries reduce their dependence. We are working with the G7 so that, over time, there will be less and less oil, gas and coal imported from Russia so that there will be less money to fund Putin’s war machine.
Drew Hendry (Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey) (SNP)
The public would rightly expect Departments and the Cabinet to be working together at a time like this. The Foreign Secretary said in her statement that “we are also leading on humanitarian support” and yet fleeing Ukrainian citizens seeking refuge in the UK are being denied entrance because of outdated and restrictive immigration rules. Will the Foreign Secretary therefore urge her Cabinet colleagues to follow the EU nations in waiving visa requirements for Ukrainian citizens for three years?
Elizabeth Truss
As I said earlier, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has just announced the new Ukrainian humanitarian route, which responds directly to these needs.
Anthony Mangnall (Totnes) (Con)
The Foreign Secretary announced the launching of a joint taskforce to hunt down the assets of oligarchs hit by our sanctions. Can she tell us the speed and scale at which that taskforce will be set up, and what conversations have been had with the insurance companies, which presumably have a list of all the assets and names of the individuals?
Elizabeth Truss
This really pertains to a number of questions that have been asked. What we are doing in building up our evidence cases about the oligarchs is sharing information with our G7 allies, so we are working together and getting that information quicker. That work is already under way. That taskforce already exists. Of course, alongside the legal services, the public relations services and the accountancy services, we will look at the insurance services that these oligarchs rely on. This is all about being able to do this quicker, because every single country has the same issue. The US takes time to build up cases against oligarchs because generally their organisations are so complex and opaque. The work that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy is doing on the Economic Crime Bill will also help to make it easier for us to understand their corporate structures.
Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)
I think all of us, particularly those of us who were Members of the House in September 2001, realise that a page has been turned in world history and a new chapter has begun that will resonate not just now but for many years. The important thing is our shared values, and the way that we respond in the months and years to come. On the specifics of the Foreign Secretary’s statement, she said that over 50% of Russian trade is denominated in dollars or sterling, but so that the House can understand the impact of our Government’s actions, how much of Russian trade is denominated in sterling?
Elizabeth Truss
I do not have that figure on me, but I can get it to the hon. Gentleman. The point that I was making is that the action that we have taken on clearing is in conjunction with the United States, so between us we are able to cover 50% of that trade.
Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)
Can the Foreign Secretary explain why the Russian ambassador to the UK is yet to be dismissed, and will she do all that she can to encourage the Governments of all Western democracies and the wider international community to similarly dismiss their Russian ambassadors in order to further underscore the isolation of Russia under Putin on the international stage?
Elizabeth Truss
It is very important in all that we do that we work with allies, and co-ordinated action is vital to send a message to Russia and the rest of the world. As I have said, nothing is off the table.
Dave Doogan (Angus) (SNP)
I listened to the Foreign Secretary correctly detail the importance of avoiding sanctions leakage. She was asked twice in this statement about British overseas territories. I detected a reluctance to go into detail on that. If I was wrong, can she please correct me, and if I was right, can she explain why?
Elizabeth Truss
I have been very clear that we will absolutely include overseas territories in all the measures that we are taking.
Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (Ind)
The sister of my constituent, Mrs Roach from Cwmann, has been travelling across Ukraine with her children for three days in an attempt to get to the Polish border. Based on what was said earlier, because it is not clear to me, will my constituent’s sister and her children qualify as immediate family in order to obtain access to the UK?
Elizabeth Truss
That is a matter for the Home Office, and I would be very pleased to raise the hon. Gentleman’s case with the Home Secretary.
Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Ind)
The World Health Organisation has warned that oxygen supplies are running dangerously low in Ukraine, and that it is working with international partners to get urgent shipments through Poland. Can the Foreign Secretary confirm what medical aid the UK Government are providing to Ukraine to help it to maintain essential services?
Elizabeth Truss
I discussed this issue with my right hon. Friend the Health Secretary this morning. We have a shipment, or rather a cargo, of medical supplies, and our Ministry of Defence is helping to facilitate that into Ukraine.
Corporate Transparency and Economic Crime
(2 years, 2 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 on the reforms the Government will be bringing forward to improve transparency over the ownership of companies and property in the UK, and to strengthen the enforcement of financial sanctions. These are the key elements of our strategy to tackle dirty money from Russia and elsewhere.
The openness of our economy to investment from all parts of the world is one of our greatest strengths. However, we are determined that we want to attract the right kind of investment. As many Members will know, oligarchs and kleptocrats from Russia and elsewhere have used the veneer of legitimacy provided by UK registered companies and partnerships, and have used high-end property to help launder proceeds of corruption. At present, Companies House has very limited powers to prevent that abuse. In light of Russia’s outrageous actions in recent days, it is necessary that we put those criminals on notice and send a clear message that the UK will not tolerate their corruption here. To that end, I am announcing two immediate steps.
First, the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy is today publishing a White Paper on corporate transparency and register reform. The White Paper sets out a comprehensive package of reforms to Companies House. [Interruption.] Stop pre-empting. Just be patient. The agency will be transformed into a custodian of accurate and detailed information, ensuring that we can clamp down on those who seek to abuse UK corporate structures to launder money. Anyone setting up, running, owning or controlling a company in the UK will need to verify their identity with Companies House, which will then be able to challenge dubious information and inform the security agencies. Company agents from overseas will no longer be able to create companies in the UK on behalf of foreign criminals or secretive oligarchs. The reforms will not only tackle illicit finance, but directly support the millions of legitimate enterprises which transact with Companies House every day. Alongside the White Paper, we will be legislating for other measures, including reform of limited partnerships law, new powers to seize crypto-assets, and reforms to help businesses share information on suspected money laundering.
Secondly, we will be introducing legislation to Parliament tomorrow to accelerate other measures that will make an immediate dissuasive effect on dirty money and its purveyors from Russia and elsewhere. The Bill we introduce tomorrow will create a register of overseas entities to crack down on foreign criminals using UK property to launder their money. The new register will require anonymous foreign owners to reveal their real identity to ensure that criminals can no longer hold property behind secretive chains of shell companies. By legislating now, we will send a clear warning to those who have used, or who are thinking about using, the UK property market to launder ill-gotten gains, particularly those linked to the Putin regime. Tomorrow’s Bill will reform unexplained wealth orders, removing key barriers to their use by law enforcement. It will also include amendments to financial sanctions legislation, helping to deter and prevent breaches of sanctions.
The new property register and the reforms to Companies House will once more see the UK take innovative and world-leading steps to tackle anonymous shell companies. We have been leading on this agenda since being the first major economy to put in place a public register of beneficial ownership for all domestic companies in 2016. Not only can we pay tribute to the heroic efforts of the people of the Ukraine—Ukraine—to defend their democracy and their freedom; these measures, in a small but significant way, will put pressure on kleptocrats and oligarchs who have abused our hospitality for their own nefarious purposes.
Seema Malhotra (Feltham and Heston) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank the Secretary of State for early sight of his statement and for our call with the Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Scully), this afternoon. The Labour party and the House are united in our support for Ukraine and we take very seriously our role in ensuring that Russia’s unprovoked and unjustifiable aggression fails.
Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has shaken the world, with huge concern across Parliament and the country about the invasion and the unfolding humanitarian crisis. It is clear, however, that it has taken the Russian invasion of Ukraine to shake the Conservative party into finally taking the action that is required. These steps are imperative, not just for financial transparency but for our national security, and the Government’s action on that to date falls far short of the leadership required. That is why we must urgently take the necessary steps to drag illicit finance out of the shadows and make it clear that the UK will no longer be a home to dirty money.
We therefore support the Government in introducing the emergency legislation in the light of the atrocities that we are seeing in Ukraine. The need for it is clear for all to see, but the Secretary of State will recognise that these steps have been needed for a long time. He will know that Labour and, indeed, some Government Members have been calling for years for the measures that the Government have announced. We were first promised this legislation in 2016, and this draft legislation has in fact been ready since 2018. Although we support the Government’s actions today, the Secretary of State needs to take responsibility for the time and progress lost through Government inaction. I hope we will see that lessons are learned for this Bill and future legislation, because time is of the essence.
The UK would have been in a much stronger position to act with speed and our national security would have been better protected if the register had already been up and running. That is why the Government must move quickly, because the dangers of a lack of transparency, particularly in the current climate, are all too plain to see. If the intention, as stated, is to impede Russian money, the register will need to be operational in the coming weeks to have any effect. I assure the Government of Labour’s full support in moving through the Bill’s stages quickly, and hope in turn that they will act quickly to make the register and other measures a reality.
I wish to press the Secretary of State on some key areas in which the Government must go further to make the measures as effective as they could be, and I do that in the spirit of cross-party support. I welcome his announcement that the economic crime transparency and enforcement Bill, or some aspects of it, will finally be introduced tomorrow and welcome the White Paper reforms to Companies House, but frankly, we have to ask whether a White Paper is all he is bringing forward on Companies House—[Interruption.] We have been promised more before, and the Prime Minister announced that more immediate steps would be taken. Will the Secretary of State confirm when other aspects of the economic crime Bill, such as the reform of Scottish limited partnerships and the power to seize crypto-assets, will come before the House?
Will the Secretary of State confirm that the register of overseas entities will be publicly available and that there will be criminal penalties for non-compliance? Will those criminal penalties apply to those who fail to update the register annually, as well as to those who provide false information? Will he confirm when the register will be up and running? Can he give an update on the Crown dependencies and overseas territories, and will he commit to enacting similar reforms and to the Government taking action if they do not take action?
The freedom of our press will be vital throughout this invasion. Will the Secretary of State confirm whether the Government intend to use Monday’s legislation to tackle strategic lawsuits against public participation, so that journalists are not silenced and can freely report on the financial activity of Russian oligarchs? Finally, will he update the House on the discussions that he is having with the devolved Administrations on these important measures? I look forward to his response.
Kwasi Kwarteng
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her points. Clearly, on the time that this has taken, she will remember that in the 2017 to 2019 Parliament, a huge amount of our time was taken up by members of the Labour party and the Opposition parties frustrating Brexit. They absorbed a huge amount of parliamentary time and I am afraid that that was one of the reasons we could not expedite this sort of legislation.
There will be criminal liability for failure to update the register annually and for giving misleading or inaccurate information. We are working with the Crown dependencies to update their transparency; by next year, they will have to have much greater transparency requirements. The hon. Lady will be pleased to know that my Government colleagues and I speak to our counterparts in the devolved Administrations on a very regular basis.
Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
I welcome the statement, as far as it goes. As a matter of principle, does my right hon. Friend agree that cleansing British public life of dirty Russian money is not quintessentially difficult?
Kwasi Kwarteng
As my right hon. Friend appreciates, this legislation is timely. We are grateful that it seems to have elicited huge support across the House, and we are pleased to be able to expedite it.
Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)
I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of his statement. I also thank the small Business Minister—the Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Scully)—for giving me and my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen South (Stephen Flynn) his time earlier, which was appreciated.
I put on record the concerns that many of my Glasgow Central constituents have expressed over the weekend for the people of Ukraine. They call on the Government to do more. Like me, they will welcome action on sanctions and on the flow of dirty money through the City of London, so I am glad that there will be reform of Companies House. It is long overdue, and SNP Members have not been holding it back; we have been calling for it constantly for years. The Government have had multiple chances to deal with it.
As an interim step to action on Companies House, will the Government use the Verify scheme to ensure that people cannot fill the register with absolute guff, as happens now? Will they give Companies House interim anti-money laundering responsibility until the new Bill comes into force? When it does, will it be retrospective? Will it go back to the register and root out all the nonsense, or will it start again from scratch?
I am glad to hear about the register of overseas entities in the Bill, but I would like to know how it will differ from the draft Registration of Overseas Entities Bill. I sat on the Joint Committee on the draft Bill; our report came out in May 2019. How will the new Bill differ? Will it pick up on issues around definitions of legal entities, the use of trusts and the loopholes that they create? Will it take action on Scottish limited partnerships, which have legal personality and can hold property? Tackling them in the Bill is crucial.
Will we look at the cost to land registries of working on the Bill? In Scotland, the register of persons holding a controlled interest in land will come into force on 1 April 2022 and will include overseas entities, so the Scottish Government are moving on the issue in just over a month’s time. What conversations has the Secretary of State had with the Scottish Government on how the Scottish register will interact with the UK register?
Will the Government go after the enablers—the estate agents, the lawyers and the accountants who have facilitated so much of the kleptocracy in this country? They have to be held to account, too. I am glad to see that unexplained wealth orders, which have not been working properly—I understand that there have only been nine since their inception—are being fixed. I look forward with interest to that happening.
Finally, what will the Government do about enforcement? They can have the finest laws in the land, but if there is no action and no investment in enforcement, there is little point in having them at all.
Kwasi Kwarteng
I am grateful for the hon. Lady’s remarks. As far as the enablers are concerned, we have legislation already on the statute book. As my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary said in her statement, we are looking at other measures to tighten the regime.
We work with DA Ministers constantly. The Under-Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Scully), has engaged ably and directly with DA Ministers, and we look forward to doing so.
This set of measures is only the beginning of the much tighter regime that we want to bring in. [Interruption.] People are chuntering from a sedentary position, but I would like to point out that these matters, particularly those regarding cryptocurrencies and cyber-crime, are complicated. We are trying to expedite legislation on those fronts as quickly as possible.
Mr Andrew Mitchell (Sutton Coldfield) (Con)
My right hon. Friend has brought excellent news to the House this afternoon, but will he at least acknowledge that the right hon. Member for Barking (Dame Margaret Hodge), my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley (Nigel Mills), my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake) and I have been asking the Government to do these things for the last four years and more? Will he now look at the other measures that we have advocated to clamp down on dirty money and money laundering? He is absolutely right about Companies House, but will he now ensure that it has real monkey glands for investigating, and is not just a library? That will require money and officials with great expertise, but sunlight, as ever, is the best disinfectant.
Kwasi Kwarteng
I welcome my right hon. Friend’s remarks. I pay tribute to him, and to Members on both sides of the House, for the excellent work that they have done in ensuring that the measures have been introduced in a timely way. I look forward to working with him to ensure that we have a good regime. Let me also point out that we have £63 million in the spending review to deal precisely with the funding of Companies House.
Dame Margaret Hodge (Barking) (Lab)
The Secretary of State is sensing some frustration, and I will tell him why. The public register of beneficial ownership of properties that are foreign-owned was promised when David Cameron was Prime Minister in 2015. That had nothing to do with Brexit; it could have been introduced in that year. Then we come to Companies House. I am dismayed that all we are getting is a White Paper. We had an extensive consultation, completed a year ago, which built plenty of consensus around the reforms that were necessary. We do not need a White Paper; we need legislation, because that is what will stop this situation.
I am not sure that the Minister understands the issue of the enablers. There is hardly any ability for any of our enforcement agencies to get at those who not only collude with the process of dirty money coming into Britain, but facilitate it—lawyers, banks, accountants and others. If we do not stop them doing that, dirty money will continue to come in.
My final point to the Secretary of State is about the unexplained wealth orders. We greeted them with great expectations, but they have let us down. I would urge him to put a cost cap on litigation so that when we fail in an unexplained wealth order, the various recipients of dirty money do not get away with £2 million-worth in legal costs, as they did in one case.
Kwasi Kwarteng
I am sure that my answer will not satisfy the right hon. Lady, but I am pleased that we are introducing this legislation, and I look forward to working with her and colleagues on both sides of the House in ensuring that it is right. As for the cap on unexplained wealth orders, I think it will be the subject of plenty of discussion imminently, when we introduce the legislation.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Order. I was very generous with Dame Margaret Hodge, for obvious reasons, but I shall be less generous now in respect of the length of questions. You are all warned.
Mr Jonathan Djanogly (Huntingdon) (Con)
I welcome the statement. While I fully support efforts to have the means to investigate criminality and sanctions-busting schemes at Companies House—and I hope that that will be properly funded, because it will be expensive to carry out—I also hope that the process of registration will not be burdened to the extent that we lose competitive advantage and throw the baby out with the bathwater.
Kwasi Kwarteng
I think my hon. Friend is right. There is always a balance to be struck in legislation of this sort, but I think that, as he takes the temperature of the House, there is a real feeling that we need to expedite it. I feel confident that it strikes the right balance between fairness and transparency, and will not be overburdening people with bureaucracy.
Liam Byrne (Birmingham, Hodge Hill) (Lab)
This is at best a half measure. Companies House has 11,000 shell companies where there is no person of significant control registered, yet there have been only 112 prosecutions, which is just 1%. We have 12 different agencies in charge of economic crime, there is no Minister with clear responsibility, and the National Crime Agency says that its budget needs to be doubled. Irony of ironies, journalist Tom Burgis is being taken to court this Wednesday for daring to reveal the truth about the corrupt company ENRC; our courts are being used as arenas to shut down journalists. We need a far bigger, bolder plan from the Minister.
Kwasi Kwarteng
What the right hon. Member says about Companies House reform is not accurate at all. This set of measures will be the biggest reform to Companies House in 200 years. It is something significant. It has not been done in 200 years and it is something which we are very proud to have expedited—[Laughter.] I would have thought there would be a bit more recognition of the fact that this is vitally important legislation that is going to be brought in in a timely way.
Sir Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)
The Secretary of State is right to draw a distinction between that which needs to be done immediately to deal with the appalling behaviour of Putin and his cronies and the long-term reforms that are really important to the business structures of the United Kingdom, for our competitiveness and for company law as a whole, which should rightly not be rushed. In relation to the more urgent and pressing matters, will he undertake to work closely not just with the City but with the large amount of expertise we have in financial and legal services? For example, the Financial Markets Law Committee and others have a great deal of expertise, particularly around such issues as crypto-currency, and we need to harness that. The City and the financial sector want good regulation, because it is in Britain’s interests to have a clean and effective set-up and we should not be misled by those who suggest otherwise.
Kwasi Kwarteng
My hon. Friend is right. This idea that the City of London does not want regulation is a travesty and a disgrace. It is a slur on the reputation of our financial services. He is also right to say that there is a distinction to be drawn between what needs to be done immediately and can be done expeditiously, and other matters that need a great deal of thought and consultation, on which I am happy to engage with him and other colleagues.
Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough) (Lab)
The introduction of this corporate transparency work is welcome but way overdue; it is a shame that it took the invasion of Ukraine to bring it forward. While he is at it, will the Minister please encourage the chair of his party to conduct a review of the money that has come from oligarchs to Tory MPs and demand to know what was expected of them? Are they going to give that money back?
Kwasi Kwarteng
I would like to make a point about donations to political parties. We all know that we do not have state-funded parties. Any citizen can fund and give donations to political parties. I also want to say gently that not every single person of Russian origin is an oligarch. People come here—many of them have British citizenship—and they give freely of their funds.
Mark Pawsey (Rugby) (Con)
It is good that the measures will be with us tomorrow, but my constituents who have gone through the process of buying a property will find it hard to appreciate how, over many years, we have allowed the acquisition of UK property to hide wealth that has often been illegally obtained. Can my right hon. Friend reassure them that these new measures will bring this kind of activity swiftly to an end?
Kwasi Kwarteng
Absolutely. That is the point of this raft of measures. We want to shine the light of transparency on these transactions and to minimise the likelihood of people using our property and our goodwill to hide their ill-gotten gains.
Layla Moran (Oxford West and Abingdon) (LD)
As the MP whose name is on the Registration of Overseas Entities Bill, which is already tabled, may I express my delight that the Government are taking this up and more? Could I draw the Secretary of State’s eye to the amendment to the National Insurance Contributions Bill that was passed in the other place on the ownership of freeports? There is real concern that we may be dealing with one part but leaving a door open somewhere else. Will he assure us either that he will accept the amendment or that the matter will be covered in the Bill?
Kwasi Kwarteng
I am delighted to accept the hon. Lady’s warm words on the Bill. I am delighted that she is supporting it enthusiastically, and I am happy to engage with her on the passage of the Bill and to examine the amendment she has referred to.
Robert Jenrick (Newark) (Con)
I warmly welcome the creation of a register of overseas entities. Could my right hon. Friend give us a sense of how long it will take for an effective register to be created? Post legislation, it will presumably take months to establish the register, bearing in mind there are 95,000 foreign-owned properties in England according to the Land Registry and the Government propose to give those owners 18 months to register their ownership.
Secondly, further to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr Djanogly), although I strongly support reform of Companies House, today a small businessperson in this country can pay £12 to register their company in less than 24 hours. Whatever we do must be as burden-free as possible to help small businesspeople and entrepreneurs to thrive.
Kwasi Kwarteng
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. He says it may take a few months to get the register up and running, and I am trying to make the process as quick and effective as possible. He also mentions that we must not have a disproportionate effect, that we must not overburden small business people and people who want to incorporate and set up businesses, and we will not be doing that. I would be happy to work with him, as he did brilliant work in government, to make sure the Government get this right.
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)
It is a pity that it has taken a war in Ukraine to bring forward these measures. Irrespective of that, I have some concerns. First, the statement made no mention of what resources will be available to check whatever information is registered. Secondly, there is no indication of what will be done against those who facilitate money laundering in the first place—the whole professional industry engaged in that. Lastly, change is needed in the legal system to stop long, costly and complicated legal battles in court.
What discussions has the Secretary of State had on this with the Northern Ireland Executive? We do not have Russian oligarchs, but we have plenty of home-grown people who launder money from criminal activities using their past terrorist connections. That needs to be dealt with, too.
Kwasi Kwarteng
As I noted, observed and made very clear, we have a spending review settlement of £63 million for Companies House, which is a considerable uplift on previous budgets. There is a commitment to make sure we have the resources to police this new regime.
We speak to colleagues in the devolved Administrations all the time, and I am even happy to discuss these issues with the right hon. Gentleman, should he be so minded.
Richard Fuller (North East Bedfordshire) (Con)
I welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement, because clamping down on illicit international flows of capital is a good thing. Another good thing is open, legitimate global capital markets, where the City of London excels, supporting entrepreneurs in our country. Can my right hon. Friend assure me that, in bringing forward his legislation and the White Paper, he will pay due regard to the positive aspects of international capital, as well as clamping down on the illegal ones?
Kwasi Kwarteng
Absolutely. I am not embarrassed at all in agreeing with my hon. Friend that London is a hub of international capital, which is one of the great strengths and glories of our economy. I will do all I can, as I am sure he will appreciate, to make sure we protect that precious heritage.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
I am sure it was a slip, but the Secretary of State said “the Ukraine.” Four Ministers have said “the Ukraine” in the past few days—
Chris Bryant
I fully accept that it was a slip. We will move on. “Ukraine” is the country. It is an important point, because Ukrainians hate it being called “the Ukraine.”
The point I was going to make is that we would have been in a 10-times better place in dealing with Putin’s invasion of Ukraine if all this had already been in place, which is why some of us had been calling for it for many, many years. The Secretary of State says he has expedited something. Well, I do not know what it would have looked like if he had slowed it down because, honestly, apart from anything else, we have world-beating lawyers, accountants and others who facilitate the hiding of all these assets. Do we not need to put on them the onus of having to report their dealings with Putin’s cronies, and should it not be a criminal offence if they do not do so?
Kwasi Kwarteng
I fully accept the hon. Gentleman’s point and I wish to put on record the fact that I corrected myself immediately—having said “the Ukraine”, I changed it to “Ukraine”. He makes a perfectly legitimate point about that little bit of grammar and the definite article, which is very important. On the speed with which we have brought forward this legislation, I wish to pay tribute to him and to Conservative colleagues, some of whom are no longer in their place, as they have led huge amounts of work and cross-party engagement. I am delighted that now we can expedite bringing this Bill forward.
Alicia Kearns (Rutland and Melton) (Con)
I very much welcome these efforts to rid ill-gotten roubles from our system, but in future packages will my right hon. Friend extend transparency efforts into the private education sector and education corporations? Our sanctions regime should stop sanctioned oligarchs from being able to pay future school fees, because they are sanctioned, but many of them pay school fees through shell companies, cash and cut-outs. So will he make sure that our amazing educational establishments do not continue to receive money from ill-gotten gains?
Kwasi Kwarteng
This issue has been raised already, particularly by my right hon. Friend the Education Secretary, who is absolutely focused on making sure that our education system is not abused in the way that our legislation on property and companies is.
Tulip Siddiq (Hampstead and Kilburn) (Lab)
The shadow Chief Secretary to the Treasury and I, in my role as shadow Economic Secretary to the Treasury, requested a meeting with Companies House to discuss its role in tackling illicit finance. It initially agreed to the meeting, only to cancel it at the last minute. In the email it wrote to us, it said that it had spoken to its sponsor Department, the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, about the meeting and that BEIS was of the view that the issues that we wanted to discuss are best raised with the responsible Minister. Is it the Government’s policy to block Companies House from meeting shadow Treasury Ministers? Or does the Secretary of State agree that it is in the national interest for all of us to work together, across the political spectrum, to tackle dirty money and illicit finance?
Kwasi Kwarteng
I have been very clear that it is the responsibility of every Member of this House to engage with these issues. I have not been informed about that interdiction by my Department and I would love to hear more about it. However, as I have said, every Member of this House has an obligation to engage directly with those tackling these kinds of abuses.
Anthony Browne (South Cambridgeshire) (Con)
This House is united in agreeing that we need to get rid of dirty money from the so-called London laundromat, and I very much welcome these proposals on reforming Companies House, which is a big step in that direction. As a recent Treasury Committee report showed, the economic crime landscape is littered with agencies that are too weak to clamp down on money laundering and fraud. Will the Secretary of State confirm that Companies House will have not just the right resources—other Members have mentioned that—but sufficient powers to really clamp down on the oligarchs, who will no doubt be determined to try to block this?
Kwasi Kwarteng
My hon. Friend will appreciate that the legislation proposed will set up a range of criminal offences. As is always the case with criminal offences, we will absolutely make sure that the people who are enforcing those penalties are properly resourced. I am very keen to work with him to make sure that we get this right.
Janet Daby (Lewisham East) (Lab)
The Secretary of State has taken a similar question to this one, but it is very specific. Will he ask his party chair to conduct a review into the political donations made to the Conservative party and the links that these donors may have to the Kremlin?
Kwasi Kwarteng
I have answered this question before and I say, once again, that not everybody of Russian heritage giving money to any political party is an oligarch. I appreciate that the hon. Lady is not saying this explicitly, but the implication is that they are, and I reject the premise of the question.
John Penrose (Weston-super-Mare) (Con)
I warmly welcome these measures, particular the register of overseas entities. As has been widely said, some of us have been waiting for that for a very long time and it is hugely welcome, not just in here, but right the way through civil society outside this place. We cannot sanction an oligarch unless we know where he or she has stashed their money, and this register will make a big difference. May I push the Secretary of State a little further on his response to the question put by my right hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick) about how long it will take once this new legislation is in place to clean up all the rubbish that is currently on the register, in order to make sure that we have something that is both clean and useful, and we do not have a case of “garbage in, garbage out.”?
Kwasi Kwarteng
My hon. Friend makes a very good case. There are two aspects to this. Clearly, there is the immediate signalling aspect, which will affect people’s decisions in the here and now. There is also the task of getting the register up and running, which may take a few months. I am open to working with him to make sure that we do that as quickly as possible.
Alyn Smith (Stirling) (SNP)
The SNP and the Scottish Government have been pressing for these measures for years. We are glad to see progress, but this is really overdue and it does not go far enough, so if the Secretary of State is holding out the bag for praise, it really is a bit out of bounds. I have two specific questions. To what extent do the Government intend to co-ordinate not just with the devolved Administrations and the home nations, but with the overseas territories, in taking this ethos forward? I note the commitment to properly funding Companies House, but can he undertake to keep the House informed of the discussions about budgets and funding the enforcement mechanisms of this properly, because if we are going to do this, it needs to be done right.
Kwasi Kwarteng
Dare I say it, but I have been a Member of this House for long enough not to bring a bag for praise—or whatever the phrase the hon. Gentleman used. I was not expecting that. What I do want to engage with him on is the fact that we are speaking to counterparts in the devolved Administrations because there must be a greater degree of co-ordination. We are also working with the overseas territories. We are expecting them to have much greater transparency, and we will be making that representation to them.
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests—I am a fellow of the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales. Further to what many Members have said, there is no point in our having a register if what is on it is untrue. Could we have a requirement for an auditor to verify the truth of a certificate, and if it turns out that it is untrue, that auditor is subject to criminal prosecution?
Kwasi Kwarteng
I am conscious that my hon. Friend would not want me to burden people who are legitimately setting up companies. He will also appreciate that the legislation will create new criminal offences, and I am confident that this will significantly tighten the regime that we have today.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
The Minister said in his statement that the new register will require anonymous foreign owners to reveal their real identity, to ensure that criminals cannot hold property behind secretive chains of shell companies. Will it also deal with the issue of beneficial ownership sometimes just being put in the name of another individual so that, on the face of it, it looks like they are the person who is entitled to beneficial ownership, but really they are not?
Kwasi Kwarteng
The hon. Lady is absolutely right to say that we want to have greater transparency. The example in the statement was merely that; it was an example of how people can hide ownership of assets. We want greater transparency generally.
Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)
I very much welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement, particularly the bit about overseas entities. There are a couple of things that he might consider for his White Paper. Some 43% of all financial crime is identified by whistleblowers, so proper whistleblowing protection is absolutely critical to identifying this stuff. The other thing is failure to prevent economic crime. If we want our banks and wealth managers to clamp down on this stuff and to do the right thing, they need to face criminal charges if they do not.
Kwasi Kwarteng
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend, who has been speaking about these affairs with a great deal of knowledge and passion for many years, and I have engaged with him on these subjects. He will also appreciate that what we are doing in bringing forward this legislation does not capture the entire economic crime package. There are other measures that we will be looking to bring in very soon.
Dr Lisa Cameron (East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow) (SNP)
There have been desperate calls from Ukraine that Russian and Belarusian crypto-assets be frozen and that blocks be put on users from Russia who may seek to mitigate the impact of sanctions through this means. Will the Secretary of State meet the all-party parliamentary group for crypto and digital assets, which I chair, because we want to work responsibly with the Government to make progress on this important matter?
Kwasi Kwarteng
The hon. Lady raises a key issue. It is of great relevance to me and my Department, and also of relevance to the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport. I would like to say very briefly that the UK has led on this. The fact that Russian financial institutions are being denied access to SWIFT has been very much a success of our diplomacy, but I am very happy to talk to her about further measures.
Duncan Baker (North Norfolk) (Con)
I am pleased to have so much in common with my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone), as I too am a former chartered accountant. The reforms to Companies House could not come soon enough—just getting a fictitious audit report removed proves incredibly difficult these days, so this legislation is much needed. However, if we are to empower Companies House to root out the corrupt filings, it must have the resource because, as we have heard, it is by no means a small issue. Can my right hon. Friend assure me that we will have not just the powers, but the resource, the tools and the capability to carry out those actions?
Kwasi Kwarteng
My hon. Friend will be pleased to learn that, as a consequence of the comprehensive spending review, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has increased the amount in anticipation of the reforms that we are bringing in. I am happy to work with my hon. Friend in future to ensure that we get this absolutely right.
James Murray (Ealing North) (Lab/Co-op)
As hon. Members across the House have made clear, the register to make public the overseas owners of property here in the UK is years overdue; it has been a crucial missing part of ridding our system of dirty money. Now that the Government have finally accepted it as a priority, there can be no further excuse for delay. Every day we waste now gives those backing and benefiting from Putin longer to hide their dirty money elsewhere. Will the Secretary of State follow our suggestion and commit to requiring all those owners of foreign property in the UK who need to disclose their details on the new register to do so by 31 March this year at the latest?
Kwasi Kwarteng
As I have said to the House, we are introducing legislation and, in the customary way, there will be plenty of scope for right hon. and hon. Members to move amendments and to tweak the legislation in any way they see fit.
Dame Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
The Secretary of State has been challenged several times this afternoon about the need for effective enforcement of any new legislation. What additional resources and support will be given to our law enforcement agencies to ensure that the legislation can be properly enforced?
Kwasi Kwarteng
My right hon. Friend the Minister for Security will address some of those issues in his Department. There is legislation currently under consideration that will give more powers to enforcement agencies. As far as my Department is concerned, we have campaigned successfully for more resources for Companies House so that it can become a much more effective watchdog than it currently is.
Stephen Flynn (Aberdeen South) (SNP)
There is something particularly brazen about a Secretary of State whose Government have overseen this very city being referred to as a laundromat saying in his statement that his Government are at the forefront of this agenda. Nothing could be further from the truth. I have a simple question for him on this topic: what financial penalties await those who seek to frustrate the register?
Kwasi Kwarteng
As I have said a couple of times, we did lead the way on SWIFT. I think that has been very effective in terms of the response of the German Government and my understanding is that they have shifted. I make no apology for defending London as a hub of capital, but we need to root out kleptocrats and dirty money.
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)
It is outrageous that the Government are only just introducing measures to deal with the £100 billion a year of illicit finance that this country, and especially the City, is awash with. Can the Secretary of State say how many of the 30 or so outstanding actions from the Government’s own 2019 to 2022 economic crime plan will be achieved by the actions he has identified today?
Kwasi Kwarteng
We are making very good progress on all those cases, but I bring to the hon. Lady’s attention the fact that the reform of Companies House that we are mooting is the first time in 200 years that it has been reformed in this way. I also highlight that we have led the way in the debate on SWIFT and on transparency in the international arena. Ministers from around the world are engaging with us directly on the effective measures we are bringing about.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
Can the Secretary of State confirm that any new legislation will make the beneficial ownership of all assets in the UK openly available for view and scrutiny, in a similar way to the Land Registry?
Kwasi Kwarteng
As I have said, we are bringing in a Bill and there will be plenty of scope to examine it and make amendments. I look forward to the hon. Lady’s engagement on that.
Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)
What the Secretary of State is proposing on a property register sounds very weak and very slow. There are billions in dirty money circulating on the London property market behind shell companies. By the time he has identified corrupt owners, the properties will probably have already been transferred. He also says nothing about seizing assets and imposing criminal penalties. Why is he not freezing assets and transfers now, pending disclosure?
Kwasi Kwarteng
The hon. Gentleman is experienced enough a parliamentarian to know that the idea of freezing assets is outside the scope of this legislation—indeed, it is outside the scope of my Department. The Government are looking at a range of other measures that may well reflect the concerns he has described.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
I thank the Business Secretary for coming to the House, making his statement and answering questions from hon. Members for about three quarters of an hour.
Points of Order
(2 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)
On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Earlier this afternoon, in response to the Home Secretary’s very confusing statement on sanctuary arrangements for Ukraine, I asked her whether the elderly Ukrainian mother of a British resident who was prevented by Border Force from travelling from Paris to the UK to join her daughter would now, as a result of this announcement, be able today to return to Gare du Nord to come to the UK. The Home Secretary said, very simply and clearly, “Yes”, which was welcome.
However, the Home Office has since clarified that the arrangements apply only to immediate family—that is, spouses, partners, children under 18 and those in need of care—and do not include elderly parents. In this case, the Ukrainian widow is therefore not covered. Indeed, I have spoken to her daughter this afternoon; she is still waiting in Paris and has been told that there is no family visa route that she can apply for. She is attempting still to find other, quite costly, ways to try to rejoin her daughter here, perhaps through tourist visas instead.
This is totally confusing. Either the Home Office website and the information given to journalists this afternoon about the policy are completely wrong, or the Home Secretary gave wrong information to the House. That is not fair on Ukrainians who are trying to find shelter and solidarity and to rejoin family. Given that Home Office Ministers are in the House all evening, Mr Deputy Speaker, could you endeavour to encourage them to get some clarity for the sake of Ukrainian families? Do the arrangements only cover immediate relatives, as defined by the Home Office, or are elderly parents included? Can elderly parents rejoin their sons and daughters who are resident and settled in the UK?
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
I am grateful to the right hon. Member for giving me forward notice of her point of order. Clearly, this is an incredibly distressful time for so many people, but the Chair does not audit the accuracy of what hon. Members, including Ministers, say in the Chamber. Having said that, those on the Government Front Bench will have heard the right hon. Member’s point of order and, if the record needs to be corrected, I am sure it will be. Should a Home Office Minister or the Home Secretary want to come to the House and make a statement later today or at some stage in the future, the House will be notified in the usual way.
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I apologise for not having given you prior notice; the reason is that, while the Secretary of State has announced emergency legislation for tomorrow, as far as I am aware we have had no business statement changing tomorrow’s business, and I do not know how amendments will be made. Will a statement be made today so that the House will know how it can deal with tomorrow’s urgent business?
Mr Deputy Speaker
I will just check with the people who know what is going on. It may well be that there will be a business statement either later today or very soon, in order to facilitate the business that the Secretary of State has announced.
The Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Kwasi Kwarteng)
Further to that point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. The Bill will be introduced but Second Reading will not happen tomorrow.
Kwasi Kwarteng
Further to that point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. As my hon. Friend knows, there are three different stages to a Bill—introduction, publication and then Second Reading and further stages—so Second Reading will not be happening tomorrow.
Mr Deputy Speaker
Now I know what an umpire at Wimbledon feels like. I think we will leave it there and move on. Lords Amendments Time for conclusion of proceedings Nos. 2, 70, 72, 114 to 116, 141, 142, 3 to 57, 59, 60, 108 to 113, 117, 147, 153 and 154 Two hours after the commencement of proceedings on consideration of Lords Amendments Nos. 1, 58, 107, 61 to 69, 94 to 106, 121 to 140, 144, 145, 149 to 152 and 155 to 161 Four hours after the commencement of those proceedings Nos. 71, 74, 88, 73, 80 to 82, 87, 89, 146, 143, 75 to 79, 83 to 86, 90 to 93, 118 to 120 and 148 Six hours after the commencement of those proceedings
Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill: Carry-over Extension
Ordered,
That the period on the expiry of which proceedings on the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill shall lapse in pursuance of paragraph (13) of Standing Order No. 80A shall be extended by 51 days until 28 April 2022.—(Kit Malthouse.)
Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill: Programme (No. 3)
Ordered,
That the following provisions shall apply to the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill for the purpose of supplementing the Order of 16 March 2021 in the last Session of Parliament (Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill: Programme), as varied by the Order of 5 July 2021 in this Session (Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill: Programme (No. 2)):
Consideration of Lords Amendments
(1) Proceedings on consideration of Lords Amendments shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion six hours after their commencement.
The proceedings—
(a) shall be taken in the order shown in the first column of the following Table, and
(b) shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the times specified in the second column of the Table.
Subsequent stages
(3) Any further Message from the Lords may be considered forthwith without any Question being put.
(4) The proceedings on any further Message from the Lords shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement.—(Kit Malthouse.)
Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill
Monday 28th February 2022
(2 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead 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: Commons Consideration of Lords Amendments as at 28 February 2022 - (28 Feb 2022)
19:57 - The House divided: - Ayes: 314 / Noes: 190 - Question accordingly agreed to.
20:12 - The House divided: - Ayes: 315 / Noes: 189 - Question accordingly agreed to.
20:25 - The House divided: - Ayes: 304 / Noes: 198 - Question accordingly agreed to.
21:50 - The House divided: - Ayes: 314 / Noes: 190 - Question accordingly agreed to.
00:00 - The House divided: - Ayes: 288 / Noes: 238 - Question accordingly agreed to.
00:00 - The House divided: - Ayes: 289 / Noes: 237 - Question accordingly agreed to.
00:00 - The House divided: - Ayes: 298 / Noes: 236 - Question accordingly agreed to.
00:41 - The House divided: - Ayes: 292 / Noes: 238 - Question accordingly agreed to.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
I must draw the House’s attention to the fact that financial privilege is engaged in Lords amendments 59 and 60. If Lords amendments 59 and 60 are agreed to, I will cause the customary entry waiving Commons financial privilege to be entered in the Journal.
Clause 7
Duties to collaborate and plan to prevent and reduce serious violence
The Minister for Crime and Policing (Kit Malthouse)
I beg to move, That this House agrees with Lords amendment 2.
Mr Deputy Speaker
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Lords amendment 70, Government motion to disagree, and Government amendments (a) and (b) in lieu.
Lords amendment 72, and Government motion to disagree.
Lords amendments 114 to 116, Government motions to disagree, and Government amendments (a) and (b) in lieu.
Lords amendment 141, and Government motion to disagree.
Lords amendment 142, and Government motion to disagree.
Lords amendments 3 to 57, 59, 60, 108 to 113, 117, 147, 153 and 154.
Kit Malthouse
I propose first to talk about some of the key changes made to the Bill in the other place as a result of amendments brought forward by the Government, then to turn to the Lords amendments with which, sadly, the Government disagree for various reasons.
The Bill as passed by this House already included a number of significant measures to tackle violence against women and girls, and we have added to them during the Bill’s passage in the Lords. Lords amendments 13 to 15 make it clear in the Bill that domestic abuse and sexual violence are included within the meaning of the term “violence” for the purposes of the serious violence duty. It was always our wish that the serious violence duty should be all-encompassing, but following representations by Baroness Burton and others who were concerned to emphasise its importance, we are happy to agree to this being included in the Bill. The accompanying statutory guidance, which will be subject to public consultation, will make it clear that local areas, in drawing up their strategies to prevent and reduce serious violence, can and should include measures to tackle domestic abuse and sexual violence based on their local assessments.
With regard to Lords amendments 34 to 55, on Report in this House the Minister of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Louth and Horncastle (Victoria Atkins), reiterated the Government’s commitment to ensuring that the provisions of the Bill relating to the extraction of information from electronic devices are accompanied by strong privacy safeguards. These Lords amendments deliver on that commitment. Among other things, they add a new clause setting out the conditions that must be met in order for a device user to be treated as giving agreement to the extraction of information. These changes will increase victim confidence and ensure that the individual’s right to privacy is respected and placed at the centre of all investigations.
Lords amendment 56 will create new offences to criminalise recording images of, or operating equipment to observe, a person at a time when they are breastfeeding, without the person’s consent or reasonable belief that they consent. On Report, the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy) made a powerful case for introducing such offences. Although at that time we made it clear that the Law Commission is currently reviewing the law in this area, we do believe that this amendment will ensure that parents are protected from non-consensual photography and can feel safe to breastfeed in public, ahead of the publication of the Law Commission report later this year.
Another compelling argument was made on Report last July by the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) and my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton), who is sadly not in his place, to address concerns that the time limit for bringing prosecutions for common assault or battery involving domestic abuse is unfairly short. Currently a prosecution for common assault or battery must be brought within six months of an offence occurring. However, victims of domestic abuse may often, understandably, take some time to report an offence, leaving the police and the Crown Prosecution Service with little time to conduct an investigation and prosecute the offender. In some instances, the time limit has expired before the victim even approaches the police. To address this issue, Lords amendment 57 will extend the time limit for commencing a prosecution for common assault or battery involving domestic abuse so that the six months runs not from the date when the offence occurred but from when it is formally reported to the police through either a witness statement or a video recording made with a view to use as evidence. A prosecution must be commenced within an overall limit of two years of the offence. This amendment will make a real difference to victims of domestic abuse and stop perpetrators hiding behind an unfair limitation on victims’ ability to seek justice.
Lords amendments 59 and 60 will ensure that the police’s processing of personal data in non-crime hate incident records is made subject to a code of practice issued by the Home Secretary. The amendments will address concerns raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies), also sadly not in his place, in this House and by Lord Moylan and others in the other place by bringing parliamentary oversight to this process. The College of Policing is currently responsible for producing non-statutory hate crime operational guidance. The Government’s statutory code of practice, once in effect, will replace the relevant section of this guidance on non-crime hate incidents. The college’s guidance will remain in place until the new code enters into effect. When drafting the code, the Government will work closely with policing partners, including the College of Policing and the National Police Chiefs’ Council, to make sure that it will respect the operational importance of recording non-crime hate incidents to help to keep vulnerable people and communities safe while balancing the need to protect freedom of expression.
Let me turn to the Lords amendments that the Government cannot support—at least, not in their current form. Lords amendment 70 would require the Secretary of State to establish a review of the prevalence of, and the response of the criminal justice system to, the offence of administering a substance with intent under section 61 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003—commonly known as spiking. The Government share widespread concern about the offence that has prompted this amendment, whether spiking of drinks or spiking by needles, and we are taking the issue extremely seriously. I particularly commend my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham) for bringing forward his recent ten-minute rule Bill on this issue. Everyone should be able to enjoy a night out without fearing that they will be a victim of this dreadful crime.
In September 2021, the Home Secretary asked the National Police Chiefs Council to review urgently the extent and scale of needle spiking. It is clear from what the police have told us that this behaviour is not exclusively linked to sexual activity and that it demands a response that goes beyond the criminal justice system. We have therefore tabled our amendment in lieu of Lords amendment 70, which is drafted more broadly than the Lords amendment and is not linked to any specific offence. It will require the Home Secretary to prepare a report on the nature and prevalence of spiking and to set out the steps that the Government have taken or intend to take to address it. In this context we are also exploring the need for a specific criminal offence to target spiking directly, as my hon. Friend recommended in his ten-minute rule Bill. The Home Secretary will be required to publish this report and lay it before Parliament within 12 months of Royal Assent. In preparing the report we will want to take into account the findings of the current inquiry by the Home Affairs Committee. This approach addresses the concerns that prompted the Lords amendment but in a way that enables the Government to consider the issue in the round.
Lords amendment 72 seeks, in common parlance, to make misogyny a hate crime. Hon. Members may be aware that in December last year, at the Government’s request, the Law Commission provided recommendations on the reform of hate crime laws. Looking very carefully at this issue, it found that adding sex or gender to hate crime laws may prove “more harmful than helpful”, as well as “counterproductive”. The principal reason is that it could make it more difficult to prosecute the most serious crimes that harm women and girls, including rape and domestic abuse. Obviously such an awful unintended consequence is not the intention of those who tabled the amendment in the other place. As such, the amendment seeks to exclude certain offences where the risks to their prosecution are acute.
The Law Commission looked at every possible model and unfortunately also found the one proposed in the amendment unsatisfactory. Time is short and I do not want to dwell on all its problems, but the review identified that to reflect sex and gender in some offences but not others would make the law very complex and imply that very harmful excluded offences such as rape are less serious, would result in tokenistic coverage of many misogynistic crimes, and would create new inequalities in how different groups are protected by hate crime laws.
Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)
The inner house of the Court of Session, Scotland’s highest court, has recently clarified that in the Equality Act 2010 “sex” does indeed have the meaning set out in section 11—that is, that it refers to one or other sex, male or female. Does the Minister share my concern that this amendment has that definition of “sex” but the word “gender” is undefined? Is he aware that many feminists feel that gender is not the same as sex and that in fact gender is a tool of sex-based oppression?
Kit Malthouse
I acknowledge some of the problems with the amendment that the hon. and learned Lady sets out. I think it is Women’s Aid that rejected the amendment and said that it would do more harm than good on the basis that she outlined: it is not specific about targeting crimes against women in particular.
Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)
I would like to correct the record, because that is not what Women’s Aid has said.
The Minister highlighted the issue of a carve-out as being the reason why the Government do not believe in adding sex or gender to ensure that any perpetrator who attacks a woman or someone they believe to be a woman can be captured by the offences in question. I think we would all agree that is important, but he argues that the carve-out is not the right thing to do. Does he also make the same argument then that it is tokenistic to carve out offences based on racial or religious hatred, which we already do in our legislation? We have carve-outs. Stephen Lawrence’s killers were not prosecuted for a hate crime, but we recognise the hate behind it. Why does he think that women do not deserve the same protection?
Kit Malthouse
I had hoped to avoid the approach that the hon. Lady takes. Of course we believe that women deserve strong protection—we absolutely do—but all I can say to the hon. Lady is that the Law Commission, in looking at the evidence over a three-year period and consulting widely across the sector and society more generally, found that the additional complexity was likely to make it harder to prosecute these crimes. I ask her to reflect on the fact that in proceedings in this House, she put her name to an amendment compelling the Government to adopt the Law Commission’s proposals in full. I am not sure why she has now reversed that position, but I hope she appreciates that we are as dedicated to and interested in the safety of women as she is.
Sir Robert Buckland (South Swindon) (Con)
My right hon. Friend and I worked hard on the issues underpinning the Bill and on the Bill itself. May I press him on Lords amendment 72? I accept that the amendment is defective. It does not create a new offence, however, but is about aggravating factors in sentencing. I commend to him the positive findings of the Law Commission, namely its proposal to develop an offence of street harassment, albeit with a sexual motive. I take issue with that—I think it needs to be a wider offence of street harassment, because we need to deal with wider issues than sexual motive—but I press the Minister to commit the Government to getting on with work on the Law Commission’s important recommendation to create a new offence based not just on racial hatred, but on hatred motivated against gender or sex.
Kit Malthouse
My right hon. and learned Friend is right that we need to have a serious look at the suite of offences used in this area. He will know that many street harassment offences are classified as some kind of public order offence. That causes a number of problems, not least the lack of transparency with the police’s analysis of what is going on out there in our streets.
There are three further areas of work that we want to turn to, as we sadly reject this amendment, well motivated though it absolutely is, on the basis of the Law Commission’s evidence. Those three areas are first, as my right hon. and learned Friend says, to adopt the Law Commission’s other proposal of looking at a specific offence of public sexual harassment, as my neighbour, my right hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Southampton North (Caroline Nokes), asked for today. Personally speaking, I think it could be a new offence, but it could be some amendment to public order offences to allow us to deal with this particular issue.
The second area is police recording. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for South Swindon has raised the issue a number of times with me outside the Chamber, and he is right that we need to look carefully at the forces recording data at the moment, what they are learning from it and what impact it has, because the Law Commission was equivocal about the value of that recording. I am not convinced personally, and I would like to understand what impact it is having from a policing point of view.
The third area of work I would like to see is encouragement of reporting. One of the key things, whatever the offence type, is that we know a lot of women, particularly in the public realm, who are harassed do not have the confidence to come forward or do not think anything will happen if they do. I am pleased that the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Redditch (Rachel Maclean), is today launching an extensive communications campaign called “Enough”, encouraging bystanders and peers to report this kind of behaviour to the police.
Sir Robert Buckland
I have listened with care to my right hon. Friend, and I accept what he says. I am encouraged by what he says about development of the law. May I press him on reporting and recording? As part of the Domestic Abuse Act 2021 process, we undertook to ensure that recording was rolled out nationally. That was more than a year ago. For that to happen, there must be proper expedition on this. It is no good saying that there is not a particular offence on which the police can hang this recording. We need to get on with it, because the time is coming, sooner or later, when there will be a relevant offence, and I would rather that the Government were ahead of the pack rather than behind.
Kit Malthouse
I completely agree with my right hon. and learned Friend, and I am as impatient as he is, not least because I am keen to kick off some analysis programmes looking at particular patterns of behaviour in particular postcodes. We men all know women who have been subject to this kind of abuse out in the public realm. My personal theory is that this sort of behaviour is not something a man does once. Much of this offending is repeated, and there are prolific offenders in particular neighbourhoods who could and should be identified, and they would be if we were better able to record it and had more transparency from a public order offence point of view. That is what we will be committing to do.
Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)
I am grateful for what the Minister has said, particularly about the early amendment on spiking. On this particular offence of misogyny, can we have it on the record in this House that no one in this House has any time for misogyny? The issue is purely one of law and what will be most effective. Everything that my right hon. Friend the Minister has said in answer to my neighbour, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for South Swindon (Sir Robert Buckland), is extremely relevant. Does my right hon. Friend recognise that some police forces, such as my own—Gloucestershire constabulary—are recording data on this and believe it to be useful? I hope he agrees that that could be an encouraging form of evidence towards the aggravating factor he referred to earlier.
Kit Malthouse
I completely agree with my hon. Friend, and he is absolutely right that we need to look carefully at the recording patterns and what they are telling forces such as Gloucestershire about how they can and should intervene in particular neighbourhoods. We then need to look to other forces exhibiting the same patterns of offending, but not necessarily recording it, so that we can act to spread this kind of practice more widely.
I am encouraged by my hon. Friend’s sense of cross-party enthusiasm for this issue. I know that some in the House—I am not sure necessarily anybody present here—would seek to make it a political issue, but as the person who devised and published the first ever violence against women and girls strategy in the entire country when I was deputy Mayor for policing at City Hall, I am proud of the work I have been able to do in this particular area over the past decade or so, and I hope I will do it for many years to come. This issue breaches all divides, because we are all sons, brothers, sisters, fathers—whatever it might be—and we all know people who have been subjected to this crime.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
The amendment to the hate legislation does not create a new offence, and the Minister will be aware of that. I had a long discussion with the Law Commission last week, and it admits that not all women’s rights organisations agree with its view. Many organisations, such as the Fawcett Society and the Young Women’s Trust, support this amendment.
Kit Malthouse
All I can do for the hon. Lady is quote from the Law Commission’s report, which I assume she has read, extensive though it is. It specifically states:
“We recognise that many people may disagree with our conclusion and find it difficult to understand given the prevalence of sex and gender-based violence and abuse…our recommendations have been decided…on the strength of the evidence and policy considerations before us.”
I hope she will understand that notwithstanding the division of opinion there may be, the fact that the Law Commission—after three years, and with weighty legal minds—disagrees with this move, along with large women’s organisations, such as Rape Crisis, means that in all conscience we cannot support an amendment that they say will make things worse. We have to commit ourselves to making things better and by other means, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for South Swindon (Sir Robert Buckland) has pointed out. That is exactly what I am doing today.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Minister for all his work. I am concerned about how ladies and girls will have confidence in the processes coming forward. He has clearly said that the amendment is not acceptable because he feels that, legislatively, the Government are addressing those issues, but the people who speak to me—the ladies and gentlemen, and the young girls in particular—need to have confidence in the processes. I do not see that, so how will he legislatively ensure that that is there for ladies and girls?
Kit Malthouse
I completely sympathise with the hon. Gentleman’s sentiment. Having been in this House for nearly seven years, I have often realised that we mistake the introduction of legislation for actually doing something out there on the street. Although we can and should legislate to make things crimes and to better dispose of them, we actually need somebody to take off their bicycle clips, walk out of the office or station and do something different out there on the street to make those of us in society who feel unsafe—particularly, sadly, women and girls—feel safer.
We are trying to give concrete life to that through schemes such as the safer streets fund, where we are specifically spending money on public realm improvements, whether that is CCTV or better street lighting, in areas where women and girls feel unsafe. I hope that the huge increase in police numbers that we are seeing at the moment will see more uniforms out there on the street in those areas where women and girls feel unsafe. There are wider cultural issues that we also need to address. The hon. Gentleman is right to point out, however, that legislation will only take us so far and that what is required is action out there on the streets.
Lloyd Russell-Moyle (Brighton, Kemptown) (Lab/Co-op)
It sounds a bit like the Minister is saying that the words we say in here do not really matter, but the legislation that we pass here, including making misogyny an aggravating factor, sends messages to people out there. When I sat on the Committee of the Voyeurism (Offences) Act 2019, the Government were clear that although other laws could be used to stop the awful practice of upskirting, it needed to be in a clear law against it. During the passage of that Act, they promised that they would look at and bring forward a measure to make misogyny an aggravating factor in hate crime. Why are they delaying on the promises that they have made?
Kit Malthouse
I am sorry, but I am not sure that the Government ever made that promise. [Interruption.] Hold on, I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman has read the Law Commission’s report. Has he read it?
Lloyd Russell-Moyle
I have read the section that the Minister is referring to.
Kit Malthouse
The Law Commission report is unequivocal about the dangers that it may present. The hon. Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy) is shaking her head, but the report’s conclusion says:
“We recommend that sex or gender should not be added as a protected characteristic for the purposes of aggravated offences and enhanced sentencing.”
That is the specific recommendation in the report. The Law Commission has much greater and more skilled legal minds than mine, and other groups do not support the amendment.
I realise that the issue is of great importance to hon. Members, and we must all reflect on the feelings of insecurity that women and girls feel in the public realm, but we are being told by the experts—by the Law Commission—that the measure is likely to do more damage than good. That is not necessarily a substitute for us not doing anything and I have outlined what more we may do, but the point is that we have to listen to the experts. To be honest, I am quite surprised that a party led by a former Director of Public Prosecutions would seek to ignore the Law Commission.
Stella Creasy
I would like to correct the record, because the Minister seemed to suggest that I was against what the Law Commission has said. He is asking all hon. Members whether they have read it so it is worth checking whether he has, because it says that there is a case for there being offences motivated by misogyny—for example, stirring up incitement or public sexual harassment. Those of us who have constituents such as Muslim women who get attacked in the street for being both Muslim and a woman recognise that misogyny is about not just sex but power, so we need offences to tackle that.
Does the Minister recognise that if the Law Commission is saying that there are offences motivated by misogyny, the risk of not including it as an aggravating factor is that we could end up in a whack-a-mole situation? For example, we could end up saying, “In these cases of incitement, what is incitement? In these cases, what might be sexual harassment?” It would be simpler to include it and it would recognise what the police are telling us. I stress that the police are telling us that they want this data and they want the courts to back them. They want misogyny to be treated in the same way as racial or religious hatred, because they see it driving crimes on our streets. I am pleased to hear that he is concerned for women, but women have had concern for donkey’s years. What we now want is action.
Kit Malthouse
I can appreciate the hon. Lady’s requirement for action. As I say, action is what we are trying to put in place. To be clear, again, we are not saying that the fact that we are declining to make this Lords amendment means that we should not do anything. As I said to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for South Swindon, there are further offences that we need to consider.
In fact, the Law Commission’s report went further and said that if we were to introduce that offence, it would complement other work on offences that may be coming forward, such as cyber-flashing, which my right hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mrs Miller) has raised several times in the House; rape threats; and intimate image abuse. There are several areas where we need to consider interlocking offences, and that work will take time beyond this Bill to get right. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Southampton North urged us, we are committed to adopting both recommendations of the Law Commission, and that is exactly the work that we intend to do in the months to come.
Sara Britcliffe (Hyndburn) (Con)
Does the Minister agree that it is important for Opposition Members to understand what Rape Crisis England & Wales has said, which is that:
“Rape prosecutions are already at an all-time low, and we believe adding sex/gender as a protected characteristic would further complicate the judicial process and make it even harder to secure convictions.”?
Kit Malthouse
My hon. Friend has put her finger on the button of the problem. It is not that we are unsympathetic to the issue—of course we are not. I just do not see how, given the views of large organisations and of the Law Commission, somebody could, with any conscience, vote for something that they are being told might be damaging. I understand that the hon. Member for Walthamstow is exercised by the issue—as are all hon. Members present—but we hope to address it in other ways and to look seriously at the further offence that my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for South Swindon has urged us to look at and bring it forward in future.
Joanna Cherry
In support of the English Law Commission—hon. Members should be aware that the legislation applies only in England and Wales—in Scotland, when the Scottish Government were looking at introducing hate crime legislation, they rejected misogyny as an aggravating factor after submissions from Rape Crisis, Women’s Aid and Engender in Scotland. Baroness Helena Kennedy is now chairing a panel to look at that with a view to reporting. There are arguments on either side.
I am most concerned that if we are to have an aggravation based on sex or gender, gender must be defined. We already have a protected characteristic of transgender identity, which is very important, but in this Lords amendment, sex is defined but not gender. Does the Minister agree that, in future, we should define what we mean by gender so that people know what it means?
Kit Malthouse
There are a number of definitional issues within the Lords amendment that produce fatal flaws, but I absolutely commend the spirit behind it. It comes from a good place and from a concern that we share. Given that legal expertise advises us against it and advises us to pursue another course, that is our intention and that is what we will do.
I turn now to Lords amendments 114 to 116, which relate to the piloting and national roll-out of serious violence reduction orders. I assure the House that we want to pilot them robustly, which is why the assessment of the pilot will be conducted by an independent evaluator and the Government will thoroughly consider the report’s findings before any decision is made to roll them out across the whole of England and Wales.
The report of the pilot will be laid before Parliament, but commencement regulations are not generally subject to any parliamentary procedure and the Government do not agree that that approach should be changed for SVROs. To assuage the concerns that have been raised in relation to the pilot, amendments (a) and (b) in lieu of Lords amendments 114 to 116 will set out in the Bill a non-exhaustive list of matters that must be addressed in the report of the pilot.
Lords amendments 141 and 142 seek to create two new offences to tackle so-called sex for rent. We are clear that exploitation through sex for rent has no place in our society and is a revolting phenomenon. We therefore fully understand the motivation behind these amendments. There are existing offences in the Sexual Offences Act 2003 that can and have been used to prosecute this practice successfully, but we do recognise the need to do more to stamp out this abhorrent practice and to support those at risk of exploitation.
Dame Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
On the consultation that the Minister will undertake, is it a very targeted consultation on the specific offence of sex for rent, or does it recognise the sexual exploitation of women in other areas and broaden it out to prostitution more generally?
Kit Malthouse
I am grateful to the Chair of the Home Affairs Committee. I cannot give her a definition as it stands, but I am happy to write to her about the scope of the consultation. If she wishes to make representations about the scope, I am sure we will take them into account. However, we are very focused on the notion of a specific offence, so my assumption is that the consultation will be relatively specific.
Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP)
It does sound, from what the Minister has shared, that this is seen solely through the prism of advertisements online—where there is a suggestion of sex for rent, but through an online medium—but is that right? Will any suggested proposal brought forward in this consultation cover media outside the online sphere?
Kit Malthouse
We do believe that the online harms Bill will cover the vast majority of the offending where this is advertised, and I have to say that the vast majority of that these days does seem to be online. However, the hon. Member raises a very good point, and I will make sure that the team putting the consultation together consider whether we should include that in the scope of the consultation and if a further offence is needed.
Janet Daby
I thank the Minister for giving way on that point. Shelter states that over 30,000 women since the beginning of the pandemic have been pestered by landlords to exchange sex for a roof over their heads. Does the Minister not think that there is more the Government should be doing to move this forward? How long is the consultation period, and what will happen in the meantime?
Kit Malthouse
As I say, there are already offences being committed in those circumstances, and we have had successful prosecutions in exactly the circumstances the hon. Member outlines. Anybody who has been subjected to that kind of criminality should, I hope, feel in a position to report it. However, we need to look at whether there is scope for a more specific offence in this area, because at the moment some of the offending is dealt with through the prostitution legislation, which may not be entirely appropriate. The consultation that we will undertake before the summer recess will run for the normal period, and I hope we will then bring forward expedited legislation, possibly in the same vehicle in which we bring forward the further offences on street harassment. Let us see how we get on.
The other place has proposed some welcome improvements to the Bill, but it has also put forward some amendments that, while often well meaning and extremely well motivated, I am afraid we cannot commend to the House for the various reasons I have set out. I hope that the House will join me, as we support these various amendments, in sorting out what works and what does not, so that we can all move forward in this important area of policy.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Order. As everybody can see, the Lords amendments are in three groups. Please speak only to the Lords amendments in group 1 and do not stray into groups 2 and 3, as there will be opportunities to speak about those Lords amendments later.
Sarah Jones (Croydon Central) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for his speech. He comes late to this party—he was not part of the Committee stage—and he has done well to catch up at this point.
We believe parts 3 and 4 of the Bill represent a power grab that bans peaceful protests and compounds inequalities, which is why we voted against the Bill in its entirety on Third Reading, but we also think that this Bill is a huge wasted opportunity. With crime up, prosecutions down, victims losing faith and criminals getting away with their crimes, there has never been a more crucial time to get to grips with law and order. Throughout the passage of the Bill, we have urged the Government to use this opportunity to move further and faster to tackle the epidemic of violence against women and girls.
Time and again, however, this Government have failed to act with the urgency that this epidemic requires. During the passage of the Bill, the Government have already rejected minimum sentences for rape and stalking, our plan to make street harassment a crime and our plans to protect victims with proper legal advice, but we still have time tonight, thanks to our friends in the other place, to make some changes. I urge the House to consider two Lords amendments in this group that the Government are rejecting that would make a real different to women’s lives.
I will start with sex for rent. Lords amendment 141 introduces a new offence of requiring or accepting sexual relations as a condition of accommodation. There are few things more horrific than someone using their power as a landlord or an agent to get sex. Predators advertise sex for rent blatantly. We can see in internet searches hundreds of adverts offering rooms or beds for free to young people, usually women, in return for sex. I understand the Government saying that they are going to look at this and potentially act at some point in the future, but women are being exploited all over the UK now and they cannot wait for another long Government consultation. As my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham East (Janet Daby) has pointed out—the Minister needs to talk to Shelter to understand this better—the impact of the pandemic means that more people, especially women, are facing financial hardship, which is making them vulnerable to this vile exploitation.
Janet Daby
I thank my hon. Friend for making such a fantastic speech. Does she agree with me that there needs to be a specific offence to punish landlords who engage in this awful practice of exploitation through sex for rent?
Sarah Jones
I absolutely do agree with my hon. Friend, and that is what we are trying to achieve tonight. This is not overly complicated, and I think it is staggering, when the Government are introducing legislation far faster in other cases, that they will not support the Lords amendment—and women—in this way.
The second opportunity we have, thanks to the Lords, is Lords amendment 72, which would add prejudice based on sex and gender to hate crime legislation. This would make misogyny a hate crime, which we have talked about so much already tonight. I know that the Law Commission has some concerns, but this is a simple and straightforward step that will increase public awareness, improve victims’ confidence—crucially—in reporting, and enhance the way the police respond to violence against women and misogyny. The symbolism of this is so important. We were all so shocked by the Independent Office for Police Conduct report into Charing Cross station and the misogyny in those messages that we never thought we would see in the police.
Craig Whittaker (Calder Valley) (Con)
Would the hon. Lady agree with me that introducing this will require an extra burden of proof to be established through the court process, which as a result may actually make things worse for those reporting a crime?
Sarah Jones
I understand what the hon. Member is saying, but as my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy) said, there is a carve-out clause particularly designed to satisfy that concern. I believe that distinguishing between serious sexual violence crimes and other forms of crime that may be enacted with a misogynistic intent would solve that problem.
These kinds of misogynistic attitudes and this kind of behaviour are more widespread in society than we care to think. We must be absolutely intolerant of it, and the hate law speaks to that. Such attitudes erode the very fabric of society and we should collectively reject them.
Joanna Cherry
I share the hon. Lady’s horror of misogyny, but I do not understand why although “sex” is defined in the amendment, “gender” is not. What does she understand by the term “gender” in the amendment? Why is it not defined?
Sarah Jones
I understand the point that the hon. and learned Lady is making. The offences are motivated by hostility towards the sex or gender of the victim, and the amendment is designed to be as inclusive as possible, but I hear what she says. Refuge and some other women’s organisations have published a good briefing that tackles some of these issues, and perhaps we could have a conversation about it afterwards. I think her concerns are unfounded, but I understand the point she makes. These issues are complex and difficult, and we must make sure we get them right.
Joanna Cherry
But surely as legislators, if we use a word we have to define it. We all know that there have been problems with conflating sex and gender. The amendment clearly states “sex or gender” and since “sex” is defined, as one would expect, by reference to section 11 of the Equality Act 2010, surely we can define what we mean by “gender”. If we cannot define what we mean by “gender”, why are we including it as an aggravation?
Sarah Jones
The aim of the amendment is to try to make misogyny a hate crime in whatever form it comes, and to be as inclusive as possible in that definition.
Stella Creasy
Does my hon. Friend agree that given that “gender” is defined in legislation—indeed, the Government rather helpfully defined it in their consultation document, so we have a definition of “gender”—it is therefore important that we focus on perpetrators? The point behind hate crime is that I could be a victim of antisemitic abuse whether I am Jewish or not. It is about the motivation of the perpetrator. By recognising that sex or gender can motivate hostility based on misogyny, we are ensuring that no perpetrator could have a defence where they demean a victim, and no perpetrator can avoid that hostility being reported because somebody wants to put them in the trans box rather than in the misogyny box. The amendment is inclusive, but it ensures that it protects women, whether they were born or become one, using definitions that already exist in law.
Sarah Jones
I feel as if there should be a three-way conversation in another place to tackle some of these questions. But they are real questions, and my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow has campaigned on this issue for a very long time, and it is important that we listen to what she says.
Wera Hobhouse
Perhaps I can help out and say that, although no legislation is a silver bullet, this measure would make powerful progress and take a powerful stance against certain attitudes that are so prevalent and stare us in the face. We should send a signal that such attitudes are unacceptable, in the same way that we have done with other hate crime legislation.
Sarah Jones
The hon. Lady puts it very well, and I completely agree. We have seen with the recording of such crimes in Nottinghamshire and other places that this measure works. It is welcomed by the police, as it is a useful thing for them as well.
Ruth Edwards (Rushcliffe) (Con)
The hon. Lady talks about the importance of symbolism, and I agree with her. Is she concerned that if we were to accept an amendment that exempts domestic abuse and sexual offences from the aggravating element of misogyny, that would be a terrible message to send? They are some of the most serious crimes against women, yet they would be exempt from that aggravating factor in sentencing.
Sarah Jones
I thank the hon. Lady for that intervention, but as my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow said, there is precedent for this with the case of the murderers of Stephen Lawrence.
Ruth Edwards
Just to correct the record, surely the issue was that there was no hate crime legislation to prosecute that murder. It was not that it was specifically carved out.
Sarah Jones
By the time that prosecution happened such legislation was in place, and there is precedent for that. I could point the hon. Lady in the direction of a very good briefing that explains all that in much greater detail, and I would be happy to send that to her.
Tonight we have two opportunities—I mean to touch on them briefly, Mr Speaker—for the House to tackle pernicious practices that have no place in society, and we would support the Government if they chose to back the Lords amendments. I should acknowledge properly the work of the other place on this Bill. Members of the Lords did some terrific work voting late into the night, and we are grateful to them. Hard work and strong arguments by many of my Labour colleagues in the Commons and the Lords have already forced the Government into several defeats and U-turns. Indeed there have been more successful Labour amendments to this Bill than to any other Bill this Parliament.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Order. Members should stand only if they want to take part in debate on the first group of amendments, not the second or third groups. We are time-limited, so perhaps Members could focus on the duration of their speeches as well as on the content, to give an opportunity for other Members to take part.
Caroline Nokes (Romsey and Southampton North) (Con)
As a woman who is perennially in a hurry and terribly impatient, I will ensure that my contribution is blissfully short. There is much in the Bill that I feel encouraged about. As hon. Members might expect, as Chair of the Women and Equalities Committee, I will focus specifically on those areas that affect women.
Inevitably, I will always say to the Government that they have missed opportunities, that they have not gone far enough and that more could have been done. I very much feel that the Bill could have done more, but I very much welcome the amendment on voyeurism and breastfeeding, which was put forward by the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy) and has been accepted by the Government. That is a step in the right direction for women. I also welcome Government amendment (a) in lieu of Lords amendment 70 on spiking. I am the first to acknowledge that spiking is not necessarily a gendered crime, but in many instances it is, and we know that young women in particular fall victim to it. Although there are concerns around spiking for robbery, for other forms of violence and abuse and, indeed, in some cases, just for entertainment, a massive proportion of it is about taking sexual advantage—usually of women.
As hon. Members might expect—it was inevitable—I turn to amendment 72 on misogyny. Consistency is important, so I have always said that I would accept and welcome what the Law Commission recommended in its review. However, if we are to go to its recommendations on misogyny and the complications that it rightly highlighted—this is an incredibly difficult area—we should also look at public sexual harassment, which it has also said should be a specific crime.
I started by saying that I am a woman in a hurry, and I am. I welcome my right hon. Friend the Minister’s comments on what the Government are planning to do on public sexual harassment, but this feels like a missed opportunity. I look for confirmation on whether the specific legislative vehicle—this looks very much like one—will be the victims Bill or something tailored to PSH, because this absolutely matters. If we are to start tackling the cultures that underpin violence against women, we must look at the cultures that mean that some men think it is okay to harass women on the street and on public transport.
Siobhan Baillie (Stroud) (Con)
Girls from Stroud High School got me into their school to talk about the public sexual harassment that they receive—often daily and often in their school uniforms—which is outrageous. Under the “Everyone’s Invited” campaign, many schoolgirls—and schoolboys as well—have reported exactly what they experience. Does my right hon. Friend agree that while the comments that we have heard from the Minister are incredibly positive, we must recognise that the calls for such changes come not just from this place or from adults but from young girls everywhere who are experiencing really tough times?
Caroline Nokes
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It is in our schools that those calls are strongest, which means that young women in their school uniforms are being significantly impacted. They feel scared to walk home alone. They are given advice to stay to well-lit areas, to ensure that they walk in areas with CCTV and to be careful on public transport. Yet again, we are saying, “Girls, be careful,” and not, “Men, don’t do it.” That is why I feel so strongly about specific legislation on public sexual harassment that empowers women to point at behaviours and say, “That is a crime.”
Stella Creasy
I completely agree with everything that the right hon. Member said. It is frustrating as always that, yet again, we are asking women to think about how they keep themselves safe rather than thinking how we stop the perpetrators, let alone the focus being somehow on street lighting, as if these incidents happen only in certain places and spaces. She talks about public sexual harassment. One of the challenges, as the Law Commission admits—I have met and talked to the Law Commission about this—is that not all harassment motivated by misogyny is sexual. I go back to the Muslim women targeted to have their hijabs torn off and disabled women, who are targeted in particular. How can we expand our understanding of how misogyny is driving crimes if we think it is only about sex? Does she agree that we need to find a way to recognise that broader concept of harassment, abuse and incitement, as the Law Commission said should happen but did not come up with legislation?
Caroline Nokes
The hon. Lady makes an important and powerful point. It is imperative that we look at this issue not just in terms of sexual harassment. I apologise for detaining hon. Members a moment longer than I intended, but I want to highlight the case of a constituent who came to see me. She was 23-years-old and had a job in Waitrose pushing trolleys around the car park. She said, “I hate lunch time.” That seemed an odd comment to make, so I asked, “Is it particularly busy at lunch time?” She said, “No. It’s when the white van men turn up.” She told a tale of how, in the depths of winter, when wearing a beanie hat, a puffer coat and a mask—it was at the height of covid—a man walked up to her, put his hands either side of her face and said, “You’re too beautiful to be doing this job.” I have spoken to colleagues in this place who are eminent lawyers— they know much better than me what is criminal and what is not—and asked them, “Where’s the crime?” Not one of them could come up with an actual crime for that. The hon. Lady is therefore right: that was not sex-based; it was just harassment in the same way as we see people stood outside abortion clinics hurling abuse at people going to access those services. We must ensure that abuse directed at women on the grounds of their gender or sex is tackled, and tackled effectively.
The Women and Equalities Committee is about to do an enormous piece of work about the cultures that underpin this problem and hopes to come up with recommendations that the Government will listen to and act on. We want to see legislation that makes women feel safer because they can point at behaviours and say, “That is a specific crime,” that allows perpetrators to look at behaviours and think, “Actually, I shouldn’t do that—I might get in trouble,” and that allows the police and the Crown Prosecution Service to look at behaviours and think, “There’s the crime.”
Richard Graham
On a small point of clarification, my right hon. Friend quite rightly referred to how the vast majority of spiking cases are about men spiking women’s drinks, and there is no question about that, but I am sure she recognises that some cases—I think in particular of the heinous case of Reynhard Sinaga, who was found guilty in Manchester of spiking and raping at least 48 victims man on man—are the other way.
Caroline Nokes
I thank my hon. Friend for that comment. I hope that I did not in any way give the impression that men are not victims, because, yes, they are. When we talk about violence perpetrated against others, sometimes we do not adequately identify the many instances in which young men, and young gay men in particular, can fall victim to such horrific behaviours.
I want to see something on the statute book, and I will press my right hon. Friend the Minister for something quickly. It is not good enough to kick this issue into the long grass and say that we need another review or more consultation. We see that too often. Young women, the girls of the Girl Guides, those from Plan International UK, older women—the Soroptimists have summoned me to tell me that this must be done urgently—and the Women’s Institute all want action. Later this evening, I will attend the event downstairs—it is on now—looking at the Government’s strategy. If we are serious, we must send a clear and powerful message to both victims and perpetrators about what is and is not criminal. Everyone in this House knows a victim; we also all know a perpetrator.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Order. To help those people who have asked about the noisy protest and the right to protest, that is in group 3, not group 1 or 2.
Anne McLaughlin (Glasgow North East) (SNP)
I will keep my comments to Lords amendments concerning the extraction of information from electronic devices. To be clear, it is not that the Scottish National party does not have views about everything else, and it is certainly not that we do not care; it is because provisions on those other matters are applicable to England and Wales only.
The Scottish Government have been working with the UK Government to refine the draft code of practice for the data extraction provisions to account for Scotland's interests. The UK Government have confirmed that the draft code of practice would not be finalised until after the Bill attains Royal Assent to ensure that it is fit for purpose. They have also confirmed that the data extraction provisions will not be commenced in Scotland until the code of practice has been finalised. The Scottish Government are therefore content that the arrangements for the code provide sufficient scope for Scottish input.
We are generally content with the Government amendments, which improve the powers by, for example, starting to define an “agreement” to a digital search, but some are concerned that they do not go far enough to protect privacy rights and access to justice. Digital strip searches are now a common tool for the police and, as Big Brother Watch has said, experience tells us that policy changes and guidance are not enough.
What is required is clear statutory change and retraining. I urge the Government to ensure that that is in place before they consider the widespread use of digital strip searches.
In Scotland, we have concerns about amendments 39, 40 and 44. That needs some further discussion with the Scottish Government. In English law, all children are children until the age of 18, but that is not the legal position in Scotland. The age of legal capacity in Scotland is 16. It certainly does not feel right to us for a nearly-18-year-old to have no say in whether their phone is taken from them and its data extracted.
Mrs Maria Miller (Basingstoke) (Con)
I think, listening objectively to today’s debate, there is an enormous level of agreement on both sides of the House that there is a job of work to be done to protect women against abuse, and that there are different options for how we might achieve that. That is the point at debate: what we do, not whether we need to do something. That is really important to acknowledge. I thank my right hon. Friend the Minister for his opening explanation of the resistance particularly to amendment 72, and I commend my near neighbour in Hampshire, my right hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Southampton North (Caroline Nokes), the Chair of the Women and Equalities Committee, for her excellent and impassioned speech on why we need to do more.
The Lords amendments show that more can be done. Lords amendments 13 and 57 show that the Government can continue to be pressed to do more on these important issues. I am glad to see that they are doing more to extend serious violence duties to include domestic abuse and sex offenders. Lords amendment 57 extending the time limit in the way that it does will significantly help. The real issue is, if we want to tackle the issue of sexual harassment and the abuse of women, how do we do that most effectively? I think Amendment 72 has been looked at in detail by the Law Commission, which has been looking at the issues since 2018. There is, I am afraid to say, widespread support for the Government’s thesis that this is not the right way to tackle the problem.
The Law Commission is very clear that there is demonstrable need for additional law when it comes to supporting and protecting women and girls, and that there is more than ample evidence of the harm that is done. Its real concern is how we tackle this in practice. We have to listen very carefully; otherwise, we risk undoing the good work that has been done. The need for additional law is not under debate; it is the form that that law takes. Sometimes we just have to take a moment, and I think that this is a case in point. We cannot just say, “Something must be done.” We have to ensure that we are doing the right thing. We have to accept the role of the Law Commission in helping us to make law that works in practice. It does not see misogyny being a hate crime as the way to solve the problem that has been so eloquently outlined by hon. Members on both sides of the House. Its concern is not because of a lack of understanding of the problem; it is whether the change that is being proposed will work in practice.
Although I listened very carefully to the interventions of the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy), it concerns me that the solution that is being put forward involves carve-outs for domestic violence and sexual offences, which could in a way suggest, or give people ammunition to say, that those issues are not as connected with misogyny as I am frankly sure that most Members of this House would agree that they are. The concern is not about being able to prove that a crime was motivated by hostility to gender—a point made by the CPS and Rape Crisis. In particular, Rape Crisis said that such an approach would make trials even more complex—an issue brought out by an hon. Member earlier. I also fear trial juries being asked to navigate questions around gender-based hate crime, which frankly we in this House find very difficult to navigate our minds around—all of this leaving people very confused.
I really hope that the Minister, although he may not be able to go much further today, can very shortly tell us much more about what he will be doing on issues that the Women and Equalities Committee has been looking at for more than five years. We did Select Committee reports on sexual harassment in schools back in 2015, in universities, in public spaces, online and in the workplace. This is not a new issue; this has been an issue looked at not only by the Law Commission but by the Select Committee for well over six or seven years. It would be disappointing if the Government were coming back now to say that they will be taking further the idea of public sexual harassment, as if it were a new notion that had just emerged from the ether. It is something that many of us have been looking at, and calling for it to be tackled more effectively, for a number of years.
Perhaps my right hon. Friend the Minister can, when he sums up, indicate in a little more detail how he intends to take forward what I think will be a sensible way of trying to tackle the issue that has been so eloquently talked about in today’s debate. Adding sex or gender into hate crime law may not be the way to tackle things, but there is extensive evidence of how the harm disproportionately impacts women, especially online. The Government have a VAWG strategy, and today they are launching a communications strategy, but too many of us still see deficits in the law when it comes to sexual harassment. There needs to be more focus on prevention by demonstrating across the board that sexual harassment towards women, in the same way that my right hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Southampton North talked about, is a crime that is utterly unacceptable whenever it occurs, at any stage of our lives. Until we get to that stage, all of us will be calling on the Government to take more action.
Stella Creasy
I will start, because I have had an unintended hiatus from being in the Chamber as a result of having to breastfeed a child, by welcoming the Government’s commitment to amendment 56. It is a cross-party amendment, and I pay tribute to Lord Pannick and Baroness Hayman for the work that they did in the House of Lords on it, my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Withington (Jeff Smith), who also led on it, and above all to Julia Cooper, who was a much braver woman than me. I experienced someone taking a photograph of me breastfeeding my child without my permission. She did too, but she challenged the person and went to the police. The police said that there was no protection for her. She started a petition. She took that voice and has turned it into this legislation. We should all be grateful for a woman like that, who stood up.
What Julia faced is what we are also here tonight to talk about on amendment 72. I certainly hope that the Minister, who has come to the debate rather late but I appreciate has come with a deep concern for women’s rights, has been talking to his colleague Lord Wolfson, whose argument against making it illegal to photograph without her consent a woman who was breastfeeding was that a man might be taking pornographic photographs of his wife on a beach and accidentally catch a woman breastfeeding in his camera lens, and that would be terrible. Of course, many of us think for some time about that husband’s discussions with his wife before we think that that is a realistic example.
Time and again on the Bill, we are told that, when it comes to women’s safety, matters are complex. It is put in the “too difficult” box. The trouble for Ministers tonight is that next week will be the anniversary of the murder of Sarah Everard. Since Sarah was murdered, we have had more deaths: the murders of Bibaa and Nicole, and of Sabina. In my constituency, I hear countless stories of violence against women. It is the fierce urgency of now that drives this piece of work. I am sure that the Minister is aware, because he has been asking us repeatedly whether we have read the report of the Law Commission, of its provenance. I was on the upskirting Bill, and the Government agreed to commit to the recommendation of the Law Commission as a result of an amendment that we tabled then, recognising that there were crimes driven by misogyny, and that that was putting women at risk.
It was time to turn the debate around—to stop telling women to keep themselves safe and providing money for lighting, because somehow it is about where they go running, and to start saying that this is about the perpetrators, and holding them to account for what they do. The challenge before the Minister is Lords amendment 72, which, again, is another cross-party effort. I pay tribute to Baroness Newlove, who is a goddess in my mind for her determination to speak up for victims, and Lord Russell, as well as my colleagues on the Government Benches who have been working to look at these issues. We are listening to the police. We are listening to the quarter of police forces that already record sex or gender when it motivates crimes, to help them catch the perpetrators. They recognise that it helps. It helps them to develop the patterns of behaviour.
I gently say to the Minister that when he says the problem is that women do not report, he needs to ask himself, as the policing Minister, not why women are not reporting, but why they do not feel they can come forward to report. It is not about the women; it is about the reporting. It is about the response they get. My colleague, the right hon. Member for Romsey and Southampton North (Caroline Nokes), is absolutely right when she says that everybody knows a victim and everybody probably knows a perpetrator. Many women will have experienced sexual harassment. They will have experienced abuse online, offline and in our daily lives to such an extent that it infuses what we do: the flinch when we come out of a tube station to make sure there is nobody behind us; carrying our keys in our hands; worrying about what our daughter is wearing; and hoping that our son is not one of those people who does it.
The truth for the Minister is that the police are telling us, “Actually, we have a clear policy that helps us to identify people early on.” He is right when he talks about patterns of escalation. Many perpetrators start with what people might think of as lower-level offences. I have to tell the Minister that I have always said I will stop campaigning on this issue when I go to the wedding where the bride gets up and says, “Well, he followed me down the street demanding I get in the back of the van because he wanted to grope me and I thought it was the most romantic thing ever.” It does not happen. What does happen is that that is the daily experience for women across the country and the truth is that the Bill does not offer anything to resolve that. It does not offer anything to back the police, when they say to us that they want to capture that data.
I understand the concern raised about the carve-out and I will come on to that specifically, but we should be very clear that the first thing the amendment would do is record all that data, including domestic abuse and rape, as misogynistic, because it would help to form a pattern. When we talk to the police in the areas where they are recording it, it is not, frankly, the catcalling that people are reporting. It is serious sexual assault, violence against women, rape and abuse, because they have the confidence that the police are going to recognise it for what it is, which is serious violence.
I also say to the Minister gently that he might want to correct the record, because the Law Commission did not look at this very proposal. This proposal is based on the Bertin amendment. The Bertin amendment carves out a definition of serious sexual violence which we did not have, so by its very definition the Law Commission could not have looked at it to consider whether or not it addresses that concern. It is not that we should not record data where crimes are misogynistically motivated, but how we deal with them in sentencing. Carving these offences out does not mean that they are not misogynistic; it means we ensure that the already pitiful sentencing regime does not go any lower.
There is something crucial in the amendment about how it works with the police and the courts, and what the police are telling us in the areas where they are doing this. I see Government Members who have police who are doing it. The police want the courts to back them. They are gathering the data and using it to track perpetrators, finding them early on in their offending careers before we get to the points that people are talking about in the press. They want the courts to back them, just as they back them when it comes to hatred of someone’s skin colour or their religion.
Twenty or 30 years ago, when I was a young woman—a long time ago—there was a culture where things were said on TV and things that people said that we would now rightly recognise as racist or as religious hatred. Hate crime legislation does not just target perpetrators, but cultures. Most of all it changes the culture within the police, because the police forces that are doing this are talking about the mindset change among their members. As a Member for a local community where women have been ignored by the Met police for years, I have to say that that mindset change is something we should all desperately want, so we can recognise the danger when somebody starts following women and how that might escalate. We have all seen it in those reporting histories.
Mrs Miller
I am listening very closely to what the hon. Lady is saying, but the Law Commission was very clear in saying that this would make matters so much more complex, and it worries about how that would affect securing the sort of convictions that I know the hon. Lady and I want to see.
Stella Creasy
I hope the right hon. Member will understand what I am saying. The Law Commission did not look at this amendment, which has learned from the Bertin amendment. [Interruption.] She shakes her head, but the Bertin amendment, which sets out explicitly the offences we would carve out, did not exist during the time of its work. One argument the Law Commission made was with regard to the difficulty of carving those offences out. The amendment builds on where a carve-out can be made.
Stella Creasy
I will happily give way to the Minister. I hope he is not going to tell me again to read the Law Commission review.
Kit Malthouse
This is an important issue and I am grateful to the hon. Lady, but I just wanted to point out to her that the Law Commission said in its consultation paper that it thought it might be possible to overcome the challenges involved in excluding certain violence against women and girls contexts and there would still be value in including sex or gender within hate crime laws for the remaining criminal contexts. It specifically considered the notion of carve-outs. However, following further reflection and analysis, and with the benefit of detailed and thoughtful consultation responses, it now believes that all the possible models to do so create more problems than they solve. So the Law Commission did look specifically at this model of carve-outs, and indeed it specifically considered the option of the full recognition of sex or gender in aggravated offences, with enhanced sentences on the same basis as for other recognised characteristics.
Stella Creasy
I am sorry, but the Minister is conflating two different things here. The Law Commission did not look at the Bertin amendment. What it looked at was whether one might inadvertently downgrade sentencing for rape or domestic abuse by including it within this hierarchy. That is why, for example, Rape Crisis was concerned about a generalist clause. I am sure the Minister has spoken to Rape Crisis since the Law Commission’s report was made. I certainly have. I talked to it about this amendment, and it has been much more positive about it. I hope, if the Minister is quoting Rape Crisis, that he will listen to it when it says that it recognises what is being tried here.
I am not here to say that the Lords amendment is perfect, but I am here to say the because there are other crimes that could be motivated by misogyny, which it is right to recognise within sentencing and to treat as serious—for example, exposure, cyber-flashing, assault or blackmail targeted at disabled women; we see a lot of that in the evidence base—that means that we should dismiss this entirely and say, “Well, we won’t do this at all,” is yet again to ask women to wait for something that will never come. That is the challenge we have here.
The Minister wants to say, “Let’s not politicise it.” I agree. I extend my hand to him to say let us work together to get this right, but let us recognise that misogyny is driving crimes and that the Law Commission has said that. Its arguments were technical ones about how to do the drafting, not about the principle. I hope that the Minister would acknowledge that, because he cannot both argue—
Stella Creasy
That is not what the Minister has said, but I am pleased to hear him say that—[Interruption.] Great. Wonderful—consensus is breaking out, but consensus will not deal with the fact that women right now are at risk and are being harmed. This proposal is helping to improve conviction rates and to track perpetrators in the areas where it is operating.
The Minister will be aware that an amendment to the Bill that became the Domestic Abuse Act 2021 was withdrawn in the other place because Ministers committed to making sure that all police forces would do the reporting, but they have not. We can agree that the reporting is necessary, but it is not sufficient to give the police the backing that they need or to say, “This is about street lighting”. We have to look at how we tackle violence against women and at why and how we could have a carve-out to make this work. That is essentially what an incitement offence would do—
Stella Creasy
I will happily give way to the Minister; I can see him shaking his head and I am keen to hear his male voice about my experience of violence.
Kit Malthouse
I am sorry, but the hon. Lady seems determined to have a fight about this and I really do not want one. She keeps referring to street lighting, but that is one of a suite of things that we need to do generally in the public realm regarding safety. For clarity, I of course acknowledge that there are offences that are motivated by misogyny—I say that clearly, as I did in my opening speech—but this requires a number of approaches and solutions. We are merely saying that the evidence that the Law Commission and other groups put before us is that this particular approach is likely to cause more harm than good. We have committed to look at the other areas that it has highlighted, particularly the crimes that are motivated by misogyny, which I read out from its report. I reassure hon. Members that we are duty-bound to respond to the Law Commission’s report in six months, and we will do so.
Stella Creasy
I hope that the Minister will forgive me if I mention that there are, I think, more than 17 Law Commission reports that have been published since 2010 that the Government have not responded to and acted on—and that is just to look at the Law Commission. He also keeps saying that the Law Commission has looked at this proposal. No—the Law Commission looked at including sex or gender in all instances. It then looked at whether it was possible to have a carve-out, but we did not have the Bertin amendment, which specifically identified the offences in question and helped to shape this Lords amendment.
The Minister has said that he does not want to have a fight about this. Well, he is going to have one, because he is opposing the proposal and not coming up with any alternatives. He is not saying, for example, “We will introduce a proposal in the other place that addresses these issues” or that he will listen not just to all the chief constables across the country who have said that they want to see this happen, but to the organisations that have. Seeing as he is obsessed with major organisations, let us run through them: the Fawcett Society; Citizens UK; Refuge; Stonewall; HOPE not hate; Dimensions; Tell MAMA; the Jo Cox Foundation; and Safe & the City. Many of us have been talking to people who have expressed concerns to identify what those are and learn from them; that is where this amendment has come from.
The Minister will use the Government majority to vote this Lords amendment down, to say that violence against women is a complicated issue and that there are other approaches, and he will wait patiently and in fear that, yet again, there will be another moment as there was a year ago. The trouble is that, for us as women, waiting in fear is our daily experience, because we do not see things changing any time soon. We see the evidence base from Nottinghamshire and from the Met police. We want to know why there is a postcode lottery when it comes to the police taking violence against women seriously. We want to know why our courts want to exclude sex or gender from the protected characteristics that we rightly recognise when crimes are motivated by a hatred of somebody just for who they are, and we will tackle that.
People made many of these arguments 20 years ago on recognising racially and religiously motivated abuse. We now, rightly, all benefit from the protection and the freedom that has been given to people, so that they do not have to live in fear that they will be attacked just because of the colour of their skin or their religious identity. The Minister’s problem is that he says that he listens to and knows women and that he understands this area, but if he understands it at all, he should listen to the suffragettes, who told us that it was “deeds not words” that matter. All we have heard tonight is words.
This proposal is backed by the police. Opposition Members and many Government Members want to back the police and want to see the courts back up the police. If he does not accept this amendment, the Minister has the time and the opportunity in the Lords to come up with an alternative. He will have my support and that of the Cross Benchers to make that happen. However, if he continues to ignore women, to say that he understands the challenge and to blame them for not coming forward and reporting things—[Interruption.] He is right to shake his head, but he can probably go home without looking over his shoulder. Many of us cannot.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Order. I am just thinking about protecting a bit of time for the Front Benchers, so if I put on a four-minute time limit, we can hopefully get a few more Members in.
Craig Whittaker (Calder Valley) (Con)
I would like to speak in support of the Government and against making misogyny a hate crime, as suggested in Lords amendment 72. It is safe to say that everybody understands the strength of feeling about adding sex and gender to hate crime laws—as I do, not least, from my mailbox—and this debate has shown that. However, I feel unable to support the amendment in the light of the Law Commission’s conclusion in its independent review of hate crime laws in December last year. It said that such a step would potentially
“prove more harmful than helpful, both to victims of violence against women and girls, and also to efforts to tackle hate crime more broadly”—
the Law Commission’s words, not mine. It specifically noted that adding those characteristics may make the prosecution of crimes disproportionately affecting women and girls, such as sexual offences and domestic abuse, much more difficult.
That issue arises because establishing whether a hate crime has occurred would require additional proof to be demonstrated in court. The Law Commission notes, by contrast:
“It might be practically difficult to prove a sex or gender-based aggravation in the context of VAWG crimes that usually take place in private”.
As a result, the Law Commission notes:
“We are particularly concerned about the potential for this to make some sexual offence prosecutions more difficult”.
We should not put this in the “too difficult” box; it will just work against women and girls who are the victims.
The Law Commission subsequently recommended against adding these characteristics to the law. Given those and other potential unintended consequences, as we have heard, organisations responding to the consultation support the Law Commission’s review in opposing these characteristics being added to the law.
It is also worth Members noting, when they come to their decision today, that the Lords amendment seeks to mitigate the most serious risks identified in what I have spoken about by excluding certain offences from any hate crime designation, including sexual offences and domestic abuse. However, the Law Commission similarly identified that such models would not be helpful, noting that this would then make the addition of the characteristics largely “tokenistic”—the Law Commission’s words, not the Minister’s—by excluding the most serious offences that frequently harm women and girls. It also noted that the exclusion of these offences risks suggesting that they are, by default, less serious or not rooted in misogynistic hostility, and would treat sex and gender unequally to other characteristics in the scope of hate crime laws.
I therefore share the Law Commission’s concern that adding sex and gender to hate crime laws in any form could prove unacceptably counterproductive and work against women and girls.
Wera Hobhouse
I rise to speak in support of Lords amendment 72. Existing hate crime legislation must be extended to include misogyny, and the police must be required to record hate crimes as misogynistic. The amendment has the backing of such powerful organisations as the Fawcett Society, Refuge, the Young Women’s Trust and many more, as well as the police.
Last year was a terrible year for women and girls, with two high-profile cases of young women murdered on our streets by vile sexual predators, peaceful women’s protesters pinned to the ground by serving police officers, thousands of women being subjected to spiking, including in my Bath constituency, and countless other horrific crimes against women and girls.
There is growing and very obvious evidence that misogyny is at the centre of violence against women and girls. Nottinghamshire police have led the way to enabling cases of abuse and harassment to be recorded as misogyny; Avon and Somerset police are following suit. I commend all police forces that are doing so, but it should not be a postcode lottery.
Making misogyny a hate crime would send a powerful signal. We need a culture change, and we in this House have a duty to lead it. I have listened carefully to this evening’s debate, in which the Government have said that making misogyny a hate crime could lead to unintended consequences, possibly making it harder to prosecute the most serious cases of sexual violence. Of course we need to protect those women who are exposed to the most serious cases of sexual violence, but Lords amendment 72 especially sets out to avoid any such consequences.
Wera Hobhouse
I will not, because of time.
We should start sending a very strong signal today. Hate crime legislation has made a difference to religious and racial hate crime, so why should women not have the same right? Let us listen carefully to what is being said and make sure that we make progress. It would not be an entire answer, but making misogyny a hate crime would send such a powerful signal that certain attitudes that lead to harassment and later to more serious crimes are not okay, and they are not lawful.
Ruth Edwards
I spent last Friday evening in St Peter’s Rooms in Ruddington with a nurse, councillors, shop owners, a reiki practitioner, childcare professionals and many more members of the community. We were taking part in a training programme to help people to identify signs of domestic abuse, talk to survivors they might come across in their place of work and put them in touch with local professional services. The programme is called J9, after Janine Mundy, who was brutally murdered by her ex-husband. I think I must have taken part about 15 times now in the course, which I am delivering across the constituency with my constituent Nicola Brindley, but it never gets any easier to hear the stories of abuse suffered.
I therefore strongly welcome Lords amendment 57, which extends the time limit for prosecution for common assault or battery in domestic abuse cases. There are so many reasons why it takes time for victims to come forward. We must do everything we can to stand with them and support them when they do.
I also welcome Lords amendment 13, which clarifies the inclusion of domestic abuse and sexual offences in the serious violence duty, and Lords amendment 56, which protects women doing the most natural thing in the world: breastfeeding their child. I commend the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy) for all her work in the area.
Also before the House is the issue of making misogyny a hate crime, as set out in Lords amendment 72. I fully support the intention behind the amendment, as I think every Member does, but having read the Law Commission’s report, I share some of the concerns voiced. I take very seriously the concerns raised by organisations such as Rape Crisis, which believes that adding sex or gender as a protected characteristic would further complicate the judicial process and make it harder to secure convictions.
Lords amendment 72 also carves out sexual offences and offences related to domestic abuse from the scope of prosecution as a hate crime motivated by sex or gender, because there are considerable difficulties with keeping them in. As the Law Commission’s report shows, research has shown that sex or gender-based hostility is much more likely to be identified or proven in the context of sexual violence perpetrated by strangers in public settings, particularly where it is accompanied by physical violence. Using misogyny as an aggravating factor in such cases would risk perpetuating the highly damaging myth that there is a hierarchy of sexual violence, which already does so much damage to victims whose experience is different, but whose suffering is no less.
In many crimes of violence against women and girls, such as those in cases of domestic abuse where the victim is known to the perpetrator or is in an intimate relationship with them, it may be more difficult to evidence hostility to gender, so I understand why those offences have been left outside the amendment’s scope. I understand the very strong views of Opposition Members that the amendment should be made without including them, but I worry what sort of message we would send as a Parliament if we made crimes such as domestic abuse and sexual violence—some of the most serious crimes against women and girls—exempt from an aggravating sentencing factor of misogyny. Those concerns, which have been set out by the Law Council, Rape Crisis and Women’s Aid, are the reason I cannot support the amendment.
The findings of the Law Commission, which I believe began its consultation with the expectation of supporting such a change, show why it is so important that changes to law are based on evidence so that we can focus on the most effective measures, which is why I welcome the Home Office’s public consultation on the issue of sex for rent—
Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)
The Bill is dangerous and undemocratic and has united a broad church of organisations in opposition. Even if all the Lords amendments that I rise to support today are agreed to, there would still be a huge amount in it that causes me concern. Our task today, though, is to try to improve what is before us.
Lords amendment 72 would play a key role in updating our existing hate crime laws to give our police forces and courts the vital tools that they need to tackle violence motivated by misogyny. By including sex or gender in hate crime reporting and sentencing, with exceptions for more serious sexual violence offences to ensure that sentences for them remain higher, it would give our police and courts the ability to track and hold to account those who target people for crimes purely because of who they are. As we have heard, selected police forces have already identified when crimes are motivated by hatred of someone’s sex or gender. They have already seen an increase in victims’ confidence to come forward and report those crimes.
The Government’s position is that making misogyny a hate crime goes against the Law Commission’s advice, but as the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy) set out extremely eloquently, that is not entirely correct; the Law Commission was not commenting on the Bertin amendment. In line with concerns raised by the Law Commission about changing the burden of proof in relation to sexual or domestic offences, the amendment creates a carve-out whereby it would not apply to such offences. It uses the wording “sex or gender”, which is in line with the approach proposed in the Law Commission’s report on hate crime, and which would ensure that all crimes motivated by misogyny, or indeed misandry, are captured by the new law rather than leaving loopholes that could undermine the system.
This simple but powerful change would send an incredibly important signal. It would be part of the cultural change that we have been talking about. It would give women and girls the same protections that we give to others who are targeted solely because of who they are. It would show how seriously we take crimes motivated by misogyny. Frankly, the Government have been kicking the issue into the long grass for too long. It is time to step up and do the right thing by women and girls.
I will speak briefly to Lords amendments 114 to 116. As numerous organisations from Liberty to the End Violence Against Women Coalition and the Runnymede Trust attest, serious violence is a human rights issue. It devastates communities across the country and demands an evidence-based approach that works with, rather than against, those communities that bear its brunt. There is simply no evidence that serious violence reduction orders will protect communities from harm, however, and there is a wealth of evidence that they will sanction injustice and discrimination and risk fracturing public trust in public services and in the authorities. There is a risk that they will entrench the harms of ineffective, suspicion-less stop and search and that they will expand the injustice of the doctrine of joint enterprise, with a disproportionate effect on over-policed and marginalised groups, including young women experiencing domestic abuse and criminal exploitation.
It therefore seems entirely right and sensible that a robust pilot be carried out and that decisions to roll out SVROs nationally be informed by its findings and come before Parliament, as Lords amendments 114 to 116 propose. The amendments, which I support, reinstate democratic oversight of laws engaging rights and equalities issues and affirm the importance of an evidence-based approach to tackling serious violence.
I turn to Lords amendments 141 and 142. I have received emails from a number of constituents about how tens of thousands of women are being propositioned by predators offering free or discounted accommodation in exchange for sexual favours. Only one person has ever been charged for that kind of crime, because the law is woefully inadequate, leaving men to get away with sexually exploiting renters in need of a home. The Lords amendments specifically criminalise such landlords; they also implement financial penalties on websites and platforms. That is why they have my support.
Laura Farris (Newbury) (Con)
I will confine my remarks to Lords amendment 72. Let me to say at the outset that I understand the laudable intention behind it, but I want to explain why, with the greatest of respect, I believe it to be misconceived.
It was the murder of Stephen Lawrence that set the origins of hate crime in train. He was killed in 1993, and hate crime became a criminal offence in 1998 under the Crime and Disorder Act. There was some confusion about the chronology earlier, but it is set out in paragraph 1.3 of the final report of the Law Commission. A hate crime is not a stand-alone offence, but it elevates another crime, most commonly assault, to an aggravated offence under section 28 of the 1998 Act if the prosecution can show that the offence was motivated wholly or partly by hostility towards another group. In the following year, the Court of Appeal finessed the test that applied, saying, in The Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) v. Pal, that the prosecution must prove some demonstration of that hostility, most often a form of language that was used at the time when the crime was committed.
There are two reasons why I do not think that the amendment works in the context of violence against women. First, it sets the jury off down the wrong line of inquiry. Do we really want to legislate for a system that invites juries to judge the seriousness of an offence such as stalking, rape or domestic abuse through the prism of whether the perpetrator demonstrated hostility towards women? Even leading juries down that line of inquiry risks making acquittal more likely if they conclude that the defendant harboured no particular ill will towards women. When would we find examples of that kind of language? It would be much more likely in “stranger” contexts, and less likely when the victim had been on Tinder that night, had been out at a club or had been drinking, and this took place were behind closed doors—we know that that accounts for about 90% of serious sexual assaults—and we already have the greatest difficulties in securing convictions in such cases. Rape Crisis has said that
“the motivation of hostility is much more likely to apply to stranger perpetrators, and here we see the hate crime framework as propping up harmful myths about violence against women.”
My second reason concerns causation. Many offences against women are not motivated by hatred. Subtle, insidious factors are often at play—power, control, obsession, revenge, jealousy—none of which would meet the threshold for hate crime, but which are no less toxic or deserving of criminal punishment. In fact, we as a Parliament have worked collectively in the last decade to see the treatment of women through a more expansive lens. We recognised these complex causes when we passed the Domestic Abuse Act 2021, with its provisions on revenge porn and coercive control, and when we criminalised stalking in 2012. It is with that in mind that I am regretfully of the view that making misogyny a hate crime would be regressive rather than progressive, and would deliver less, not more, justice for female victims.
Alicia Kearns (Rutland and Melton) (Con)
I recently had a conversation with a constituent who has introduced reporting of misogyny as a crime in Nottinghamshire, where she is a senior police officer. She says that it has progressively changed the culture. Does my hon. Friend agree that the culture may change in police forces when acts of misogyny are recorded at an earlier stage?
Laura Farris
My hon. Friend makes an excellent point, and it is the point that the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy) was making about policing. It is true that the police have responded positively in reporting such incidents, but it is also true that the pilot has shown no increase in the number of prosecutions or successful convictions, with which we are primarily concerned. It is an enduring concern that we do not do enough to record violence against women and girls in general, and I think we ought to do more in that regard.
Let me address my final comments to the hon. Member for Croydon Central (Sarah Jones), who said in her opening remarks that this was a simple and straightforward step. The hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse) said that the evidence was “obvious”. Let me gently point out that prominent feminists in the House, including the Mother of the House, do not support this proposal for exactly the same as reasons as me. I hope that the closing remarks from the Opposition will reflect the fact that there is a respected strain of feminist opinion that does not take the same view as the hon. Member for Croydon Central.
Nick Fletcher (Don Valley) (Con)
The Bill contains many good provisions, but I will confine myself to the subject of the serious violence reduction orders. Let me start by thanking the House of Commons Library for its report of September 2021, “Knife Crime in England and Wales”, which has been very helpful.
In 2010, stop and search was widely used in the fight against knife crime. It succeeded not only in catching people carrying knives and offensive weapons, but in deterring people from carrying them. However, its success was limited, as it was scaled down because many felt that its implementation was disproportionate and reduced community trust. If it did indeed reduce community trust, especially in the police, it was counterproductive. As a result, by 2020 there were fewer than half as many stop and searches as in 2010: in fact, the reduction was some 56%.
Did this lead to a reduction in the number of fatal stabbings in London? I am all too aware that we know the answer to that question. No, it did not; it had the opposite effect. The number of fatal stabbings increased by 81% in London. Ten teenagers were fatally stabbed in 2010, and a decade later that grim statistic was 27. Twenty-seven teenagers with their lives before them had those lives snuffed out, and for what? If stop and search had not been scaled down, how many of those young men would be alive today? How many lives have been lost because of the reduction in stop and search? I ask again, how many? Who here wants to see a life taken away? Nobody does, but I believe that opposing stop and search has led to that.
Increasing stop and search with serious violence reduction orders would be likely to reduce knife crime, but it must be done along with changes in police practice to avoid the mistakes of the past. The Government’s amendment to Lords amendment 116 will play an important role in that. By collecting statistics on who is affected by SVROs and what their impact on reoffending is, we can ensure that police officers are using this tool in a specific and targeted way. What of outside London? It will help there too. Sadly, what we have seen in London seems to be spreading to cities and communities beyond our capital. In the past year in South Yorkshire, we have seen an epidemic of shootings and stabbings.
What has happened to bring this about? What can be done to stem this tide and bring lawfulness back to our communities? The answer is “many things”, and we all have a part to play. We in this House must vote for the Bill. It needs to become law so that the police have the tools that they need to combat crime and disorder. Outside the House, each of us can play an important part as well. We can work with the police. If they want to stop and search us, we should let them do so. It will save lives. Stop and search might have saved the lives of two young men who were stabbed to death last month locally.
I say this to every parent in the country, and to every person who is lucky enough to have the responsibility of bringing up children. We are role models to our children, so we should all act like role models. We should all set a good example for them to follow. We should live our lives responsibly, and we should be the good role models in their lives—not some local thug, and definitely not a glamorised thug on television. The best way to teach a child how to behave is to live our lives in the right way. We all have a part to play in making our communities better week by week, year by year. Let us work together, and let us work with the police. I commend this Bill.
Richard Graham
I find this fascinating. So often in these debates, it is entirely understandable for the Opposition to say that the Government have not been in listening mode, and therefore amendments from the Lords have been turned down. Today, however, the evidence is striking. The Government are accepting, I believe, 22 Lords amendments on a wide range of matters, including emergency workers, domestic abuse, breastfeeding, common assault, data, hare coursing and child cruelty. I think that that is a good indication of both Houses working together.
I want to say a few words on Lords amendment 70 on spiking, and the Government amendments in lieu of it, and then on Lords amendment 72 on misogyny. On spiking, I am grateful to the Minister for his kind words about my 10-minute rule Bill, which is supported by Members from five different parties in this House, and which I think has helped to ensure that spiking is covered in this Bill. Certainly, when I originally proposed it, the thinking was that that would not be possible, so I recognise the movement that the Government have made.
The specific reason that I do not think the Lords amendment does the job that it could do is that it specifically calls for an amendment to the offence under section 61 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003. The truth, as we covered in the 10-minute rule Bill, is that there is more to spiking than sexual offences, although they are a big part of the problem. I am therefore satisfied that the amendments in lieu tabled by the Government will make a significant difference to the issue of spiking. As the Minister has said, it is clear that this behaviour is not exclusively linked to sexual activity, and the requirement on the Home Secretary to provide a report on the wider issues is therefore important. I believe that the Minister’s commitment—he might want to nod to repeat it—that the Home Secretary will be required to publish and lay the report before Parliament within 12 months of the Royal Assent of this Bill, is significant.
I note that the Minister has also asked officials to explore the need for a specific criminal offence to target spiking directly. I believe that this would change patterns of behaviour. It would have a preventive effect, and it would give young people—particularly young women—more confidence, especially at university. I would be delighted if he was able to commit to come back to this within six months of Royal Assent with a decision on whether to proceed with this further specific criminal offence, and I hope that he will say something on that in his winding-up speech. I have decided to pull my 10-minute rule Bill from its Second Reading, which had been proposed for 18 March, on the basis that the Minister has given that commitment, and I hope he will give a further one in his winding-up.
On Lords amendment 72, we have heard from distinguished colleagues including my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Laura Farris), the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas), my hon. Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Ruth Edwards) and the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy)—four powerful advocates balancing strength of feeling with legal expertise on this issue. My own feeling is that, since I have just explained why I believe that a spiking Bill will help in terms of having a preventive effect and giving young people more confidence, there is something to this and I am glad that the Minister will come back and report to the House—
Kit Malthouse
With the leave of the House, I shall respond to the debate. I am grateful to all the Members who have spoken, and I hope that what has been exhibited is our shared concern for many of the issues we have talked about today, not least the safety of women and girls, which has naturally and rightly dominated the debate. A number of undertakings were sought from me, latterly by my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham), who has done so much work on the offence of spiking. I am happy to give him a commitment that we will come back within a six-month period, as he requested. Obviously we will be producing a wider report within 12 months, but we should be able to give him an indication at the time.
My right hon. Friend and neighbour, the Member for Romsey and Southampton North (Caroline Nokes), asked for a specific legislative vehicle, but I am afraid that I cannot preview the Queen’s Speech, much as I would love to. I cannot give her a specific vehicle, but I can tell her that we will be responding to the Law Commission’s report within six months. We are giving serious consideration to the work streams that I have talked about. As I have said to her, it is my personal view that we have an issue that needs to be addressed, either through public order offending, through recording or through a specific offence. I hope that on that basis she will feel able to support us this evening.
The work that we will be doing in this area sits alongside an awful lot of other work looking at the issue of street harassment, including our safety of women at night fund and the safer streets fund. In September we launched the new StreetSafe tool, allowing the police to access greater information and data about where people feel, or indeed are, unsafe. I am told that more than 12,000 reports have already been submitted through that line. In December, the College of Policing published new guidance showing what the police can and should do when they receive a report of public sexual harassment. The criminal offence is already available and other protective tools can be used. As I hope my right hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Southampton North has just been to see, we have also launched a new communications campaign this evening. There is an awful lot to cover in this first group of amendments, but I hope that we have looked at a wide range of offences and I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester for pointing out that we have been listening. The number of amendments we have accepted weigh in the balance of support for the votes that we are about to undertake.
On the misogyny issue, I commend the motivation behind the set of amendments that we are sadly declining. We understand people’s genuine concern about the safety of women and girls in the public sector, and indeed we share it. We are determined to make significant inroads in this area. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mrs Miller), my hon. Friend the Member for Calder Valley (Craig Whittaker) and my hon. Friend and neighbour the Member for Newbury have pointed out so effectively, we cannot in all conscience support an amendment that the Law Commission and other large groups interested in this area believe runs the risk of damaging the cause of women’s safety. That puts an obligation on us to bring forward alternatives that will do something positive for women’s safety. That battle is under way, and we commit to doing exactly that.
Lords amendment 2 agreed to.
Lords amendment 70 disagreed to.
Government amendments (a) and (b) made in lieu of Lords amendment 70.
Motion made, and Question put, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 72.—(Kit Malthouse.)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Tom Pursglove)
I beg to move, That this House agrees with Lords amendment 1.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Lords amendment 58, and Government motion to disagree.
Lords amendment 107, and Government motion to disagree.
Lords amendments 61 to 69, 94 to 106, 121 to 140, 144, 145, 149 to 152 and 155 to 161.
Tom Pursglove
There are no less than 161 Lords amendments for the House to consider this evening. To ensure that as many hon. and right hon. Members as possible who wish to speak can do so, I do not propose to detail all the amendments in this group, as many were uncontentious and will have the support of the whole House. I will, however, outline the key Lords amendments in this group brought forward by the Government, before commenting on the two amendments in this group that were agreed by their lordships contrary to the Government’s sound advice.
I know that MPs from across the House will want to share our support for the family and friends of PC Andrew Harper and their campaign to strengthen the law so that no other families go through the same heartbreak they have suffered. We were therefore pleased to announce our amendment in the other place, following our commitment to look at what action may be possible in this area. Lords amendment 1, known as Harper’s law, will impose mandatory life sentences on those convicted of unlawful act manslaughter where the victim is an emergency worker acting in the exercise of their functions as such a worker. The amendment will apply to adult offenders and 16 and 17-year-olds. The amendment will also contain judicial discretion for the court to impose an alternative sentence in exceptional circumstances.
In the case of Andrew Harper, the court did not impose life sentences on any of the defendants. Each received sentences of between 13 and 19 years for manslaughter—sentences that were subsequently upheld by the Court of Appeal. They will all be incarcerated for a significant period, but the Government believe that where a person is convicted of unlawful act manslaughter and the person who has been killed is an emergency worker, that should be punished with life imprisonment, except where there are exceptional circumstances relating to the offender or the offence.
The successful campaign of Lissie Harper, PC Harper’s widow, and the Police Federation drew this issue to the Government’s attention, and we are grateful for that. Lissie has shown incredible bravery, fortitude and courage in campaigning for this change, and I know that it has had a profound impact on Members from all parts of the House and on our constituents in communities across the country, who have come together to support this change.
Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)
Will the Minister simply confirm that where an emergency service worker is off duty but an emergency occurs and they respond to that emergency, Harper’s law will apply to them?
Tom Pursglove
I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s question. If the scope of this measure was restricted to mandatory life sentences in situations where the emergency worker was directly responding to the unlawful act at the heart of the offence, it would not capture all the cases in which this Government believe the mandatory life sentence should apply. For example, offender A injures a defendant during a fight and, in their attempts to escape the scene, they run over the responding paramedic, who is on their way to save the life of the person injured by person A. In another scenario, offender B commits exactly the same actions, but in fleeing the scene, they run over and kill a police officer responding to a separate incident a mile down the road.
Both defendants have committed the same unlawful act, and in the same dangerous circumstances, and both have caused the death of an emergency worker as a result, but the grounds for implementing the mandatory life sentence would be based on the pure happenstance that one emergency worker was responding to that specific unlawful act, and the other was not. That disparity in sentencing would not accurately reflect the Government’s aim to ensure that those who commit the unlawful act manslaughter of emergency workers who are exercising their functions face a life sentence.
It is also worth setting out for the House’s benefit who counts as an emergency worker. We will define emergency workers in the same way as the Assaults on Emergency Workers (Offences) Act 2018 and section 68 of the Sentencing Act 2020. This definition includes police officers, prison officers, National Crime Agency officers and those employed in fire services, search and rescue services and frontline NHS health services, among others.
Barry Gardiner
The Minister has given us a great deal of information, but has not actually answered my specific question. I am happy for the Minister to continue, and if he can get assistance from the Box and answer it later, I will be very content.
Tom Pursglove
If I may, in the wind-up, I will happily clarify for the House’s benefit the point that the hon. Gentleman has raised. The points that I have put on the record are relevant, but I want to ensure that the House has complete clarity around those matters as we move forward.
Sir Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)
The Minister is absolutely right to pay tribute to Lissie Harper and to our emergency services. He also makes the point that these are not isolated incidents. Will he take on board the broader point that, although there is obviously great support for this piece of legislation, the area that has not been addressed is the difficulty that juries face in deciding whether the offence—the facts made out—is murder or manslaughter?
I hope that the Minister will revisit a missed opportunity, which is the definitions of homicide under our current law. The Law Commission and others have suggested that they ought to be revisited because they create some difficulty and uncertainty, particularly in the difficult area between the intention to kill or to commit grievous bodily harm and gross negligence at the top end. I hope that the Government will consider revisiting the Law Commission’s work on that, because other jurisdictions have different categories of homicide, rather than the perhaps now old-fashioned categories of murder and manslaughter. We might then find it easier for juries to more accurately reflect the culpability by their verdicts, which is what we want to achieve.
Tom Pursglove
I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s observations. We touched on those matters when we spoke last week when we engaged in advance of these proceedings. I said to him that that was something that I would certainly be willing to take away and consider, and I am willing to do that. He advocates that the Law Commission looks at the issue of homicide in the round and, as I say, I am happy to reflect on and consider that matter in the fullness of time.
To return to the question of the hon. Member for Brent North (Barry Gardiner), I am keen to provide the House with as much information as possible and to further clarify the position around it. If I understand his question correctly, it does apply to emergency workers who are off duty, but they must be acting as an emergency worker—off duty but still responding to an incident. I hope that that provides the House, in the correct terms, with the clarity that it is seeking on that point.
Ruth Edwards
Can I clarify whether the provisions will apply to volunteer emergency services workers, such as special constables or first responders?
Tom Pursglove
Again, I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the question. If I may, I will touch on those matters in the wind-up, because I am conscious that hon. Members have quite a lot of questions and that there are quite a few hon. Members who are keen to speak. I will gladly pick up those points in the wind-up later when we have concluded.
Lords amendment 104 places on statute an aggravating factor for assault committed against anyone providing a service to the public. It will send a strong message that assaults against public-facing workers are totally unacceptable and will reinforce the seriousness with which the courts treat such offences. It has been welcomed by those in the retail sector who have campaigned on this important issue. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton South (Matt Vickers), who has assiduously argued the case in this House for a change in the law in this area. In earlier proceedings, the House expressed a strong desire for such a change and I am proud that the Government are helping to deliver that.
In earlier stages of the Bill in this House, there were also calls for the Government to raise the maximum penalties for child cruelty offences. For years, my hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Tom Tugendhat) has campaigned tirelessly for Tony’s law, which is named after Tony Hudgell. As a baby, Tony was abused to such an extent by his birth parents that he is severely disabled. No child should suffer such appalling abuse, especially from those who should love and care for them the most. It is right to ensure that, in such cases, the punishment can fit the crime. Such criminality is truly shocking and heinous.
Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge and Malling) (Con)
May I just place on record the extreme gratitude of Tony’s real parents—the parents who actually love him—who have cared for him since a few days after he was born and have restored him to an extraordinary and loving child? May I also place on record my enormous gratitude to the Lord Chancellor for his work on the matter, and to the Minister and the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, my hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge), who are both on the Front Bench, for showing the courage and determination to make sure the measure passes? This changes not, sadly, Tony’s life—thank God, he has been cared for well—but, with any luck, the lives of many in deterring such awful crimes from ever happening again.
Tom Pursglove
My hon. Friend puts the case very eloquently, and it is a privilege to be able to stand at this Dispatch Box and announce these changes in the House. He has been a tireless campaigner on this issue, and this change is a great credit to him, to Tony and to his adopted family, with their incredible care and their advocacy on these issues. I think all of them can be hugely proud of the work they have done to bring about this change. I am sure the House will agree, especially in the light of more recent appalling cases, that the courts should, where necessary, have the fullest range of sentencing powers available to deal appropriately with those who abuse children.
Lords amendments 121 and 122 extend the disregards and pardons scheme relating to historical convictions for same-sex sexual activity. The disregards scheme, introduced by the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, enables men with historical cautions and convictions for certain gay sex offences to apply to the Secretary of State to have their cautions and convictions disregarded. If successful, the applicant is treated in all circumstances as if the offence had never occurred, and also receives an automatic pardon. The Government accept that the scope of the current scheme is too narrow, as it is largely confined to the now repealed offences of buggery and gross indecency between men, and excludes other repealed offences that may also have been used to criminalise same-sex sexual activity. Lords amendment 121 will therefore extend the scheme to enable individuals convicted of same-sex sexual activity under any repealed or abolished offence to apply to have that caution or conviction disregarded. Lords amendment 122 ensures that pardons provisions will reflect the extension. Taken together, these amendments will help put right the wrongs of the past when people were unjustly criminalised simply on the basis of their sexuality.
In their lordships’ House, there was significant debate on the issue of imprisonment for public protection. Lords amendment 101 will put the Secretary of State’s policy of automatic referral of applications to terminate the IPP licence on to a statutory footing. This would enable all eligible IPP offenders to be referred to the parole board for consideration of a licence termination at the appropriate time.
Lords amendments 61 to 69 deliver the Government’s commitment, made in our action plan for animal welfare, to crack down further on illegal hare coursing. They do this by broadening the circumstances in which the police can investigate and bring charges for hare coursing-related activity, and by increasing the powers of the courts for dealing with this activity on conviction. In bringing forward these amendments, the Government have acted swiftly and decisively in response to the widespread concern about the impact of hare coursing expressed by hon. Members. I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Sir Robert Goodwill), who raised this issue eloquently in Committee, and my hon. Friend the Member for North East Bedfordshire (Richard Fuller) for his private Member’s Bill on this subject. They have both been assiduous champions of this issue on behalf of their rural communities.
Let me turn to the two amendments in this group on which we have tabled motions to disagree. Lords amendment 58 seeks to confer certain police powers on the national food crime unit of the Food Standards Agency. We agree that food crime is a serious issue, costing billions of pounds each year, and it is right that the FSA should be empowered to respond accordingly, improve resilience and reduce the burden on police forces, but this is not the way to legislate on this issue. We are dealing here with the intrusive powers of the state. As such, we need to ensure that any exercise of PACE powers—powers under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984—by the FSA would be necessary, proportionate and legitimate, with suitable governance and accountability arrangements in place. Amendment 58 puts the cart before the horse. That said, we are committed to working with the FSA, its sponsor the Department for Health and Social Care, and other partners to frame legislation that is fit for purpose.
Finally, Lords amendment 107 would allow local authorities to establish and maintain secure academies, either alone or in consortia. The parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice, Lord Wolfson of Tredegar, made it clear in the other place that it would be legally possible for a local authority to set up an entity capable of entering into academy arrangements directly with the Secretary of State, and that is not prevented by the Academies Act 2010—so there is no legal bar, rendering the amendment unnecessary. Government policy is that academy trusts are not local authority influenced companies, and our position on secure schools is to mirror the procedures of academies. However, to repeat the commitment that Lord Wolfson made in the other place, my Department will assess in detail the potential role of local authorities in running this new form of provision, before we invite applications to run any future secure schools.
Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab)
I hear what the Minister is saying, but looking into something is not the same as giving a clear commitment, here and now, that local authorities can run those secure academies.
Tom Pursglove
I am always grateful to the hon. Lady for her interventions, and I repeat my point: we do not believe there is a barrier, but as I say, we will review the matter in the way I have set out to the House. We of course recognise that local authorities have a long established role in children’s social care and the provision of secure accommodation for children and young people. In particular, the secure children’s home legal framework may present a more straightforward route to the expansion of local authority involvement in the provision of secure accommodation than does the 16-to-19 academies framework. I reiterate: there is no legal bar, and as such the amendment must be unnecessary. Fortunately, there is much agreement on this group of amendments in the House, and I will pick up on points raised during the debate when I wind it up.
Ellie Reeves (Lewisham West and Penge) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to follow the Minister. I will not speak to all 58 amendments under debate, as some are straightforward and many in this group at least—I am sure the Minister will be pleased to hear—have full support from the Labour Benches. We particularly welcome Lords amendments 1 and 150, which introduce Harper’s law. That has the Opposition’s full and strong support, and I join the Minister in paying tribute to Lissie Harper’s extraordinary and powerful work. When facing pain and grief unimaginable to most of us, she has campaigned for reform to protect our protectors. My right hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen (Nick Thomas-Symonds) and my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon Central (Sarah Jones) met Lissie Harper during her campaign, and I know they are particularly glad to see these amendments introduced by the Government. It is right that emergency service workers who put themselves at risk to keep the rest of us safe are protected by the strongest shield that the criminal justice system can provide.
We are also extremely pleased to see Lords amendments 27, 28 and 151, which will introduce Tony’s law, increasing penalties for those who commit child abuse. Again, I share the Minister’s admiration for the inspiring work of young Tony Hudgell and his loving parents, Paula and Mark. I also pay tribute to the hon. Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Tom Tugendhat), and my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion) who have both done fantastic work throughout the passage of the Bill to increase protections for children, and supported Tony’s law in Committee. Cases as atrocious and horrifying as Tony’s are thankfully extremely rare, but it is right that when they do come before the courts, the judiciary can impose the full range of penalties that reflect the gravity of such horrific offending.
The Opposition welcome Lords amendment 104 which states that if someone who is carrying out a public service, such as a retail worker, is assaulted, the fact that they were carrying out a public service at the time of the offence will be an aggravating factor in sentencing. I am glad the Government have finally listened to the Opposition, trade unions and trade bodies who have been calling for greater protection, particularly for our shopworkers who have been unsung heroes and kept our country running throughout the pandemic. We pay particular thanks to the efforts of the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers, the Co-operative party, The British Retail Consortium, the Association of Convenience Stores, and Tesco, for their fantastic campaigning.
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham North (Alex Norris) for his tireless work on this issue in recent years. I also pay tribute to the efforts of my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon Central and my noble Friend Lord Coaker, who throughout the Bill’s passage pushed for tougher penalties for those who assault shop workers.
Sarah Champion
Does my hon. Friend agree that it is illogical that the Government will not make the simple concessions for which the Opposition are asking to clarify the situation in favour of local authorities?
Ellie Reeves
I agree with my hon. Friend. Local authorities have a tremendous amount of experience in caring for vulnerable children with a high level of need in a secure environment. As she said in Committee:
“It makes no sense to exclude this knowledge and learning from the provisions in the Bill.”––[Official Report, Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Public Bill Committee, 15 June 2021; c. 567.]
Indeed, the failures of secure training centres that we have seen should encourage the Government to widen the pool of expertise as much as possible when moving to this new model of child detention. Charlie Taylor stated in his 2016 report:
“Children who are incarcerated must receive the highest quality education from outstanding professionals to repair the damage caused by a lack of engagement and patchy attendance.”
Ms Marie Rimmer (St Helens South and Whiston) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend agree that children who commit crime are vulnerable, and in need of positive attention and support to learn what is wrong and what is right, and what is acceptable in society, so that they may learn to become good citizens and contribute positively to society?
Ellie Reeves
I absolutely agree. My hon. Friend speaks so passionately about this issue. It is absolutely right that those in secure academies are given the support that they need, and that they receive not just a good education but the very best that is available to them. To that end, we believe that local authorities must explicitly be brought into the fold when considering who will run these academies. Although we can argue about whether there is a legal bar, the fact is that having it explicitly in the Bill would put it beyond all doubt that local authorities could run these secure academies, and that education policy would not be a barrier to their doing so.
That is a small clarification, which the Government do not appear to oppose in practical terms, but it would send a signal to potential providers not only that local authorities are technically allowed to bid but that, given their wealth of experience in this area, their bids would be positively welcomed. The failures across the youth estate have been shocking, and the Government need to bring in providers with the necessary expertise and ethos to support children in secure settings, to help to address those failings. I hope that, for that reason, the Minister can today commit to their explicit inclusion as possible providers.
Although we are in agreement with the Government on the majority of the proposals in this group and welcome them, further clarification and action on some aspects are needed. Our support here does not detract from the very serious failings in other parts of the Bill, and the failure to make its focus the very real epidemic of violence against women. If the Government were fully serious about the issues facing our society, they would make that one of the main focuses of the Bill and drop the poorly thought-out draconian measures on protests and further police powers.
Sir Robert Neill
I am grateful for the chance to speak in the debate. This area of the Bill raises a number of important criminal justice matters, and I am grateful to the Minister for his very open approach to engaging with me and others around it. I have much sympathy with both him and the shadow Minister, in observing that there are sensible things that I hope we will broadly agree upon on most of this. I hope that I can make one or two observations on how we might take things forward once we have passed the legislation.
I have made my point in relation to the manslaughter of emergency workers, and I do not seek to repeat it, save to say that the Justice Committee has looked at the law of homicide and I think that we are in danger of missing an opportunity there. That does not mean that what is proposed is wrong, but we should be more ambitious than that, because many other common-law jurisdictions have reformed their law of manslaughter in a way that makes it more comprehensible to a jury. I looked with particular care at, for example, the judge’s directions in the PC Harper case and others. Even with the most impeccable directions it is not easy to follow now, against the factual background that we often have. We ought to be prepared to look at evidence from other common-law jurisdictions going forward.
There was an argument, of course, that the victim being an emergency worker is always an aggravating factor, but I understand the point about putting it on the statute book, given the particular value and weight that we place upon the service that these emergency workers have done. Similarly, I welcome the provision for aggravation in relation to assaults upon public service workers. I visited one of the local Co-op stores in my constituency and met some of my constituents who have been assaulted and threatened pretty appallingly by people. They do a great job for the public, and I think that we are right to give them a measure of protection too. I welcome the Government moving on that.
I will just turn to two other matters, one of which concerns IPP—imprisonment for public protection—sentences. The Minister knows that the Justice Committee is currently drawing up a report on this issue. We heard most compelling evidence on this situation, which Lord Brown, a former senior law Lord, described as an enduring blot on the British justice system. I paraphrase his words—that may not be exact—but that was the essence of it. I welcome what the Government are doing. It is a step in the right direction, but we need to ensure that those who are capable of being released safely are processed through the system much more quickly. That has been a blot on our system for too long. Resources have not been made available and all too often the provision to do the courses that were necessary for them to meet the trigger levels for release were not available. The danger was—we heard very powerful evidence on this from clinical psychologists and others—that sometimes the failure of the system to deal with the underlying issues which caused them to be subject to a IPP in the first place had now made them more dangerous to release, because they got to a degree of institutionalisation which makes it harder for them to be reformed. We need to be very alert to that.
Sarah Champion
I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way and for starting the inquiry. One piece of written evidence received is from one of my constituents, who is suffering under an IPP with no hope of getting out and no understanding of why he is stuck there. I fully accept and agree with what he is saying. The impact that this is having on people’s mental health, the lifelong torture that these people are being put under, is just totally unacceptable. Of course one should serve one’s time, but I cannot even imagine what having an indefinite time ahead must do to someone’s psyche.
Sir Robert Neill
I am very grateful to the hon. Lady. We heard very compelling testimony on precisely those points. That is not to say that some people who are serving IPP sentences have not committed very serious offences and that some of them, because of their background, do not present a very real threat to the public. It may well be that in certain cases it will be a very long time before they are capable of being released, if ever, but there are many others who fall below that threshold who are trapped unfairly in the system, and who ought to be capable of being looked at afresh, processed and released safely into the community, but we have not yet managed to do that. The Government’s amendment holds the feet of the Parole Board to the fire on that, which is good so far as it goes.
The other point I want to make is that we heard compelling evidence from Lord Blunkett, the originator of the IPP sentences, who accepted that it had not worked out as he had intended. That was powerful and very humbling testimony. There was also very powerful testimony from Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, the former Lord Chief Justice, who has taken up this cause. He made the point that what we are doing so far is helpful. Improving the ability of people to access courses and gain the threshold for release is helpful and that is what the Government are, through their amendment, seeking to do. The need to review every case, rather than leaving them in limbo, is really important so we do not get drift.
However, there are two things we are not yet doing. We are not tackling the issue of needless recall. Recall is an important tool to have while we have a licence, but there is a real concern that in many cases the trigger for the recall bears no proportion to either the index offence which had caused the original sentence or the amount of time that might then be spent inside thereafter. In some cases, there was a real concern that recall was triggered for comparatively administrative breaches of the licence, rather than substantive ones linked to reoffending or increasing risk. I urge Ministers, when the Parole Board looks at each case as it will now be obliged to do under the legislation, to ensure that we do not have, frankly, risk-averse recalls. It is always a terrible balance to strike and I am very conscious of the burden on the Parole Board and probation officers in doing that, but we ought to ensure it is not done on a tick-box basis just to make sure we have protected ourselves against criticism—almost a back-covering exercise, I hate to say.
There is a temptation for that in the current arrangements, but we can do better than that and I hope we will. We ought to be assessing whether the breach suggests there is an ongoing risk of reoffending or a danger to the public. That ought to be the test.
Sarah Champion
I want to start with a positive and then I will move on. I begin by welcoming Lords amendment 98, Tony’s law, which increases the maximum sentences for causing or allowing a child or vulnerable adult to suffer serious injury or death. That change to the law follows the tireless campaigning by the parents of Tony Hudgell. As a baby, Tony suffered such serious physical abuse by his birth parents that both of his legs had to be amputated and he nearly lost his life. The sentences for cases such as Tony’s must reflect the lifelong trauma and harm that was inflicted on him.
I campaigned for that change last year, following in the wake of Tony’s parents’ MP, the hon. Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Tom Tugendhat), and I thank the Minister for listening to me, the hon. Member and to Tony’s family and others who have campaigned for the change in the law. It is so necessary and I am so grateful that that has now been adopted.
And now for the less positive part. I have to speak to Lords amendment 107, which is designed to ensure that local authorities can run secure 16 to 19 academies, either alone or in consortiums. I worked with Article 39 and the National Association for Youth Justice to table an amendment on this in the Bill Committee. I was delighted when peers voted in favour of this vital amendment in the other place, as tabled by Lord German and Lord Marks, and I ask the Minister to please keep it in place. As he knows, I have a huge amount of respect for him because he is very fair and because he listens, but as I said, local authorities are also clear that they need a very strong signal from him that they are eligible. This is not me, but the local authorities asking for that clarity. As I said, I find it illogical that he will not accept this amendment.
In December 2016, the Government committed to phasing out child prisons, young offender institutions and secure training centres and replacing them with a network of secure children’s homes and secure schools—now renamed secure 16 to 19 academies. I welcome that progress, because it is very clear that secure training centres were not fit for purpose, as the Youth Justice Board has conceded. However, when the Government looked for an organisation to run the first secure school, they barred local authorities from the tendering process. That decision was heavily criticised by many organisations that specialise on these issues. I find it illogical.
Excluding local authorities risks repeating the serious mistakes of the past, when private providers were contracted to operate secure training centres despite having no prior experience of looking after vulnerable children. There is clear, tragic evidence of what that can lead to. Two children, Gareth Myatt and Adam Rickwood, tragically died following restraint in secure training centres run by the private firms G4S and Serco, respectively, in 2004; the High Court later found that an unlawful restraint regime had persisted in the centres for at least a decade. In a 2016 BBC “Panorama” documentary, staff were filmed verbally and physically assaulting children at the Medway secure training centre, managed by G4S. One manager boasted of stabbing a child’s leg and arm with a fork; another recounted deliberately winding up a child so that he could physically assault him. No child deserves to suffer such abuse, no matter their past or present behaviour.
Local authorities are best placed to run secure 16-to-19 academies because they have experience of education, secure schools and, of course, the local social services that manage and support vulnerable young people. As I keep saying, it is entirely illogical to prevent local authorities from carrying out this work: it makes it harder to integrate services for children while they are in custody and when they return to the community.
The Minister has already argued, as Ministers in previous debates have, that nothing in the law prevents local authorities from running secure 16-to-19 academies. However, as Lord German said in the other place:
“At present, local authorities are excluded simply because there is a view that anything called an ‘academy’ in England cannot be run by a local authority, which seems to create an absolute block to the opportunity for everyone in these institutions to have the best opportunities for life and education.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 17 November 2021; Vol. 816, c. 271.]
It must be clearly stated in the law that local authorities can establish and maintain 16-to-19 academies. I believe—I look to my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham West and Penge (Ellie Reeves) on the Front Bench—that the Opposition will divide the House on the amendment; that is how strongly we feel about it. If Government Members vote against it, what will the chilling effect on local authorities be?
The Minister could accept the amendment this evening without pressing it to a vote. It would then be very clear to local authorities that they are eligible to apply to run 16-to-19 academies. I plead with the Minister to do so, because his actions tonight will make the difference for local authorities thinking that they can apply to run such schemes. It must be really clearly stated in the law and in this debate that local authorities can establish and maintain such academies. I urge the Minister and his MPs to support the amendment to avoid another generation of children not getting the best wraparound services they all deserve.
Mr Jonathan Djanogly (Huntingdon) (Con)
May I say how pleased I am to see the Government bringing forward proposals to stamp out illegal hare coursing? It is an issue that I and many other rural MPs have campaigned on for the best part of a decade, not least as a result of the extreme violence shown by coursers in Cambridgeshire and many other rural parts of the country to those who try to stop them—farmers, local people and even police. The coursers show disregard for property rights and cause huge amounts of damage to crops and hedges.
Shailesh Vara
As a Cambridgeshire neighbour, I am well aware of the difficulties that the Bill seeks to put right. When the matter has been raised with the police, one of the main points that they make is that until now the legislation has had no teeth. When the Bill becomes law, hopefully they will have what they have always wanted. Does my hon. Friend agree that what we really need, once the Bill is on the statute book, is for the police and the Crown Prosecution Service to ensure that the maximum penalties are inflicted on those who are found guilty, not only as punishment for them but to act as a powerful deterrent to others?
Mr Djanogly
I agree with my hon. Friend in every regard. He has made the important point that when legislation is on the statute book, it must be enforced. I think he will agree with me, given the experiences we have both had in talking to local police, that they seek this legislation, they are waiting for it and they will act on it, and no doubt we are both keen to see that happen.
Farmers have been complaining bitterly to me, with good cause. They have a tough enough job as it is without the worry of these coursing criminals. The basic problem is that the provisions of the Hunting Act 2004 often failed to work owing to their complexity, so prosecutors started to use the old 19th-century anti-poaching laws. While those worked evidentially, they failed to have the penalty clout that was required. Fines of tens or hundreds of pounds were pretty meaningless when there were dogs worth tens of thousands and gambling opportunities worth hundreds of thousands. I even heard that the coursing was being streamed into city pubs for gambling purposes. The problem then became worse, because the threat of intimidation was so high for farmers, versus a low penalty risk for the perpetrators, that many farmers did not want to become involved in prosecutions at all.
Now, with this legislation leading to higher levels of fines and confiscation orders, and the ability to charge for the detained dogs and their living costs, I think that we have a much better chance of significantly reducing coursing. Now, armed with these powers, rural police forces will be able to get to work against the perpetrators. I know that in Cambridgeshire they will have the support of all the county MPs, one of whom we have heard from this evening. All of them have been actively involved in this campaign. These anti-coursing measures represent a great example of the Government’s acting in the best interests of the countryside and the farming community to counter rural crime, and they have my full support.
Dr Kieran Mullan (Crewe and Nantwich) (Con)
I rise to support Lords amendment 1, commonly known as Harper’s Law, and to take this opportunity to welcome a number of key reforms introduced by the Bill while also highlighting areas in which I think we should go further.
Let me begin by commenting on what I consider to be the all too frequent yawning gap between what the public, on whose behalf justice is delivered, see as justice, and what the judicial system delivers. I do so conscious that the debate on sentencing has been polarised and distorted by a sort of intellectual snobbery towards anyone who makes the case for longer sentencing. Anyone who mentions this in polite circles, or to any number of think-tanks or charities involved in justice reform, will be met with variations of what is essentially the same disparaging attitude: “Oh, you must be part of the hang ’em and flog ’em brigade”—as if it were not valid or legitimate to say that justice is a social good, that it is served by punishment as well as rehabilitation, and that in some cases serving the social good is better achieved by an emphasis on punishment.
I noted with interest the comment from the family of Sarah Everard that the fact that the perpetrator was given a whole life term, rather than just a life sentence with a minimum period, was the only thing that gave them comfort. We do not often see that narrative in a documentary or a policy paper about justice. Do we really think that that was because the perpetrator was a policeman, although that was the reason in law that he was given a whole-life order—that if he had not been a policeman and had killed Sarah, her family would have been satisfied with a life sentence without a whole-life order? Of course it was not, I believe that their feelings would reflect those of most people who saw their loved one brutally murdered, whatever the circumstances, although very few of them would see a whole-life order as the outcome.
The term “life sentence” is misleading and is often misreported, and in my view it should be reformed. We must remember that the origins of our justice system were a result of our society saying, “You, as the individual and the family, cannot deliver your own justice. The courts will do it on your behalf.” The courts are therefore a servant of the public, and have a responsibility to ensure, at the very least, a broad alignment with what they would want. At present, when it comes to serious offences and hardened criminals, I do not think that they do. That is not to disparage judges; they operate largely within a framework of precedent which they cannot change, so we must recognise that it will take more intervention from us to break some of those precedents.
I would like to highlight child sex offences as another area where there is a yawning gap between what offenders are likely to receive and what the public would consider to be justice. This is not to say that rehabilitation and diversion are not important, and I welcome the measures in this Bill that will help to achieve that. Ultimately, in the longer term, that will lead to fewer victims of crime, but it will not happen overnight and we must ensure that justice is delivered to families and victims in the meantime. This Bill makes huge gains in that regard.
Robbie Moore (Keighley) (Con)
It is once again a great pleasure to be able to speak in favour of this Bill. As we know, the first duty of any Government is to keep their citizens and communities safe, and a huge part of that is guaranteeing that the punishments for those who commit the worst crimes ensure that society receives the justice it deserves and is protected from criminals. On that point, I would like to focus on the amendments that relate to Tony’s law. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Tom Tugendhat) and the hon. Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion), who have campaigned tirelessly to ensure that Tony’s law is enshrined in statute.
Child cruelty is abhorrent, and it is simply unthinkable that someone could commit such crimes, yet they do sadly happen. That includes the crimes that caused the tragic death of Star Hobson in Keighley back in 2020, which shook my entire constituency and indeed the whole country. Star suffered sickening abuse and brutality at the hands of her mother, Frankie Smith, and her mother’s partner, Savannah Brockhill. Star was punched, kicked and stamped on multiple times by Brockhill, with her mother doing nothing to stop the brutality. It is hard to believe that a human, not least a mother and her partner, could be so cruel. During their trials, the court heard that this physical abuse caused Star unsurvivable injuries, including a skull fracture. Following the trial, many of my constituents and I expressed our real concerns about the sentences given to Brockhill and Smith, particularly as Smith initially received only eight years in prison. That was in spite of the fact that she had facilitated the horrible abuse that killed her daughter. It is right that the sentence was referred to the Court of Appeal following a letter that I and many others sent to the Attorney General, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Fareham (Suella Braverman).
We need to ensure that sentencing for child cruelty is fit for purpose. Unfortunately, the tragic death of Star Hobson is not an isolated incident. Child cruelty happens across the country, which is why the Lords amendments to enact Tony’s law are so important. These amendments will ensure that anyone who causes or allows the death of a child in their care will face up to life imprisonment, instead of the current 14-year maximum. Likewise, the punishment for those who cause or allow serious physical harm to a child will toughen from 10 to 14 years.
The crimes I have spoken of are some of the worst imaginable. It is simply incomprehensible that someone could treat a child so cruelly. This abuse must not be allowed to stand, which is why I am so delighted that the Government are encompassing Tony’s law in the Bill.
I finish by putting on record my thanks to my hon. Friends the Members for Stockton South (Matt Vickers) and for Crewe and Nantwich (Dr Mullan), who have campaigned tirelessly in this place to make sure that Harper’s law is included in this legislation. It is commendable that the Government have made these amendments to the Bill.
Matt Vickers (Stockton South) (Con)
I am delighted to see a Bill that will do so much to deliver justice and make our communities safer. There is so much to be said, but I will speak briefly on two changes to our law that are very much overdue.
First, we are making it a statutory aggravating offence to assault someone who is providing a public service. When the pandemic struck, many fled to the safety of their home, but our army of key workers bravely rolled up their sleeves and got on with their job to keep this country going. Health and social care workers, transport workers and retail workers are owed a huge debt of gratitude, but not everyone in our society has shown them that gratitude.
As chair of the all-party parliamentary group on the future of retail, I hear the horrific and increasing abuse suffered by retail workers in town centres and shopping parades across the country. Last year there were 455 assaults on retail workers—not every month, not every week, but every single day. The youngster with their first job stacking shelves and the semi-retired person with an extra part-time job on the tills to top up their income to buy their grandkids something nice for Christmas: these are normal people just doing their job. They are often not well paid, they do not have stab-proof vests or body-worn cameras, and every day they have to return to the scene of the crime.
These people are not assaulted because they wear shirts with Tesco or Co-op written on them; they are assaulted because they are upholding the rules that are in place to protect us. They verify people’s age when buying knives or alcohol, and during the pandemic they checked people’s masks and social distancing, undertaking statutory duties and responsibilities that we in Parliament have placed on them. It is right that they will now have statutory protections.
Lords amendment 1 enacts Harper’s law, and I cannot imagine that anyone has not been touched by the horrific and devastating circumstances of PC Harper’s death. I cannot imagine anyone was not moved by the unbelievable heroism, bravery and determination of his family and his wife, Lissie, in campaigning for this change to ensure that no one else will have to go through such terrible misjustice. When our amazing emergency service workers run towards danger to protect others, it is right that our legal system will now have their back by delivering justice for them and their families.
Ruth Edwards
Pointy black-tipped ears, furry and brown, and the ability to make a getaway at 45 mph. This is the description of the suspect I found digging in our veg patch the other week. I am, of course, talking about the brown hare. The occasional episode of vegetable vandalism aside, we feel privileged to share our home with these fascinating creatures that we often see streaking over the fields around our house or lolloping through our garden.
I strongly welcome Lords amendments 61 to 69, which create tougher penalties for hare coursing by increasing the maximum penalty for trespassing in pursuit of game to up to six months’ imprisonment. New offences have also been created: trespass with the intention of using a dog to search for or pursue a hare; and, secondly, being equipped to do so.
Hare coursing is a huge problem in rural parts of Rushcliffe and throughout the Vale of Belvoir. Last night, I spoke to a local farmer, who told me that hare coursers had been trespassing on his land for as long as he could remember; several times a month they vandalise his property, destroying locks and pulling gates off their posts to gain access. They destroy his crop by driving all over it and, obviously, they destroy the local hare population. He told me there were now hardly any left. Worst of all, he told me, “We know who is doing a lot of it. It’s a couple of local families but they seem to be above the law.” Farmers who had challenged them had their workshops broken into and vandalised, which is why I am not sharing his name today.
I hope these new offences will give the police better powers to target such criminals. I welcome the new powers for courts to order the reimbursement of the police for kennelling dogs seized in relation to hare coursing, because taxpayers certainly should not be paying for it. I also welcome new powers for courts to disqualify offenders from owning a dog—no one engaged in this sort of cruelty to animals should be owning one.
Tom Pursglove
I thank Members from across the House for their many and varied contributions to the various amendments we are considering this evening. I wish to respond to a number of the points made.
First, let me respond to my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill) on IPPs. I have heard his view that the amendment does not go far enough and does not take action to help IPP offenders who are still in prison. The number of IPP offenders in prison, having never been released, stood at 1,661 on 30 September 2021, which represents enormous progress when we compare it with the peak of 6,000 in 2012. The IPP action plan, produced and regularly refreshed by Her Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service, remains the best means of providing all those continuing to serve the IPP sentence with every opportunity to show they can be safely released by the Parole Board. The action plan sets out a series of measures designed to rehabilitate IPP prisoners, including through psychology-led reviews, and improved central and regional strategic oversight of IPP progression. There is clear evidence that these measures are working, and the number of IPP prisoners has decreased. IPP prisoners continue to be released in significant numbers and have a high chance of a positive outcome from Parole Board hearings. In 2020-21, more than two thirds of IPP Parole Board oral hearings resulted in a positive outcome, either a release or a progressive move to open prison.
Despite all that, I hope I can reassure my hon. Friend by saying that, as Ministers have said during the passage of this Bill, in this House and in the other place, we are mindful that the Justice Committee in this House is currently conducting an inquiry into IPP sentences, and we look forward to hearing the recommendations of his Committee and we will certainly consider them closely. I, along with my fellow Ministers, will continue to engage with IPP stakeholders in this House and elsewhere, and we will continue to give full consideration to any options recommended. I hope that that gives him the reassurance that he is looking for as to our intentions.
Sir Robert Neill
I am grateful to the Minister, as it does. I hope that he makes sure that we have a timely response; perhaps he can meet me once our Committee has reported.
Tom Pursglove
Yes, I am always keen that the Department is as timely as possible in engaging with my hon. Friend’s excellent Committee. We are always grateful for the tireless, thorough and considered work that he and colleagues do.
Let me turn to the issue of Harper’s law. Again, I was very grateful to Members from across the House, including the hon. Member for Brent North (Barry Gardiner) and my hon. Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Ruth Edwards), for their clear, full-throated support for these changes. I was able to address one of the technical issues to provide clarity for the House earlier, and I just wish to provide further clarity, as I promised I would, on whether volunteers can be emergency workers under Harper’s law. The answer is yes, it applies to emergency workers who are engaged to supply emergency services in a voluntary capacity as well as to paid employees. It uses exactly the same definition as in the 2018 Act, and I hope that that helps to put the technical aspects of this provision on the record for the House’s benefit.
Lords amendment 107 covers the issue of secure schools. I am always conscious that I do not want to disappoint the hon. Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion). We have always had a very constructive working relationship on a whole host of issues, including on the Marriage and Civil Partnership (Minimum Age) Bill, which I know she will be delighted completed its Commons consideration on Friday. None the less, on this occasion, I am afraid that I cannot deliver precisely on what she wishes to see. However, I reiterate the point that, before we invite applications for any future secure schools, the Ministry of Justice will assess in detail the potential role of local authorities in running this new form of provision. The Department for Education remains committed to moving towards a school system where every school has the benefits of being part of a family of schools in a strong multi-academy trust. The DFE will set out its plans in a schools White Paper to be published in the coming months.
Sarah Champion
Round 5, Minister.
Will the Minister please clarify what the objection is to making it very clear that local authorities can apply to run and maintain 16 to 19 academies? Moreover, is he able to explain why they were prevented from doing so in the first round of tendering?
Tom Pursglove
The hon. Lady is persistent in these matters. All I can do, I am afraid, is simply refer her back to the comments that I have already made during the course of this debate. I will happily take away—[Interruption.] The hon. Lady is chuntering from a sedentary position. I am not sure whether she was here for the duration of this debate. We have covered this matter in some detail. I will gladly take away a copy of Hansard and study the points that she has raised in the course of this debate. If there is any further detail that I am able to provide, I will happily do so.
Tom Pursglove
I refer to the point that I made earlier, which is that we believe there is no barrier.
Lords amendment 58 covers food standards. I hope that I can offer some comfort to the House. We are broadly supportive of the intention to confer such powers, which would be consistent with powers available to other bodies, but reject the amendment on the basis that there is further work to do before any legislative amendments are made. The current chairman of the Food Standards Agency, Susan Jebb, wrote to the Minister for Crime and Policing on 11 August 2021 expressing concern that the existing powers of the National Food Crime Unit were insufficient for their purposes. The Minister responded in October, expressing support for the request and indicated the Home Office’s intent to work with the NFCU to find a suitable legislative vehicle. In order to fully support any extension of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 powers to the NFCU, we would need reassurance that this is necessary, proportionate and legitimate and that suitable governance, accountability and oversight of investigations and complaints arrangements will be in place. There is also a lack of clarity over the necessary protocols when PACE powers would be exercised, which will need consideration with the NFCU before legislative amendments are made, but we will of course legislate at the next available opportunity.
I am also grateful to Members for their strong support for the hare coursing changes that the Government are introducing, particularly the observations made by my hon. Friends the Members for Huntingdon (Mr Djanogly) and for Rushcliffe (Ruth Edwards), and by my hon. Friend the Member for North West Cambridgeshire (Shailesh Vara), who is my neighbour, from just over the border. This issue matters a great deal. We have listened carefully to a wide range of voices, telling us just that. Hare coursing is not a quaint country tradition. It involves horrible cruelty to a much loved wild animal. It is associated with illegal gambling and other criminality. It brings serious harm to the rural areas where it takes place. Subject to parliamentary approval, we intend to get the tougher sentences in place before the start of the next hare coursing season.
I conclude by again thanking Members from across the House for their thoughtful contributions to this debate and also Members in the other place for their thorough consideration of these matters and for the engagement that colleagues have provided throughout the Bill. As a Minister coming to this rather late in the day, may I also place on record my sincere appreciation to my hon. Friends the Member for Louth and Horncastle (Victoria Atkins) and for Croydon South (Chris Philp) as well as to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for South Swindon (Sir Robert Buckland) for all their work in getting us to this stage.
Lords amendment 1 agreed to.
Lords amendment 58 disagreed to.
Clause 139
Secure 16 to 19 Academies
Motion made, and Question put, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 107.—(Tom Pursglove.)
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
We now move to the third set of amendments. When I call the Minister to move the motion, it would be useful if those who are trying to catch my eye indicate they wish to speak.
After Clause 54
Accountability of public authorities: duties on police workforce
Kit Malthouse
I beg to move that this House disagrees with Lords amendment 71.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Lords amendment 74, and Government amendment (a) thereto.
Lords amendment 88, and Government amendment (a) thereto.
Lords amendment 73, and Government motion to disagree.
Lords amendment 80, Government motion to disagree, and Government amendments (a) to (f) to the words so restored to the Bill.
Lords amendment 81, and Government motion to disagree.
Lords amendment 82, and Government motion to disagree.
Lords amendment 87, Government motion to disagree, and Government amendments (a) to (f) to the words so restored to the Bill.
Lords amendments 89 and 146, Government motions to disagree, and Government amendments (a) and (b) in lieu.
Lords amendment 143, Government motion to disagree, and Government amendments (a) to (c) in lieu.
Lords amendments 75 to 79, 83 to 86, 90 to 93, 118 to 120 and 148.
Kit Malthouse
Lords amendment 71 would introduce a duty of candour for the police workforce. I am sure that hon. Members know that the Government take police integrity and accountability extremely seriously. So much so that, in February 2020, we introduced a statutory duty of co-operation for serving police officers as part of wider integrity reforms.
A failure to co-operate in that way constitutes a breach of the statutory standards of professional behaviour by which all officers must abide and could therefore result in a formal disciplinary sanction. It is our view that the duty to co-operate puts a greater onus on officers than the duty of candour provided for in the Lords amendment, as they could ultimately be dismissed for a breach. In essence, the Lords is proposing a dilution.
Hon. Members will also be aware of the Government’s forthcoming response to the Daniel Morgan independent panel and to Bishop James Jones’ report concerning the bereaved Hillsborough families’ experiences, and we will set out our view on a wider duty of candour for all public authorities. Before the Government respond to those reports, however, it is clearly imperative that the Hillsborough families are given the opportunity to share their views.
None the less, we are closely monitoring the impact of the new legislation on police co-operation with inquiries and investigations. As we consider the case for a wider duty of candour for other public servants and bodies, we will determine whether there are gaps in the existing framework that need to be filled to ensure public confidence. I assure the House that we will set out our conclusions later this year.
Before I turn to the Lords amendments to part 3 of the Bill, I point out to hon. Members that over the last couple of years, with regard to public order, we have all seen that the police have struggled with some of the demonstrations that we have seen on our streets. Last autumn, Insulate Britain’s new tactics put a lot of police officers in danger, caused a significant amount of misery to many thousands of people who simply wanted to get to work or to otherwise go about their daily lives, and were difficult to address. Since, we have seen further examples of wholly unacceptable forms of protest. I am afraid that their lordships may regret the day that they voted down the significant number of measures that we had inserted in the Bill.
The House of Lords did, however, recognise that freedom of speech and assembly are qualified rights under the European convention on human rights, and there are times when it is appropriate to restrict those rights to protect the rights of non-protesters. For that reason, we are sympathetic to Lords amendment 143, which would introduce fast-track public space protection orders. The Government have listened to the concerns raised in the other place about the harm caused by disruptive protests outside schools and vaccination centres. We agree in principle with the amendment, and our amendments (a) to (c) in lieu of Lords amendment 143 will have a similar effect but will ensure that provision for expedited PSPOs works with the grain of the existing legislative framework.
Jim Shannon
I very much look forward to the tightening of the laws, but I am also conscious that I look for balance. As one who has protested on the streets of Northern Ireland on many occasions—legally—with an important desire to do so, I ask whether the Minister feels that the balance is right in this legislation. In our words, the right to protest should be done in a peaceful manner, not to obstruct anybody.
Kit Malthouse
I do indeed believe that the balance is right, but the hon. Gentleman does not have to take my word for it. Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary and fire & rescue services was specifically tasked with looking at the balance of legislation and protest. After some examination, it decided that the balance had swung too far in favour of protest and too much away from the rights of others to go about their daily lives.
Jesse Norman (Hereford and South Herefordshire) (Con)
My right hon. Friend knows that I have real concerns about the noisy protest legislation. How often does he expect it to be applied and how many past protests have been subject to something like that kind of police discretion?
Kit Malthouse
Obviously, it is hard for me to predict how often these things will be used. I will come on to talk about the noise provision more specifically, but it is worth pointing out that it is not common for conditions to be placed on protest generally. The National Police Chiefs’ Council tells us that in the three months to April ’21, there were 2,500 protests, and conditions were put on them no more than a dozen times. The Metropolitan police has confirmed that in 2019—hon. Members have to remember that in London, a protest takes place pretty much every day, and sometimes several in one day—it put conditions on only 15 times and, in 2020, only six times. Admittedly, 2020 saw a suppressed number of protests because of the pandemic, but this is nevertheless rare, and the police take care in placing such conditions.
Kit Malthouse
I will make a little bit of progress.
On my previous point about the Lords accepting the need for protection outside schools and vaccination centres, we believe it should not just be people working in those two types of facility who are protected from highly disruptive protests. The Government continue to believe it is essential that the police are able in some circumstances to place conditions on protests to prevent noise causing serious harm or impinging on the rights of others. The vast majority of protests in England and Wales will be unaffected by this legislation. The power may be used only in the most exceptional circumstances where police assess the noise from protests to be unjustifiable and damaging to others. I can assure the House that conditions will, by law, be imposed only where necessary and proportionate, with due consideration to all our freedoms of expression and assembly. The police are already legally bound to assess this balance with the powers they currently have.
Several hon. Members rose—
Kit Malthouse
I will come to the hon. Members in a moment.
I am sure that all hon. Members will recall vividly how proceedings in St Margaret’s church were intruded on by protesters’ noise when we were paying our respects to our colleague Sir David Amess. I am not sure we could call that intrusion damaging; if anything, it made us sing all the loudly and filled the church with an air of defiance as we mourned. However, we have to reflect on the fact that developments in amplification mean that noise can be used as a weapon and can cause significant psychological damage. This is why most local authorities have a noise enforcement team with powers to act. We need to recognise that, in a protest situation, noise could be used to make worship, business or residence impossible in particular premises, and our fellow citizens would expect protection from the police in those circumstances.
Barry Gardiner
To assure the House that there will be an objective standard rather than a subjective one, can the Minister explain either what decibel level there would have to be or for how long such a noise nuisance would have to continue for enforcing the powers to be reasonable and objective?
Kit Malthouse
As the House would expect, we are not prescribing limits in the way the hon. Gentleman is asking for, not least because the varying circumstances with which the police are presented mean that hard and fast rules do not necessary obtain. For example, it could be that one person with an amplifier attempting to drown out—I do not know—pursuit of worship in a particular church, temple or synagogue could be deemed over time to be a nuisance, and therefore be damaging and impinging on the rights of worship of others, whereas a crowd of individuals outside making a similar noise for a shorter time may not. As I have just laid out, I did not regard the noise that intruded on our grief in St Margaret’s as damaging—I would not have thought that that hit the bar—but if someone was outside the hon. Gentleman’s constituency office protesting day in, day out with a large and powerful amplifier, he might quite rightly in those circumstances seek protection from the police or indeed from the local authority. There is a series of these situations that the police are now presented with because of developments in amplification.
Caroline Lucas
Would the Minister acknowledge that our public order laws already make it harder to protest than in practically any other democracy, and that the kind of legislation he is bringing in now, as we have just seen, is completely subjective and puts the police in an impossible position? Laws already exist to deal with the so-called problems that he is raising. This is about throwing red meat to his Back Benchers so that he can try to get a bit more popularity, and it stinks.
Kit Malthouse
I do not know who is throwing the red meat here, but it is certainly not me. Obviously the hon. Lady has a constituency that will lap up her remarks, no doubt released on social media. In truth, the police have been asking for some time for improvements to the elderly public order legislation. We put the measures through consideration by Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire and Rescue Services, which felt they were proportionate and sensible for us to pursue.
Joanna Cherry
The Minister is implying that the police and Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire and Rescue Services in some way wanted this new noise trigger. Will he accept that I am correct when I say that neither the police, nor Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire and Rescue Services, requested the noise trigger at all?
Kit Malthouse
The inspectorate obviously would not request that because that is not its job, but we certainly asked it to look at the balance that we are trying to present with what I think are relatively modest improvements to public order legislation. Indeed, from memory of the report, it felt we should go further, which we are unable to do because of the structure of the Bill. That means that on the rare occasion where noise is causing other people’s rights to be impinged on, and where worship or business or residence is impossible, we would seek protection.
Jesse Norman
I think it would help me, and it might help others in the Chamber, if the Minister would consider putting in place a review, perhaps a year or two years into the use of this power, if the House chooses to grant it.
Kit Malthouse
I am happy to commit to reviewing the offence. I would love to put a time limit on it but, as I said when I outlined the number of times conditions would be met, this measure may be used on only a very small number of occasions. We will have to consider the range of situations in which it is used, and obviously review it as we do with all public order legislation. We take very seriously the fact that protest is a fundamental building block of any liberal democracy, and now more than ever that is writ large. This is an important freedom for us in this country, and I am sure that lots of Members from all side of the House have been on protests of all kinds over the years. We must ensure that legislation moves with the times and reflects changes in technology, and that we give the police the powers they need, albeit in rare and often exceptional circumstances.
Anne Marie Morris (Newton Abbot) (Ind)
The Minister is being generous in accepting interventions. Does he think that, while well intended, the Bill may have the unintended consequence that individuals who think they are within the law in the way they demonstrate, because of the Bill’s subjectivity find themselves unexpectedly criminalised? That for them would be devastating.
Kit Malthouse
No, not necessarily—[Laughter.] No, no. As a former Westminster councillor and London Assembly member for central London, who was subjected to dozens of protests of all sizes, shapes and forms, I would encourage all people who are protesting, wherever they are, to engage with the police first and discuss their own safety and the safety of others. In any democracy it is responsible to ensure that people give forewarning of what they are about to do.
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)
Does the Minister appreciate that many people listening to this debate will be very suspicious of his words? They will see in the proposed regulations and discussions with the police a fundamental desire by him and his Government to shut down, control, and eliminate protest within our society. People have a right to protest, a right to make their voices heard, and a right to dissent. Surely that is fundamental to a democratic society. It is no good praising people in Russia if we close down protest here.
Kit Malthouse
Of course we are not closing down protest. The right hon. Gentleman is right that people have a fundamental right to dissent, to protest and to make their views known in the public sphere as they do in the private sphere, but, as the House of Lords and the European Court of Human Rights have said, the right to protest is not unqualified, and I am afraid that, in the last couple of years, we have seen protestors using tactics that are massively disruptive to other people’s lives. People just wanting to go about their business have been so frustrated that they have been leaping out of their cars and taking things into their own hands. We have seen protestors running on to the fast lane of motorways, causing danger to themselves and motorists, and distracting police officers from stopping people from being stabbed or burgled in all our neighbourhoods. We have a duty to address that, and the role of the House and that of the police is to strike a balance between competing rights. That is what we do, and that is what we are trying to do with these modest measures.
Kit Malthouse
No. I have given way lots of times. There will be many speakers, and I do not want to use up all the time. We have only got until midnight to get through all of this stuff. I will move on from the noise powers, which, as I say, we think will be used only in exceptional circumstances but must be available given changes in amplification.
Lords amendment 80 would prevent the alignment of the police’s ability to place conditions on public assembly with their existing powers to place conditions on public processions. HMICFRS found that a distinction between processions and assemblies was no longer appropriate. In the light of the practical challenges of safely policing protests, there is an unjustifiable inconsistency in the current law. When does a procession become an assembly and vice versa?
Lords amendments 74 to 79 implement a recommendation to the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee to the effect that the term “serious disruption” should be defined in the Bill rather than in regulations. I trust that the amendments have allayed the concerns raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May), who is not in her place, in our previous debates on the matter.
I am afraid that Lords amendments 81 and 82 arise from a misunderstanding of the effect of the provisions in clause 58, which are designed, in the words of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, to protect the rights of access to the parliamentary estate for those with business there. The changes to the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act 2011, which governs prohibited activities in the vicinity of Parliament, will not prevent protests outside Parliament, nor will they prevent the Greater London Authority from authorising assemblies outside Parliament. Clause 58 will simply enable a police officer to direct an individual to cease or not to begin obstructing the passage of a vehicle into or out of the parliamentary estate. That is extremely important for those who are disabled or otherwise need a vehicle to access the estate, either to work here or to exercise their democratic rights. We expect police officers to use their sound judgements to determine when it is appropriate to make use of the power, and I do not see how it can lead to a prohibition of any kind on protests outside Parliament. Lords amendments 81 and 82 are therefore unnecessary.
Lords amendment 88 is a stripped-out version of the Government’s proposal to increase the maximum penalty for those who obstruct the highway. It would limit the increase in the maximum penalties to the obstruction of the strategic road network. Many major roads lie outside the SRN; indeed, some 98% of all roads in England do not form part of it. Were we to limit the increase in the maximum penalty in that way, protestors could continue to cause extensive and wholly disproportionate disruption to commuters and parents dropping their children off at school without facing sentences proportionate to the harm they have caused. Amendment (a) to Lords amendment 88 will ensure that the full extent of our road network is protected with the increase in maximum penalties.
Tonia Antoniazzi
The Minister talks about the cost of demonstrations—those on the road networks in particular—to people’s lives, and he has made statements about the costs of those protests. I tabled a written question asking him what assessment has been made of the cost to the public purse of the prison sentences being given out to Insulate Britain activists. That is a problem, because those sentences are not proportionate to what is happening. Surely there are better ways that are more cost-effective.
Kit Malthouse
At the moment, those incarcerations are at the behest of a judge in a civil matter relating to the injunctions, and there is nothing that the Government can necessarily do about that. However, I point out that deterring people from such action may result in cost savings further down the line for the wider population. I urge Opposition Members, and anybody looking at this issue, to ask themselves whether they believe that protests should not be restrained in any way, shape or form, or that there is a balance to be struck. If they believe, as the ECHR does, and as the House of Lords has accepted in some of its amendments to the Bill, that a balance should be struck, the only question is where.
Our view, which is backed up by evidence from HMI and elsewhere, is that the balance has swung too far away from the general public, who want to go about their lives, recognising the very many important issues that are raised by protest. While they acknowledge those problems, they want to get on with their lives, and they want protection from the state of their right to get to school, to hospital and to work. That is not a right to be taken lightly. One of the most frustrating things about some of these protests has been their self-defeating result. Notwithstanding the cause, important or otherwise, the protestors have turned off millions of their fellow citizens and caused a level of intolerance towards issues such as climate change, which is regrettable. We have a job to balance those rights, and that is what we are attempting to do.
Alex Sobel (Leeds North West) (Lab/Co-op)
The Minister seeks to take public opinion as a whole, but people have had to take these matters into their own hands because air quality is killing their children, and because of the Government’s inaction on the very simple act of insulating housing. The proportionality is in the wrong place, and he is seeking to take on public opinion where it does not exist. If the Government took the right actions, surely there would be no need for the protests in the first place. People should be allowed to protest proportionately.
Kit Malthouse
We cannot operate a democracy on the basis that, unless the Government agree with everything that someone wants, they will protest. It is a crazy thing to say, I am afraid. Much progress in this country has been brought about by protest, but much more has been brought about by political campaigning and winning elections. Frankly, if someone wants to make a change in the country, as all Opposition Members are proving, that is the way to go about it. I hope that the House will appreciate that we are trying hard to strike a balance between competing rights.
Kit Malthouse
No, I have given away enough; I have to move on. We acknowledge the fundamental importance of the right to protest in this country. We live in a liberal democracy. The right of someone to dissent and to go out on the street and make their views known is critical, but so is my right to get to hospital, to work or to church, and to do so without somebody blasting me out with noise. We have been balancing competing rights for decades, if not centuries, in this country. We are a mature democracy that can cope with that kind of responsibility—have no fear. We are ringed around by independent courts, a bicameral Parliament, all sorts of checks and balances on the power of Government to strike this balance, legislation, and our participation in supranational treaties. There are lots of ways that we protect ourselves and our human rights, but in the end, fundamentally, all democratic Governments have to strike that balance, and that is what we are attempting to do.
Lords amendments 118 to 120 give effect to a commitment made by the Prime Minister following the final of Euro 2020, in response to disgraceful online racist abuse directed at certain England players. The amendments would enable a court to impose a football banning order against persons convicted of online hate offences connected to football. That will prevent such offenders from spreading their criminal, hateful views at football matches, and I very much hope that the measure will also deter others from engaging in similar behaviours that are so harmful to victims and to our national game.
Lords amendments 89 and 146 would repeal the Vagrancy Act 1824. The Government are committed to ending rough sleeping, and as a result of our actions we have seen an historic reduction in rough sleeping in recent years. We agree that no one should be criminalised simply for sleeping rough, and that the time has indeed come to repeal the antiquated Vagrancy Act 1824. I know that that sentiment is keenly shared by a number of hon. Members. I pay tribute to the campaign that has been run by my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Nickie Aiken), my right hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick), my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) and my predecessor in my constituency of North West Hampshire, Lord Young, in the other place.
However, we must balance our role in providing essential support for the vulnerable with ensuring that we do not weaken the ability of the police to intervene where needed. Therefore, while our amendments in lieu will provide for the Vagrancy Act to be repealed in full in England and Wales, we intend to enact replacement legislation in the coming Session before bringing the repeal of the 1824 Act into force. To allow for that, and ultimately to ensure that the police have the tools they need, we will delay commencement of the repeal for up to 18 months. In the meantime, we will publish a bold new strategy to end rough sleeping. The strategy will set up how we will ensure that rough sleeping is prevented in the first instance and is effectively responded to in the rare cases where it does occur, and that our police have the ability to intervene where needed and keep everybody safe, including the person at issue.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
Order. We have very limited time, so after the next speaker from the Opposition Front Bench there will be a time limit of five minutes. I suspect that that may have to come down during the course of the debate. Priority will be given to people who have not spoken previously.
Sarah Jones
I want to begin by making a comment in this House on the Government’s procedure in the other place. The Government tried to sideline the Commons from its role in the democratic process by bringing into the Lords substantial but last-minute amendments on protests that would have had a fundamental impact on our rights. The Lords had very little time to scrutinise them and that is generally considered to be very poor form. Instead of chasing headlines and rushing in last-minute sweeping amendments clearly not thought through, they should be focusing on driving up prosecution rates, improving their woeful record on crime and dealing with the problems that really matter to the British people.
Labour voted against the Bill in its entirety on Second Reading and Third Reading because of parts 3 and 4, which represent a power grab that effectively bans peaceful protests and will compound the inequalities experienced by Gypsies and Travellers. I want to pay particular thanks to colleagues in the other place who have stood up for democracy and prevented the draconian provisions on protests that the Government tried to get through at the last minute.
Before I come to the protest amendments, I want briefly to touch on the other amendments in this grouping. First, we are grateful that the Government have listened to reason on so many of our amendments. I want to mention two in this grouping in particular. I pay tribute to the hard work of Lord Bassam in pressuring the Government to extend football banning orders to online racist abuse in Lords amendments 148, 118, 119 and 120. Racists who abuse football players do not deserve to be anywhere near a game of football. The amendments send a strong message that disgraceful racist behaviour has no place in the world of football, online or in person.
We are also glad that Lords amendment 89, which will repeal the Vagrancy Act 1824, has been accepted by the Government and that they have finally decided to act. No one should be criminalised simply for sleeping rough. But I hope the Minister can provide some reassurance to the House that this crucial change will not be kicked into the long grass and that the new legislation will be brought in at the earliest opportunity.
I want to touch on Lords amendment 71. The Government are refusing to introduce a duty of candour on police officers at this stage to co-operate with inquiries. The Minister claimed that the existing schedule on standards of professional behaviour is sufficient, but we do not believe that it is. It states that police officers must act with honesty and integrity, which of course they should, but the amendment passed in the Lords goes significantly further to ensure that where the police are required to provide information to inquiries or other such proceedings, they must have regard to the pleadings allegations terms of reference and parameters of the relevant proceedings, but not be limited by them, in particular where they hold information that might change the ambit of the proceedings inquiry or investigation. That is a really important distinction. The Lords amendment goes significantly further than the statutory duty of co-operation.
In June 2021, the Daniel Morgan independent panel, which took eight years to report, recommended the creation of a statutory duty of candour to be owed by all law enforcement agencies to those whom they serve. It is time for decisions to be made and for actions to be taken to restore public confidence in the police service.
Part 4 of the Bill represents an attack on the Gypsy, Traveller and Roma communities, even though the police have made it clear that they neither want nor need these powers. The Government have rejected our calls to remove part 4, and that is one of the major reasons why we voted against the Bill in its entirety. Although Lords amendments 91 to 93 are very small technical amendments, they confirm the principles around the powers of seizure of property that we Opposition Members believe are unfair.
The problem that many Government Members seem to articulate whenever we debate this issue is actually one of antisocial behaviour. The solution to antisocial behaviour, wherever it comes, is tougher antisocial behaviour action. Under this Government, we saw 1.7 million incidents in the year to September 2021 and nothing has been done. Marginalising an entire minority is not the answer to antisocial behaviour. We need to distinguish between the two and not criminalise a minority.
I turn to the Lords amendments on protest. Over the past five days, thousands of people have been arrested and detained at anti-war protests across Russia. We would all defend their right to protest and yet here we are, in the mother of all democracies, debating an amendment to a Bill that would criminalise singing at a peaceful protest in this country. Britain has a long-standing and important democratic freedom to gather and to speak or to protest. The Minister quoted an HMICFRS report, but he misunderstood its conclusions. The report said that we need a
“modest reset of the scales”
because police forces are usually good at planning protests but the “balance may tip”. The report’s recommendations were not legislative; they were to update and improve guidance to senior police officers, to improve the way in which the police assess the impact of protests, to improve police intelligence and to improve debrief processes, all of which are very sensible.
The Government asked the HMICFRS to look at some legislative options, which it did, and it gave some qualified support to some of them, but at no point was noise any part of that conversation. I have spoken to many senior police officers and at no point have any of them asked for any changes to the law on noise. The Bill goes way beyond the right balance between the right to protest and the right for others, which we agree with, to go about their daily lives.
Mike Amesbury (Weaver Vale) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend concur that those who protested in Peterloo were probably a little bit noisy, as were those who protested for women’s suffrage and those who protested against the poll tax? Indeed, she mentioned the international situation in Russia. This is about freedom and democracy. I am sure that she would concur with that.
Rachael Maskell
Protests occur so that people can be heard, and if people need to be heard, they need to make a noise. I was particularly struck over the weekend not only by the masses who have stood up against an authoritarian state, but by the actions that the police have had to take against those people. If we are to criminalise people for exercising their rights, is that not just going down the same path?
Sarah Jones
My hon. Friend is right: this is about getting the right balance. We believe that the measures in part 3 of the Bill already threaten that careful balance by putting too much power into the hands of the Home Secretary, undermining rights, and hindering, rather than helping, the police to do their job. Labour’s Lords amendment 73 therefore focuses on the imposition of conditions related to noise on public processions. It would omit subsections (2) and (3) from clause 55, which broadens the circumstances in which conditions can be imposed by a senior police officer based on the noise generated by the people taking part and the impact that that has on the people in the area. Essentially, part 3 provides a trigger for imposing conditions on public assemblies, public processions and one-person protests if a protest is too noisy. The Opposition want those provisions removed from the Bill.
We also support Lords amendment 80, which was tabled by Lord Paddick and removes clause 56 from the Bill altogether, and we urge hon. Members to vote for Lords amendment 81 to ensure that permission can be granted for major protests in Parliament Square despite new rules on obstructing vehicle access.
Barry Gardiner
Does my hon. Friend agree that the level of nuisance caused by any noise or vocalisation at a protest may be a matter not just of decibels, but of content? Because somebody might perceive one kind of content to be more of a nuisance than another, the level of nuisance, in and of itself, is subjective.
Sarah Jones
That is an important point. The way the police interpret the laws we give them will always be subjective to some degree. We have to be very careful to define in law exactly what we mean, because the police implement the laws we give them and their job needs to be as clear as possible.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
If we consider what the future will hold if the House follows the route that the Government suggest, there are two options: either the police will be left constantly at odds with those who wish to protest, or we will be left with legislation on the statute book that the police do not want and will never use. In either instance, what is the point?
Sarah Jones
That is a very valid point. On the noise issue, I cannot see that the police will find a way to use the legislation. It would be a waste of legislation: it would not be implemented.
The Government motion to disagree and amendments in lieu of Lords amendment 80 would restore the original wording of clause 56 and add a vague definition of “serious disruption” that would apply to the noise provisions in the Bill. The Opposition do not believe that it is adequate; it could apply to singing in the street outside a place of worship or a transport facility. It does not work, and we do not support it. Additionally, although the provision would be in the Bill, the amendments in lieu would allow the Home Secretary to change it at any point, so it is slightly pointless.
On public spaces protection orders, the Opposition believe that rather than introducing sweeping powers that could catch people protesting against the closure of their local library or singing songs in the street, the Government should focus on genuine problems such as those considered in the clauses that Labour introduced to stop intimidatory protests outside schools or vaccine clinics. That is why we tabled a targeted amendment, Lords amendment 143, so that schools, local councils and the NHS could fast-track local buffer zones to prevent intimidatory anti-vax protests outside schools and vaccine clinics. We won that vote in the Lords and are pleased that, after a period of inaction, the Government have accepted Labour’s proposals to crack down on those dangerous protests and give schoolchildren and NHS staff the protection that they need.
We also supported giving the courts the ability to increase sentences if protesters put lives at risk by blocking motorways. Labour’s Lords amendment 88 limits the Government’s original amendment so that it applies only to motorways and A-roads rather than to any highway, which could include a path. It is not proportionate to apply a maximum six-month sentence to the blocking of a grass verge or a public footpath. We need a common-sense and balanced approach instead. The Government should look at the HMICFRS report and focus on improving training, guidance, co-ordination and resources to manage public order policing as the inspectorate has recommended, rather than new powers that either are too wide-ranging or replicate powers that the police already have.
The point of protest is to capture attention. Protests are noisy and sometimes annoying—I find them annoying; we all find it annoying to have to listen to some of the ongoing singing that we hear in this place—but they are fundamental to our democracy.
If the public order provisions on noise in the Bill had been in place earlier, they would have stopped the suffragettes who marched for the right to vote, the children shouting loudly for action on climate change, or the Whitehall protesters against the Russian invasion. That is why Labour will keep pushing to limit the harmful provisions in this Bill.
There are elements of the Bill that we welcome, and it has been improved thanks to the hard work of Labour colleagues and, indeed, colleagues in all parts of the House. However, the Government have included disproportionate and draconian provisions that risk undermining our human rights and dividing communities. The right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May) is not present, but if she were, she might say that there is a fine line between being “popular” and being “populist”. We on these Benches want to see the Government stop chasing headlines and get back to the core duties of the Home Office: to keep people safe, bring criminals to justice, and uphold the rights and responsibilities of the rule of law.
Jesse Norman
I want to speak in particular about the issue of noisy protest, but I should begin by saying that, as the Minister outlined very well, there is a great deal of good in the Bill, covering many different areas.
There are facts on which I think everyone in the House would agree from the off. No one can doubt that in recent years the capacity for effective protest has been dramatically enhanced by technology, and enhanced a second time through the use of social media. No one can doubt, I think, that there are irresponsible and aggressive individuals and organisations who seek to inflict the maximum interruption and difficulty on the lives of others in the causes that they promote. And no one can doubt that the public have a right to go about their business without undue impediment. I do not think that any Member would contest those points.
I thank the Minister for engaging with me on this issue and for his clarifications this evening, both on the number of protests that this measure would be likely to affect and on the possibility of a review over a suitable but, I hope, not too long period, but—in my view at least—the measure should not be on the statute book. No serious case has been made that noise is a genuine problem. The Minister has conceded, and one understands why, that the measure is not likely to be used except in the tiniest minority of cases. We therefore have to ask whether the justification for it is adequate and proportionate. The offence is still vague and poorly defined, which is never a good thing in law. The police, as has been conceded, already have significant legal powers in relation to protests, and I regret to say that, worse, in some quarters they are the subject of a degree of public mistrust, which may be increased by our adding to their discretionary powers. Furthermore, I suspect that the measure will be extremely difficult for the courts to handle and adjudicate, even it proves to be compliant with article 11 of the Human Rights Act. All those are conservative—with a small and a large “c”—concerns that people might have about the operation of the rule of law in this country.
When people in Kyiv are dying for their beliefs and for the rights of freedom of speech and of association, the timing is unfortunate. I understand the motivations, and I understand that this has been lightly and sparingly applied, but an increase in discretion to qualify rights of protest that have been fundamental to our society and democratic traditions for hundreds of years is, I think, highly regrettable.
Anne McLaughlin
Let me begin by speaking about Lords amendments 73 to 89, which broadly cover the provisions in part 3, on public order. Part 3 does not technically extend to Scotland, but we are still very keen to lend our voice of complete opposition. As I mentioned on Second Reading, we support amendments that seek to mitigate the worst elements of part 3 because they will have an impact on everyone in these islands. We all have the right to speak up and hold power to account, including anyone travelling from Scotland to protest here, at the seat of power. While decisions are made on behalf of the people of Scotland by this place—and we hope that that may not be the case for much longer—the people of Scotland must retain the right to protest outside it.
In the past, I have made the journey from Scotland to this place to protest against many things, including the Iraq war, and I genuinely look forward every week to seeing who will be outside and what they will be bringing to the demonstration, whether I agree with what they are demonstrating about or not. Who can forget the wonderful WASPI women and the numerous noisy protests they held in the streets around Parliament? Rosie Dickson from WASPI Glasgow has told me how concerned she is that Scottish women born in the 1950s who have been unfairly denied their pensions by a Westminster Government now face
“having their human right to protest against it removed”.
They are being unfairly denied their right to their pensions, and now unfairly denied their right to object to that.
We support Lords amendments 73, 80 to 82 and 87, which I will speak to. I have concerns about Lords amendment 88, although on balance it is probably better than what was there before. Lords amendment 73 would remove subsections (2) and (3) from clause 55, which, unamended, would allow the police to impose conditions on a protest if they had a reasonable belief that the noise generated by the participants in the protest may result in
“serious disruption to the activities of an organisation which are carried on in the vicinity of the procession”,
or may have a significant and
“relevant impact on persons in the vicinity”.
The attention these noise restrictions have received from the wider public and the media is telling. Everybody knows that protests are noisy—that is how people get their point across. The louder they shout, the more we listen. Every day we are witnessing people protesting against the atrocities in Ukraine. Why on earth would we usher in legislation to curtail that?
Mr Carmichael
The hon. Lady will have heard the noisy protests in this Chamber every Wednesday between 12 and 12.30. We are okay, because we are protected by parliamentary privilege, but surely if Conservative Members want to end noisy protests, they should be prepared to practise what they preach.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Some of us do try to keep that under control. We try our very best amid a lack of co-operation.
Anne McLaughlin
I was trying to find a way to work that into what I was saying, so I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that.
We know that without demos and protests, a lot of things would not change. The Minister said that things changed through political campaigning and getting elected, but actually things change because people in local communities rise up and tell us what they want us to do. That is how democracy should function.
Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)
My hon. Friend is making some very good points on the importance of protests. One of the most significant protests in my constituency of late was when the people of Kenmure Street came together to try to stop their neighbours being removed from their homes by the Home Office. Does she agree that the Government should be trying to protect that kind of protest—the community involved and standing up for what is right for their neighbours—not trying to remove it?
Anne McLaughlin
I absolutely do, because if people feel empowered by being part of that democracy, other than getting to vote every four years, that can only be a good thing.
The notion that the police can intervene on any kind of noise threshold—as we have heard, we do not know what the threshold is—puts the fundamental right to protest at risk. This Bill will create a situation where people who are simply trying to have their voices heard will be dragged into the criminal justice system. We are going to need extremely large prisons by the time this Government have finished with all this legislation. The reduced knowledge threshold, where a person ought to have known that restrictions were in force, is an Orwellian nightmare. A protester will have to second-guess how the authorities will judge their behaviour.
The language used in clause 55 is vague at best: “serious unease”, “alarm” and “distress”. A protest may seem more alarming or distressing to one police officer than to another. This hands far too much discretion to the police, and there is a point when too much discretion becomes a burden. That was echoed by former police chiefs and senior officers, who have warned against the political pressure that this Bill will place on frontline officers. If the police do not think these powers are necessary, why do the Government? As we have heard from a number of speakers, the powers already exist for them to deal sufficiently with a protest that could result in serious public disorder, serious damage to property or serious disruption to the life of the community. I just do not think the Government have made a good enough argument that the powers are insufficient. For those reasons, we support Lords amendment 73.
We also support Lords amendment 80, which would remove the police’s ability to impose greater conditions on static demonstrations. The Public Order Act 1986 was careful to delineate and differentiate the conditions that can be imposed on static demonstrations and those that can be imposed on a march or moving protest, which is sensible as it reflects the relative ease with which a static demonstration can be policed. Clause 56, which the amendment seeks to remove, will see the distinction removed.
In the words of Big Brother Watch, clause 56 could potentially hand the police
“unfettered discretion to impose any condition they see fit including, for example, restrictions on the words or slogans that can be expressed on placards.”
That is a democratic outrage. This is an attempt by the Government to level the distinction between static and moving protests. As they tend to do, they are levelling down, not levelling up. For that reason, we support Lords amendment 80.
We also lend support to Lords amendment 87, which removes the police’s ability to impose conditions on a one-person protest. What a situation. The might of the Government and their legislative power is bearing down on single protesters, which is ridiculous and disproportionate in equal measure. Worryingly, it has the potential to snare anyone who even stops to engage with that protester as committing a criminal offence. As I said, we are going to need much larger prisons.
Lords amendment 88 would narrow the scope of the offence of wilful obstruction of the highway to include only highways that are part of the strategic road network. We are caught in a trap where, on the one hand, I am glad to see this offence is restricted to the strategic road network but, on the other hand, I am alarmed to see the associated sentence increased from a fine to 51 weeks’ imprisonment—much larger prisons. This amendment is targeted at some very specific protesters whom we have all witnessed taking their protests to the streets and roads, but I feel this severe penalty has the potential to create a chilling effect—I have used that term all too often in the past six months during our consideration of the Judicial Review and Courts Bill and the Nationality and Borders Bill, although, from what I am hearing from the other place tonight, there is now not much left of the latter.
Turning to Government amendments 90 to 93, I am disappointed that the only amendments to part 4, on unauthorised encampments, appear to be technical clarifying amendments that do nothing to row back on the measures expanding the criminalisation of trespass and the accompanying police powers. Again, this is an area where existing powers are available to the police. This is more to do with targeting a minority than targeting trespass.
We know this Bill will disproportionately interfere with the right of respect for the private and family life of Gypsy, Roma and Traveller groups. The new seizure powers in respect of vehicles—vehicles often being the home of Gypsies and Travellers, in particular—are very likely to mean that people will end up facing homelessness. I can only hope that, in mitigation, the Government will focus on providing further support and funding to local authorities across these islands for authorised sites and implementing a national sites strategy. They might want to speak to the Scottish Government about some of their work on this. The Court of Appeal has set out that this community has an enshrined freedom to move from one place to another, and that the state has a positive obligation to protect Gypsy, Roma and Traveller communities’ traditional way of life.
What are the Government so afraid of? From the man outside Parliament today adorned in plastic bottles to make a point about the overuse of plastics, to the many who finally found their voice in the last two years through the Black Lives Matter movement, and who are using that voice to make a very simple point that black lives matter every bit as much as white lives. From our Ukrainian brothers and sisters here on these islands who feel so helpless right now and who need to come together to protest against what is happening in their country, to people who simply wish to save the planet. What are the Government so afraid of? Well, I thank and applaud those protesters. This Government want to stop and criminalise them.
Robert Jenrick (Newark) (Con)
I will be brief and speak to two issues: first, in praise and thanks; and secondly, by way of caution.
In praise and thanks, I am delighted that the Government have accepted the amendment moved in the other place by the noble Lord Best and the noble Lord Young repealing the Vagrancy Act 1824.
Almost 200 years ago, as the cities were filling with the dispossessed at the end of the Napoleonic wars, our forebears in this place came together and passed a piece of legislation that today seems anachronistic and wrong. As a result of the votes later tonight, we will consign that legislation to history. Our understanding of rough sleeping and homelessness has transformed unrecognisably over the course of those two centuries. Today, we see it as a crisis of housing, of health, of social justice and of the criminal justice system. We do not see it as a criminal offence for someone to find themselves sleeping rough on the streets, and we should not live in a country where it is a criminal offence.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
I shall have to reduce the time limit to three minutes if there is a chance for most people to make a short contribution.
Imran Hussain (Bradford East) (Lab)
I rise to speak in favour of Lords amendments 73 and 80.
Like many of my hon. Friends, I marched and protested in opposition to the Iraq war. They were some of the largest and most important protests that we have ever seen. Anyone who attended or saw them would agree they were big, they were noisy and, by their very nature, they caused some disruption. None the less, it was absolutely right that the people were allowed to protest against one of the biggest injustices of our time, even if it was in direct opposition to the policy of the Government. Let us be clear: if protests of this kind, or protests such as those against the poll tax, were to take place today under the measures in the Bill, there would be a real fear that they could be stopped by this Government.
As has been reiterated time and again in this Chamber, the right to peaceful protest, however disruptive it may be to Ministers and Members of Parliament, is one of the fundamental tenets of our democracy. Yet the restrictions that the Government want to impose in the Bill would allow the police to render protests inert, amounting to what is an effective ban. Of course, we have yet to be given any clarity about why the Government are giving themselves such draconian powers, especially when the Government and the police already have ample powers to prevent protests that threaten public order and to take action against those protests they deem disruptive.
It could not be clearer that the powers that the Government want to hand themselves are an extreme overreach, which should leave us all worried about their ability to stifle popular protests against their policies. The reality is that these measures are nothing more than a petty vengeance against protesters by Ministers who are too thin-skinned to accept any criticism. Frankly, they are measures that put the protection of ministerial egos and business interests before the protection of human rights, as part of an intentional journey towards the creation of a Big Brother state that stifles protest and dissent.
Let there be no doubt: this is an extraordinary ideological attack on our civil liberties, with draconian laws, from the undermining of our trade unions to the taking away of our British citizenship without notice, all passed by this Government to curb our freedoms and restrict our rights. That is why this Government must be challenged on every occasion to stop the further erosion of our civil liberties.
Nickie Aiken (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con)
In the time given, I wish to speak on Government amendments (a) and (b) to the Bill in lieu of Lords amendments 189 and 146. Of course, I am speaking about the amendment to repeal the Vagrancy Act 1824, which brings us a massive step closer to ending rough sleeping and would drastically change how we view and help those on the streets.
For almost 200 years, the criminalisation of the homeless has shamed our country, but at long last the Vagrancy Act’s days are numbered. I thank the Minister for his constructive discussions with me, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick) for being beside me, both when he was on the Front Bench and now on the Back Benches, fighting for the repeal of the Vagrancy Act.
I know there has been some concern in our discussions about the Vagrancy Act’s disappearing and our inability to deal with aggressive begging. I want to make the point that there are powers in place today in the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 which are now used by the police in the majority of cases against aggressive begging. It should be no surprise, therefore, that arrests and prosecutions under the Vagrancy Act have plummeted since 2014. From the conversations I have had with the Met and the City of London Police, I believe alternative powers to deal with aggressive begging are already available.
I am a pragmatist, so I accept the Government’s position of seeking a thorough and comprehensive review, but I ask the Minister to ensure that that is done quickly and concisely; up to 18 months is a very long time, so I ask him to please bring it forward. I hope that during the review he and the Home Secretary might consider revising the specific guidance on aggressive begging under the 2014 Act. I would welcome his response on that.
Finally, in my constituency of the Cities of London and Westminster we have the largest number of rough sleepers in the United Kingdom. I hope that the repeal of the Vagrancy Act will send a clear message to those sleeping on the street, tonight and every night that we will help and support them to turn their lives around and we will no longer criminalise them.
Olivia Blake (Sheffield, Hallam) (Lab)
I am really proud to represent Sheffield Hallam for so many reasons, but one that is particularly relevant to today’s debate is the city’s long and proud tradition of protest. In the 1800s, Sheffield’s Chartists took part in mass demonstrations, holding nightly meetings in Sheffield’s Paradise Square to protest against the then royal ban on open-air meetings. Sheffield played a pivotal role in the struggle for women’s suffrage, and our city’s suffragettes took to the streets time and again to fight for the right to vote. My point is that protests have formed the world around us. They are the reason that I stand here today. They have made our world a better place. Protest is often the start of change. Yes, it is often loud and often messy, because people have been ignored for too long and we need to listen.
Without protests, our country would be unrecognisable. Women would not have won the vote. There would be no NHS. Parliament would be less democratic. The right to protest is a person’s right to shape the world around them—to stand up for what they believe is right and to oppose what they believe is wrong. It is a fundamental cornerstone of our democracy. As such, the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill is a flagrant attack on the core principles of that democracy. When this Bill was first proposed, we rightly saw people come together and spread out into the streets because what was being proposed was utterly draconian. I am proud to have worked with the Bishop of Sheffield and many others to talk about how this will impact on Sheffield’s history but also our future.
Having heard what has happened in the other place, I am glad that several amendments have been proposed that would mitigate the worst impacts of the Bill—particularly amendment 73 removing the ability of the police to impose noise-based restrictions on public processions, amendment 80 on giving police the power to impose greater conditions on static demonstrations, and amendment 87 removing their ability to impose conditions on one-person protests. The idea that one person cannot protest or should not be allowed to express themselves is completely at odds with what our democracy should stand for.
We live in a climate and ecological emergency where the future is not only for our country but for the whole planet, and it will be determined by the actions that are taken over the next few years. It is absolutely right that people should be able to hold us to account by raising their voices on our inaction. We have seen a brilliant wave of young people standing up for our environment—for a liveable planet for future generations. We should hold on to those thoughts as we protect protest.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
I rise to consider Lords amendments 89 and 146 and the Government’s amendments in lieu. I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick) and my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Nickie Aiken) on their speeches on this subject. I declare my interest as the co-chairman of the all-party parliamentary group on ending homelessness.
There are two aspects to the Vagrancy Act. The first, of course, is being homeless. I have always taken the view that someone should be assisted and not arrested if they have nowhere to live. That is one of the reasons it is desperately important that we end the Vagrancy Act as fast as we possibly can. One of the considerations is that when we go and speak to people who are homeless, rough sleeping on the street, they will say that they fear authority—they fear the police. They should not fear the police; the police should be able to assist in trying to direct them to charities or other bodies that can help them to find a secure place to live instead of their being threatened with either being moved on or literally being arrested. That is one of the most important reasons why we want this off the statute book as fast as possible.
The other aspect is begging. Antisocial behaviour, begging under false pretence of need, forcing others to beg and trespassing are all outlawed under our much more modern legal actions. The police have the powers to deal with this without using the Vagrancy Act, but they will use it because it is a catch-all. In 2014, 2,219 people were prosecuted under the Vagrancy Act, but in 2019 this dropped to 742, demonstrating that we do not need it any more and we must get rid of it.
During the pandemic, my right hon. Friend the Member for Newark led the way on ensuring that everyone was taken off the streets, for which I commend him and the whole Department. However, the rough sleeper count is now back to 4,500—half what it was in 2019 but still far too high.
I am glad that the Government have given way, finally, on abolishing the Vagrancy Act, but I am worried, because we cannot afford to wait 18 months. We will then reach the 200th anniversary of that Act being brought in, which was way before any of us were thought of, let alone born. The reality is, Minister, that you are considering the introduction of a new Bill that will delay things yet further. Can you give us—
Bob Blackman
Sorry, Madam Deputy Speaker. Will the Minister make sure that the consultation is very short? I see no reason to extend it beyond four weeks, and then the measure can be introduced and we can get rid of that Act once and for all.
Layla Moran (Oxford West and Abingdon) (LD)
Much of what the Liberal Democrats have issue with in the Bill has been covered by my right hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) in previous consideration. We are making a dangerous and draconian move today. We are told that it will be small steps, and I hope that is true, but in the light of what is happening in Ukraine, it is not a good look.
I will focus today on a chink of light in the Bill—a piece of positivity to take home with us tonight—which is the Vagrancy Act and Government amendment 146. I am delighted, genuinely, that the Government have tabled the amendment. It is four years and 21 days since I asked the then Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May), a question about the Vagrancy Act. I laid the first repeal Bill on that day, and there have been three since then and countless homelessness Ministers—we have lost count. I know that the Government want to claim credit for all these things like they were all their idea, and that is fine, but I end with a genuine thank you to all those Members on the Government Benches and the Opposition Benches, because this has been a cross-party proposal from the moment it was conceived.
Above all, I give credit to the students who brought me this idea in the first place. I have had many emails from them in the past couple of days saying they were in their third year at university, they had been kicked out of the clubs and they had talked to the homeless people on the streets of Oxford. They had asked them what scared them, and the homeless people told them about the Vagrancy Act. That started a petition, and that is how this began. It was the citizen creating change—that is democracy. It is extraordinary for them to start a petition and for it to end here, and I genuinely thank the Government for listening to their voices.
I echo the words and sentiments of the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) and others when they say there is no need to delay and that lawyers have looked at this. There are parts of the country where the police do not use the Vagrancy Act at all. We have tried and tested ways of dealing with this issue. We have already got the legislation. Every day that Act continues is another day that a homeless person is sleeping rough on our streets, scared that one single person—this Act is old, so no witness is needed—can come up to them and prosecute them under this Dickensian, outdated law. We do not need it one day more; this is a better country than that. We should not be saying to homeless people, “You are a criminal.” Instead, we should be acting with compassion and care, and I hope that is what we have started today.
David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)
Like many colleagues, I welcome enormously the steps that the Government are taking in respect of the Vagrancy Act. I will say no more about that and seek to concentrate on two of the most important aspects of the Bill for my constituents. They are two of the most important aspects where we need to be steadfast in not accepting some of the amendments that would weaken some of those key provisions.
The first is a point that has been aired a great deal in a lot of public correspondence: noise nuisance. The Environmental Protection Act 1990 set the legal framework and definitions that local authority noise teams need to use when seeking to address the disturbance being caused to the peaceful enjoyment of one’s home or property and the peaceful enjoyment and ability of people to go about their duties in their place of work. The Minister, like me, is an emanation of local government, so he will be aware of the frustrations that so many people express time and again, when they are unable to gain that peaceful enjoyment. The powers are weak, and the ability to ensure that action is taken to address disturbance is found to fall short. Many of my constituents will welcome the fact that the Government are taking steps not just to make protests, which sit outside the definitions of that Act, actionable under law and by the police, but to address the persistent disruption that can be created by noises that are not exceptionally loud, but designed to make it difficult for people to go about their duties or to enjoy their home or place of work in peace. Given the age of that legislation, the Bill takes a reasonable step.
The Bill mentions that the Minister is of the view that nothing is incompatible with the rights under the European convention. I am a member of the Joint Committee on Human Rights—I know that other members are present in the Chamber—which has taken evidence on a point that the hon. Member for Croydon Central (Sarah Jones) highlighted. I simply say how much I welcome the unamended powers in part 4 of the Bill, which seek to strengthen the position in respect of unauthorised encampments.
Again, as an emanation of local government, I am aware that my local authority and my neighbouring local authority spend hundreds of thousands of pounds of council tax payers’ money every year to clean up the consequences of unauthorised encampments in public parks and places that are normally enjoyed by our constituents going about their business, but who are prevented from enjoying those spaces by their unauthorised and unlawful use. The strengthening of those powers will make a material difference to our ability to maintain our constituents’ quality of life. For those reasons, I strongly support the Government in taking forward those powers unamended.
Lloyd Russell-Moyle
When people complain to me about the noise at Prime Minister’s questions, I always tell them that they can tune into any of the two-hour hearings of the Select Committees that I sit on and listen to some calm forensic questioning, but they do not, because shouting—the impassioned barrage of noise—is a fundamental of PMQs and of democracy. Democracy is noisy. Democracy is irritating, but that is democracy.
It will come as no surprise to hon. Members that I have attended a good number of protests and never once—never once—have I attended a protest without the intention to disrupt or to make a noise. Quite frankly, what would be the point? When our constituents feel that they cannot be heard through other means, they stand outside and they shout. Even if they are fox hunting supporters or Brexiteers, I smile when I walk past them as they are performing that basic level of democracy—from the agora to Parliament Square. The idea that we would criminalise those people is frankly disgusting.
Clive Lewis (Norwich South) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is making some excellent points. Does he see the irony that as we watch Putin’s tanks roll into Ukraine and protesters having their peaceful protests broken up by the police, we in this place are debating a Bill that would take away the right to protest?
Lloyd Russell-Moyle
I do. The expansion of police powers is highly disproportionate. In the words of a former police chief and senior officers who have written to the Government, it will place an “onerous burden” on and apply “greater political pressure” to frontline police. Ultimately, it will be up to the police to determine whether the low threshold has been met.
Ruth Walshe, a volunteer from Green and Black Cross, detailed her experiences of the police during the Black Lives Matter protests in 2020. She heard the police say to her:
“‘who does that b**** think she is’, ‘can’t we lock them and put them in a cell’, ‘what do those f****** want’”.
Reports of that type of behaviour are corroborated by the Charing Cross report, which found that officers present at those protests had made horrific homophobic, sexist and racist remarks. There are very many good police officers, but collectively, there is a problem in the police. Rather than trying to deal with those systemic problems, the Government are saying, “Make racist, sexist or homophobic abuses and you get more powers to control woman, people of colour and queer people.” It is outrageous.
I also rise to speak in support of Lords amendment 87, which would remove clause 61, which should really be called the “Get Steve Bray” clause. I have found Steve bloody irritating at times, but creating an unprecedented and disproportionate law to go after a man who interrupts the Minister’s Sky News interviews is quite frankly pathetic. Some hon. Members may remember Brian Haw, the peace campaigner who lived opposite. It was wrong then for the Labour Government to try to get rid of him from Parliament Square and it was right that Conservative Members stood up for him to stop the law being changed. They should be doing it now.
I will end with this observation. The Government did not like the Black Lives Matter protests when tens of thousands of young people went on to the streets for racial equality, they were embarrassed by the anti-Trump demonstrations during his state visit and they despised the 1 million people who marched to try to stop Brexit, so we are here with a Bill that tries to make the snowflakes opposite feel better. That, frankly, is what they are: the Secretary of State is a snowflake, and the Minister’s Back Benchers are snowflakes. They cannot cope with a bit of robust debate. They cry into their port in the evening when people say things they do not like or they are too noisy. Rather than debate them back or viscerally argue back, what they do is shut them down and make them illegal. It is nasty, it is wrong and it should go.
Ian Levy (Blyth Valley) (Con)
I will be brief, as I realise that time is pressing.
My father, sadly, passed away in September last year. Some years earlier, on his way home from work, he was involved in road traffic accident that left him almost dead and crippled, lying in a field. He never walked again. He was crippled by a hit-and-run driver, but because he received treatment in hospital very quickly, he survived, and because protesters were not blocking the road to the hospital he attended, he survived. My father went on to see marriages, grandchildren and great-grandchildren. My parents enjoyed years of marriage and had their 63rd wedding anniversary. I strongly believe that if protesters had blocked that road to the hospital A&E where I saw my father with his leg just about hanging off—it was absolutely horrific—[Interruption.] Thank you very much. In that case, I would not have had that time with my father, so I will be supporting this Bill tonight in memory of my father.
Joanna Cherry
I rise to support Lords amendments 73, 80 and 87, and to remind the House that they are very much in line with the recommendations made by the Joint Committee on Human Rights, when we looked at part 3 of the Bill and reached the conclusion that the restrictions on non-violent protest in the Bill were inconsistent with our rights.
Given the short amount of time, I am going to focus on the noise trigger, because I think that that is the most egregious part of this. A restriction on the right to protest that targets noise strikes at the very heart of why people gather together to protest—to have their voices heard about an issue that is important to them and which they want other people to treat with importance. We noted in the Committee that the larger and better supported a demonstration is, the louder it is likely to be, so restrictions on noise could disproportionately impact on the demonstrations that have the greatest public backing.
Much of the written and oral evidence we received emphasised the centrality of noise to effective protest. For example, Liberty and Big Brother Watch highlighted:
“Protests, by their very nature, are noisy. Noise is also a crucial means of expressing collective solidarity or grief and, quite literally, making voices heard by those in power.”
This was echoed in oral evidence by Zehrah Hasan, the director of Black Protest Legal Support, who said:
“Creating noise at a protest is quite literally a part of people making their voices heard.”
Another witness told us that
“this new trigger, which is noise, is an absolute affront to the right to protest. This noise trigger should not exist for the purposes of imposing any conditions on assemblies and processions. It is essentially an existential threat to the right to protest.”
That is just a flavour of the evidence we heard.
The Minister has referred to the European convention on human rights, but that is intended to provide rights that are “practical and effective”, not “theoretical and illusory”. If the police have discretion to shut down protests because they are noisy, the right to protest will become theoretical and illusory in England and Wales. Thankfully, these laws are not going to apply in Scotland, but as my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North East (Anne McLaughlin) said, many Scots come to London to protest and they will be affected by these laws.
I emphasise that, because it was made clear to the Joint Committee on Human Rights that neither the police, nor Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire and Rescue Services, requested this noise trigger. They may have requested other changes, but they did not request that. As even Conservative Members have said, this measure is a fundamental threat to the right of freedom of speech and assembly in this country, and as the JCHR said in our report, it should not be in the Bill and it should go.
Mr Steve Baker (Wycombe) (Con)
I rise to speak to the amendments about noise, including Lords amendment 73 on processions, Lords amendment 80 on assemblies, and Lords amendment 87 on one-person protests. I am pleased that the Stop Brexit man, Mr Steve Bray, has come up, because I completely agree: he is profoundly annoying. He is very persistent, and he seems to have singled me out personally on a great many occasions—[Interruption.] I can’t think why. No indeed, I am grateful to Members for raising that. I cannot imagine why. The thing about Steve Bray is that he has become a great British institution. He is an oddball, he is a novelty, he is entertaining and, yes, he is annoying. Indeed, he could often be quietened down just by being offered an interview, and I would recommend that course of action to anyone.
The crucial point about Mr Bray is that he did not make one blind bit of difference to the course of events in this country—an entire waste of money for whoever has been paying for him to be there. Indeed, on his birthday one year he ran into me and my right hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois), and posed for a beautiful selfie so that together we could, cheekily, enjoy his birthday. He is a great British institution, entirely pointless, and willing to celebrate with his opponents on his birthday. I do not think we should accept any amendments in order to target hard cases, because hard cases make for bad law.
I also wish to mention an article written jointly by me and the former right hon. Member for Beaconsfield, Dominic Grieve QC. In the aftermath of the protests over the Sarah Everard vigil, he and I wrote an article contextualising this Bill. I had then, and I have now, considerable concerns about what we are doing on protest, but I decided to hold my nose and vote with the Government. I have often said to people that I cannot be fighting on every front; nor should I be since I was elected as a Conservative. However, one person alone has persuaded me that I should agree with their lordships on the Bill. That person is the ostensibly Liberal Prime Minister of Canada, Mr Trudeau, and his treatment, ostensibly from a left liberal perspective, of protesters with whom he disagreed.
I note that the hon. Member for Croydon Central (Sarah Jones) condemned anti-vax protesters, and yes, they may well have a dangerous point of view. I have been pro-vaccine throughout this crisis, but we cannot condemn protesters because we happen to disagree with them politically. Goodness knows, right now I am the victim of a defamatory campaign in my constituency by people who evidently have not bothered to trouble themselves to look at my views.
Sarah Jones
Just to be clear, I am not against people having a position; our amendment seeks to make sure that clinics ensure that people get their vaccines, that NHS workers can get to work, and that we do not have anti-vax protesters stopping people going to work and doing their business.
Mr Baker
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for that clarification. Like her, I would like people to have the freedom to get vaccinated, and I have said that throughout the crisis.
With apologies to my right hon. Friend the Minister—and he is a friend—I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Hereford and South Herefordshire (Jesse Norman) and others. I commend to my right hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick) just flirting with it—just get in that rebel Lobby with us. Let us say to the Government that actually this is going too far on noise. It is time to say, as the hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Lloyd Russell-Moyle) vividly demonstrated, that yes protests are inherently noisy and annoying. If noise is ever used as a weapon, I am sure other instruments of law could be used.
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)
As the dogs of war are unleashed in Ukraine, and women and men are dying defending their independence and freedom, it is timely to reflect on our own freedoms as citizens. We are debating one of the most egregious attempts to stifle our most fundamental rights, with ill thought through reforms without evidence-based justification. I am not alone in that assessment: more than 800,000 petitioners, ex-police chiefs and senior advisers as well as three UN special rapporteurs and Members of the House of Lords from across the political spectrum all have deep-rooted concerns about the Bill and its lasting implications in limiting our freedoms and dividing our communities.
Surely the freedom to protest is one of the most important freedoms. Protest has been the engine of reform throughout Britain’s history from the peasants’ poll tax protest of 1381 to the recent Black Lives Matter movement. The rights to challenge authority, to speak up, to chant and to march are freedoms that are part of who we are; we relinquish them at our peril.
Conservative Members will complain that the Bill does not remove the freedom to protest. Not in so many words, but the right to protest must include the right to be noisy. A quiet, supine protest or a protest denied because the shouting was too loud is no protest at all. The point of protest is to give a collective voice to those who feel that they have not been listened to, particularly for marginalised and oppressed communities who have been told too many times to keep quiet. The Public Order Act 1986 was introduced by the Thatcher Government in the wake of the miners’ strike. Are Ministers really saying that Thatcher did not go far enough and that she was a soft touch on protestors? That is not how I remember it. I beseech the Home Secretary and Ministers to think again, even at this late stage.
Caroline Lucas
The hon. Member is giving a good speech. Does he agree that the Bill is part of a wider pattern that makes it even more dangerous? When we consider it alongside voter suppression measures, attacks on the Electoral Commission and judicial review, the extension of the Official Secrets Act and threats to the Human Rights Act, it is part of an attack on the very heart of our democracy.
Mr Dhesi
I completely agree with the hon. Lady. As she says, the damage from the many things being combined by the Government will have a devastating impact on our democracy.
The measures proposed by the Government to tackle crime are also deeply worrying. They are failing to tackle the roots of crime and antisocial behaviour, and yet I am hardly surprised. Their record is of taking more than 20,000 police officers off our streets and ceding ground to criminals, and even now they have not made up for the numbers of police, civilian staff and police community and support officers that they cut. When people do not see police in their communities, as has been the case in my constituency, they feel less safe and secure, and crime goes up. In actual fact it is up 14%, according to the Office for National Statistics—not to mention the huge reduction in convictions for rape and domestic abuse. Why are the Government, through the Bill, making such an appalling attack against the Gypsy, Roma and Traveller communities even though the police do not want the extra powers?
There is chaos in the criminal justice system with a backlog of years for cases. Victims and witnesses are simply giving up and criminals are laughing up their sleeves. The Government’s response is to close courts, with 300 closed since 2010. They simply do not get it. We must defend the right to protest, to picket and to make a racket when we feel that we are not being listened to.
Richard Fuller (North East Bedfordshire) (Con)
I rise to speak to the amendments on noise and protest. Frankly, I should not have to. At the beginning of the Bill process, I was discussing the Bill with a friend of mine who said, “This is a ridiculous thing to put in the Bill.” I said, “Don’t worry—the Government will accept amendments in Committee.” They did not. Then I said, “Don’t worry—if they do not do it in Committee, they will surely accept their lordships’ amendments.” I have certainly yet to see the Government make enough concessions on that. That has led me to worry.
I worry that at a time when Conservatives should be promoting freedom of speech, we have created a weapon for our opponents to say that we oppose it. We should not be doing that. I worry that Government Members give the impression that we think that demonstrations are okay as long as they are nicely decorous, barely audible and easy to miss, and we forget that anger and frustration are natural human emotions that find their expression in a democratic society through the ability to protest and, yes, make a noise. I worry that, while Opposition Members have talked about the concern regarding large protests, the measures will actually have more effect on more marginal issues and smaller groups. I think back to the 1980s and the group AIDS Coalition to Unleash Power, which was protesting to provide AIDS treatment to people. There was never a noisier, more active, disruptive group than ACT UP in my memory. They were representing a group that was marginalised, so they could only make a noise to make their voice heard. I worry that the Bill will have an undue impact on marginal groups.
I worry that, at a time when we need clarity so much in the way in which the law affects people’s lives, the Bill is so vague that people will say, “Why are we ‘noisy’ and not them?” How on earth does that help us to create a calmer discourse between those who have different opinions? I worry that we are asking the police to make too many judgments at a time when the police themselves want clarity, and not to be put into the mix. I love the fact that the British police do not care what people are protesting about, so why are we creating something where, in the moment, they have to make a judgment? I worry ultimately that, at a time when in our society we need trust between people with profoundly different opinions, the provisions in the Bill do nothing at all to help in that regard.
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
Recent days have indeed underlined the importance of peaceful protest and freedom of expression. Only this weekend I helped to organise, alongside my hon. Friend the Member for Arfon (Hywel Williams), a rally for solidarity in Caernarfon for the people of Ukraine against the illegal invasion of their country. We joined, of course, a wave of demonstrations that have been sweeping across Europe. Meanwhile, the whole world is witnessing the bravery of protestors in Russia, who are defying Putin’s authoritarian regime to take to the streets against the illegal invasion of Ukraine. Thousands of Russians have been arrested, some simply for holding up anti-war signs—a clear violation of people’s right to peacefully protest. Yet what do we find ourselves discussing here?
While the UK Government are quick to denounce the authoritarianism of Putin’s Russia, they are set on implementing part 3 of the Bill, which is a direct threat to people’s right to protest in Wales—a right that is integral to the history of Wales as a nation. From protests against the enclosure of land in Gwynedd in the 1810s, the Chartist uprising in Newport in the 1830s, the Rebecca riots by tenant farmers against the payment of tolls in the 1840s, language rights—the very essence of noise—protests in the 1960s, and the miners’ strikes in the 1980s, to recent protests on racial injustice and the cost-of-living crisis, it is clear that the act of protest is woven through the past and present of Wales.
I welcome the changes to part 3 in the other place to remove the limits on our protest rights, such as Lords amendment 30, which removes new restrictions from public assemblies, but the Government have made it clear that they have no intention whatsoever of listening to the overwhelming cross-party opposition on these issues. Not content with clamping down on our right to protest, the UK Government have launched a new attack on Welsh Gypsies, Romas and Travellers through part 4 of the Bill. Despite already being marginalised by society, it will criminalise their way of life and allow for the confiscation of their homes. Importantly, it will directly undermine existing devolved Welsh legislation.
The criminalisation of Gypsy, Roma and Traveller adults will have a knock-on effect for their children, who are at greater risk of being taken into care, directly undermining the Rights of Children and Young Persons (Wales) Measure 2011, which places a duty on Welsh Ministers to have due regard for the rights of children as set out under the United Nations convention on the rights of the child. Criminalisation contravenes part 3 of the Housing (Wales) Act 2014, which places a legal obligation on local authorities in Wales to both assess and provide for residential and transit provision for Gypsies and Travellers. Our Senedd rightly refused to grant consent for the changes to part 4. It would therefore be wrong to apply it in Wales. That is just one example of the creeping effect of this place on devolved legislation. We must stand firm against it; otherwise, our Senedd in Wales will be being ignored.
Brendan Clarke-Smith (Bassetlaw) (Con)
I will always defend the right to protest. Members could say that it is part of the glue that binds us together, which I will come on to a little later. Recently, Unite the union decided to picket a jobs fair that I organised in Worksop, which I thought was quite a bizarre thing to protest against. It was well attended by people from outside the constituency.
We had people from Broxtowe Labour and Socialist Worker, and people bussed in from Nottingham and Chesterfield, but nevertheless I defend their right to do that, not least because it helps to support my pledge to increase footfall in Worksop town centre. While it was unpleasant for some of the more vulnerable job seekers, it did not put people off. Hundreds attended and many secured jobs there and then.
What I will certainly not defend is mindless hooliganism, breaching the rights of others, putting livelihoods at risk and indeed putting lives at risk. Some of the worst episodes I have witnessed involved so-called protesters gluing themselves to trains and buses. Aside from the mindless damage caused by those protesters—be they from groups such as Extinction Rebellion or others—we witnessed first-hand these people preventing ambulances getting to hospitals, which happened right here on Westminster Bridge. We also saw them blocking motorways such as the M25 and preventing people from getting to work. And this coming at a time when people were desperate to protect their livelihoods in the face of the huge challenges of the covid-19 pandemic. Our children have been prevented from getting to school at a time when their education has already been affected by disruption on numerous occasions. I asked those people, “How are you helping to protect the environment when you are stopping people from using public transport?”
I have sadly succumbed to the parliamentary stone since entering this place. I have been told many times that I look nothing like my official photograph on the website or my roller banner and a little more worse for wear. Yet as bad as it is getting, I still do not quite feel the need to glue my face to the floor as an Insulate Britain protester decided would be a good idea, although I gather that was to disrupt traffic rather than for aesthetic reasons.
It is not just about roads. We have also seen disruption around schools and vaccination centres, but it would be a mistake to limit legislation to those areas. We must make sure we protect our critical national infrastructure and we need to make sure that happens all over the country and in constituencies like mine. Whether it is dealing with harmful acts by legislating to stop them being reprobates in Retford, hoodlums in Harworth or—I am going to stop with the alliteration before I get back to Worksop—the Bill will make action that is tough but fair a reality. That is why we should not accept amendments that water down this excellent Bill.
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)
I want to refer to two parts of the Bill: on protests and on Travelling communities.
I was one of the organisers of the huge 2003 demonstration against the war in Iraq. It was obvious that whatever restrictions the police or the Government wanted to put on that demonstration, they could not because the numbers—1 million in Hyde Park and hundreds of thousands more in the streets—were so huge. That demonstration was historic for its size and effect. What we have before us now is far too much discretion being given to the police to decide whether a demonstration should go ahead or not, or whether it is appropriately noisy or not. I do not think that many police even want that discretion. The Minister was very vague on when there would be any review of the legislation, should it go through tonight. He conceded that it should be reviewed, but did not say when that would happen.
If a demonstration is to mean anything, it must be effective, it must be loud and it must cause some degree of disruption. What I see coming ahead is the police trying to arrest samba bands and taking away PA equipment and so on. That will send a message all around the world that this country is closing down on demonstrations at the very time we are saying we support demonstrations in other parts of the world. Every single one of the rights we have was won by people being brave enough to protest. The Chartists and many others put themselves at enormous risk to get a message across and bring about a change in society. Protest is an essential part of a decent, free and democratic society. We should not be voting for restrictions and we should not be giving the police the powers to prevent protests in our society. That is a very bad move.
The other side of the Bill that I will refer to in the little time that I have left is the attitude towards Travelling communities. They are abused and discriminated against all over this continent of Europe, and they are treated abominably. They get a very bad press and are treated like pariahs by much of the media, yet we claim to support the European convention on human rights and, through our Human Rights Act 1998, we claim to support the right to lead that nomadic life, the right to be Travellers and the right to access appropriate sites.
What we are doing is bowing down before some unpleasant anti-Gypsy, Roma and Traveller community pressures to restrict that right. We should not be doing it, because if we restrict that right and go against Gypsy, Roma and Traveller communities, we go after many, many other communities as well. In my view, it is discrimination, pure and simple, against an historic tradition of the right to roam in our society.
Paula Barker (Liverpool, Wavertree) (Lab)
Ever since I entered this place, not one Bill has occupied as much space in my inbox as this one, and I am sure that many Government Members have been similarly inundated with messages from their constituents. Many of my constituents are horrified, disturbed and frankly suspicious of this Government’s attempt to severely suppress the right to protest. Some of those who are getting in contact with me have never attended a protest, but like me, they are absolutely committed to preserving and protecting our fundamental rights. These constituents are currently watching the autocratic President Putin on their TV screens arresting hundreds of his own people for peacefully protesting and demonstrating against his country’s barbaric assault on Ukraine.
The Conservative party of the 21st century has shed all illusions of being a party that is committed to conserving, protecting and defending our liberal democracy and, indeed, of being a party that is committed to the liberalism that I had assumed was a key tenet of its ideology. Thankfully, the other place has rejected a string of proposals that would have given the police in England and Wales increased powers, including the power to stop and search anyone at a protest without suspicion. Even many Conservative peers did not support the Government’s proposals.
Sadly, however, the likes of clause 55 still exist in the Bill. Make no mistake, the noise clause is a crack-down on dissent. It provides more tools in the establishment’s armoury. It is authoritarian and draconian. The clause effectively ends the right to protest as we know it and provides yet another example of this virtue-signalling Government—
Paula Barker
I am sorry; I will not, because the hon. Member has just come in, and lots of Opposition Members wish to speak and have been here since the start of the debate.
The clause is yet another example of this Government giving extra powers to the police that they have neither asked for nor do they need. I have long given up appealing to Government Members to do the right thing. Rather, it is best that we just tell them that they are doing the wrong thing, and they will be doing the wrong thing if the Bill passes. Hundreds of solidarity protesters gathered on Downing Street at the weekend to express support and solidarity to Ukraine and her people. Those sentiments have been expressed right across the House. The protesters were noisy, and they were loud. Are this Government telling me and everyone else in the Chamber today that they would shut them up next time? What a sorry state of affairs.
Allan Dorans (Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock) (SNP)
I wish to speak in support of Lords amendments 73 and 80, which would remove the ability of the police to impose noise-based restrictions on processions and greater conditions on static demonstrations. Peaceful protest is a legitimate and integral part of our unwritten constitution and for the Government to interfere with those rights and to try to impose restrictions and unnecessary conditions that affect and violate basic human rights is nothing less than appalling.
If Lords amendments 73 and 80 are not accepted, there are great concerns that police officers will be placed in the unenviable position of having to adjudicate between different stakeholders on the basis of broad and ambiguous criteria about whether to allow a “noisy” or “disruptive” protest to take place or continue. Far from enabling the police to maintain public order, these provisions will place an onerous burden on police officers in the exercise of their professional discretion, subjecting the police to even greater political pressure.
The police already have sufficient powers under the Public Order Act 1986. The additional powers in clauses 55 and 56 of the Bill are neither necessary nor welcomed by many senior police officers. As a uniformed police inspector in the Metropolitan police, I had extensive experience of dealing with public order and with processions and demonstrations of all sizes, and I can say honestly that none of them needed any further legislation; they could all be effectively dealt with by the current legislation.
There are serious concerns that the police, who serve a vital function in enforcing the law, are being instrumentalised for political purposes. That will erode the trust of the public, seriously damage the relationship between the police and the public, and adversely affect the cherished tradition of policing by consent that is at the heart of policing and our society.
Despite the disparaging remarks made by the hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Lloyd Russell-Moyle), I pay tribute to the police officers out there policing our streets, who are overwhelmingly honest, trustworthy and hardworking. I commend them for putting themselves at risk and in danger to keep us all safe.
Kit Malthouse
I am grateful to all hon. Members who have spoken in what at times has been an impassioned debate. I have to say that it has been quite a rich experience to hear a defence of democracy from an Opposition whom I watched for month after month using every technical device at their disposal to try to overturn the democratic decision that the British people took in the 2016 referendum. Those months, happily, are long behind us, and the British people gave their verdict on that attempt to circumvent democracy in the 2019 general election, from which I am happy to say we all benefited.
Much of tonight’s debate has been about the difficult job for any democratic Government of balancing the rights of competing groups: the rights of people who own land, and of those who use land; the rights of public authorities that have parks, and of the Travelling community; the rights of those who want to go about their business and access hospitals, schools or businesses, and of those who wish to protest. These are difficult balances that democratic Governments have to strike from time to time. The Labour party has had to do it in the past; I well remember it banning any protest within 1 km of Parliament. The first arrest was of a woman reading the names of the Iraq war dead at the Cenotaph, if I remember rightly. That, I will admit, was a step too far.
We believe that the package of measures that we have put forward on protest represents a modest rebalancing.
Several hon. Members rose—
Kit Malthouse
I am not giving way. It is a modest rebalancing of the rights of the majority of British people who want to go about their business and the rights of those who quite legitimately want to protest. We yield to no man or woman in our desire to protect those inalienable rights of protest and dissent in this country. Our party has been in the position of protesting and dissenting in the past, as have many parties represented in this House. We do not take it for granted; we wish to protect it, and we believe that we are doing so while striking a balance.
On the undertaking that I was asked to give about the Vagrancy Act, let me say that 18 months is a maximum. If we can act faster, we will, but intensive work will obviously be required to get us there.
I believe that the Bill in its entirety represents a solid step forward, both for the safety of the country and for the difficult job of balancing our competing rights in what is now and will always be a liberal democracy.
Lords amendment 71 disagreed to.
Government amendment (a) made to Lords amendment 74.
Lords amendment 74, as amended, agreed to.
Government amendment (a) made to Lords amendment 88.
Lords amendment 88, as amended, agreed to.
More than six hours having elapsed since the commencement of proceedings on consideration of Lords amendments, the proceedings were interrupted (Programme Order, this day).
The Deputy Speaker put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that time (Standing Order No. 83F).
Motion made, and Question put, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 73.—(Kit Malthouse.)
Lords amendment 73 disagreed to.
Business without Debate
(2 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Delegated Legislation
(2 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
We now come to motion 4 on legal aid and advice, which I propose to put along with motion 5 on local government, and motions 6 and 7 on social security.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),
Legal Aid and Advice
That the draft Early Legal Advice Pilot Scheme Order 2022, which was laid before this House on 19 January, be approved.
Local Government
That the draft Somerset (Structural Changes) Order 2022, which was laid before this House on 24 January, be approved.
Social Security
That the draft Pneumoconiosis etc. (Workers’ Compensation) (Payment of Claims) (Amendment) Regulations 2022, which were laid before this House on 13 January, be approved.
That the draft Mesothelioma Lump Sum Payments (Conditions and Amounts) (Amendment) Regulations 2022, which were laid before this House on 13 January, be approved.—(David T.C. Davies.)
Question agreed to.
Business of the House
(2 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Leader of the House of Commons (Mark Spencer)
Madam Deputy Speaker, I should like to make a short business statement.
Business later today will now be a debate on motions to approve the Russia (Sanctions) (EU Exit) (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2022 and the Russia (Sanctions) (EU Exit) (Amendment) (No. 3) Regulations 2022, followed by consideration of Lords amendments to the National Insurance Contributions Bill, followed by a motion to approve the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (Self-Isolation etc.) (Revocation) (England) Regulations 2022
The business for the rest of this week remains unchanged to that previously announced and I shall make a further business statement in the usual way on Thursday.
Thangam Debbonaire (Bristol West) (Lab)
I thank the Leader of the House for the business statement and advance notice of it. The Opposition support the Government’s work on sanctions. Indeed, we have called for them. We want to work in a collaborative, cross-party and constructive way. In order to facilitate my colleagues in the shadow Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office team, I wonder if the Leader of the House could pass on to the Government team the request that they make themselves available and meet my colleagues at the earliest possible opportunity, technically tomorrow in parliamentary day terms and today in calendar terms. That would be extremely helpful, because we want to be constructive and we want to be able to facilitate the smooth passage of regulations that are going to sanction Russia, as they rightly should, for its egregious actions in Ukraine.
Thangam Debbonaire
I thank the Leader of the House for his co-operation and I hope that his nodding from a sedentary position indicates assent.
Mark Spencer
Of course, we will facilitate that. We are grateful for the Opposition’s support in this matter. A united House is the right message to send.
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
I thank the Leader of the House for coming to the House to give us the supplementary business statement. I entirely agree with the shadow spokesman, the hon. Member for Bristol West (Thangam Debbonaire), and nothing I am going to say in any way criticises the Government. My point is about how we found ourselves here tonight in the House.
We are considering very grave and important matters relating to sanctioning Russia. The Russia (Sanction) (EU Exit) (Amendment) (No.2) Regulations 2022 (SI, 2022, No. 194) is 11 pages long, with five pages of explanatory notes. The Russia (Sanctions) (EU Exit) (Amendment) (No.3) Regulations 2022 (SI, 2022, No. 195) is 29 pages long and has five pages of explanatory notes. It is difficult consider SIs that have actually already come into force—they came into force a few minutes’ ago—and were only laid before the House two hours ago, at 10 pm. One problem is that some Members may want to change things and put in tougher sanctions. I think the answer will be that it cannot be done, but it would be useful if we could find a mechanism so that they could be amended and we could go further if that is possible. None of that is a criticism. It is just the position we find ourselves in tonight.
Mark Spencer
It is not for me to encourage my hon. Friend to amend Government business, but of course there will be a Bill coming very shortly which he will be able to scrutinise. He will understand that the House is making very rapid decisions on trying to tackle a very aggressive action in Ukraine by a very desperate leader in Russia.
Owen Thompson (Midlothian) (SNP)
I echo the comments of the shadow Leader of the House, the hon. Member for Bristol West (Thangam Debbonaire), and the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone). I think everybody recognises that things are moving very, very quickly and at very short notice, but at the same time we all want to be constructive. Therefore, as much notice and as much sight as possible on any kind of sanctions and statutory instruments would be very much appreciated, I think, by all Members, if the Leader of the House could bear that in mind. I absolutely recognise the situation, but it is not a lot of time for Members to prepare for what they would hope to be very detailed scrutiny of such important sanctions.
Mark Spencer
I am sure the House will recognise my enthusiasm to be here earlier was evident, but unfortunately business went on late, which is why we are doing it at this time.
David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)
I do not think anybody in the House would disagree with the need to move ahead with sanctions, but the Lord President of the Council will be aware that we already have legislation on statute that allows us to issue unexplained wealth orders. As far as I am aware, the UK Government have not proceeded down that route. That could make life very difficult indeed for about 2,000 people in the City of London. So, yes, absolutely look at sanctions, but can the Leader of the House come forward with a statement on what we are going to do with unexplained wealth orders, which is a tool that we have available to us?
Mark Spencer
The hon. Gentleman will have to wait for the Bill. This is a further step on the way to sanctioning Russia. This is part of a suite of measures which are being brought forward. We did a substantial amount last week. We are doing more tomorrow. I am sure if he is here on Thursday for the business statement, there will be more in the statement on Thursday.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I very much welcome the commitment from the Leader of the House to the sanctions Bill tomorrow. It is very important that we have the correct amount of time set aside to make our contributions on that as well as on the two SIs, which are equally important. Will extra time be set aside for the sanctions Bill and the SIs, so that we can all debate these things fully and comprehensively?
Mark Spencer
Just to be clear, the SIs are being debated tomorrow. They will be allowed three hours, subject to the business motion being supported by the House, and there will then be a further update on the timetabling for any future legislation in the usual way on Thursday.
Lloyd Russell-Moyle (Brighton, Kemptown) (Lab/Co-op)
We all support exactly what the Government are doing, even if we sometimes want to go quicker, but these are fast-moving events. It would be useful with some of the sanctions to compare them directly with what our NATO allies are doing and to make sure that we are keeping up with them—[Interruption.] And leading, I am sure. A clear table for Members for the debate would be extremely useful, if that could be fed back. That is the case not just for sanctions, but for the humanitarian response and, for example, accepting Ukrainian refugees. We need to lead on all fronts and to be able to do that with a clear table that all Members can use.
Mark Spencer
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question; he is right to be supportive and I am grateful for his comments. I am sure that he will be able to question a Minister at the Dispatch Box tomorrow.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
I thank the Leader of the House for coming here with his statement, which we have all heard.
National Insurance payments
(2 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)
I wish you a good morning, Madam Deputy Speaker. There is no one that I would rather spend time breakfasting with than a daughter of Elderslie.
I rise to present a petition on behalf of my constituents. I was out yesterday in the Garthamlock area of my constituency campaigning with Ruairi Kelly and Mandy Morgan, and a number of constituents raised with me the proposed national insurance hike. We know that this will impact on the lowest-paid and youngest earners in our community, so I present the following petition on their behalf.
The petition states:
The petition of residents of the constituency of Glasgow East,
Notes that Her Majesty’s Government proposes a rise in National Insurance payments for all to offset costs related to reforms of health and social care policy in England; and declares that these measures will be deeply regressive to low income and young earners.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to abandon proposals to raise National Insurance payments with immediate effect.
And the petitioners remain, etc.
[P002713]
Firefighters’ Pension Scheme
(2 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Jane Hunt (Loughborough) (Con)
I begin by thanking all the firefighters, who, day in and day out, put themselves in harm’s way to protect the public. Last summer, ahead of Public Service Day, I had the pleasure of visiting Loughborough fire station to meet some of our fantastic local firefighters from Loughborough and Shepshed to hear more about their work and, importantly, to thank them for all that they do.
One such firefighter from Shepshed sadly died in 2016 while on duty at Castle Donington fire station. Paul Wilkens, at the time of his death, was enrolled in the legacy 1992 pension scheme and was in the process of being tapered on to the 2015 pension scheme. As the Minister will know, the new pension scheme was introduced as part of the then Government’s reforms to public service pensions, which would see pension benefits based on career average revalued earnings rather than final salary.
Crucially, the transitional provisions of the new scheme created three groups of members, determined by the age of the individual. The first group were active members of the legacy scheme born on or before 1 April 1967, who would remain in the scheme and receive full protection. The second group were active members of the legacy scheme born between 1 April 1967 and 2 April 1971, who would be entitled to tapered protection under the transitional provisions, allowing them to remain in the legacy scheme for an extra 53 days for each month by which their age on 1 April 2012 was over 41. The last group were active members of the legacy scheme born after 1 April 1971, who would receive no transitional protection but would be transferred to the new scheme from 1 April 2015. Mr Wilkens fell into the second category because he was born in 1969 and was due to be tapered into the new scheme in 2017, the year after his death.
As well as the change to pensions benefits based on career average, the new scheme introduced an important new provision concerning the surviving partner’s pension payable on death of an active member. Regulation 76(1) of the Firefighters’ Pension Scheme (England) Regulations 2014 states:
“For the purposes of these Regulations, a person is a surviving partner in relation to a member if, at the date of the member’s death, that person is—
(a) the spouse or civil partner of the member;
(b) cohabiting with the member and—
(i) is not married or in a civil partnership with that member, and
(ii) is not the spouse or civil partner of any other person, and
(iii) could enter into a marriage or civil partnership under the law of England and Wales with the member but has not done so,
(iv) is financially dependent on the scheme member, or is, with the scheme member, in a state of mutual financial dependency, and
(v) is in a long-term relationship with the scheme member.”
That differs significantly from the legacy scheme, the equality impact assessment for which dealt with marriage, civil partnership and other aspects of relationships, but not with those who were cohabitating in a heterosexual relationship.
This has had an adverse impact on Mr Wilkens’s partner, Melanie Perry, with whom at the time of his death he had been in a relationship for 10 years, for nine of which they had been cohabiting. They also owned their house and paid their mortgage and bills jointly. They had one child together, and the children from Melanie’s previous marriage lived with them, along with Mr Wilkens’s daughter from a previous marriage. Mr Wilkens loved and cared for all the children equally, both emotionally and financially. They were in every sense a family and a single household living in one property together.
After Mr Wilkens’s death, however, Melanie was informed by the pensions manager at Leicester, Leicestershire and Rutland Combined Fire Authority that although they had investigated their ability to award her the death grant, they were unable to do so because Melanie and Mr Wilkens were not married. As I have set out, had Mr Wilkens died just one year later after he had tapered into the new scheme, Melanie would have been eligible to succeed his pension. Had it not been for the decision to taper the transition to the scheme and Mr Wilkens’s date of birth, Melanie would therefore not have been in the difficult position that she is in now. It should also be noted that Leicester, Leicestershire and Rutland Combined Fire Authority was able to award all four of the children a fire service pension while they were in education because it was satisfied that they—even those from Melanie’s former marriage—met the criteria of “substantially dependent” on Mr Wilkens.
Melanie has been trying to rectify the situation since 2016, having initially approached my predecessor for assistance. As my predecessor’s caseworker, I attended a meeting with Leicestershire Fire and Rescue Service’s assistant chief, the pensions manager and two Fire Brigades Union officials to discuss the case. The combined fire authority and the then Fire Minister were also contacted in writing, but unfortunately no further progress was made at the time.
In May 2018, a further letter was sent to the pension trustees appealing for reconsideration. In their response, they were clear that they had no power to apply discretion to the case. That was reiterated in September last year in a response that I received from Leicestershire Fire and Rescue Service’s chief fire officer, who stated that
“it has never been a case of not wanting to resolve the situation...it has always been around the technical ability and then the legality of doing so. Sadly, the rules around the 1992 pension scheme are clear. They allow no discretion on the interpretation of the scheme by the scheme manager, the Combined Fire Authority or myself”.
A response that I received shortly before that from the Fire Minister stated:
“The responsibility for applying the rules of the 1992 Scheme and deciding an individual’s pension entitlement ultimately rests with each employing Fire and Rescue Authority, in this case Leicestershire Fire and Rescue Service. Notwithstanding this, each employer is required to comply with the scheme’s legislation and does not have discretion to pay benefits to an individual where there is no entitlement.”
I therefore ask the Minister that the fire and rescue authority be allowed to have discretion in this unique matter.
Understandably, Mr Wilkens’s death and Melanie’s subsequent efforts to rectify this pension issue have had a profoundly negative effect on her. In her own words,
“When I answered the door to a Firefighter on Tuesday 23rd August 2016 at approximately 10.30am and the words that came from his mouth were telling me that Paul had died at work on duty, my life, as I knew it also came to an end.
Nothing in my life has or ever will be as hard as living with the trauma and grief that follows the death of your life partner. Imagine living with a scream inside you and the scream is yours but no one else hears it—that is grief!
Not only have I had to learn to continue to live without Paul by my side, I’ve had four children to navigate through the minefield of grief that is forever on going. As they grow older and mature, their emotions and understanding of the finality of death is sometimes impossible to be able to help them to comprehend. It is just so devastatingly unfair.
Challenging the decisions made in relation to a survivors pension these past five years have taken so much of the time and energy that would have been far better placed supporting my children and myself in learning to live without Paul and without the financial provision that he would have expected us to receive. The pension changes were made to ensure that all firefighters were treated equally yet this is far from how we have been treated.
Paul devoted his life to serving for his country, as a Royal Engineer in the British Army serving in Bosnia and the Gulf War and then as a firefighter for Leicestershire Fire and Rescue Service, of which he was immensely proud.
He would be so bitterly disappointed that he had spent his life protecting others yet nothing had been done to protect and support his surviving partner.”
Of course, more widely, the discretional protections have been heavily criticised, with the Court of Appeal finding them to be discriminatory against younger members. I therefore welcome the Government’s proposals to remedy this discrimination. I am particularly supportive of the proposals surrounding the deferred choice underpin and the retrospective remedy, which is due to come into force by 1 October 2023. It is right that members already receiving pensions are given a choice as soon as practicable as to which pension benefits they would prefer to receive in respect of any remediable service rendered between 31 March 2015 and 1 April 2022.
Unfortunately, however—as I said in my response to the consultation on firefighters’ pensions prospective remedy—this will not address all the discrimination that the protections caused, the effects of which are still having a substantial impact on Mr Wilkens’s surviving family members. I therefore ask for the secondary legislation to contain provisions to ensure that surviving partners who would have been eligible to succeed a pension under the 2015 scheme had their partner not died during the transition period before they were tapered on to the reformed scheme are able to succeed the pension. As well as advancing the moral argument for such a change, I should add that the financial burden would be minimal, given that neither my office, Melanie nor the Fire Brigades Union has been able to find any other instances of this.
This was, unfortunately, a “perfect storm” of being the wrong age, sadly passing away at the wrong time, and not being married. Had Mr Wilkens been two years younger, had he passed away two years later, or had he and Melanie been married, Melanie would not have had to fight for access to his pension and to endure so much hardship at an already difficult time. We know that issues have been identified with the tapered protections, so may I ask the Minister please to consider new provisions to allow Melanie to succeed Mr Wilkens’s pension?
I am glad to have brought this issue to the House’s attention. How can it be that, in the 21st century, we have a situation in which a woman cannot claim the pension of a man with whom she had a home, a family and a mortgage, simply because they were not married?
The Minister for Security and Borders (Damian Hinds)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough (Jane Hunt) on securing this debate. I am grateful to her, and I welcome the opportunity to address the House on the important issue of firefighters’ pensions. The Government hugely value the unique roles that our firefighters undertake and it is only right that their pensions remain among the best pension schemes available in the public sector. Our brave firefighters keep us safe. They do the most extraordinary job day in, day out, in the most difficult situations.
The Government also recognise that the cost of providing public service pensions must be fair to the schemes’ members, the employers and the taxpayer. It is important that the costs of public service pensions are understood and fully acknowledged by Government so that they remain affordable and sustainable for generations to come.
Jane Hunt
I absolutely understand that, but this is about the discretionary element. As I see it, there is only one instance of this happening. The Prime Minister said at the time that the fire service could look at this, but the fire service does not believe that it can do so because of the rules and regulations. It is the discretionary element that I am interested in.
Damian Hinds
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention. There is some limited ability under the rules for fire authorities to exercise some discretion on some decisions. That would involve, for example, determining whether a person was on duty or not at the time of an injury or death. However, the rules of the 1992 scheme do not provide a fire authority with the discretion to pay a pension to an individual who does not qualify for it.
Jane Hunt
The point is that Mr Wilkens was on the 1992 scheme at the time and that, due to his age, he was being tapered over to the 2015 scheme. If he had not been that age, he would not have been tapering at the time and might already have been on the scheme, in which case his partner would immediately have got the pension.
Damian Hinds
I am grateful for that clarification, and I will come on to that point in a moment.
My hon. Friend has spoken movingly of the sad circumstances of the case of Ms Melanie Perry, whose partner Mr Wilkens passed away in 2016 and who did not qualify for any survivor pension entitlement. I appreciate that this is an extremely sensitive matter. It is the current legislation underpinning the firefighters’ pension schemes that provides the qualifying criteria for an individual’s pension entitlement and therefore sets the parameters on what payments can be made by an employer out of the pension scheme. On the death of a scheme member, the 1992 firefighters’ pension scheme, of which I understand Mr Wilkens was a member, provides benefits to the surviving spouse or civil partner. These benefits do not extend to unmarried partners. As my hon. Friend will know, that was quite common among pension schemes of that time.
It has been the position of successive Governments not to make retrospective changes to public service pension schemes, and that has not changed. A new pension scheme was introduced for all newly recruited firefighters in April 2006. While the 2006 scheme has a higher retirement age than that of the 1992 scheme, it does provide survivor benefits that extend to unmarried partners. At the time the 2006 scheme was introduced, fire and rescue authorities offered existing 1992 scheme members the option to transition to the 2006 scheme if they wanted to benefit from the modernised scheme design. I understand that a letter was sent to Mr Wilkens from his employing fire and rescue authority in August 2006 providing this option. Ultimately, it appears that Mr Wilkens did not take this option.
Jane Hunt
The Minister has mentioned the 2006 changes. At the time of Mr Wilkens’ passing in 2016, he and his partner had been together for 10 years, so that letter would have come at the beginning of their relationship. I think we can therefore forgive them for not taking up that offer at the time.
Damian Hinds
I understand my hon. Friend’s point.
In 2010, the coalition Government established the Independent Public Service Pensions Commission, chaired by Lord Hutton of Furness. The commission undertook a comprehensive review of the main public service pension schemes, including the firefighters’ schemes. Following the review, public service pensions underwent a significant period of change with the introduction of new, reformed unfunded pension schemes from April 2015. At that time, full and tapered protections were afforded to those scheme members who were closest to retirement. For firefighters, this included those who were within 14 years of their normal pension age.
In 2018, as my hon. Friend alluded to, these protections were found by the courts to be unlawfully discriminatory in respect of the firefighters’ and the judicial pension schemes on the grounds of age. In effect, the courts found that younger pension scheme members suffered a disadvantage as a result of the Government’s efforts to protect those nearest to retirement from the impact of the reforms. The Government accepted that ruling and that the remedy to remove the discrimination should apply to all public service pension schemes. The Government are now in the process of removing the discriminatory elements. This is a careful and complex process to get right.
The deferred choice underpin, referred to by my hon. Friend, will be introduced by the Government via the Public Service Pensions and Judicial Offices Bill currently before Parliament and will be enacted by regulations to be laid by the Home Office. It is the Government’s intention that the underpin will give the beneficiaries of deceased members the opportunity to choose from which pension scheme to receive their survivor benefits for any service during the period 1 April 2015 to 31 March 2022.
From the information provided, it appears that Mr Wilkens’s pension would qualify for that remedy. The impact of the remedy on Mr Wilkens’s survivor benefits will not be known until the remedy is fully implemented by October 2023. At that stage, fire and rescue authorities will start the process of contacting all those entitled to the remedy with details of their options, as the statutory pensions administrator for each area.
In closing, I thank my hon. Friend again for securing this important debate and for the elegant way in which she made her points in the House this evening.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Cumbria (Structural Changes) Order 2022
(2 years, 2 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Levelling Up Communities (Kemi Badenoch)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Cumbria (Structural Changes) Order 2022.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Graham. This order was laid before the House on 24 January 2022. If approved and made, it will implement a proposal submitted by Allerdale Borough Council and Copeland Borough Council for two new unitary councils for the people of Cumbria, on an east-west geography, covering the entirety of the county of Cumbria. Those councils will be known as Cumberland Council and Westmorland and Furness Council.
Implementing this proposal and establishing these unitary authorities will enable stronger leadership and engagement, both at a strategic level and with communities at the most local level. It will pave the way, as envisaged in the levelling-up White Paper, for a significant devolution deal involving a directly elected Mayor for Cumbria, if that is an option that local leaders wish to pursue.
This locally led process for reform began on 9 October 2020, when the then Secretary of State invited the principal councils in Cumbria to put forward, if they wished, proposals for replacing the two-tier system of local government with a single-tier system. That invitation set out the criteria for unitarisation. Any unitary authority established would, first, have to be likely to improve local government and service delivery across the area covered by the proposal, give greater value for money, generate savings and provide stronger strategic and local leadership.
Jake Berry (Rossendale and Darwen) (Con)
Will my hon. Friend set out the estimated savings that will result from moving from two-tier to one-tier government? I ask because it will be hugely significant to those of us in Lancashire who hope to move from two-tier to one-tier local government to hear of the savings that could be made in Cumbria; it will enable us to drive forward the debate in Lancashire.
Kemi Badenoch
Yes, I will outline those savings. They are just a little further on in my speech.
Any change would have to ensure more sustainable structures. Secondly, any authorities established would have to command a good deal of local support, in the round, across the whole area of the proposal. Thirdly, the area of each unitary authority would have to be a credible geography consisting of one or more existing local government areas. It should have an aggregate population of between 300,000 and 600,000, or of some other figure that could be considered substantial given the circumstances of the authority, including local identity and geography.
Four locally-led proposals for local government reorganisation in Cumbria were received in December 2020—one for a single unitary council, and three for two unitary councils. Before deciding how to proceed, the Government consulted widely. They received around 3,200 responses to their statutory consultation on the Cumbria proposals, which was launched on 22 February 2021 and ended on 19 April 2021. Of these responses, some 2,400, or 73%, were from residents living in the area affected. There was a good deal of local support for local government reorganisation across the categories of respondents—from residents, local authorities, public sector providers, parish councils and the business sector. However, across these categories, there was a spread of responses in favour of each proposal; each proposal had some support.
Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con)
I thank the Minister for outlining how many responses were received—it was 3,000-plus, of which 2,362 were from residents who were basically, it would appear, in favour. Can she tell us how many residents live in these areas altogether? I ask because Cheshire changed to having two unitary councils some years ago. As an MP for a Cheshire constituency, I know that there was a sense among many residents that they had not really been carried along, and that the two unitary councils had been imposed on them. I am trying to point out that there are a lot more residents than there were respondents. It is really important that there is liaison or communication with residents, to ensure that they understand the benefits of the change; otherwise, there can be a sense that they have not been properly engaged, or an ongoing resentment that can last some years.
Kemi Badenoch
I thank my hon. Friend for her question. There are 499,000 residents in the county of Cumbria, so she is right that a comparatively small number of people have responded to the consultation, but across Government we know that those who respond to consultations tend to be those who are most interested in the subject, and they often give a representative view. However, she is right that local government leaders across the county will need to ensure that they engage with residents as this unitarisation is carried out.
The East West proposal had the support of local businesses, especially in relation to better supporting the diverse nature of local economies, particularly the advanced manufacturing base and supply chain around Sellafield. There was some resident support for the East West proposal, with those in favour considering that the new authorities would be more accessible local organisations that were better able to respond to local needs. Among local organisations, there was a view that the geography of the East West proposal would ensure equal levels of population density across the two proposed new council areas, and that this would contribute to a balanced service delivery, including addressing deprivation, and credible geography.
Based on the consultation responses, the Secretary of State considered that, if implemented, the East West proposal would command a good deal of local support as assessed in the round overall across the whole area of the proposal, and that that criterion had been met. In considering the locally-led unitary proposals against our long-standing assessment criteria, he concluded that the North South proposal did not meet the credible geography criterion; that the proposal for The Bay did not meet the improving local government and service delivery, and credible geography, criteria; and that although the county council’s proposal for a single unitary met the three criteria, the East West proposal was more appropriate on grounds of geography.
The Secretary of State announced his decisions on the proposals on 21 July 2021. He made a balanced judgment, assessing all the proposals against the three criteria to which I have referred and which were set out in the invitation on 9 October 2020. He also had regard to all representations received, including responses to the consultation and all other relevant information available to him. He concluded that the East West unitary proposal for Cumbria met all three criteria. The Government believe that there is a powerful case for implementing this locally-led proposal for change.
The East West unitary will improve local government for half a million people in Cumbria by enhancing social care and safeguarding services through closer connection with related services such as housing, leisure and benefits. It will improve local government by offering opportunities for improved strategic decision making in areas such as housing, planning and transport. It will also provide improvements to local partnership working with other public sector bodies by aligning with arrangements in existing public sector partnerships, and allowing existing relationships and partnership working to be maintained without disruption.
Let me turn to the question raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale and Darwen. The estimated savings set out in the unitary proposal of Allerdale and Copeland councils are between £19 million and £31.6 million per annum. I do not know whether he finds those figures acceptable.
Jake Berry
Does the Minister accept that £19 million to £31 million is a bit of a spread? Can she tell us whether the Department has done an impact assessment or worked with those authorities to try to have a better understanding of where they will be on that spectrum— £19 million is welcome; £31 million would be hugely welcome—and if the Department has not done that work, will she tell us what steps it will take to ensure that those savings are felt by taxpayers in the two unitary authorities in Cumbria?
Kemi Badenoch
My right hon. Friend raises a good question. I do not know whether the Department carried out an impact assessment, as it was before my time as Minister, but I do know that it has taken into account multiple criteria when it comes to what will be gained by having these unitaries, including, as I said, improvements in social care and safeguarding, strategic decision making, local partnerships and so on. My right hon. Friend is right that £19 million to £31 million is quite a spread, but the local government proposers themselves should be able to assist in explaining precisely how they can ensure that taxpayers’ money is saved and that the benefits are realised.
Jake Berry
Would the Minister feel it appropriate to target the new local authorities on those savings? I have been involved in several devolution deals myself, so I can tell her that they all look very good on paper, but in truth what matters to the people are the savings and service improvements that are delivered on the ground. It is absolutely the role of the Department and the Minister’s officials to ensure that those are not just talked about and then forgotten—I know she will ensure that does not happen—but are actually delivered on the ground?
Kemi Badenoch
I take my right hon. Friend’s point and I will make sure that officials—I am sure they are listening—have taken note of that and will be able to explain to me how we can provide that support and realise those savings. I thank him for raising that point.
Finally, this unitarisation will deliver proposals aimed at maintaining and strengthening local community identity, and it will integrate local services while reflecting the changes of rurality in the areas of both new unitary councils. If Parliament approves the order there will be, from 1 April 2023, two unitary councils for Cumbria delivering the improvements that I have just outlined. We have prepared this order in discussion with all the councils concerned, and I take this opportunity to thank everyone involved in the process for the work that they have undertaken together, constructively and collaboratively. Our discussions with the councils have included transitional and electoral arrangements, which are key to how the councils will drive forward implementation. Where there has been agreement between all the councils, we have adopted their preferred approach, and where there were different views as to the detailed way forward, the Secretary of State has considered all the differing views and reached a decision accordingly.
I turn to the detail of the order and highlight its key provision, which sets out that on 1 April 2023, the districts of Allerdale, Barrow-in-Furness, Carlisle, Copeland, Eden and South Lakeland, and the county council of Cumbria, will be abolished. The councils of those districts and county will be wound up and dissolved. In their place, their functions will be transferred to the new unitary Cumberland council and Westmorland and Furness council. The order also provides for appropriate transitional arrangements, which include the following arrangements. In May 2022, there will be elections for the new unitary councils, which will assume their full powers from 1 April 2023. These elections will be on the basis of a 46-member authority in Cumberland with 46 single-member wards, and a 65-member authority in Westmorland and Furness with 33 wards of between one and three members. Subsequent elections to the unitary council will be in May 2027 and every four years thereafter. We expect that the Local Government Boundary Commission for England will undertake a full electoral review before the May 2027 elections. Parish council elections will remain unchanged.
A duty will be placed on all existing councils to co-operate during the transitional period until 1 April 2023. To support councils in that transitional period, I intend—if the order is approved and made—to use my powers under the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act 2007 to issue a direction, which would replace the voluntary arrangements that the Cumbria councils have already adopted about entering into contracts and the disposal of land during this transitional period. That is in line with the approach adopted in most previous unitarisations, and it will ensure that the new unitary councils have appropriate oversight of the commitments that their predecessor councils may enter into during the transitional period and which the new unitary councils will take on from 1 April 2023. Before issuing any such direction, I will invite councils’ views on a draft.
Finally, with sincere apologies, I must draw the Committee’s attention to the correction slip that has been issued to correct a minor error in part 2 of the schedule of the draft order, which lists the existing wards that will go to make up the new wards of Westmorland and Furness Council. This is to correct the name of an existing ward in the new High Furness ward, currently shown as “Dunnerdale-with-Seathwaite (Part)”. It should be shown as simply “Dunnerdale-with-Seathwaite”. This is an unintentional inclusion of the name of a polling district used for the purposes of administering elections, rather than of a ward, and its appearance in the schedule might be taken to imply that some part of Dunnerdale-with-Seathwaite ward is omitted. We are very sorry for this minor error in the original text of the draft order.
In conclusion, through this order we seek to replace the existing local government structures that were set up in 1974 in Cumbria with two new councils that will be able to deliver high-quality, sustainable local services for the people of Cumbria. These unitary councils will be able to provide stronger and more effective leadership at both the strategic and most local levels. This will open the way for a significant devolution deal as referred to in our levelling-up White Paper. I commend this order to the Committee.
Mike Amesbury (Weaver Vale) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Graham. I thank the Minister once again for an informative introduction to this statutory instrument, which is the third such instrument in which we have addressed these structural changes. We have gone from the north to the south-west, and we have now come back to the north with Cumbria. It has been quite a journey.
The question the Minister did not address properly in our last meeting is whether the Government are making decisions on new unitary authorities based on the criteria. In the recent spate of restructuring statutory instruments, the Government have seemingly relegated one part of the criteria—a crucial one for genuine, principled devolutionists. It is the part about local support for the proposals. Indeed, that picks up on a point made by the hon. Member for Congleton. It seems that there is a genuine lack of public enthusiasm for the proposal in Cumbria.
The Government were presented with four proposals, as the Minister said. The proposal the Government eventually went with—the so-called East West proposal to create two unitary authorities in east and west Cumbria—did not receive support from a majority of respondents to the local consultation. Only the proposal for The Bay did. That proposal also proposed two unitary authorities: one covering Allerdale, Carlisle, Copeland and Eden, and another covering Barrow-in-Furness, Lancaster city and South Lakeland.
Jake Berry
Will the hon. Gentleman set out for the Committee what support was received from Lancashire County Council for taking Lancaster out of the historic county of Lancashire and putting it with Cumbria?
The Chair
Before the shadow Minister replies, I say to him that he should resume his seat when another Member has the floor.
Mike Amesbury
I am very happy to be guided by you, Sir Graham.
The focus has to be on the residents who are directly affected by the proposals—that is localism; that is devolution. I am sure that the Minister can allay the right hon. Gentleman’s concerns and answer his questions.
Mike Amesbury
I will not give way.
Residents did not believe that the East West proposal offered a reasonable geography. Crucially, that is another part of the criteria for the creation of a unitary authority set out by the Government.
The Government’s criteria also state that successful proposals need to deliver good public services and improve local governance, yet the residents who were consulted did not believe that the East West proposal was the right proposal for Cumbria. They felt that it would be less efficient and were concerned about the disaggregation of public services. There are currently pressures on social care, with which the right hon. Gentleman will be familiar.
The parish and town councils also favoured the proposal for The Bay, with 28% saying that it would improve services. Even among local businesses, that proposal was more highly favoured than the East West proposal. Businesses felt that it had the most credibility when it came to geography—another criterion that the Minister and the Secretary of State looked at.
Again, I ask the Minister: why was an option chosen that received less support and that local people felt did not fulfil the Government’s criteria for the creation of new unitary authorities? Is public support now a secondary part of the criteria? I would like to hear the Minister’s explanation.
Finally—I do not expect an immediate answer on this point—the Fire Brigades Union has been in touch with me about how the proposal will affect the responsibilities of the fire and rescue services, and about the funding pressures and potential cuts they might face as a result of the restructuring. I will correspond with the Minister on that issue, but I wanted to put it on the record.
Mark Jenkinson (Workington) (Con)
May I say what a pleasure it is to speak in this Committee, not just because you are in the Chair, Sir Graham, but because the people of Cumbria have waited patiently for this legislation for a number of years, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale and Darwen will attest. They have been blocked at every turn by the Labour councils. Cumbrian residents saw off some of those barriers to change in the elections in May and December 2019, and this legislation gives us the chance to repay some of that trust. I am delighted to report that on Friday, the county council dropped its opposition through the judicial review process.
John Stevenson (Carlisle) (Con)
On that point, does my hon. Friend agree that the JR by the Labour-run council has been a complete waste of time, and that Cumbrian taxpayers have had their money wasted on lawyers, rather than it being spent on local services?
Mark Jenkinson
My hon. Friend will not be surprised to hear that I agree entirely with his assessment: hundreds of thousands of pounds have been spent on such a folly. Despite the council being warned time and time again that the judicial review was a waste of time, including by the courts, the Labour leader of Cumbria County Council continued to pursue court action. In the end, it was only pressure from his own members that made him drop his personal vendetta against these proposals.
I do not want to keep Members longer than is necessary, and I am as keen as anyone to see this legislation clear Committee, so I will wrap up by thanking the Minister and her Department for their engagement throughout this process by passing on to them the thanks of Cumbria residents. As we in the historic county of Cumberland start on a new and exciting journey, I will never pass up the opportunity to put our wonderful Cumberland dialect on the official record by saying, “We vanya nivver med it, but even t’jameaters will noo have nowt to twine aboot! It’s varra welcome in Cummerlan.”
John Stevenson
Very unusually, I was delighted when I was selected to serve on this delegated legislation Committee. It is so great to see so many northern colleagues present to support this bit of legislation, although to my hon. Friend the Member for Workington and me, they are all southerners.
For many years, I have campaigned for reform of local government, as have many others in Cumbria. Over the years, we have had seven councils—six district councils and a county council—for half a million people. It is completely disproportionate: somebody once said that the county of Cumbria was “over-governed and under-led”, and that was exactly right, so this change is extremely welcome. It is welcomed right across the county, certainly by the business community. It will eliminate an awful lot of confusion, and will give real responsibility and ownership to the two councils that it will create. I hope that in the long run there will be a combined authority within the county, so that when Ministers come north, and in the debates about the direction of travel for places in the north, we have an elected Mayor at the table who represents the whole county. That mayoralty would give Cumbria leadership, and the two unitary councils will be efficient councils that can deliver services on the ground.
This is a very exciting opportunity for our county, which will give real responsibility, leadership, and ownership to the people of Cumbria. My one question to the Minister is about the continuation of the borderlands growth initiative, which includes not just Cumbria but other councils. Does she see it as something on which the two councils can continue to work with other councils in the area, to ensure that the benefits that have flowed from that growth deal continue to flow into Cumbria as well as into the other areas involved? Other than that, I thank the ministerial team for their support in helping us get this legislation over the line. It has been a long time coming, so we all greatly appreciate Ministers’ support.
Jake Berry
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Graham. I will speak very briefly to put on record my support for this piece of legislation. When I was northern powerhouse Minister, it was a great pleasure and a privilege to work with my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle on his ceaseless campaign to secure a better settlement for local government in Cumbria. We have heard already from the Minister that it will save £19 million to £31 million—quite a big spread for local taxpayers.
However, I will briefly mention two further things. First of all, this is a big part of our Government’s devolution story. It is all very well to hear from the Opposition about how things should be done differently, but I remind them that after 13 years in government, the only place in England to which they devolved power was London. In the north of England, the Conservative party is the father, mother, grandfather and grandmother of devolution.
Jake Berry
I will not give way, because the shadow Minister would not give way to me. [Laughter.] Of course I will give way to him.
Mike Amesbury
I thank the hon. Member for kindly giving way, and I remind him that the Conservative party has been in power for nearly 12 years. We have a shared interest in ensuring that we get more devolution and power for the north and a genuine voice for the north. As a proud northerner, I will continue to work with everybody to achieve that.
Jake Berry
The hon. Gentleman is a proud northerner. I remind him that in those 12 years, we have done devolution deals for Manchester, Liverpool, Leeds, Sheffield, Newcastle, North of Tyne, Birmingham—
Jake Berry
Tees Valley, of course—who could forget? We have also done devolution deals for the north of England, Cambridge and Peterborough. Our record on devolution compares very well, and we are now adding Cumbria to that.
I will finish by talking briefly about our desire for devolution in Lancashire, which is the real point that I want to make today. It is brilliant to see our friends in Cumbria doing so well. We are hugely excited by what they can deliver for themselves with devolution, but we in Lancashire want to have the same conversation with the Government. I know the Minister has been fantastic about welcoming conversations with colleagues in local authorities, and I am sure that will continue, but the solution for Lancashire must also be teamed up with local government reform. We must find a way to move from a two-tier authority and deliver the sorts of savings we are talking about for taxpayers in Cumbria and Lancashire.
I will end with a comment for the hon. Member for Weaver Vale. When he was talking about the proposal for The Bay, he was talking about bringing the city of Lancaster from Lancashire into Cumbria. No matter how much that was supported in Cumbria—he obviously has the figures—I can guarantee him that it did not have wide support in Lancashire. He said that this was about geography, but I say it is about history. I suspect he has been looking at the 1611 John Speed map of Lancashire, which has Barrow as “Lancashire over the Sands”. Even in Lancashire, however, we have accepted that Barrow is part of Cumbria and should be part of the Cumbrian devolution deal. We want to maintain the integrity of the historical county of Lancashire, and we do not do that by losing parts into The Bay. In Lancashire, we support the Cumbrian devolution, and I hope my Cumbrian friends and colleagues will support the same devolution in Lancashire when our time comes.
Kemi Badenoch
I thank my hon. Friends the Members for Carlisle, for Workington and for Congleton, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale and Darwen, for their contributions to the debate. I also thank the hon. Member for Weaver Vale for his support for the order.
The hon. Member for Weaver Vale asked me how we were using the criteria to make decisions and whether we were making the local support secondary. The answer is no, we are not. The criteria say that each proposal needs to command a good deal of local support, as assessed in the round overall. It is not about which one has majority support, because the consultations are not statutory consultations and are not referendums, so we need to take into account, with other measures, what local people feel about each one. My right hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale and Darwen made a really good point about the consultation on The Bay, which asked people in Cumbria, but not in Lancaster, about the proposal.
My hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle asked about the borderlands growth initiative. New councils will be the successors to the decisions that the existing councils are making, so the initiative should continue with some Cumbria local government input. There is no reason why it should disappear.
I thank members of the Committee and remind everyone that the Government are committed to supporting and empowering local leaders and communities, as our levelling-up White Paper makes clear. Specifically, our mission is that by 2030, every part of England that wants a devolution deal will have one; clearly, many Members are passionate about that. Those deals should have powers at, or approaching, the highest level of devolution, with a simplified long-term funding settlement. By providing for the new unitary councils, the order will pave the way for the devolution deal that I know Cumbria deserves, and it will open the way to the sustained delivery of high-quality local public services, greater value for money, ongoing savings and more resilient local government for the area. Those are the benefits that the order can bestow on the people and businesses of Cumbria, and I commend it to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) (Amendment) Regulations 2022
(2 years, 2 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Trudy Harrison)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) (Amendment) Regulations 2022.
The purpose of the draft statutory instrument is to make necessary changes to the legislation governing the goods vehicle operator licensing regimes in Great Britain and in Northern Ireland. The United Kingdom is obliged to implement the changes following commitments included in the UK-EU trade and co-operation agreement, the TCA.
Although the regulation of operator licensing is a devolved matter, the implementation date is at a similar time to the end of the current mandate of the Northern Ireland Assembly. For that and other reasons, with the consent of the Minister for Infrastructure in Northern Ireland, Nichola Mallon, the draft instrument includes provisions for Northern Ireland.
The aim of our goods vehicle operator licensing regime is to ensure that goods are transported in a fair and safe way. That is a vital aim, given the distances covered on UK roads by goods vehicles, as well as the potential risks to road safety posed by their use. Mandatory criteria are required for an operator’s licence, which are that the operator be an effective and stable establishment, with appropriate financial standing, professional competence and good repute. Operators are required to have designated transport managers to oversee their operations.
Adherence to the criteria has been a long-standing requirement for all licensed heavy goods vehicle operators in the UK. The operator licensing regime plays a significant part in the sector’s safety record. Maintaining high standards for UK operators is a key part of improving the standing and reputation of the logistics industry, which plays a vital role in the UK economy.
The principal change that the draft instrument will introduce is the extension of the goods vehicle operator licensing regimes in the UK to include light goods vehicles, which until now have not been within scope. Those are vehicles such as vans or pick-ups that weigh more than 2.5 tonnes and up to 3.5 tonnes in maximum laden weight, either alone or combined when used with a trailer. It should be noted that the instrument applies only where those vehicles operate internationally, for hire or reward.
The draft instrument also introduces other minor changes to the wider goods vehicle operator licensing regime, which will also affect operators of heavy goods vehicles. The HGV-related changes are principally associated with the good repute of operators. They include a requirement to be compliant with laws on taxation, such as VAT, and for the business to be registered with Companies House or Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, as appropriate.
We expect that all well-run businesses already conform to those requirements and have therefore decided to apply the changes to all holders of operator licences, irrespective of whether they travel internationally. That is a deviation from the light-touch approach taken elsewhere, but we see that as a way to ensure that all holders of operator licences adhere to similar standards in this area.
The main purpose of the draft instrument is associated with operators of vehicles weighing more than 2.5 tonnes up to 3.5 tonnes, which will be newly in scope. This instrument will enable them to apply for a standard international licence, which will allow them to continue to operate legally in the EU from 21 May 2022. The provisions introduced for LGVs are analogous to those for HGVs, but differ in some details. For example, more limited financial cover will be required for the operation of an LGV.
I am aware that some colleagues will view additional regulation imposed on UK business with some trepidation. Although we are required by the TCA to introduce the changes, we have done so in such a way as to minimise the extra regulation imposed. We have used flexibilities within the TCA to allow people who have been managing LGV fleets for a continuous period of 10 years up to August 2020 to continue for up to three more years, to May 2025. That allows them to train to become transport managers. Also, we are not introducing environmental requirements for HGV operators that stem from UK law. Those are not required by the TCA. Major trade associations have supported the Department’s proposed stance on allowing light goods vehicle fleets those additional flexibilities.
On why requirements for light goods vehicles are being brought in only for vehicles in international traffic rather than all those used domestically for hire and reward, to do so would go beyond the requirements of the TCA, which requires application only to international traffic. That would impose unnecessary regulation on UK businesses. Our approach to operator licensing is rooted in not just EU but UK decisions. The operator licensing system, overseen by the traffic commissioners, started in the 1930s. It continues to be vital to properly manage the use of large vehicles within the UK market. Following this instrument, the way forward for operator licensing for light goods vehicles domestically is a matter for the UK Government and the devolved Northern Ireland Government. The UK Government have no plans to regulate further, but they can do so if it is the right thing to do.
Finally, with regret, I must draw colleagues’ attention to a technical problem in this draft statutory instrument that was identified between its laying and this debate being held. The issue is that of scope. The SI is intended to apply only to the operation of goods vehicles. However, as originally drafted, one provision also applies to the operation of passenger vehicles. In doing so, it disrupts some other legislation. Let me emphasise that our policy aim remains for this SI to apply only to goods vehicles. We have brought forward a further statutory instrument, the Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) (Amendment) (No.2) Regulations 2022 to rectify the problem, with the intention that the problem is rectified before this instrument comes into force.
Making the changes set out in these draft regulations will ensure that the UK meets our obligations under the TCA. These changes are modest in scope, and we have, in general, applied them to the minimum extent possible. There are some very limited changes where consistency between international and domestic licences is vital. Further information is set out in the explanatory memorandum. If the draft regulations were not implemented, EU member states could prevent road transport operations, particularly involving certain LGVs, from entering the EU on the basis that they do not comply with the requirements of the TCA. The draft regulations will ensure continued commercial access to EU markets for UK goods, road transport operators and for those EU operators who trade in the UK.
I commend the regulations to the Committee.
Gill Furniss (Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough) (Lab)
I look forward to serving under your chairpersonship, Ms McVey.
I hope the Minister will answer a few questions. I would like to pick up on the last few words she uttered. Frankly, in my time in this place I have never known an SI to be suddenly found to be technically legally correct. I wonder if the Minister could explain exactly what technically legally correct is when, clearly, the SI is not correct in any shape or form. We will be going against the Public Passenger Vehicle Act 1981. In the letter that the Minister sent out about the disruption, it seems that it may affect around one case a week. How will it affect that one case a week? The Minister indicated that she wished to see the updated SI completed before this SI comes into being, but, I have to say, with the devastation of the new highway code that was introduced and the fact that nothing was done to warn people until after it had become law, I do not have much confidence that this SI will go through as quickly as we would like. If it does not go through as quickly as the Minister has indicated, what exactly will happen to those who are going to be affected, and what compensation can people access to mitigate this complete mistake by the Government? I am happy for the Minister to address that at the end.
I want to pay tribute to HGV and LGV drivers nationwide. They ensure that our supermarket shelves remain stocked and that vital medicines reach our pharmacies. During the coronavirus pandemic, they have been unsung heroes and deserve our deepest thanks. Goods drivers have been working under considerable pressure of late due to significant problems in the supply chain. Delays in transporting goods in and out of the UK meant that the intricate timescales to which they work were disrupted anyway. The problem has not been helped by the fact that we have a shortage of more than 85,000 HGV drivers in the UK. The Government have failed to address both the short and long-term factors behind this shortage. That has caused immense destruction and been a hammer blow to our economy.
I have significant concerns about the impact of the proposed legislation on operators of light goods vehicles. Under the EU-UK TCA, the Government are obliged to implement these new rules to mirror the new EU regulations. It is for that reason that the Opposition will not oppose this SI. However, the Government must ensure that it is implemented in a way that is fair and that does not place extra regulatory burdens on businesses and disrupt our economy even further.
I must also highlight the sheer length of this statutory instrument. It contains 135 regulations. In all my time in Parliament, I have never come across a statutory instrument that even comes close to that size. I understand the powers Ministers have given themselves under the EU withdrawal Acts to bring forward these changes, but I am concerned that these regulations are not being given the proper parliamentary scrutiny they require.
Turning to the content of the regulations, I am concerned that the Government are downplaying the impact they will have on business. In the explanatory memorandum accompanying this SI, the Government state that these requirements should
“not impose any particular burden on business.”
However, it is difficult to work out how exactly they have reached that conclusion. In the Government’s own consultation, 17 respondents objected to the changes on the grounds that they would increase regulatory burdens, while 18 were in favour. Some 12 organisations even said that it was likely that they would have to cease or reduce operations due to these regulations. That represents over 10% of total responses. Why then have the Government failed to complete a full impact assessment? Why have they blindly concluded that these regulations will not be a burden on businesses? What is the purpose of running a public consultation if the Government ignore the outcome?
For operators coming into scope for the first time, these new regulations will have a significant impact on their finances. They will cost them £658 each over the first five years and then £401 each for the subsequent five years. Firms operating LGVs are already working on razor-thin profit margins, and without the necessary Government support, they risk collapse. I urge the Minister to consider extra support to ease the transition, beyond the lacklustre support in this SI.
More widely, efforts must be galvanised to bring more people into the logistics sector. Long-term structural problems cannot be swept under the rug any longer. The workforce of drivers is ageing rapidly, with just 1% of HGV drivers under the age of 25. New regulations like these and the extra costs they bring risk alienating people from the industry even further.
The Government must improve working conditions in the sector. That includes investing in new, better-quality facilities for drivers so that they can rest, eat and sleep with dignity.
John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)
Is there not also a problem that when younger drivers have qualified, the insurance premiums when they start work, before they have two or three years’ experience, are huge? Should there not, therefore, be a Government scheme to encourage people in to spread that load and encourage more young people into what should, essentially, be a younger person’s industry, but very much has an older workforce?
Gill Furniss
I absolutely agree with everything that my right hon. Friend said. If we are to get on the right path to our economy growing, we must do everything possible to encourage new people into the industry—and new start-up businesses, too. As I said earlier, it is just another example of a barrier put in the way of achieving what we would like. The extra £32.5 million announced to upgrade driver facilities is, of course, welcome, but it is just a drop in the ocean for fixing the problem.
Another area that the Government must get right, if these regulations are to be successful, is publicity. It is right that the new licences will be available to apply for from tomorrow, but three months is a tight timescale for operators to become compliant. I therefore ask the Minister what steps she is taking to contact operators and firms impacted by the changes to ensure that they know exactly what they need to do. That also includes the earlier issues referred to by the Minister, which I have asked for answers on.
Unfortunately, raising awareness of important changes has not been a priority for the Minister’s Department; when significant changes to the highway code were implemented earlier in the year, it waited until over two weeks after they were in force to launch a publicity campaign. The same mistakes cannot be repeated as these new rules come into force.
I will finish by once again paying tribute to HGV drivers, LGV drivers and everyone else in the logistics sector. Their work is vital but, all too often, they are under-appreciated. As operators adjust to the new regulations, the Government must work with the sector and trade unions to provide the tools they need to make the transition as smooth as possible. That is essential for the longevity of the sector, all the jobs it supports, and our wider economy.
Trudy Harrison
I will try to run through some of the shadow spokesperson’s questions. To start, the “technically legal” phrase is because that is exactly what it is. It was perfectly legal, but this is about the policy aim of the actual SI. It became apparent, regrettably after the SI was laid, that the policy aim and intention of the SI would not be met, hence the requirement for resubmission.
The public service vehicle implications are really about an operator’s ability, should there be a challenge to the transport manager’s—not the driver’s—way of working, to bring them in front of a hearing. The hon. Member asks about what will happen if that does not go to plan; it would be using case law, which is what is currently being used to set the precedent for doing just that. I hope that is clear. It is not about the technical legality of the SI, but purely its policy aim.
Gill Furniss
I am still not clear on what the Minister just said. Clearly, the SI that we are talking about now comes into force tomorrow. Organisations will be able to apply from tomorrow. As we said earlier, the Minister is hoping that the next SI will start before this one, so is she actually moving the date for the beginning of this one, or will she just go ahead tomorrow and wait for the next SI? Could the Minister clarify that for me?
Trudy Harrison
It actually comes into force on 15 March, but I am referring to the SI that we are re-laying because of the irregularity in the initial presentation, which was because of the matter that I referred to earlier. On who it will affect, the hon. Member referred to a number of instances around how it would affect heavy goods vehicle drivers. Just to be clear, a heavy goods vehicle is over 3.5 tonnes. The measure is specifically for vehicles—including their trailers, potentially—between 2.5 tonnes and 3.5 tonnes; it is for light goods vehicles.
On what we are doing for heavy goods vehicle improvements for drivers, we have put 32 interventions in place, which have been really successful. We have seen a fabulous pick-up of people coming into the sector.
Some £32 million has been invested in infrastructure, including in truck stops and other measures to improve the wellbeing and welfare of the freight and logistics industry, which is about more than just truck drivers, and I will talk more about that throughout the next year, when we will be promoting work, jobs and careers in the industry. I had the joy of meeting some apprentices working in the freight and logistics sector during the Department for Education’s national apprenticeship week. The number of opportunities in the sector is vast, and we will be doing more to promote those opportunities over the coming months.
This measure falls below the de minimis level of £5 million, so an impact assessment was not required. The other aspect that is having an impact on our ability to recruit people into the sector is the boot camps, which we are working on with the Department for Education and which have been really successful.
I hope the shadow Minister will agree that we are taking tremendous steps forward to improve the recruitment and retention of people in the freight and logistics sector. This is a small, specific measure that will ensure that our relations with the EU can continue and UK drivers can continue to work in the EU without restrictions, which would be incredibly damaging to such a vital sector.
Gill Furniss
I am afraid that I cannot agree completely with the Minister. I agree to a degree about the things that the Government have put in place to recruit more drivers but, as I said earlier, £32 million is not a lot of money when we look at the infrastructure within which the drivers now have to work. There are other issues, about which I am sure the Minister is aware, including planning taking such a long time to get a better, newer way of ensuring that all the drivers have a dignified way of life while they are working and delivering things to our tables.
As my right hon. Friend the Member for Warley said earlier about the cost of insurance, I would like to see the Minister put forward a package of measures that will make a significant difference in the short term, not in the long term. We need proper action to do that. During the pandemic, these lorry drivers saved our bacon as well as delivering it. They were the unsung heroes who were out and about every day, travelling all over the continent and back to ensure our shelves were filled and that all things medical were delivered as well. Surely we owe them that thank-you to provide them with proper resources and Government support for them to do their jobs properly and with dignity.
Trudy Harrison
The shadow Minister and I agree on the value that is placed on the freight and logistics sector. That is exactly why we want to ensure that these regulations are in place to support this vital sector and the transport managers who will become an essential part of light goods vehicle transportation.
These changes are modest in scope and we have, in general, applied them to the minimum extent possible. With that in mind, I commend the regulations to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Westminster Hall
(2 years, 2 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Online Abuse
(2 years, 2 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Sir Roger Gale (in the Chair)
I remind Members to observe social distancing and to wear masks as appropriate, please.
Before I call the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North to move the motion, I wish to make a short statement about the sub judice measures. There are issues pertinent to the debate that may be relevant to specific cases. I remind Members that, under the terms of the House’s sub judice resolution, no reference should be made to legal proceedings that are currently live before UK courts. For clarification, that applies to coroners’ courts as well as to law courts.
Catherine McKinnell (Newcastle upon Tyne North) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered e-petitions 272087 and 575833, relating to online abuse.
Thank you for chairing this incredibly important and timely debate, Sir Roger. The way that we view social media in this country has changed dramatically in the 12 years that I have been in Parliament. In the early days, people saw it as a force for good, whether they were activists using Twitter and Facebook to organise when the Arab spring began in 2011 or just groups of likeminded people sharing photos of their cats and clips from their favourite video games. Many people took the anonymity it offered to be an unqualified positive, allowing people to share deeply personal things and be themselves in a way that, perhaps, they felt they could not be in the real world. All that potential is still there.
Social media has been an invaluable tool in keeping us connected with friends and family during these incredibly challenging two years, but the dark side of social media has also become depressingly familiar to us all. We now worry about what exactly these giant corporations have been doing with our personal information. We read research describing echo chambers that fuel political polarisation and we see the unfolding mental health impact, particularly on young girls, of the heavily edited celebrity images that always seem to be just one or two swipes away.
As the Putin regime’s disastrous invasion of Ukraine proceeds, Ukrainians do not just face the Russian troops who have entered their country. Moscow has, predictably, stepped up its misinformation campaigns on social media, with the intention of sowing confusion and undermining Ukrainian morale. Meanwhile, the ease of creating, editing and sharing videos that appear to document events has left many uncertain what to believe or where to turn for reliable information. The Ukrainian people are seeing their worst nightmare unfold in a tragic, bloody war that they did not want. Before I make my main comments, I am sure I speak for us all here in saying that our thoughts, our solidary and our resolve are with Ukraine today. I know that many Members wanted to be in this important debate, but events and issues in the main Chamber have rather taken over.
What prompted the Petitions Committee inquiry into online abuse and the report we are debating is the growing concern expressed by petitioners about the abuse that people receive on social media platforms and the painfully slow progress in making online spaces less toxic. The scale of public concern is shown by the popularity of the e-petitions that our Committee has received on this subject in recent years, particularly the petitions created by television personalities Bobby Norris and Katie Price.
Bobby, who is sitting in the Public Gallery, is a powerful advocate and has started two petitions on this issue. The first called for the online homophobia of which he has been a target to be made a specific criminal offence. The second, which prompted our inquiry, was created in September 2019 and called on the Government to require online trolls to be blocked from accessing social media platforms via their IP addresses. It received over 133,000 signatures before closing early due to the 2019 general election.
Members will also be aware that Katie Price has spoken movingly about the vile abuse to which her son Harvey has been subjected. She and her mum Amy told the Committee that platforms fail to take down racist and anti-disability abuse aimed at Harvey and continue to respond poorly to complaints and reports about abusive posts. Katie’s petition was created in March 2021 and called on the Government to require social media users to link their accounts to a verified form of ID, so that abusive users can be more easily identified and prosecuted. The petition said:
“We have experienced the worst kind of abuse towards my disabled son and want to make sure that no one can hide behind their crime.”
It received almost 700,000 signatures by the time it closed in September 2021, with more than 500,000 coming in the weeks after the deplorable racist abuse aimed at England footballers last summer.
The inquiry that we have just concluded took place in the context of the Government’s draft Online Safety Bill. There is not time for me to talk through the Bill in detail today, but I know it will be the subject of intense scrutiny and debate in the coming months, and it is expected to impose new legal requirements on social media and other online platforms, including any platform that enables UK users to post content such as comments, images or videos, or to talk to others via messaging or forums online. I look forward to hearing the Government’s comments on that, although I appreciate that we await the publication of the Bill.
Online abuse is not something that just affects people in the public eye; it is something that most of us have at least witnessed, if not been subjected to ourselves. Ofcom’s pilot online harms survey in 2020-21 found that over a four-week period, 13% of respondents had experienced trolling, 10% offensive or upsetting language, and 9% hate speech or threats of violence. It is not an unfortunate side-effect of social media that victims can just shrug off. Although the abuse takes place online, we know that it can have a significant and devastating impact on the lives of victims offline. Glitch, which we spoke to as part of our inquiry, collated testimonies of online abuse as part of its report, “The Ripple Effect: Covid-19 and the Epidemic of Online Abuse”. One woman said:
“I shared a post on the rise in domestic abuse during lockdown and received dozens of misogynistic messages telling me I deserved to be abused, calling me a liar and a feminazi. My scariest experience, however, was when I shared a photograph of my young son and me. It was picked up by someone I assume to be on the far right, who retweeted it. Subsequently, throughout the day I received dozens of racist messages and threats directed at my son, at his father, and at me. It was terrifying.”
Sadly, distressing accounts of fear, isolation, difficulty sleeping, anxiety and depression are alarmingly familiar for people who are targeted for online abuse and harassment. However, the abuse is not directed equally, and the online world does not stand apart from real-world inequalities. Our inquiry found that women, disabled people, those from lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender communities, and people from ethnic minority backgrounds are not only disproportionately targeted for abuse; often it is their very identities that are attached. International research conducted by the Pew Research Centre found that 70% of lesbian, gay and bisexual adults have encountered online harassment, compared with about 40% of straight adults.
We heard not only that incidents of antisemitic abuse have increased, but that Jewish women are disproportionately singled out for abuse. Similarly, although women are generally subjected to more online bullying than men are, ethnicity further influences a woman’s vulnerability. Amnesty International’s research suggests that black women are around 84% more likely than white women to be abused online. In this way, online abuse can reflect and amplify the inequalities that exist offline. It also reinforces marginalisation, discouraging the participation of such communities in online spaces. Demos, which we spoke to as part of our inquiry, catalogued the effect of misogynistic abuse on women’s mental health as part of its 2021 report, “Silence, Woman”. Many women quoted in the report talked of wanting to stop their social media presence altogether and leave activities that they otherwise enjoy. One said:
“At the moment, it makes me want to quit everything I do online.”
Another said:
“I can’t even look at social media because I’m so scared that I’ll see more sexism. It’s really affecting my mental health.”
It is essential that any measures to tackle online abuse also recognise and respond to inequalities in the volume and severity of that abuse. Therefore, our report makes several recommendations to Government. First, we recommend that a statutory duty be placed on the Government to consult with civil society organisations representing communities most affected by online harassment. These organisations best understand the needs of victims, and such consultation will ensure that legislation is truly effective in tackling online harms. Their involvement is an important counterbalance to the lobbying efforts of social media companies.
Secondly, we believe that the draft Online Safety Bill should align with protections already established in the Equality Act 2010 and hate crime laws, and should include abuse based on protected characteristics as priority harmful content. It should list hate crime and violence against women and girls offences as specific relevant offences within the scope of the Bill’s illegal content safety duties and specify the offences covered under those headings.
Finally, platforms should be required in their risk assessments to consider the differential risks faced by certain groups of users. Those requirements should be made explicit in the risk assessment duties set out in the draft Online Safety Bill. The evidence is clear: if someone is female, from an ethnic minority or from the LGBT community, they are much more likely to be abused online. Any legislation that assumes online abuse affects everybody equally, separate from real-world inequalities, does not address the problem. For the draft Online Safety Bill to be effective, it must require platforms to assess the vulnerability of certain communities online and tackle the unequal character of online abuse.
The related issues of online anonymity and identification of users also emerged as important and controversial issues, not only in our inquiry and the petitions that prompted it, but in the wider public and policy discussion about online abuse. The evidence we heard on the role of anonymity in facilitating abuse was mixed. Danny Stone of the Antisemitism Policy Trust, with whom I have worked closely as chair of the all-party parliamentary group against antisemitism, told us that the ability to post anonymously enables abusive behaviour and pointed to research demonstrating disinhibition effects from anonymity that can lead to increased hateful behaviour. Danny cited a figure suggesting that 40% of online antisemitic incidents over the course of a month originated from anonymous accounts. Nancy Kelley from Stonewall and Stephen Kinsella from Clean Up The Internet also argued that anonymity should be seen as a factor that increases the risk of users posting abuse and other harmful content.
However, other witnesses took different views, arguing that evidence of a causal link between anonymity and abusive behaviour is unclear. Chara Bakalis from Oxford Brookes University argued that
“focusing so much on anonymity and trying to make people say who they are online”
risks misconstruing the problem as a question of individual behaviour, rather than the overall toxicity of online spaces. We also heard that the ability to post anonymously can be important for vulnerable users. Ruth Smeeth from Index on Censorship told us how valuable it is for victims of domestic abuse to be able to share their stories without fear of being identified, and Ellen Judson from Demos warned that there is no way to reduce anonymity in a way that only hurts abusers.
Tackling the abuse itself, whether or not it comes from anonymous users, should therefore be the focus of efforts to resolve this problem. Allowing users to post anonymously always entails a risk. We recommend that online platforms should be required to specifically evaluate the links between anonymity and abusive content on their platforms, in order to consider what steps should be taken in response to it.
A related question is whether users should be required to identify themselves if they want to use social media, as a way of preventing online abuse. On Friday, the Government announced that the draft Online Safety Bill would require the largest social media companies to allow users to verify their identities on a voluntary basis, and users will therefore have the option to block other users who choose not to verify their identity. This is a positive forward, giving users control over who they interact with and what they see online.
However, that would not be a silver bullet and should not be presented as such. It is an extra layer of protection, but it should not be the main focus for tackling online abuse. It absolutely does not absolve social media companies of their responsibility to make online spaces less toxic, which must be our focus, nor is it without risks. The Committee heard counter-arguments about users having to choose to use the option to block unverified users, which could mean that domestic abuse victims and other vulnerable users might be less likely to want to verify themselves, and therefore their voices will not be heard by other users. When Ofcom draws up its guidance, it must therefore offer ways to verify identity that are as robust but as inclusive as possible.
Bobby Norris’s petition argues that it is “far too easy” for social media users who have been banned to simply create a new account and continue the abuse. Katie Price and her mum Amy also raised the issue of banned users who seemingly have no problem returning and behaving in the same appalling way. The major social media platforms told us that they already have rules against previously banned users returning, as well as the tools and data to identify users and prevent them from starting new accounts. However, the evidence that we heard does not support that.
Our inquiry found that preventing the return of abusive banned users is not a priority for social media companies, and some users are taking advantage of the lax enforcement of bans to continue abusing their victims. That is a significant failing, and platforms must be held accountable for it. Robust measures must be put in place to require social media platforms to demonstrate that they can identify previously banned users when they try to create new accounts and must discourage—or, even better, prevent—unstable accounts from posting abusive content.
Where a platform’s rules prohibit users from returning to the platform, they should be able to show that they are adequately enforcing those rules. The regulations must have teeth, so we also recommend that Ofcom should have the power to issue fines or take other enforcement action if a platform cannot demonstrate that.
We also took evidence from the Law Commission, which has recommended the creation of two new offences covering online communications. The proposed introduction of a harm-based offence would criminalise communications
“likely to cause harm to a likely audience”,
with harm defined as
“psychological harm, amounting at least to serious distress”.
An additional new offence covering threatening communications would criminalise communications that convey
“a threat of serious harm”,
such as grievous bodily harm or rape.
We also heard that if the proposed new offences were introduced, some abusive content may be treated as
“a more serious offence with a more serious penalty”
than if it were prosecuted under existing law. The Committee believes that is a positive step forward that would better capture the context-dependent nature of some online abuse. A photograph of someone’s front door, for example, may be entirely innocent in some contexts, but can take on quite sinister connotations in others, where it quite clearly implies a threat to a person’s safety.
The Government should also monitor how effectively any new communications offences, particularly the Law Commission’s proposed harm-based offence, protect people and provide redress for victims of online abuse, while also protecting freedom of expression online. The Government should publish an initial review of the workings and impact of any new communications offences within the first two years after they come into force. We have to make sure we take this opportunity to get this right and review it within two years to make sure it is as effective as it can be.
The Law Commission also recently concluded a review of hate crime law. It acknowledges two points highlighted in the Petitions Committee’s 2019 report: the unequal treatment of protected characteristics in hate crime law, and the failure to classify abuse of disabled people as a hate crime in cases where the offence may have been motivated by a sense that disabled people are easy targets, rather than being clearly motivated by hostility to disabled people.
The commission recommended extending existing aggravated hate crime offences to cover all characteristics currently protected under hate crime law, and reforming the motivation test for an offence to be treated as a hate crime, proposing an alternate test of motivation on the grounds of “hostility or prejudice”. The Government have stated that hate crime offences will be listed in the draft Online Safety Bill as priority illegal content. That means that the legislation will require platforms to take steps to proactively prevent users from encountering hate crime content.
There is some confusion, however, as we do not yet know if this will be limited to the existing stand-alone racially and religiously aggravated and stirring up hatred offences, or if the intention is to require platforms to proactively prevent users from encountering, for example, communications that involve hostility based on a protected characteristic such as disability. When the Minister responds, will he tell us what the Government expect the practical impact to be on how platforms are required to deal with, for example, the abuse of disabled people online?
Our inquiry heard again and again that changes to the law on online abuse risk becoming irrelevant, when we lack the capacity to even enforce the law as it stands. The uncomfortable truth is that, despite the dedication of our officers, police resources have been diminished to the point where even relatively simple crimes in the offline world go unsolved more often than not, according to Home Office statistics. Meanwhile, the proportion of reported crimes leading to successful prosecutions has reached an all-time low.
It is not surprising that we found such scepticism about the state’s capacity to enforce a law against criminal online abuse, which, in many cases, will be complex and time-consuming to investigate. Ruth Smeeth gave the following evidence to the Committee:
“When I got my first death threat in 2014, at that point the police did not have access to Facebook. It was banned…Although they can now see it, they do not have the resources available to help them prosecute. Whether the legislation is amended or not, it is so incredibly important that the criminal justice system can do its work. To do that, they need resources.”
While we believe the Law Commission’s proposals are eminently sensible, we are deeply concerned that the inadequate resourcing of our police and criminal justice system is the real elephant in the room. It could prevent us from dealing with the most serious forms of online abuse, such as death threats, the sending of indecent images and illegal hate speech.
I suspect that the Treasury is unlikely to look favourably on this resourcing issue any time soon, but the Committee would be neglecting its duty if we failed to draw attention to it. Resources in the police and criminal justice system have to be an essential part of the conversation on tackling online harms. If the Government are serious about tackling the most serious forms of online abuse, they must ensure that our police and courts have the resources to enforce the laws against it.
Although we talk a lot about Twitter, Facebook and TikTok in these discussions, abusive content hosted on smaller platforms also plays a significant role in encouraging prejudicial attitudes and real-world harm. Some of these platforms have become safe havens for some of the most troubling material available online, including holocaust denial, terrorist propaganda films and covid-19 disinformation. From an internet browser today, anyone can easily access videos that show graphic footage of real-world violence and allege the attacks are part of a Jewish plot, or find an entire channel dedicated to the idea that black people are a biological weapon designed to wipe out western civilisation—I could go on. Danny Stone of the Antisemitism Policy Trust told the Committee:
“It is not just the Twitters and Facebooks of this world; there are a range of harms occurring across a range of different platforms. It is sinister, we have a problem and, at the moment, it is completely unregulated. Something needs to be done.”
We have heard no evidence to suggest that the negative effects of abuse on people’s wellbeing or freedom of expression are any less serious because the abuse comes from a smaller platform. Failure to address such content would risk significantly undermining the impact of the legislation. The duties set out in the draft Online Safety Bill relating to content that is “legal but harmful” to adults must apply to a wide range of platforms to ensure that abusive content is removed from the online sphere, not merely shifted from the larger platforms to darker corners of the internet.
The Committee therefore recommends that the draft Online Safety Bill require smaller platforms to take steps to protect users from content that is legal but harmful to adults, with a particular focus on ensuring that such platforms cannot be used to host content that has the potential to encourage hate or prejudice towards individuals or communities. They do not get a free pass just because they are smaller platforms.
The Minister has previously indicated that the Government have considered amending the conditions for classing a platform as category 1, so that it covers platforms with either a high number of users or posing a high risk of harm to users, rather than both conditions having to be met, as is the case in the draft Bill. We would welcome an update on whether the Government are minded to take that forward.
Legislators have a way of making the debate around online safety sound incredibly complicated and inaccessible. However, the fundamental issue is simple: too many people are exploiting online platforms to abuse others, and not enough has been done to protect the victims and create online spaces where people are free to express themselves in a constructive way. In the offline world, there are rules on acceptable behaviour and how we treat other people. We invest huge amounts of time and energy into ensuring that those rules are followed as much as possible. The same simply cannot be said of the digital sphere.
The online world has changed dramatically in such a short time. Our laws and regulations have not kept up. They have allowed a culture to develop where abuse has become normalised. It was deeply troubling to hear in every single one of the Committee’s school engagement sessions that pupils believe that abuse is just a normal part of the online experience. Is that really what we want our children to grow up believing? We can do so much better than that.
Social media companies make so much money. It is not too much to ask that they invest some of that in ensuring that their platforms are safe, and that people cannot inflict enormous harm on others without consequences. Of course, there will always be some abuse and inappropriate behaviour online, and nobody expects any Government to prevent it all, just as no home security system could stop every clever and determined burglar, but we can certainly do a lot better.
The Committee welcomes the opportunity provided by the draft Online Safety Bill, and our report sets out several ways the Government can improve the legislation. Ministers must recognise the disproportionate way that women, ethnic minorities, people with disabilities and LGBT people are targeted, so that nobody feels they cannot express themselves or engage with others online. We need to hold the platforms accountable if they fail to prevent banned users from rejoining, and we must ensure our police have the resources they need to tackle the most dangerous forms of online abuse. We look forward to the Government addressing our recommendations when their formal response to our report is published, and to the Minister’s response today.
Social media offers such fantastic opportunities to connect with others and is a real source of positivity and enjoyment for so many people. If we get the Bill right, we will be taking the first step towards bringing some much-needed light to the dark side of social media and amplifying the benefits of the unprecedented connectivity of the world we live in. Our report and today’s debate are important steps in bringing to Parliament the concerns of hundreds of thousands of members of the public who want a safer and more equal online world. We will continue to hold Ministers to account on behalf of the petitioners, so that the draft Online Safety Bill makes its way through Parliament and achieves what we know petitioners want.
Damian Collins (Folkestone and Hythe) (Con)
It is a pleasure to speak in the debate and address the petitions on online abuse, which reflect the understandable growing public concern about the prevalence of abusive material and behaviour online, in particular on social media. I chaired the Joint Committee on the Draft Online Safety Bill—the pre-legislative scrutiny Committee. We had consistent evidence from people about the nature of the abuse they had faced online, and how that abuse creates spaces online where not only are people targeted, but hate speech, racist speech, vile abuse and extremism have become normalised within the echo chambers of certain sectors of social media.
People are frustrated because they have raised these concerns directly with social media platforms, their Member of Parliament and the Government. The sort of action that they think should be taken to combat abusive behaviour, and that would be taken if the behaviour took place in a public space, is not being taken online. People cannot just log out of their accounts. We cannot just say, “Well, the easiest way to avoid online abuse is not to be online.” Many people are required to be online due to the nature of their work. Why should people not be able to go online and enjoy, as the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell) said, the connectivity that comes from being on social media without being the victim or target of abuse? We do not create spaces for abuse in the physical world; we should not create such spaces in the online world either.
As the hon. Member said, the draft Online Safety Bill is big and quite complicated. I urge everyone to read the 60,000-word report by the Joint Committee. The Bill becomes a lot simpler and clearer after reading the report. At the heart of the Bill is something simple: activity that is illegal offline should be regulated online, and the laws that Parliament has created and that our courts enforce offline should be applied online as well. Offences are committed not just by someone who is abusing another person, but by a platform that actively hosts, amplifies and creates an audience for that content, and platforms should be liable to combat abuse. Indeed, without that liability, we will not be able to combat it.
Online platforms should not be amplifying abusive behaviour to others. In a shocking incident last summer—one of many—members of the English national football team were the subject of racist abuse after the final of the European championships. That was foreseen by the football authorities, who warned social media companies that this would be a problem, but the companies did nothing to combat it. The issue is not just that foreseeable abuse was not acted on and stopped; it is that social media companies’ systems were making people aware that the abuse was taking place, and even highlighting the key words. People were prosecuted in the courts following that event because of their use of racist language, and the racial abuse directed towards others.
We know what the offences are, and we know what the thresholds are for legal action. That standard should be enforced online. The draft Online Safety Bill should, by regulating illegal activity online, set the minimum standards required. It should allow us to set the safety standards that we think should be set, so that they are based not on terms of service written by American technology companies in California, but on our laws and the thresholds we set to keep people safe. They should be proactively enforced. The company should not be waiting for people to complain; they should be proactively looking for this content.
I will focus my remarks on a part of the Bill that it is important to get right: priority harms. The term that has been used is “legal but harmful”. Clearly illegal content exists; content that constitutes child abuse or a terrorist offence is clearly illegal and no context is needed to understand why it is bad. The Government propose creating a schedule of priority harms of other offences. I am pleased to see the steps the Government have taken since the Joint Committee report was published; they are writing more of those offences into the Bill, and making it absolutely clear when they apply. However, we do need certainty; victims need to know that an offence has been committed. They should be seeking redress based on the fact that an offence has been committed against them. The social media companies need to know which offences are in scope, and what they are expected to do in different situations. The regulator needs to give certainty, based on the law and its regulatory powers, about where those thresholds are.
That is why the Joint Committee recommended removing the definition of “legal but harmful” from the Bill, and instead writing into the Bill those offences that it applies to, making it really clear which offences are in scope. Once the regulator is established, its first job will be to create the risk registers from which it will create the codes of practice that apply to the different companies. Then the regulator will be well placed to act if Ofcom feels that there are gaps in the regulatory regime—if there are offences that should have been included but were not, or if new offences need to be added to the priority harm areas. It is much better if offences in the regulatory regime are based on laws that are understood, that Parliament has passed and that the courts enforce, so that there is no ambiguity. I understand the desire to future-proof the legislation, and to say, “Something bad may happen that we cannot foresee; there should be provision to regulate for that.” However, it is difficult to take enforcement action against a social media company for not acting against content that was not proscribed or recognised by the regulator.
The Government have done a good job of bringing so many offences into the Bill. One of the concerns was whether equalities legislation was enforceable online—how would we enforce race hate, and other abuse, online? The Government have made clear how that could be done. However, it would be better if the regulatory regime was based on offences named in the Bill, rather than our having an additional general definition of something that is “legal but harmful”.
I do not believe that the Government’s intention is for the regulator to start creating new offences; the Government want to bring clarity. Having a tight focus on existing offences, as regulated through the codes of practice that set the minimum safety standards, gives more clarity and more certainty. That is what people want. They want to know what they are being protected from, that the companies have to be proactive in removing certain sorts of content, and that there is no ambiguity or confusion over what that is and how it should be done. When the Minister responds and the Government give their thoughts about the final draft of the draft Online Safety Bill, they should bear that in mind. The Bill will provide a lot more clarity if we give people certainty—both those who are concerned about freedom of expression, and those who want to know that certain offences will be covered by the Bill.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I am very pleased to participate in this debate. I congratulate the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell) on setting the scene so well, and on representing the Petitions Committee. My office faces online abuse regularly; the draft Online Safety Bill will lead to changes. I give credit to the Minister, who has always been very responsive to the issues that we bring to his attention. Today I seek confirmation that the commitment that the Minister has given will actually lead to the changes that we want. The petitions come at a pertinent time, as we are waiting to see the next stages of the draft Online Safety Bill. The Minister today has an opportunity to hear the points raised by our constituents.
As the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North said, covid-19 has moved many people online. Undoubtedly, people say things they should not online. They think there is no recrimination or accountability, but there is, and I hope the draft Online Safety Bill will give us the change that I wish to see. The online harms White Paper of April 2019 said that
“all pornography sites should have duties to stop children from accessing them, regardless of whether the sites hosted user-to-user content”,
that
“individual users should be able to complain to an Ombudsman when platforms failed to comply with their obligations”,
and that
“a senior manager should be designated as the ‘safety controller’ with liability for a new offence—failing to comply with their obligations when there was clear evidence of repeated and systemic failings that resulted in a significant risk of serious harm to users.”
That was the request in April 2021. Perhaps the Minister can indicate whether we have got to that stage.
The hon. Members for Newcastle upon Tyne North, and for Folkestone and Hythe (Damian Collins), referred to attacks on disabled people. The Minister is well aware of the disgraceful and disgusting comments made by an anonymous internet user to my colleague Diane Dodds MLA. They were absolutely despicable, atrocious, hurtful and dirty comments regarding the tragic death of her wee son, who was disabled. Politics had nothing to do with the response whatever. There was a cry from mothers and fathers throughout my constituency, urging me to make clear the changes that are needed to remove anonymity and remove the power from the unknown and faceless warrior trolls—those who pick on the most hurtful aspects of life and spew bile.
The person responsible happened to be from the Republic of Ireland, and I am very pleased that the investigation, which is ongoing, has ascertained who they are. My mailbox contained much correspondence from people who do not necessarily vote for my party. They were expressing their support for a lady who does not deserve such comments, regardless of her politics. That is an example of online abuse and its impact. That sums up one of the issues that I do not believe is fully addressed in the draft Online Safety Bill. I would like much stronger restrictions, to remove anonymity and to give platforms the responsibility to immediately remove posts and users once a complaint has been made. The National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children—I declare an interest; I contribute regularly to the charity—argues for a regulator, who would enforce a duty of care, and a duty to protect children on social media. I make that plea again to the Minister, who I know is keen to respond.
Barnardo’s welcomed the draft Online Safety Bill, although it cautioned that the devil is in the detail, as it always is, and said that it would work with the Government to make sure that the legislation was effective as possible. Again, perhaps the Minister can respond to the comments from Barnardo’s and the NSPCC. Anne Longfield, the former Children’s Commissioner, said she was pleased that the Government would introduce a duty of care. However, she said it was essential that the draft Online Safety Bill was introduced as soon as possible to keep children safe. I do not pretend to have expertise—I have enough difficulty turning on my laptop, to be honest—but for those who use the internet regularly, there has to be protection.
Another great concern is about access to pornography. A survey carried out by Middlesex University, which was jointly commissioned by the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children and the Children’s Commissioner for England, showed that around 53% of 11 to 16-year-olds have seen graphic porn content online and that 94% of them had viewed adult content by the time they were just 14. In total, 1,001 children aged between 11 and 16 were questioned and the survey found that 65% of the 15 to 16-year-olds had viewed pornography and that 28% of 11 to 12-year-olds had done so. More than half of the boys surveyed—53%—said they thought that pornography was a realistic portrayal of sex, as did 39% of the girls surveyed.
The hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North talked about that issue, and I totally agree with her because it shows the destructive effect that pornography has on our young people if they think that it is the norm, when quite clearly it is not. We need to correct that. I thank the hon. Lady for making that point; it was one of the issues that I wanted to talk about as well.
More than a third of 13 to 14-year-old boys and a fifth of 11 to 12-year-old boys also said they wanted to copy the action that they had seen. What will society be like if what is perverted and wrong is seen as normal? We have to address that very harshly, very strongly, very firmly and with great focus. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response on that issue.
This is a problem and we need to ask if it is being addressed in the Online Safety Bill thus far. I have my reservations and they are shared by Christian Action, Research, and Education, which says:
“The Bill is silent in respect to commercial pornographic websites that fall outside the scope of the Bill at present. It is also silent on whether the Bill will specifically cover some of the most violent pornography that is concerning because of its impact on violence against women and girls.
In its final submission to the Online Safety Bill Select Committee, CARE said it ‘disagreed with the Government’s claim that the most accessed pornographic sites will be covered by the Bill. The current definition of “user-generated” content means porn sites could simply amend how they operate to make sure they are outside of scope.’”
The Minister is always forthcoming with his responses and he is always incredibly helpful, but will he explain on the record how the Government will ensure that that will not happen? CARE’s concern is to thwart porn sites, to stop them acting outside the guidelines and laws by getting the rules moved slightly and then suddenly finding themselves protected.
The protection of innocents is something we must get right. We cannot protect our children from the world indefinitely—I know that—but we have to make every effort to do the best we can. However, the ability of children to access dangerous and harmful pornography must be curtailed. I would very much appreciate it if the Minister could outline how we can guard against certain user-generated content and keep it away from our children. With respect, I remain unconvinced that the Bill goes far enough.
The Library briefing for this debate notes that the Minister has said that priority offences will include encouraging or assisting suicide. That is so important. We all know of people in our constituencies who have lost their lives after listening to what someone said on a website. There are also offences relating to sexual images, including revenge and extreme pornography, which I have referred to already. We really need to address those priority offences. Other offences include incitement to and threats of violence, hate crime, public order offences, harassment and stalking, which many constituents have come to see me about. There are also drug-related offences, weapons and firearm offences, fraud and financial crime, money laundering, exploiting prostitutes for gain—it is despicable how pimps exploit ladies for their own gain—and organised immigration offences.
I am glad that the Minister has said that all of those offences will be priority offences. I want to ensure, however, that legislation, including the Online Safety Bill, can give us the confidence that our children will be protected, that vulnerable ladies will not be challenged, and that those who use online means for their perverted and evil deeds will be held accountable.
With that in mind, I believe that more needs to be done to get the Bill right. I look forward to the Government and the Minister, who is particularly interested in this subject—there is no dispute about that—doing the best they can to put the right Bill in place to provide the protection and confidence that I and my constituents need.
Siobhan Baillie (Stroud) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. I thank the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell) for her wide-ranging and powerful opening speech, and my hon. Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Damian Collins) for the incredible work he has done with the Committee.
I am grateful for the opportunity to talk about online harms and online abuse. We have heard some positive announcements from the Government, thanks to the Minister’s hard work; no doubt, we will hear more about that in due course. I have spoken before about the misery of the dark cyber streets and alleyways. Our constituents around the country are looking to us to help clean up digital Dodge City. The Government have responded by creating a wide-ranging draft online harms Bill and by taking the extra step of having prelegislative scrutiny, which was incredibly thorough and created the report on which we are concentrating our minds today.
Not all abuse is anonymous—I know that because I get quite a lot of it myself—but the most frightening threats are often from faceless, nameless and cowardly perpetrators, who prevent us from being able to assess and understand the true risk of a post because we do not know who is behind it. I have focused my time on campaigning to tackle anonymous abuse. I promoted a ten-minute rule Bill seeking verification measures, so that social media users could verify their own accounts. Why should only celebrities and MPs, for example, have blue ticks? That should be open to all and be clearly labelled. The Bill would also allow social media users to only follow and be followed by verified accounts. On the issue of verification, the petitions have attracted nearly 700,000 signatures. I thank everybody who has worked so hard to raise this issue.
I have spoken to the new Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport and her team on a number of occasions. She has genuinely listened to the concerns of victims and I can see an incredible change of tack in the draft legislation, which addresses much more clearly the daily experience of social media users and the ways in which we can improve that experience.
I came to this issue originally because I received a lot of abuse when I announced my pregnancy, which is bonkers in this day and age. After that, Stroud residents spoke to me about their own experience of online abuse. They were everyday people, such as social workers, Army veterans and schoolgirls. The cyber-flashing issues faced by so many young girls are appalling, and the majority of that comes from anonymous accounts.
This job is very weird on a normal day, but I have been able to talk to some incredibly glamorous, popular and well-followed celebrities. I thank Bobby Norris, Katie Price, Emily Atack, Malin Andersson and others I have spoken to. They have brought to the fore the fact that, while we may look at them as glamorous people who are to be envied, behind the scenes they are suffering so much because of online abuse, which is scary, debilitating and damaging to mental health. Given all the people who are suffering, it is right that the Government have listened and made changes.
A few months ago, I gave a speech on this subject and tried to explain how parents had received abuse following the death of their children or babies. I really struggled, as I will never understand why people wake up in the morning and think it is okay to start sending nasty, threatening, scary or harassing messages to people. It is completely mindless and it needs to be shut down.
Briefly, we know that anonymity and lack of verification mean less self-policing, because users feel less accountable and responsible for their actions. We know that there is less actual policing because it is so difficult to trace people who are anonymous, and the preventive and protective measures can often be dodged—if we block or ban an abusive user on a platform, they just start a new account, as we have heard from other Members present today.
It is worth going over some of the challenges that my proposals to tackle anonymity and to introduced verification rightly received. First, people said that anonymity is a source of protection for marginalised and endangered people—there is a force for good in it. I completely agree that anonymity can not only fuel abuse, but offer a means of protection to enable people to get online. That is why the nuanced approach of giving social media users more choice, as we are suggesting, is so important.
Secondly, this is no magic bullet. The proposal would not stop all abuse online, and it would be wrong to suggest that that would be the case. That will not happen. We have not been able to eradicate bullying in the playground over all the years that that has been going on. However, our proposed measures, which have been added to the Online Safety Bill—I am so grateful for that—along with the creation of a regulator and other measures, will really help to significantly reduce abuse of all forms, but anonymous abuse in particular. People who choose that option can in effect opt out of seeing it.
I will conclude. I have kept my comments relatively short because I talk so often about this matter. I am keen to hear from the Minister and his opposite number, the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Alex Davies-Jones), about what is to come. What we are seeing so far is very positive. It will be a very lively piece of legislation, not least because it is massive. It is right for such a serious piece of legislation to receive so much scrutiny and challenge. If it has the victims of abuse at its heart, and if we think about the whole range of different people who experience abuse daily and about the campaigning that is happening—supporting the FA with Kick It Out, and the racism and antisemitism groups—it is pretty obvious that this is the right course of action. We will be on the right side of history pushing the Bill through. I thank the Minister and his team for everything that they are doing.
Alex Davies-Jones (Pontypridd) (Lab)
I am very glad to respond to this important debate on behalf of the Opposition. It is also brilliant to serve under your chairmanship again, Sir Roger. I place on the record my thanks to my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell) for her excellent work on the Petitions Committee inquiry, for introducing both e-petitions and for outlining the issues facing us and why we desperately need the Online Safety Bill.
Clearly, there is a strong appetite among constituents across the UK for a change in regulation of the online space. The strength of feeling about the need to strengthen online protections is crystal clear. Colleagues across the House noted that this afternoon. I also pay tribute to the hard work of campaigners, including Katie Price, Emily Atack, Amy Hart and Bobby Norris, whom I was hoping to have with us today. They have called for action for some time now, along with so many others. As has been noted, the petitions have amassed more than 800,000 signatures—a significant number that cannot be ignored. It is abundantly clear that the Government must now take notice and, most importantly, take decisive action.
The experiences and stories shared in the debate bring a very human issue into sharp relief. As others have said, it is easy to get lost in technical language when speaking about internet regulation, so let me be clear: the Government can and should do more. The Conservatives promised that the Government would bring what was billed in their online harms White Paper as “world leading” legislation urgently to the forefront of the parliamentary agenda. Yet here we are, more than three years later, and we are still waiting.
Never has such legislation been more timely, given what we are seeing with the disinformation and misinformation being spread online about the appalling situation in, and the invasion of, Ukraine. All our thoughts are with the people of Ukraine and we stand in solidarity with them today.
The Government’s first attempt at a comprehensive draft online harms Bill was widely seen as too narrow, hard to follow and confusing in parts, and it was indeed in need of significant strengthening. That opinion was shared throughout the sector. The children’s charity the NSPCC conducted its own analysis and found that the first draft of the Bill failed in 10 of its 27 indicators for the protection of children. Those damning concerns were shared elsewhere. A 2021 study by the online safety group Internet Matters found that the 2 million most vulnerable children in Britain are seven times more likely to come to harm online than their peers across the globe. Of course, colleagues and, I am sure, the Minister will already know that.
The need for change and real regulation online has been well reported and the reality is that without robust change, more and more people will continue to suffer abuse at the hands of an unregulated internet. We need only to reflect on last summer and the England side’s success at the men’s UEFA Euros final to scratch the surface of the power of the internet to perpetuate hate and abuse. Although I know that colleagues will be aware that I am an immensely proud Welsh MP and will therefore always naturally believe that the Welsh side was utterly robbed of glory—not just then, but at the weekend, too—the Euros final was a hugely exciting time for all our country and the nation as a whole. However, despite the incredible work of the team and the pride and unity that those football matches brought to so many, their achievements were hugely tarnished by the utterly shocking abuse a number of players faced online following an impossibly difficult penalty shoot-out. It is beyond reprehensible that social media companies defended the use of a monkey emoji—we all know what was meant—saying that it was out of scope and could not be regulated because it was an emoji.
It is not just about the football last summer. Only this afternoon, I saw a great, brilliant and prominent black Welsh rugby player, Ashton Hewitt, reaching out and begging Twitter to block an anonymous troll with the username LladdPoblDduon. For the non-Welsh speakers in the room, that username literally translates as “killing black people”. How are people even allowed to create an account with that handle?
That is why the Labour party has long called for tougher penalties for those at the top of social media companies. Ofcom will take on some of the biggest tech firms in the world, with all the power and resources at their fingertips. It is a David and Goliath situation and Ofcom must have access to a full range of tools in its belt, including a provision to make top bosses criminally liable for persistently failing to tackle online harm. We all want to see effective and fit-for-purpose legislation that cracks down on harms and the hate and fake news that flourish online. I reach out to the Minister and to his Government—he has the cross-party support to ensure that that happens.
Labour believes that it is only by making senior social media executives personally liable for failures to prevent dangerous content from spreading, including that which glorifies violence, racism, antisemitism, homophobia or misogyny, that we will ensure that the social media companies begin to take it seriously. Instead of doing the right thing, the Government U-turned on the commitment for the Bill to have its Second Reading before Christmas.
The Minister knows that the scale of the problem is huge, yet despite years of warnings from Labour alongside campaigning groups and charities alike, the Government have persistently delayed robust action. The vast range of people, from young to old, being impacted by online trolls hiding behind anonymity is truly massive, and we heard powerful testimony from the hon. Member for Stroud (Siobhan Baillie) about her experiences of suffering at the hands of anonymous trolls. It is a sad fact that women in public life see it as the norm that we are treated online as an easy target for abuse. By all means, debate my politics and my voting record, talk to me about my politics and my policies, but criticising my appearance, my accent, how I look and how I dress, just because I am a woman in public life, is completely unacceptable.
Although we welcome some of last week’s announcements, including the one that large social networks will be forced to let people filter out unverified accounts in an attempt to tackle anonymous abuse, there are still some gaping holes. They failed to address the back-of-house issues, especially those to do with illegal activity online. Moreover, the smaller social networks are yet to be factored in, as outlined by the Antisemitism Policy Trust.
The Government need to wake up and recognise that, sadly, when it comes to perpetuating hate, fake news or other negative behaviours online, the reality is that where there is a will, there is a way. The upcoming draft Online Safety Bill is a unique opportunity to put those wrongs right. That brings me to Labour’s key asks of the Minister this afternoon. I am keen to give the Minister plenty of time to respond, and we have that this afternoon, so I will keep my questions brief.
Given the urgency, and the devastation that an unregulated internet is having on users every day, will the Minister finally confirm exactly when this long-awaited legislation will be brought back to Parliament? We are looking for an exact date. Surely, given the long delays already incurred, giving clarification is the least that the Minister can do.
As I and others have already mentioned, anonymous abuse occurs not just on large platforms. In fact, some of the smaller platforms can be the most problematic in hosting, promoting and perpetuating abuse. Will the Minister confirm exactly how the upcoming legislation will ensure that the issues with smaller but high-harm platforms are also addressed?
I know that the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) raised this point, and it is an issue that I am personally concerned about. The Minister recognises the horrifying content that is so easily accessed online by anyone with an internet connection. I welcome the Government’s recent commitment to introduce age-verification technology to prevent under-18s from accessing pornography online, but the Minister must also know that the technology is far more advanced than ever before. Only this week, the BBC reported the extremely disturbing story about the Metaverse app, which, in essence, allows children into virtual strip clubs online. A researcher was able to pose as a 13-year-old girl and quickly witnessed grooming, sexual material, racist insults and a rape threat in a virtual reality world. I encourage colleagues who are not familiar with the story to read up on it and see the graphics for themselves, because they are utterly shocking and appalling. It just cannot be right. It is all very well banning access to pornography, but Twitter has a minimum age threshold of 13 and fails to block pornographic content on its site. It is simply unfathomable that that is allowed to continue.
The internet is an inherently creative space and the legislation must keep up. How will the Minister ensure that the Bill is future-proofed, to prevent it from being out of date—the next generation of technology is already coming through—by the time it is finally put in place?
Lastly, I repeat the calls made by the hon. Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Damian Collins) and the Joint Committee on the draft Online Safety Bill. Labour firmly believes that the online space must be kept in check by an independent regulator, instead of by distant bodies in Silicon Valley. That is what is urgently needed, and what we have urgently needed for a long time. I hope that the Minister is listening.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Chris Philp)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship once again, Sir Roger. Colleagues will be pleased to hear that I do not anticipate taking up the entire two hours that remain.
First, I associate myself with the remarks made by the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Alex Davies-Jones), and by the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell) about the terrible events unfolding in Ukraine, which are being debated in the Chamber at the moment. I know that we are all deeply concerned and want to send our thoughts, prayers and more to the people of Ukraine, who are suffering so terribly.
I congratulate and thank the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North for introducing the debate with such eloquence and passion. I extend those thanks and congratulations to the hundreds of thousands of people across the whole United Kingdom who signed the petitions, whose voices are being heard today, and especially to those who took the time and the trouble to organise the petitions, including Bobby Norris, who has done a huge amount of work in this vital area. I am sure that we all want to pay tribute to him.
Although the online world presents enormous opportunities for communication, research and better understanding one another, there is no question but that, as the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North put it at the very beginning, in many areas of enormous concern people are suffering terrible abuse that affects their day-to-day lives in the most awful and unimaginable ways. More than that, on occasion, people are subjected to abuse that is straightforwardly illegal and deserves criminal prosecution.
The Government fully recognise the problems in the online space, and the devastating impact that they can have on victims. We also recognise the fact that women, girls, people in the LGBT+ community, members of ethnic minorities, and others, very often—as the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North said at the beginning—suffer disproportionately severe forms of abuse online, simply because of who they are. That is a point that the shadow Minister also made very powerfully. It is simply unacceptable, and it is essential that we take action.
The draft Online Safety Bill is the principal vehicle through which action will be taken. It is a huge piece of legislation, as Members have mentioned, and I want to touch on some of the points raised about it during the debate. The shadow Minister asked about timing. It is true that it has been some time in preparation—from the White Paper, to the draft Bill presented last May, to the Joint Committee’s prelegislative work through the autumn and up until just before Christmas. I would like to take the opportunity to pay particular tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Damian Collins), who chaired that Committee, which did fantastic work. Its report has almost 200 pages and we have been devouring every single one of them. To answer the question about timing, the introduction of the updated Bill is very imminent. I will not give a precise date, because it is still subject to collective Government agreement, but it is a matter of a small number of weeks, if I can put it that way. I hope that that gives an indication that it is extremely imminent and that all that work is about to come to fruition.
I want to make it clear that the Government have been in very careful listening mode for the past nine or 10 months since publication. We have, of course, listened to the Joint Committee and its report. The Select Committee on Digital, Culture, Media and Sport also produced a report, and Members who have been raising points about the Bill in Parliament and elsewhere. As Members will have gathered, significant changes will be made to the Bill on introduction. It will be very different, in a number of significant ways, when it is introduced very shortly, compared with the draft version published last May. That is due to the work that parliamentarians and other stakeholders—some children’s charities were mentioned earlier—have done. We want to take every opportunity to make sure that the Bill is as good as it can be. It is not really a party political issue, is it? I am sure there will be areas to improve, but when the Bill is introduced I hope that the House of Commons will get behind it and speak as one for the whole country, because we all have the same objectives. I think that the scrutiny that has already taken place has been an example of Parliament at its best, and I hope that when the Bill goes through the House it will be another example of Parliament working at its best.
I want to pick up on a few points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe. Obviously, I cannot pre-announce all of the updates that will be in the Bill. Some have been announced already. He made important points about ensuring clarity on how the different provisions will operate. We have already made it clear that we will specify the priority illegal offences, and social media firms will have to be proactive in preventing such illegal things from appearing online. That will be a first step towards providing some of the clarity referred to by my hon. Friend. There is then the question of how we bring similar clarity in the area of legal but harmful; there will be more to say on that in the very near future.
Whether or not the illegal act or illegal thing is a priority item, there will be a duty to take action where any illegal activity occurs online. Critically, that particular duty applies to all platforms, regardless of size, so even the smaller ones that are not category 1 will have to take action—proactive action for priority illegal harms, and retrospective action for everything else that is illegal. Similarly, on things that are legal but harmful to children, which is obviously a major area of concern, that duty will apply to all platforms where children are likely to be significantly present, regardless of the size of the platform. The only qualification on size applies to the area of legal but harmful to adults, where the obligations sit with the larger, category 1 companies. I want to make clear, however, that the Bill as previously drafted in May also applied to all platforms, regardless of size, the obligations relating to content that is illegal and legal but harmful to children. That point came up a couple of times.
The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), who unfortunately has had to go to another meeting, raised points in his speech about the exposure of children to pornography. He was quite right to raise those points: 51% of 11 to 13-year-olds are exposed to online pornography. The overwhelming majority of parents want that to stop and, as the shadow Minister said, just a couple of weeks ago the Government made an announcement making it clear that the provisions on pornography would be expanded to cover all online pornography, including commercial pornography, which was previously outside the scope of the Bill. That vital change has been announced already and will be in the Bill on introduction, as will the obligations on the face of the Bill to adopt age-assurance measures to prevent children under 18 from accessing pornography. Again, that is an important change to make the Bill a lot stronger than it was in its first draft. I hope that that gives a foretaste, a flavour, of the way changes are being made to the Bill to ensure that we really do prevent the terrible abuse that we have heard about this afternoon.
A number of hon. Members asked about enforcement, because clearly it is all very well writing in obligations to stop illegal activity and to control abuse, but if the enforcement measures are not there, then, as the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North and others said, the legislation is toothless. I will not comment on the police, the prosecution, side of this—because that is for my colleagues in the Home Office and the Ministry of Justice—other than to observe that 20,000 extra police officers are being recruited and I hope that some of them can direct their attention to such issues.
The shadow Minister has said that it is important that the Bill is enforced domestically, here in the United Kingdom, and that we do not rely on people in California. That is of course why Ofcom is being appointed as the regulator. There was a question about resourcing. Between the Government and Ofcom, we will put an extra £110 million over two years into resourcing up in order to prepare for the Bill’s coming into force, and thereafter Ofcom will raise the money that it needs to operate by charging fees to the social media companies themselves. The £110 million has been agreed already; that was in the spending review a few months ago, so the resourcing for Ofcom is hardwired in. As for its ability to then take enforcement action, it clearly has the power to levy fines of up to 10% of global income for these social media firms. Although it depends on the geographic distribution of sales, 10% of global income is almost certain to be more than 100% of UK income, because the UK tends to be responsible for between 5% and 8% of those firms’ global revenue, so the fines amount to over a year’s worth of UK revenue. That obviously is for any company a significant amount of money.
The Bill already contains criminal liability provisions that make named individuals liable if they do not, for example, provide information to Ofcom as regulator. They commence a couple of years down the line. I do not want to pre-empt what we may do in that area, but we have been listening very carefully to parliamentarians and we are studying extremely carefully proposals that have been made. We may well have some more to say on that topic in the near future.
The shadow Minister asked about the Metaverse, which has been around for only a few weeks, and what the Bill will mean for that. The Bill has been crafted as it has to make it technology-agnostic and future-proof, because we realise that what is around today will be different tomorrow. The fact that the Metaverse has popped up in the last few weeks is evidence of that. The horrifying abuse of children in the Metaverse that the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North described will be covered by the Bill as drafted, because what she described is clearly harmful to children. When the Bill passes, as I hope it will, there will therefore be a duty on Meta to prevent that from happening. In fact, that would be the case even if it was not Meta and was a smaller company, because the bits of the Bill on content that is harmful to children apply to all companies where children are likely to be significantly present. Therefore, what the shadow Minister described on Meta would be in the scope of the Bill as we will present it.
I want to touch on the contribution from my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Siobhan Baillie) and on anonymity. I pay enormous tribute to the campaign that she has run. She has been a persuasive, powerful and persistent—in a nice way—advocate for changes, and her ten-minute rule Bill had enormous support from both sides of the House. On Friday, in response to the campaign that my hon. Friend and other MPs from both sides of the House ran, we therefore announced with great pleasure that we would make changes to the Bill and have a requirement for category 1 firms to give all users the choice to have their identity verified, and then give users the choice about whether or not to interact with people. That level of user choice and user empowerment will be powerful. I thank my hon. Friend again and congratulate her on her campaign. I agree, as the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North said in her speech and as my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud acknowledged, that although that measure will go a long way towards helping, it is not in itself a silver bullet. It is a very good measure, but we need to do more to prevent online abuse. The Bill will do more to tackle abuse, whether it is perpetrated by those who are anonymous or those who are not, because, as my hon. Friend said, much of the abuse is not anonymous. Shamefully, much of it is done in people’s own name, so that needs to be tackled as well.
I have tried to touch on the comments that colleagues have made, but I hope that everybody here and those listening will clearly understand that the Government and the whole House of Commons strongly sympathise and agree with the points made by the petitioners, and I suspect by millions of our fellow citizens up and down the country. When the updated Bill is introduced in the very near future, we aim to make it better and stronger to ensure that our fellow citizens—especially children, but including everybody who suffers abuse—are far better protected than they are today. I hope the Bill will serve as an example around the world and keep people in this country safe online for many years to come.
Catherine McKinnell
I thank the Minister for that response. I appreciate there are a range of issues that will become clearer once the Bill is introduced, but it is reassuring to hear so clearly the Government’s commitment to listening to the voices of the petitioners and to take forward the changes that we need to see.
I also want to thank and pay tribute to the hon. Members for Folkestone and Hythe (Damian Collins), for Stroud (Siobhan Baillie), and for Strangford (Jim Shannon), and I thank also the shadow Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Alex Davies-Jones). The Minister expressed correctly that this is a cross-party issue and we work together on it. It is not party political and we all want to see the changes. That is the power of petitioners, because we work together as parliamentarians, heeding the call from the public and from petitioners who want to see changes.
We know that social media offers fantastic opportunities to interact and connect in a way that previous generations—certainly when I was growing up—could never have imagined. It has been a lifeline for the last two years for so many people to be able to stay connected and see our families when we have been horribly deprived from interaction with others. But it has also allowed a horrible, toxic world to develop, which we need to get a handle on. We need to ensure not only that we create a more positive atmosphere but that we defend our freedom of speech, because parts of the online world are so toxic that they actively disallow the voice of those being targeted disproportionately for abuse online. It has not been better expressed than by Bobby himself, who said:
“I’m not here to bash social media. I love it, and 95% of it is an amazing tool…When used in the right way, it’s amazing, and especially during lockdown”.
He spoke of the ability to use technology to stay in touch with family and friends, and how it has been a lifeline, adding:
“But there is a very dark side to social media as well.”
Bobby and Katie have done the work, which cross-party colleagues have responded to to bring forward this legislation, working together to make it as strong, robust and long-term as it can be to get ahead of the social media companies that, quite frankly, are profiting from the pain of millions of people who are abused online. That needs to change.
We will continue to work with the Government but will very much hold their feet to the fire to make sure that the legislation is as strong as it can be. The Government will hear not only from the likes of me and my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd, but from their own Back-Benchers and most, importantly, from petitioners and the public, if we do not get this right. Let us work together to make sure we can truly create a positive online world for us and, most importantly, for the young people coming up in an online world that most of us did not grow up in.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has s considered e-petitions 272087 and 575833, relating to online abuse.
Grand Committee
(2 years, 2 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Building Safety Bill
Monday 28th February 2022
(2 years, 2 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Building Safety Act 2022 View all Building Safety Act 2022 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 98-IV Fourth marshalled list for Grand Committee - (28 Feb 2022)
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Faulkner of Worcester) (Lab)
My Lords, welcome to the Grand Committee on the Building Safety Bill. I remind Members that they are encouraged to leave some distance between themselves and others and to wear a face covering when not speaking. If there is a Division in the Chamber while we are sitting, this Committee will adjourn as soon as the Division Bells are rung and resume after 10 minutes, or earlier if that is convenient for the Committee.
Amendment 45
“Appointment of third parties
(1) This section applies where—(a) a RTM company within the meaning of section 113, Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002,(b) a body corporate of whatever description where the majority of the shares are held by leaseholders of dwellings, or(c) a body corporate of whatever description which is limited by guarantee and the members of that company are also leaseholders of dwellings,is either the accountable person or principal accountable person.(2) Where this section applies, notwithstanding any provisions of the Memorandum or Articles of Association or any rule of law to the contrary, the company may appoint a third party to discharge all the functions of the accountable person or the principal accountable person who will assume all duties, powers, liabilities and penalties under this Act in place of the company, and this Act is to have effect as though references to the accountable person or principal accountable person were references to the third party appointed under this section.(3) If such a person is appointed then the company is empowered to re-charge and apportion the costs charged by such a person as if they were a service charge under the leases of the dwellings.(4) Such charges will, for all purposes, be deemed to be service charges within the meaning of section 18 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, save that the provisions of sections 20 and 20ZA of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 do not apply.(5) The Secretary of State may by regulations impose conditions which must be satisfied before an appointment can be made under subsection (2).(6) Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (5), those regulations may include—(a) provision for a minimum level of professional qualification to be held by the third party,(b) provision for minimum levels of professional indemnity provision.”Member’s explanatory statement
This provision would enable leaseholder-owned or controlled companies to appoint an external professional to discharge the functions of the Accountable Person or Principal Accountable Person and for the costs of the same to be recoverable (and regulated) as if they were a service charge under the lease.
Lord Best (CB)
My Lords, this group should not detain us too long, for three reasons. First, the group has only one amendment, this one. Secondly, the issue here is not of the same complexity or magnitude as the all-important matters that the Committee discussed last Thursday. Thirdly, I think that the Minister will not take too long to accept it. Amendment 45, in my name and the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, concerns the impact of the Bill on the management of leasehold property, in particular the management by the leaseholders who live there.
The amendment has the backing of leaseholders and of bodies representing those managing leasehold flats, the Institute of Residential Property Managers and the Association of Residential Managing Agents. I declare an interest as chair of the Government’s regulation of property agents—RoPA—working group, whose 2019 report provides insights into the arrangements for managing blocks of residential apartments. Amendment 45 seeks to prevent the Bill from creating a major problem where residents of blocks of flats have responsibility themselves for the collective management of their homes. It covers the residents management companies, where the developer has handed over ongoing management to the leaseholders, and the right to manage companies, where residents have exercised their right to take control under the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002, on which, incidentally, I gave my maiden speech 20 years ago.
These resident-controlled companies will have a board of unpaid volunteer directors. The directors will sometimes decide to employ managing agents to carry out the usual management and maintenance tasks, but the legal responsibilities for their company’s actions will remain with the directors. The Bill as it stands places a new layer of responsibility on these resident directors: they must, together, assume the role of the accountable person or principal accountable person responsible for building safety. This makes each individual director personally liable if things go wrong. They may engage expert help, but they cannot shed their accountable person status and the full liability remains with them.
The directors will now have to identify safety hazards, decide on the remedies and procure the necessary works. There are plenty of opportunities for mistakes and the new building safety regulator could discipline them, fire them or fine them, ruining their personal reputations. Fellow residents could sue them for mismanagement or misjudgment. Indeed, under Clause 131, if residents do not feel that the residents management company has done enough to recover money from third parties, they can take them to court.
The entirely predictable but unintended consequence of placing this serious new burden on resident directors is surely that no one will volunteer for the role. Already it is often a hard job to recruit and retain willing volunteers, who must not only give up their time but risk falling out with neighbours when taking decisions that cannot please everyone. It is commonplace for directors looking for a new volunteer to be economical with the truth: “It won’t be very time-consuming or onerous”, they say. How much more difficult will the recruitment of new and the retention of existing directors become if this Bill adds considerably to the obligations placed on anyone who dares to volunteer?
Amendment 45 seeks to resolve the problem. It has two parts. First, it would allow the residents management companies and right to manage company directors, if they wish, to pass on the functions and liabilities of the accountable person or principal accountable person to an external, competent, qualified third party with proper professional indemnity insurance, which the directors could never obtain. Secondly, it would enable the directors to pass on the costs of so doing to the residents via the service charges. With this amendment in place, a significant barrier to leaseholders managing their own affairs will be avoided.
Successive Governments have consistently encouraged residents to assume mutual responsibility for managing their blocks of flats. Indeed, moves are in the pipeline to relaunch the so far unsuccessful commonhold arrangements, whereby the occupiers own the freehold as well as handling the management. So I am sure that there is no intention to impose a huge disincentive for leaseholders to participate in residents management companies and right to manage companies. By enabling the duties imposed by this Bill to be transferred from the volunteer residents to professional experts, a potential exodus of volunteers can be avoided and the encouragement for more resident control can be sustained. I hope, therefore, that the amendment is helpful in correcting an unintended oversight and that it will appeal to the Minister. I look forward to the contribution of the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, and I beg to move.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
I support the noble Lord in his Amendment 45. He has described the issue very well—and given his huge contribution to the House, I shall look up his maiden speech.
I worry that unless we can find a way out for leaseholders who are also owners, no leaseholder in their right mind would contribute to the management of a building jointly owned by leaseholders. This has been a direction of travel in recent years, which I support. I believe it to be particularly valuable for smaller housing developments, of which we need more. As my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham said in Committee on 24 February, successive Governments have encouraged leaseholders to buy their freeholds. Indeed, he himself played an important part in that process. As I understand it, the leaseholders who have enfranchised and bought their freeholds are excluded from support under the Bill. That seems very unfair.
I know from direct experience in my own family that it is already very difficult to secure volunteers to run leaseholder-owned buildings, given the onerous duties involved and the time requirement. The Bill, with its additional duties and tensions, will, I fear, make it impossible. Here we have yet another perverse effect. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Best, that a solution must be found by Report, either by accepting his amendment or, if need be, in some other way. This is an unintended consequence that nobody wants.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
My Lords, this is such an eminently sensible amendment, in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Best, and the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, that I think that the Minister will struggle to counter the arguments that have been made. What we are asking in this amendment is to avoid a situation involving resident management groups, or leaseholder-controlled companies, where the stringent expectations required to fulfil the duties under the Bill are put on the volunteers.
I already have concerns about the accountable person and how that role will fit in with those of the managing agent and building safety manager. We are beginning to create a fairly bureaucratic approach to safeguarding leaseholders and tenants, which has the risk of not fulfilling the simplicity and clarity that the Hackitt report required of new building safety measures.
I just think that the arguments cannot be countered. I look forward to what the Minister has to say, but this is such an eminently sensible proposal that I hope that the Government will find ways of bringing forward their own amendment on Report to fulfil the aims of this amendment.
Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)
My Lords, I rise briefly to speak to Amendment 45, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Best, and well supported by the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe. I reiterate that this amendment is about looking at leaseholder-owned or leaseholder-controlled companies appointing an external professional to discharge the functions of the accountable person or principal accountable person. The amendment also talks about costs and maybe looking at service charges.
I want to ask this of the Minister. On these Benches we have a big concern about the actual level of service charges at the moment. These charges are already quite high and they are passed on to leaseholders and tenants. Have the Government looked at the aspect of service-charge pricing and whether leaseholders will be able to bear the cost of having this expertise, as detailed in the amendment? We absolutely recognise the importance of the amendment and we are supportive of it. We are equally concerned about using service charges in order to fund these kinds of important, necessary steps. The impact on leaseholders and tenants is a big concern.
On what was discussed previously in Committee, I will add something in relation to professional expertise and skills, and having the opportunity to pass on these responsibilities to somebody who can take care of this important role, focusing on the function of the accountable person or principal accountable person. I will not talk about this at length, but it calls for a debate about the current situation and whether the Government are fulfilling the needs of leaseholders and tenants. I will finish by saying that there is a big concern about service charges overall, about pricing and about how this will have an impact subsequently on leaseholders.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, first, I will answer the noble Lord, Lord Khan. He brings up an important issue and I heard his concerns on the level of service charges to leaseholders. I do not think that that is particularly relevant to this amendment, but I hear his concerns and I will take them back to the department and we will get a letter to him saying what we are doing about that.
I am sorry, but I am going to disappoint the noble Lord, Lord Best, on this amendment—but perhaps not as much as I could have done. I thank him and my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe for raising this important matter. The Bill provides that an accountable person is the entity responsible for the repair of the exterior, structure and common parts of a building. This may well include leaseholders who have set up resident-led organisations exercising their statutory right to take control of their building away from the freeholder. These statutory rights are very important. They act as a device to ensure that the imbalance of power between freehold and leasehold tenure is redressed and that leaseholders are empowered to make decisions about the safety management of their buildings. With this empowerment come responsibilities and accountability. The amendment would allow such resident-led organisations to appoint a third party to be responsible for their building’s safety management, passing culpability to that third party if anything went wrong.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
A meeting would certainly be helpful. We also need to see this famous guidance. We know from other experience on buildings that there is an assumption that everything will be fine and dandy, but this is a very serious problem. We will lose those volunteers who are running buildings right across the country while waiting for Godot and a bit of guidance. If we are able to see the guidance and see that it works, we will be very happy. If it does not work, there will be time to do something. I am sorry to raise this point, but it is a practical matter for lots of people across the country, some of them in very inexpensive flats that they cannot even sell.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
We absolutely understand the issue We are working on it. As I said, if we have a meeting, maybe we would have some ideas. I do not know about guidance yet, but we will make sure that we can have that discussion. I hope that we will get something better in place before Report.
Lord Best (CB)
Those final comments were the ones that I hoped to hear: that, with a bit of discussion, we may be able to find a way around this. The test for me is a real one. My son in a block of flats says, “Dad, should I think about being one of these directors?” My answer at the moment is, “Steer well clear. It is not a good idea to volunteer for this at the moment.” I look forward to those discussions and hope that we can come to an agreement. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, this series of stand part amendments relates to Clauses 80 to 84 and would delete the building safety manager from the Bill. This is my first attempt at tabling amendments so I am nervous about the procedural aspects, but I hope to explain why I have come in on, as it were, this issue in particular. How I came about it is telling in relation to some general concerns that I have about the Bill, specifically Part 4.
Like some of us here, I came to this whole issue based on being a leaseholder and being part of a group of noble Lords who were horrified at the awful impending tragedy of leaseholders being forced to pay crippling remediation costs on the back of the response to the Grenfell tragedy. Many of those egregious injustices are now being addressed—some of them in this Committee.
However, in my speech at Second Reading, I raised a different set of concerns about adopting a zero-risk approach, including that risk aversion is in danger of creating zealotry beyond the bounds of what is reasonable, practical or desirable. If the Bill’s aim becomes to eliminate all risks, that itself has its own risks and creates a new set of victims. For example, if safety is turned into panic, it can lead to an ever-spiralling demand for safety outside the bounds of common sense. This could dangerously destroy confidence in both the construction sector and the high-rise housing market, and could create new layers of bureaucracy that hinder rather than help.
Rather to my surprise, my speech at Second Reading led to a group of leaseholders contacting me to say that they shared some of my concerns. Campaigners from the Tower Hamlets Justice for Leaseholders group and Friends in High Places explained that they understood because they felt that, as Covid has proved, it can be difficult in situations involving safety to agree that less should be done—but sometimes less should be done. This proposal for building safety managers for every block is just one of the concerns that the group has about some of the Bill’s unintended consequences. As the campaigners say, it imposes costly layers of bureaucracy on them while giving sweeping powers to managing agents and freeholders and inflicting yet more pain on leaseholders, with provisions such as building safety managers threatening to turn this into what they call “another EWS1 fiasco”.
All the provisions in Part 4 seem to assume that the problem of residential fire safety is a lack of appropriate people and processes checking for fire risks in every possible instance. However, perhaps the real problem is the competence of the people who are already in place and the enforcement of rules and regulations that already exist, rather than making up lots more or creating new roles. As the leaseholder group notes, writing into law that every building will have to appoint a building safety manager is a duplication of the role of the existing managing agents and building managers, and proceeds from the false assumption that these housing blocks are “like barrels of oil needing almost daily surveillance and supervision to ensure that they don’t burst into flames at any moment.”
The truth is that fires are relatively rare, but they cannot be prevented altogether. The priority of this Bill should be to build in adequate safety systems and then maintain those properly so that residents can evacuate as quickly and easily as possible should fire occur. Instead, these clauses create an unnecessary duplicate role that will—guess what?—yet once more, financially cripple leaseholders.
The Government themselves estimate that the cost of a building safety manager will be £60,000 a year per block. For Lucy, in a block of 33 flats, this will add £1,818 to her annual service charge. For Ruth, in a block of 19 flats, the building safety manager costs would add £3,157 a year to her service charges. It is not clear, either, whether that £60,000 estimate that was on the Government’s website has factored in employers’ national insurance and pension, plus the 20% VAT that an employing company would have to add to the charge. That would bring the cost to £85,000, in which case Lucy’s annual service charges would rise by £2,575 and Ruth’s by £4,473.
It is not clear exactly whether that £60,000 figure still stands, because the fact sheet explaining the building safety manager’s average pay of £60,000 a year was rather quietly removed from the Government’s own website after 5 pm last Wednesday. Luckily, the leaseholders have screenshots, which I have here if anybody would like to look at them. I am hoping that this is a positive sign that the Government are going to scrap the policy—delete the policy just like the web page—or at least water it down by turning it into a function that can be met by existing managing agents and property managers, and not treating it as a separate job.
With the words of the Secretary of State, Michael Gove, ringing in our ears, he has warned that
“too many buildings are declared unsafe”,
and that many of the problems associated with the cladding scandal have been caused not by unsafe buildings but over-zealous inspectors and nefarious players
“seeking to profit from the current crisis”.
We should have those words in the back of our minds when we ask key questions.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Faulkner of Worcester) (Lab)
My Lords, I think we are all reassembled. We were listening to the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
I know that noble Lords have been waiting with bated breath.
The key question is why building safety managers are needed at all, when the vast majority of leasehold developments have managing agents in place and leaseholders have to pay a management fee for their services. Surely splitting the function would risk disputes between property managers and building safety managers about what is and is not a safety issue and who is in control when remediation works have a safety element. These buildings, which people live in, already have fire risk assessments carried out by specialist firms—even if one problem is that they are not shared with leaseholders, which can mean that defects can be kept hidden and necessary repairs delayed. But still, what will the building safety manager actually do?
To find out—I do not know whether the Minister has seen this—I watched a recording of a closed-door meeting of sector professionals trying to pin down the role. It was full of flip charts, pie charts and Venn diagrams, and I was utterly confused by the end. It seemed to me to be a jack of all trades and master of none, but it needed the authority of a professional expert. It was reminiscent of a scene from David Brent’s “The Office”.
These are compulsory jobs but they are not mandated to a minimum standard. Qualifications for the role have not been established, no training programmes are in place and, as I say, even the professionals themselves do not seem to know what that training would consist of. If this post is made mandatory, as proposed by these clauses, the qualified few will surely be able to write their own salary cheques. No wonder that leaseholder campaigning groups are talking about “jobs for the boys”. Even if that is a bit cynical, we must ask who will judge their performance or hold them to account. Leaseholders—who will pay for them and who are best placed to judge those overseeing the block they live in, due to day-to-day interactions—now say that, as always, they will have no say at all.
Safer homes will come not from employing someone to march around a block of flats, trying to find issues to justify their existence and quite a hefty salary. This is a version of the waking watch debacle, replacing hi-vis jacket patrols walking around buildings looking for sparks with a suited and booted manager with an iPad finding risks, faults and unnecessary fire safety work. If they do not find any problems, what is the point of their job?
I finish with that question. What is the point of the job? I hope the Minister agrees that there is no point.
Lord Thurlow (CB)
I support the very interesting comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Fox—most interestingly, it is immensely refreshing to listen to an amendment that is driven not only by cost savings for leaseholders but by common sense. In many cases, the sub-contracting of services on multi-let buildings is appointed through external managing agents, who apply a levy; they will charge, let us say, 10% on the fee for the work being done. In the £60,000 example, another £6,000 goes on to the tenants’ bills at the end of the year.
I simply support this proposal. It will be a difficult one for the Minister, but common sense is short in the Bill because of the layers of bureaucracy. This will save money for tenants.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, for raising this issue about the necessity for a building safety manager in every block—this is of course in relation only to higher-risk buildings. However, residents in higher-risk blocks will have a managing agent, to whom they pay a fee—a service charge—who appoints an accountable person, for whom there will be an additional cost, and possibly a principal accountable person, if that is necessary. On top of that, each block will have to have a building safety manager. As the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, pointed out, adding on those roles considerably adds to the costs for each of the leaseholders; their service charge will rise considerably as a consequence.
I too have had discussions with some of the cladding campaign groups about the potential £60,000 role and the costs which will pass inevitably to them. They are very anxious that their lease will suddenly become unaffordable due to the piling on of costs from these roles.
The further issue in my mind is, as I think the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, said, that there is a duplication of roles. Equally, when there is a confusion about roles—each block might have three people who potentially have conflicting roles—building safety risks will fall between the three. I can find nothing in the Bill that says how each will be accountable. In the end, we come back to this: quis custodiet ipsos custodes—to whom are they accountable?
The Explanatory Notes gives us this as an example:
“The Building Safety Manager may be carrying out day to day functions, as set out in the agreement with the Principal Accountable Person, to assist the Accountable Persons in discharging their statutory obligations. However, the Building Safety Manager could choose to resign of its own volition, and conversely the Principal Accountable Person may find that the service provided by the Building Safety Manager is below standard and choose to dismiss that person. In both circumstances the Principal Accountable Person would need to replace the Building Safety Manager as soon as reasonably practicable.”
I hope everybody understood that. That is my argument: it becomes confused.
One of the issues with building safety and fire safety is that it needs clarity and simplicity. This is not clear and simple. I believe I raised at Second Reading the issue of too many rules causing confusion. When nobody really knows who will do what, it is always a recipe for a potential disaster.
Those are the two points: costs and duplication leading to confusion. The question is this: to whom are they finally accountable—the accountable person or the managing agent? It is not very clear.
The other point is about the competencies—a horrible word—of potential building safety managers. I could not find anywhere in any of the clauses which set out what those should be. The Bill talks about standards but it does not say what they will be. What should be expected of these folk?
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Khan of Burnley, will not mind if I ask for clarification on a related point. First, I will say how much I agreed with the speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, on the worry one might have about a shortage of experts for this purpose, leading to an escalation of costs that will end up with the ultimate consumer: the leaseholder. Clearly, given the history, we do not want confusion in the Bill.
My question is about how the safety manager will operate in practice. How often will he or she be expected to visit the building? Obviously, I know a lot more about shops, and in shops the safety manager is often a treasured member of staff who may not be an expert in safety but is an expert in making sure that other members of the team behave appropriately. You do not need much expertise on safety if you have a very good system—one that includes sprinklers, for example, which will work well because all you have to do is make sure that the sprinklers and the water that supplies them are checked from time to time. My question, which it would be good to have clarified, is: what is the vision of what this person is going to do, and will they be doing it once every five years, once a day, or whatever? That will affect both the cost and the risk that there will not be enough people to do the important job of ensuring that we have safe buildings. Even in high-rise buildings, there will still be quite a bit of demand.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
My Lords, I want to say how much we agree with what the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, said about the importance of having adequate safety measures. That has to run through everything we discuss in connection with the Bill. The noble Baroness also raised the important issue of cost. My noble friend Lord Khan talked about high service charges, and the Minister said she would write about that. This debate has put a focus on ever-increasing service costs, and the fact that in many cases they are starting to become unreasonable. It is very difficult when they go up by 190%, as they have in some areas.
The noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, asked one of the key questions that I was going to ask, about the operation of the managers. What exactly are they going to do, and how are they going to do it? Will they be paid, and if so, how much? There is not a lot of detail in the Bill. This comes back to the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, about accountability, and whether there will be confusion over the role. It is important that we all understand exactly what building safety managers are expected to do, how they will do it and how they will be rewarded for their work. Without that clarification, there are bound to be concerns that the cost of their work will be passed on through increased service charges, or possibly increased rent. None of that is clear. We would like more clarification about the role and the expectations.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, I start by going back to where the Bill came from, the tragedy of Grenfell Tower. The point of the Bill is to ensure the safety of residents, particularly, in this case, in high-risk buildings, and the building safety manager is the day-to-day eyes and ears. I do not know whether people realise, but I did two or three years’ work after the tragedy in Kensington and Chelsea. Before I did that, I spent a lot of time in high-rise buildings, not in London but elsewhere in the country, and it was quite interesting, on a day-to-day basis, when I went round with fire brigades and dealt with issues such as safety doors. People took them off and put B&Q doors on. Those things cannot be done every five years, or every year; they need somebody going in and out of that building, checking up.
There will be stairwells with stuff stuck in them that is stopping people going up and down. There will be holes between the sealed containment of flat against flat. All those sorts of things need somebody who is not at arm’s-length but is working day to day. Yes, they will need new competences, but those competences are out there, I would argue, within the community already, and we will have to work on those competences. As for cost, obviously, that depends on the building. Some of these managers will be able to do multiple buildings if it is felt, by their accountable person, that they will be able to do a good job on that. One building is not the same size or requires the same amount of work as another building.
I shall now go through the amendments of the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, and I thank noble Lords for their contributions. The crux of Clause 80 is the duty to appoint a building safety manager. The creation of the building safety manager role was recommended made by Dame Judith Hackitt in the independent review to ensure, I say again, that the day-to-day management of buildings is undertaken by suitably competent people. That is what she said and that is what we are delivering in the Bill. Clause 80 establishes the role and creates a duty for principal accountable persons to appoint a building safety manager and provide them with support and assistance to manage building safety risks, except where they have the capability to meet the duties without needing such support. So there will be times when principal accountable persons have the time and the competences to do it without appointing somebody else. The skills, knowledge and experience offered by building safety managers will help drive up safety standards and, we believe, deliver positive outcomes for residents.
While the building safety manager will hold responsibility for certain tasks, to be agreed in their contract, accountability for meeting the duties set out by the Bill cannot be transferred by accountable persons to the building safety manager or anybody else. I think that answers the question of the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, about who is ultimately responsible. Whether the building safety manager is an organisation or an individual, they must possess the necessary competence to deliver the role. If an organisation is appointed, it must have a nominated individual named and in place to oversee delivery, providing reassurance to residents that their safety is being maintained. The noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, brought up the competence issue. Work is ongoing with the British Standards Institute to establish a competency framework for the role, which will be supported by further guidance.
Moving on, Clause 81 deals with the appointment of the building safety manager where there is more than one accountable person for the building. Despite the often complex ownership structures of many high-rise residential buildings, we are committed to delivering a system that ensures a whole-building approach. This was a central tenet of the findings and recommendations of the independent review.
Where there are multiple accountable persons, the principal accountable person will be responsible for appointing the building safety manager. The building safety manager should play a key role in delivering a whole-building approach, drawing on the duty placed on all accountable persons to co-ordinate and co-operate with each other.
Before the appointment is made, the principal accountable person must consult on the proposed terms and costs with their fellow accountable persons. We expect agreements to be reached so that the scope of the building safety manager’s functions and the method of delivery of the whole-building approach are agreed by all. If an agreement cannot be reached, we are providing a process for resolution through applications to the First-tier Tribunal. This approach protects the rights of accountable persons and holds them to account for ensuring residents’ safety.
Clause 82 ensures that building safety managers hold their position through the contractual arrangements agreed with the principal accountable person. If either party wishes to end the contract, they may do so by giving notice to the other party in writing. When the contract ends, a new building safety manager must be appointed by the principal accountable person as soon as is reasonably possible. If a building is not being managed appropriately and is placed into special measures, which is the last resort for taking control of buildings with significant failings, the building safety manager’s contract will end.
I mentioned earlier that there is an exception to the principal accountable person’s duty to appoint a building safety manager. Dame Judith’s review was right to point out that many building owners already operate and successfully manage their buildings through competent in-house teams. Where the principal accountable person’s existing management arrangements deliver safe outcomes for residents and this can be demonstrated to the building safety regulator, their mode of delivery will not need to change. The competency requirements for qualifying for this exception are of course the same as those expected of any other building safety manager.
This approach is likely to be favoured by organisations such as housing associations or local authorities, which potentially have many buildings that fall under the scope of the new regime. Residents of these buildings will rightly expect to be able to identify individuals who play an important role in maintaining their safety, and the clause requires the identification of the individual responsible for overseeing delivery. This person will not be expected to carry out every task alone, but they will be required to provide oversight such that a holistic and systemic approach to managing safety is achieved.
The exception to the duty to appoint a building safety manager also applies where there are two or more accountable persons for the building. The competency requirements remain consistent. As in the case where they would appoint a building safety manager, the principal accountable person must, as I said, consult their fellow accountable persons and seek to reach agreement on the proposed arrangements. We expect the consultation process to follow the same route as already explained for appointing a building safety manager where there are two or more accountable persons.
Safety has to be our main priority and the building safety manager plays an important role in delivering this. The Government will reflect further on all the points raised today. However, at this point we maintain that Clauses 80, 81, 82, 83 and 84 should stand part of the Bill.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
I thank the Minister for responding. I wonder whether she could explain something. I am still confused about what appear to be the conflicting roles of the accountable person and the building safety manager. I am looking at page 106 of the Explanatory Notes, where the accountable person is defined. It states:
“The Independent Review”—
the Hackitt report—
“identified that there should be a clear dutyholder during occupation who will have statutory obligations”—
this is the definition of “accountable person”—
“to maintain the fire and structural safety of the building.”
So we already have somebody who is being appointed to have those responsibilities. That is why I cannot see why there has to be a further role to undertake those duties. The duties are very important, but why should there be two people?
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
Perhaps I should combine my question so that the Minister will not have to stand up twice. Saying that safety comes first and calling somebody a building safety manager does not mean that a building safety manager is going to make a building any safer. I do not think that it is entirely fair to suggest that those of us who are querying some of these things do not care about safety. We would not be sitting in this Committee, I assume, if we did not.
I want it clarified because I liked the Minister’s points about a common-sense approach to safety day by day and about eyes and ears. That all sounds sensible and in some ways I understand that point, but I am confused because it is not clear how many days someone will be there being the eyes and ears. The Minister read out that the competent person will have skills, knowledge and experience, but skills, knowledge and experience of what? It is still not clear. The idea of a volunteer, as described by the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, keeping an eye on things—items being broken or the fire door being replaced by B&Q—is slightly different from how it was discussed by the professionals when they were talking about what kind of person would be a building safety manager. They kept saying that they must be competent and experienced with some skills in fire engineering and personnel management because they will have to go around to tell people off. I think that in the end this is a job creation scheme that will not add to the safety of the building, as do many leaseholders, and they are on the receiving end of it.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
I find it quite simple really, but then I am a simple person. The accountable officer is the accountable officer responsible for that building or many other buildings in the case of organisations that might have more than one building. They then ask a building safety manager to be there on a much more daily basis and to report back to them on issues within the building that might reflect on its fire or structural safety. Therefore, the skills, knowledge and experience required by such an officer are experience of fire and structural safety in high-rise buildings. We cannot expect the top level to be there day in, day out going around those buildings. How much will be required by each building will depend on that building, I suggest.
Lord Blencathra
Lord Blencathra (Con)
My Lords, I declare my interest as a leaseholder in a block of flats near here that has some remedial work not currently covered by the latest government proposals. I rise to move Amendment 46. In the customary spirit of this Committee, let us begin with my favourite building quote, which I learned in school and then used inappropriately all the time, as one does. Horace boasted that his Odes would be remembered like this; I commend the quote to my noble friend the Minister, since this is how this Bill will be remembered if he accepts the amendments of my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham, the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, and my humble self. Horace wrote:
“exegi monumentum aere perennius
regalique situ pyramidum altius,
quod non imber edax, non Aquilo inpotens
possit diruere”,
or
“I have built a monument more lasting than bronze,
higher than the Pyramids’ regal structures,
that no consuming rain, nor wild north wind
can destroy”.
That is the legacy my noble friend can have with this Bill, if he does the right thing. Let us crack on with proper work now.
Amendments 46 to 55 relate to Clauses 93 to 99. Of course, we have the excellent proposed new clause set out in Amendment 50A, which was tabled by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans and which has also been signed by my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham and me. I look forward to hearing their speeches on it and will not trespass there except to say that the right reverend Prelate’s amendment may be a lot better than mine. I was moved to table my amendments in this group because, when I read Clauses 93 to 99, I was struck by how weighted against leaseholders they were. Since then, we have had the amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, which seem to come from the same assumption that the odds are stacked against residents. I look forward to hearing what she has to say on this as well.
In Clause 97, there seems to be an assumption that leaseholders are going to smash up and remove safety equipment from our buildings. Why in the name of God would we do that? Where has this crazy notion come from? We all paid good money for our properties. We bought them and it is in our vested interest to maintain and add value to them. Why on earth would we, in a million years, want to diminish that? It just does not make sense. Perhaps at Report noble Lords might be tempted to move that these clauses do not stand part of the Bill. Under them, we can be served contravention notices, access to our flats can be demanded and the accountable person can be given rights to take us to court, yet there is not a single balancing right for leaseholders to take action against the accountable person, who is more likely to be at fault, if our experience of managing agents is anything to go by.
Amendment 46 says that the accountable person can draw up the strategy “after consulting the residents”. Do we not believe in prior consultation before foisting a strategy on the people who have to comply with it? If a Minister did this, he would be up for judicial review for not doing proper consultation first. Amendment 46A says that, where there is a residents association, the accountable person must draw up the strategy in conjunction with its members and it must be agreed by them. Quite simply, they have the right to be involved and their buy-in is essential if the leaseholders are to happily sign up to the strategy.
Getting that buy-in is vital because we all know that the accountable person, who is likely to be the managing agent, will gold-plate every aspect of this strategy to increase the value of the landlord’s holdings. This morning, just for fun, I checked the price of a 6-kilogram standard dry powder fire extinguisher—a simple bit of safety equipment we would all expect to see. The most expensive came in at £171.75, while the cheapest was £31. They had exactly the same contents, were the same weight, had the same ingredients and would have the same firefighting ability, but we all know which one the landlord, freeholder and managing agent would buy and charge us for the privilege. It would be the gold-plated one—literally, in this case, I think. If accountable persons have a free hand to draw up these strategies, I am afraid that leaseholders will get ripped off.
Amendment 47 deletes Clause 93(5), which proposes that Clause 93(4)(a) does not apply where the accountable person is not aware of the resident or has taken reasonable steps to be aware of the residents. That is not good enough, in my opinion. This cop-out provision is not acceptable; managing agents or accountable persons could devise a strategy and claim that they could not find the residents to whom it applies and therefore could not consult them. “Accountable” means being accountable, knowing your residents and tracking them down, with no excuses—it is as simple as that.
Amendment 48 adds additional potential powers for the Secretary of State to make regulations. Again, I am not suggesting that he has to make them or building into the law that this has to happen, but this would give him a permissive power to act if he found a problem. It allows him to make further provision about the content of an engagement strategy and the way it is issued. That is small beer and pretty innocuous stuff which I am sure my noble friend can accept. I will be disappointed if he says he cannot.
Amendment 49 attempts to apply the same sanctions that are imposed on residents in Clauses 97 and 98. Clause 94 permits residents to request information from an accountable person but there is no sanction whatever if the accountable person fails or refuses to provide it. That is simply wrong; it is not a quid pro quo because, the other way round, residents are compelled to co-operate with the accountable person. I believe that the resident has as much right to demand compliance as the accountable person, who can demand compliance from residents and issue contravention notices under Clause 98.
Clause 95 states that the accountable person must set up a complaints procedure, but there is no sanction if he fails to do so. My Amendment 50 would give the Secretary of State an additional regulation-making power to create penalties for the failure of a principal accountable person to create such a complaints procedure. Again, I am not saying that the Secretary of State must do it and I am not setting out the penalties; I am just asking the Secretary of State to take the power of a regulation in case they need to use it in future because an accountable person has failed to set up a complaints procedure.
My Amendment 51 seeks to widen the potential definition of “relevant safety item”. At the moment, it is tied to “common parts” as defined in Section 69. That may or may not be good enough—I am not expert enough to know—but my amendment would change it to anything that may be defined in regulations. This would give more flexibility because, of course, regulations can be changed at any time, at the stroke of a ministerial pen, whereas an amendment to Section 69 would require primary legislation.
My Amendments 52 to 55 seek to delete “county court” and substitute it with “regulator”. I accept that the regulator may not be the right person but I think that it is heavy-handed to give the accountable person the right to go to the county court and threaten leaseholders that way. If we have a new regulator and First-tier Tribunals and an ombudsman, why drag the county court into it? Surely one of those bodies could be designated as the person to whom the accountable person goes to demand action from residents. I get the feeling that these clauses were designed to scare residents with the threat of court—for example, the accountable person saying, “Do this or we’ll take you to the county court”. That is heavy-handed; I believe that the regulator, the ombudsman or someone else should have that power instead.
My Amendment 85 would introduce a new clause to provide that, if a person with an interest in a property conducts a survey on it, they must share that information with everyone else who also has an interest in the property. Again, it is a power for the Secretary of State to introduce regulations if he is so minded; he is not forced to do so. My reasoning behind this is that we will get some landlords, freeholders and managing agents undertaking surveys of safety risks then saddling leaseholders with huge remedial costs while not sharing the safety report. Leaseholders would have to do their own at extra cost; that may not happen. There can be no justification for a safety survey undertaken by anyone in the building not being shared with everyone else in the property.
Finally, Amendment 87 would permit the Secretary of State, if he were so minded, to introduce regulations to permit the regulator, ombudsman or anyone else designated by the Secretary of State
“to act on behalf of a leaseholder or group of leaseholders in taking action against a developer, contractor, landlord or freeholder in relation to complaints about fire hazard remediation.”
We all know that a leaseholder challenging managing agents, freeholders and landlords is a real David and Goliath battle. In this case, David would not have a sling, or even a single pebble to fire at them. Leaseholders need a champion to fight their corner. My proposed new clause would permit the Government to appoint a champion and recover the costs so that the taxpayer does not have to pay a penny.
As I said, surely my noble friend the Minister cannot reject all these amendments as not technically correct or necessary because almost all of them would simply grant the Secretary of State permissive regulatory powers. He would not have to implement a single one of them but I would grant him the powers to make regulations if, at some time in the future, some of these problems arose and the Government had to act. Let us build a permissive regulation-making power into the Bill now so that the Secretary of State can use it in future if need be. I beg to move.
The Lord Bishop of St Albans
My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendment 50A in my name and those of the noble Lords, Lord Blencathra and Lord Young of Cookham. Let me say how much I support the sentiments and intentions of the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, who has done us a real service.
I, too, do not want to die over the details of this amendment. I hope that this will stimulate a really vigorous debate so that we can all work together on how we get these sorts of commitments in the Bill. I and others on my Benches want to work with the Government and others to achieve this. If someone else can turn up with much better solutions, that is great.
Throughout the cladding and fire safety crisis, we have heard many stories of landlords imposing outrageous and sometimes astronomical building safety charges on leaseholders and tenants. Often this has been done by managing agents acting on behalf of the freeholder. Leaseholders and tenants have reported a complete lack of accountability and transparency throughout this process and have been unable to challenge or even scrutinise the charges imposed on them.
Of course, this is only one aspect of the fire safety crisis, but one that has been somewhat overlooked when the primary focus has rightly been on ensuring a fair remediation settlement. However, the fire safety crisis has exposed the utterly powerless position that many leaseholders find themselves in, sometimes subject to the whims of freeholders with very few avenues of recourse, unless they raise considerable amounts of money and try to challenge things in the courts, which is very often way beyond the financial ability of many leaseholders, even if they wish to do it.
Amendment 50A would strengthen the right of leaseholders and tenants to consult with, and scrutinise decisions made by, the landlord on matters relating to building safety and would require the landlord to set up a recognised tenants’ association for the purpose of consultation.
The leasehold system in tall buildings has been placed under serious stress in the post-Grenfell years. Future home owners may have looked at the existing crisis and been turned off the prospect of owning a leasehold property. Others, facing far fewer choices, have simply—fatefully—walked into purchasing a leaseholder property unaware of the realities of the leasehold system, only to be later consumed with regret and extortionate charges. We need to make the leasehold system fairer and more attractive, not just for those who are thinking about buying a leasehold now, but for those existing leaseholders who feel powerless in the face of their managing agent and freeholder.
Ideally, leaseholder associations would also be able to scrutinise and consult on insurance commissions, along with other service charges not related to building safety. The amendment would begin to reorientate the relationship between the freeholder and leaseholder, which, as it currently stands, is skewed too far in favour of the freeholder. This is not an anti-freeholder amendment. Many freeholders will manage their property in a responsible manner. There are, however, just too many instances—and quite high-profile ones—of freeholders acting in an appalling manner. For example, the Yianis Group, the freeholder of the West India Quay development, spent over £74,000 in a legal action to block the residents from forming a recognised residents’ association. This was after leaseholders issued proceedings against the freeholder over expensive energy bills—something not covered by this amendment, of course, but worth mentioning—in which they were vindicated after the court revealed that they had been overcharged by 26% on their utility bills.
This is the same freeholder which, when challenged by the residents at a different development at Canary Riverside, lost a ruling brought forward by the residents and was forced to replace the managing agent. The court ruled that the freeholder failed to maintain the estate and did not adequately prove expenses and service charges. As the Times reported, it even charged a 100% mark-up on repairs to leaky windows to a repair company. At the time of reporting, the freeholder then attempted to chip away at the court-imposed manager’s power, costing the leaseholders £1 million in legal fees over 22 proceedings. The freeholder’s intentions here speak for themselves.
Stronger provisions than those listed in Amendment 50A would be welcome, as these powers would relate only to building safety matters. However, the amendment would go some way to breaking the power of any unscrupulous freeholders who view their leaseholders as cash cows. The amendment is not for those honest, conscientious freeholders who retain good relations with their leaseholders and managing agents, but for those such as the Yianis Group, in respect of whom one leaseholder said they were made to feel at the mercy of their landlord.
I hope the Minister will look seriously at measures to strengthen leaseholder representation when dealing with freeholders. The scope of the Bill limits what we can do at the moment, but a verbal assurance that the Government are committed to reforming this imbalance of power would be most welcome.
In the meantime, I hope that the Government will consider these proposals carefully—limited though they may be—as a stopgap to help end some of the egregious abuses that leaseholders and tenants may face from their freeholder. I hope that this will be a contribution. I look forward to hearing what the Minister says in his summing up.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I shall speak to Amendments 52A to 52C, 54A, 54B, 55B and 55C, which relate to Clauses 97 to 99. I also support the amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, and his comments, as well as those of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans. It is in that spirit that I make these observations.
One issue that the building safety and cladding crisis has shone a light on is just how iniquitous residential leasehold tenure really is. The system of leasehold may dress itself up as home ownership. When I bought my flat 25 years ago, which was the first time I had ever bought anything or got a mortgage, I thought of myself, very proudly, as a home owner—it was part of my growing up—but I now think that it was a bit of a mis-sell, as I am nothing of the sort. As Rabina Khan, a Liberal Democrat councillor in Tower Hamlets, puts it—she has been very insightful on all these issues—in effect:
“Leaseholders are tenants when it comes to rights, but owners when it comes to paying any bills. Yet they have no control over the contractor, costs or scope of any works. They must pay up pretty much whatever is demanded by the freeholder landlord and their agent.”
Under Part 4 of the Bill and the clauses that I am referring to, building owners are given sweeping new rights in relation to entry to and surveillance of leaseholders’ homes in the name of safety and fire prevention, even being able to force entry if the leaseholder does not admit entry to their own homes by a set time. Leaseholders who I have spoken to are concerned that these Part 4 provisions could be used to threaten and harass leaseholders, are overly intrusive without affecting fire safety in any real way, and, more broadly, feed into a dangerous atmosphere —which we are familiar with from the Covid period and lockdowns—of dispensing with civil liberties and privacy too easily under the auspices of safety.
My amendments to Clauses 97 to 99 come as package. They seek to tighten up the drafting to ensure proportionate actions that do not leave leaseholders open to either false accusations or blame for safety issues, so that it does not become yet another vehicle for forcing leaseholders to pay ever more money, and they would respect the rights of leaseholders as home owners.
Clause 97 places a duty on every occupant of a high-risk building not to interfere with safety features. The focus here is making it clear that residents have a duty not to affect the safety of the building. My amendment to Clause 97 makes it clear that this duty is breached only where there is material interference. This change would, for example, avoid someone being found in breach of the duty if they accidentally broke the glass in a dry-riser door or accidentally broke a hinge on a fire door because the current drafting would treat them not as accidents but as breaches of duty in the same way as someone deliberately disabling a fire alarm.
Clause 98 allows an accountable person to send a notice, possibly demanding money, if the accountable person knows or, importantly, just suspects that there has been a breach of this new residents’ duty. Again, this section has no materiality threshold, so it can be triggered by any breach that the accountable person feels like enforcing. As it stands, it is far too subjective. It is blatantly open to malicious misuse or just a promiscuous and ever-growing risk-averse blame culture targeting leaseholders as culprits. The amendment I have put forward tightens the clause up to focus on material breaches that the accountable person can evidence—a key point.
Clause 99 is on the power of entry. The current drafting allows the accountable person to demand access for any reason, including mere suspicion of a breach of duty. This demand for access can be given with as little as 48 hours’ notice. If access is not given in that timeframe, the accountable person can then obtain a court order, possibly without a notice to the person affected. This makes what should be a last resort possibly a new normal, and, I argue, a new draconian normal.
The amendment I have proposed to Clause 99 would require that the new building safety regulator issues a code of practice on how exactly this power is to be used after consulting a tenants panel. That is not a perfect solution, but at least the onus would be on the accountable person to comply with the code of practice when making requests for access to people’s homes.
As has already been mentioned by a number of speakers, I am not trying to paint a picture of dastardly freeholders, building owners or managing agents gleefully harassing leaseholders or threatening to kick their doors down, but for me one of the inevitable consequences of a disproportionate zero-risk attitude to building safety with an ever-growing proliferation of demands and duties placed on the accountable person, requiring that they check, check and check again, means that we end up where the Secretary of State, Michael Gove. warns us not to end up. In another context he has warned of the dangerous overzealousness of inspections, unnecessary surveys and precautionary, just-in-case assessments.
All this fuels the notion that not only is every flat a fire hazard but that every owner of a flat is a fire hazard too. As soon as safety measures become a disproportionate fear, they can lead to perverse outcomes. In June 2020, before the Public Bill Committee, L&Q, one of the biggest social landlords, responsible for 95,000 homes, including leaseholders and shared ownership properties, complained about the difficulties of accessing the front doors of leaseholders, implying that leaseholders who refuse to go along with its neverending fire safety upgrades might be putting lives at risk. Its spokesperson said:
“With tenants, we might be able to go to court and get injunctions and get injunctions to gain access to a home, but with leases, that challenge becomes even more difficult.”
That was said as a matter of regret.
This attitude means that these provisions presume that leaseholders cannot be trusted. I think they imply a certain contempt that treats leaseholders as ignorant or stupid or both, as though, if left alone, away from the wise and sensible landlord or his or her appointed overseer, they might set up a barbeque in the living room, rewire their own flats even though they are not electricians, be like children irresponsibly playing with matches or wilfully destroy safety equipment, as the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, mentioned.
The Minister of State, Home Office and Department for Levelling Up, Housing & Communities (Lord Greenhalgh) (Con)
My Lords, I can see that my noble friend is about to rise, but there is a crescendo in this group of amendments and I realise that it is very important to hold in reserve the speeches from my noble friend Lord Young—as well as the crescendo of the amendments to be introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Stunell, and by my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe. This is a veritable feast of amendments, so I will introduce the government amendments at this point, if I may, before I summarise the group.
As this is a feast of amendments, I have looked up my old grace, which I used to say when I was 18, 19, 20 years of age. It is very long—I hope I will not get it wrong, as I know the right reverend Prelate will know if I do. It goes as follows:
“Oculi omnium in te sperant Domine:
Et tu das escam illis in tempore.
Aperis tu manum tuam,
Et imples omne animal benedictione.
Benedic, Domine, nos et dona tua …
et concede, ut illis salubriter nutriti
tibi debitum obsequium praestare valeamus,
per Christum Dominum nostrum.”
That is roughly right. It is what we used to say before we could eat. This is a feast, and I appreciate that every amendment is laid with the interests of improving this Bill. If we cannot accept them, I want to say that I appreciate the intentions behind every one of them. I will summarise our position at the end.
I have tried to summarise each group in three words. This is the “residents and redress” group, and I have always been clear that residents should be at the heart of the new regime. Today’s debate demonstrates the continued importance of that commitment. I am pleased to start by speaking to a group of amendments that is focused on ensuring that residents and others have more access to redress.
Amendments 76 and 77 create a new power for the High Court to impose building liability orders in appropriate cases. These orders will allow civil claims to be made against the associated companies of a company involved in the development or refurbishment of a building in certain circumstances, including when the original company no longer exists. In this House and in the other place, we have discussed the lack of ongoing liability that large developers have due to their use of special purpose vehicles. These amendments directly address this issue and support the changes we have proposed to the Defective Premises Act. They rebalance the level of exposure that small and medium-sized businesses in the construction industry currently have compared with the larger players—and, most importantly, they unlock potential funding for those who have remediated or who need to remediate, if they bring a successful claim. I consider that these orders will be an important tool in holding “polluters” to account and making them pay for their past misdeeds—so I hope that noble Lords will join me in supporting these amendments.
Moving on, I have also tabled a series of amendments that will help to make sure that construction product companies pay to put right building safety issues that they have contributed to causing. I do not intend to move these amendments today but have laid them to invite the scrutiny of noble Lords. I will listen carefully to the debate and bring these measures back at a future stage. Briefly, they target construction product manufacturers and ensure that they take responsibility for their part in the creation of building safety defects. The new clauses in Amendments 107 to 109 and 144 introduce two new causes of action against construction product manufacturers. There are currently almost no routes which allow leaseholders to hold construction product manufacturers accountable for their role in the creation of serious building safety defects. The Government are clear that those who have been responsible and continue to be responsible for building safety defects have a responsibility to put them right.
These causes of action will enable claims to be brought against construction product manufacturers and sellers for their role in the creation of building safety defects. They will apply if a product has been mis-sold or is found to be inherently defective, or if there has been a breach of construction product regulations. If this contributes to or causes a dwelling to become “unfit for habitation”, a civil claim will be able to be brought through the courts under these causes of action.
The cause of action relating to cladding products in Amendment 107 will be subject to a 30-year retrospective limitation period. The broader cause of action relating to all construction products in Amendment 108 will be subject to a 15-year prospective limitation period. These limitation periods reflect the changes we are making to the limitation period under Section 1 of the Defective Premises Act. These causes of action will ensure that construction product manufacturers can be held responsible for the costs of rectifying their mistakes.
Amendments 110, 113, 114, 141 and 145 will create a power to make regulations to require construction products manufacturers and their authorised representatives, importers and distributors to contribute towards the cost of remediation works where they have caused or contributed to dwellings being unfit for habitation. Amendment 110 will enable the Secretary of State to serve a costs contribution notice on companies that have been successfully prosecuted under construction products regulations, where the relevant product has contributed to identified dwellings being unfit for habitation.
Amendment 114 introduces a new schedule that will give the Secretary of State the power to appoint an independent person to inspect buildings where the relevant product has been used. This assessment will consider whether the conditions for serving a costs contribution notice are met, and the remediation works required. Amendment 114 will enable the Secretary of State to make regulations setting out a process for establishing costs that a company should be required to pay, which will take account of its ability to pay, and to whom payment should be made. This amendment will also enable the Secretary of State to require a company to contribute towards the cost of building assessments carried out as part of this process. Setting out this scheme in secondary legislation will enable the necessary interaction between costs contribution notices and construction products regulations, including those that will be made using the powers in this Bill.
I will listen carefully to the remainder of the debate today, as I have to every speech given so far introducing various amendments, and I look forward to hearing from noble Lords. As I said earlier, I will be moving only Amendments 76 and 77 today. I will carefully consider what I have heard in relation to the other amendments, and I will bring these measures back at a future stage.
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
My Lords, the instructions on the sheet of paper in front of me are not “crescendo” but “diminuendo”—some gentle accompaniment on the bass to the forte soprano that we heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Fox. But seriously, I want to add a brief footnote to the excellent speeches made by the noble Baroness, my noble friend and the right reverend Prelate.
I make the point that they all underline the need for the next stage of leasehold reform which the Government have promised, which does away with this feudal system of leasehold which exists nowhere else in the world. Once we have done that, all these problems that we have been talking about this afternoon will disappear: there will be an identity of interest between the freeholder and the leaseholder because they will be the same person. At some point, perhaps the Minister can shed some light on the next stage, confirming that that is indeed the Government’s objective and that they want to move in that direction as fast as possible.
I add a brief footnote to the excellent speech the right reverend Prelate made on Amendment 50A. In particular, I draw attention to the radical proposal in subsection (3)(a) of the new clause proposed in his amendment, which places an obligation on the landlord for
“where there is no recognised tenants’ association in existence before the coming into force of this section, creating a recognised tenants’ association and consulting with it about building safety”.
Because of the Long Title of the Bill, the right reverend Prelate had to confine it to building safety. However, it is a radical proposal. It places the obligation for establishing a tenants’ association not on the tenants, which is the position at the moment, but on the landlord, evening up the terms of trade. As I said, it is a very radical proposal indeed. An indifferent landlord does not want a residents’ association or a tenants’ association with whom he has a statutory obligation to consult, although I happen to believe that it is in his best interests to have such a dialogue. So the terms of trade are dramatically altered by the right reverend Prelate’s amendment.
In an earlier incarnation, I recall helping establish an organisation called Tpas—the Tenant Participation Advisory Service—I see the noble Lord, Lord Best, nodding sagely; he has a similar vintage to myself when it comes to housing legislation. That was focused primarily on tenants of social landlords, but I believe it has subsequently expanded into the private sector. It would be very well placed to advise landlords and tenants on how to set about establishing such an association, were the right reverend Prelate’s amendment to be accepted.
Finally, on this group of amendments, I reread chapter 4 of the Hackitt report last night, entitled “Residents’ voice”, and it has a whole series of recommendations about enfranchising the resident and the tenant in exactly the way that we have underlined. So, as I said at the beginning, I add a small a complement on the double bass to the excellent speeches that have been made on this group of amendments—or perhaps I am a tenor.
The Earl of Lytton (CB)
My Lords, I will try to be brief here. This is an extremely valuable group of amendments, and I entirely relate to the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, and the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra.
I will comment on something that the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, said. He introduced the question of, if I paraphrase him right, the undesirability of the long-term continuation of conventional long leasehold, and I understand that. For some years I chaired the Leasehold Advisory Service when it was first set up, which was in response to a ministerial commitment that it should be put in place and that there should be advice to leaseholders.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
The noble Earl, Lord Lytton, is a great expert on landlord/tenant matters. I agree with him that changes to the leasehold system are not for this Bill; indeed, I do not think that my noble friend Lord Young was suggesting that they should be in it. We have quite enough to do in this Bill. I am grateful to my noble friend the Minister for his description of the new clauses and his willingness to listen, as I think that the new clauses may need some more work.
Like the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans, I am passionate about consultation, as my record elsewhere shows. Obviously, I am very concerned about bad practice. However, we cannot have a system where an unco-operative resident or two could prevent appropriate safety arrangements being agreed—that is a concern of mine—or encourage the use of too many expensive lawyers, with the cost ending up with the leaseholder.
We also need to think about the enforced requirements for a residents association, as suggested by my noble friend Lord Young in one of the amendments. It may be worth considering in high-risk cases, but it could complicate matters needlessly in some areas.
I shall speak to my Amendment 147 in this group. It would delay the commencement—that is, the coming into force—of the new provisions on the remediation of certain defects and building liability orders until an impact assessment has been published. Noble Lords will know of my passion for impact assessments; I thank my noble friend the Minister for the original assessment on the Bill. I emphasise, with my experience as a civil servant, a business executive and a Minister, that this is not simply a bureaucratic exercise. The discipline of drafting forces the executive authorities to reflect more deeply on the consequences, including the second, third and even fourth-order effects. It encourages good administration and identifies perverse effects and problems. All this matters more—not less—when the measures are ones of great complexity, especially if they are being rushed through.
I have reflected on this further in the light of our important debate on Amendment 24 in Committee last Thursday, 24 February. I have reread it carefully in Hansard, and I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, for mentioning that an impact assessment, as well as an Explanatory Memorandum, before Report would be helpful to our debate. As she said,
“blocking developers, even when they have planning consent … is a really radical proposal”,—[Official Report, 24/2/22; col. GC 184.]
and we need to know how it might work and have an impact assessment. We need to understand all those who would or could be affected, including cladding suppliers and manufacturers, architects and surveyors—and, indeed, the planning and building control authorities, which may need to change their practices.
I was struck by the complexity of what is proposed, and the certainty that there will be hidden and unnoticed effects. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans, in an excellent speech, was right to point out that any levy paid would inevitably be passed on to consumers and tenants in large part. He was also right to remind us of the chronic shortage of supply of homes in the UK. Indeed, in our report Meeting Housing Demand, the Built Environment Committee found a shortage of homes of all tenures, including social housing. We need to ensure that that does not go backwards, and that the whole building industry, already short of skills and resources, is not needlessly diverted—while, of course, doing the right thing on safety. A decent home is so important to all and we now need to cater for yet more arrivals as a result of the desperate situation in Ukraine.
I was therefore disappointed by the approach of my noble friend Lord Blencathra, who until recently chaired—very well, if I may say so—the Delegated Powers Committee. I believe it is irresponsible to give yet wider powers for bringing in and punishing, or penalising—effectively fining—new groups, when we have not thought through how they might be involved during our scrutiny of the Bill. I am afraid I have the same hesitation about engagement with residents, which is the subject of today’s group of amendments, which include a widening of powers. I regret to say that I think those amendments go too far.
More importantly, all this discussion has reinforced my view of the need for my amendment. I hope the Government will consider it carefully, as it might go some way to assuaging the fears that there may be about the proposals before us, and any decision by the House to widen their application. Wide powers are being taken in the Bill, which will set a precedent for the future. I would like to support the Government in finding a way through, but I would also like to understand the impact.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
My Lords, this group covers three big issues—residents’ engagement strategy, access to properties, and the third part, relating to government amendments, some of which have not been moved today, on construction products and liabilities. My noble friend Lord Stunell will wind up this debate, using his expert knowledge of many of these issues, so I shall restrict my comments to the amendments about residents’ engagement, access and a little bit about construction products.
I completely agree that there has to be a residents’ engagement strategy. One of the learning points from the terrible Grenfell Tower fire was that residents wanted a voice and tried to make their voice heard, but it was not listened to. Their voice may have been heard, but it was certainly not listened to—and it was certainly not acted on.
As the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, has pointed out, there is a big part of the Hackitt report which references the importance of the residents’ voice, and of listening to and acting on what they say. They are the folk who live there. They are the people who daily see what goes on. Their voice must be heard so, whatever else we do, I hope that we will strengthen those clauses about resident engagement. Picking up on the point made by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans, we need residents’ associations to do that. We cannot force them to exist, but we can put the onus on the freeholder or the accountable person to ensure that there is some method for the residents’ voice to be heard.
Lord Stunell (LD)
My Lords, I am pleased to contribute to this debate. We certainly have many important issues bound up in one group. I will focus particularly on government Amendments 76 and 107 and my Amendment 107A. I will use this as an opportunity to open up more widely some of the issues that have already been raised in the debate so far, particularly by my noble friend Lady Pinnock and the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe—who I suppose I can call a noble friend on the other side—who is the chair of the Built Environment Select Committee on which we both serve. I thank her in particular for her Amendment 147. There was no agreement, discussion or co-ordination between us, but I hope that she will think that my Amendment 107A and my words in support of it strengthen the case for the Minister agreeing to her amendment.
I am not going to get into the Latin stuff. My top result was 26% and I was referred back to the previous set. Incidentally, the Latin teacher at the time was a Conservative alderman—but I have not held that against him too much since.
On a serious note, this group brings into focus the really big picture on this. It is a set of proposals from the Government that, taken overall, completely tears up the normal rulebook about what Governments do to private sectors. The Bill gives a power to deliberately stop a business from functioning, and that is pretty rare. Sometimes legislation prevents businesses from functioning, but it is usually an accidental by-product of something else. This is, quite clearly, the power to stop a business from functioning if it fails to behave in a certain way.
That is robust and unprecedented and, given the scale and depth of the problem, it is certainly proportionate and necessary for building work in the future. It is also certainly right for products that go into buildings in the future to be treated in the same way. They must be safe and there must be compellingly strong reasons for those who make and install them to do so correctly, in the knowledge that they may face draconian penalties if they do not.
Even for that forward-looking case, Amendment 147 from the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, is certainly right: there must be an impact assessment published before any regulations are tabled for the implementation of that regime. Certainly, we on this side strongly support robust action being taken, but we also want to understand the consequences of doing it, and we want an opportunity for your Lordships to see that the consequences have been examined properly and to judge proposals in the light of that.
My Amendment 107A looks forward but looks backward to the last 30 years as well. It is a probing amendment—or, I might say, a “tip of the iceberg” amendment. It is about product liability rather than construction liability. I also think that everything I say in aid of my amendment applies just as much to construction liability as it does to product liability.
In a previous life, I spent part of my 20 years in the construction industry inspecting work prior to handover to assess whether it had been completed to specification. Most building contracts then had—and still have—a defects liability period, which means that six months after the handover somebody walks around for a second time to see whether any outstanding defects have been remedied properly so that the final moneys can be released. During my time, I did some of both those kinds of inspections, in each case on behalf of the client.
My job when I made those inspections was therefore to reveal and not to conceal. I see that the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, is nodding his head; he has the same experience. That was back in the 1970s and 1980s, and I would say that anyone who believes that standards back then were higher than they are now is mistaken. Actually, they were no higher in the 1870s or 1880s either, despite what the Minister told us in our first sitting. You only have to remember what slum clearance was all about to realise that poor building standards have always been with us.
In my professional experience, disputes were common and hugely pivoted around various benchmarks when the inspections took place. Was something done exactly as designed or not? Was it in strict compliance with the regulations or not? Was it better or worse than industry standard practice? And, as the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, said a moment ago, had they made reasonable endeavours or not?
I never let through anything that was not fit for habitation, as referenced in Amendment 107, nor a building safety risk, as set out in subsection (4) of Amendment 66 in the next group. However, there was always a lot of scope for argument over definitions, which is highly relevant to this legislation. I once attended a fire door test that was put in place because I had objected to a fire door which blew to bits in a wind. That is when I learned two important things, one of which is that to pass a one-hour fire door test a fire door has to resist fire for only 40 minutes. The one hour is when the frame drops out. The second lesson was never to go to a fire test in your best suit.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
Does the noble Lord think this construction product schedule includes such things as wood? The thing about fire safety is that it is not just to do with whether it is a plastic tile of some sort but with where construction products are used. In a case that I am aware of, there is an argument that things made of wood—as they have been for a thousand years—are not safe and should be replaced by something else. I am not quite clear how the construction products link into that. This may be a question for the Minister, but I ask the noble Lord, Lord Stunell, because he has obviously been studying this.
Lord Stunell (LD)
The noble Baroness is certainly right that there are materials that have been used in one way, safely and successfully, for thousands of years, and others that are intrinsically safe, such as bricks—presuming they are made of clay rather than straw. I will not try to give the full range, because I think the Committee would get bored quite quickly and my pool of knowledge is quite shallow, but she has raised an important point: it is not just about having a product but about what you do with it. I am sure the High Court would want to put both components together before issuing any building liability orders, which seem to be the nuclear weapon that the Government believe they have in their hands.
Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)
My Lords, I will speak to a number of amendments in this group. It has been a fascinating and exhaustive debate, even though there has been a mix of amendments.
I will start with Amendments 46 to 48, which are technical amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, who simplified and explained them in a very eloquent and clear manner—even using Latin at the start of his introduction. I hope the Minister got the gist of that message in Latin; I cannot repeat it, but I think it purported to say that, if he listens to the message and applies it, he will leave a wonderful legacy through this Bill.
At the heart of the argument from the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, was consultation. Many noble Lords in this Committee have, at different stages of our lives, undertaken consultation; its value is essential to what we are doing today. I am really concerned that, if there is a lack of consultation or an element of tokenism—if we do not get residents, tenants’ groups and leaseholders on board—it could lead to what we often refer to as post hoc rationalisation of predetermined decisions. We need to take people with us on that journey, as I have said previously, and ensure that they feel as close as possible to the decision-making we are undertaking in this Committee and in subsequent debates in this Bill’s journey.
Amendment 49 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, makes provision regarding the contravention of requests for further information. Similarly, Amendment 50 would allow regulations to make provision for penalties where a principal accountable person fails to set up a proper complaints procedure or fails to do so in reasonable time.
The noble Lord referenced Clauses 93 to 99, which are seen as unfavourable for leaseholders and residents. The noble Baroness, Lady Fox—who has, by the way, introduced amendments for the first time; I congratulate her on completing that process successfully—raised concerns about Clauses 97 and 99. She said that last resort access should not be the new normal and that we must be careful about entrance on minor issues in particular.
Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)
Sometimes they are wise men and women. I hope that the Minister can take forward their wise suggestions on this group of amendments in particular.
We welcome many of the government amendments, tabled in good spirit to make sure that life gets better for residents of buildings across the country and that they are free from unsafe situations. Government Amendment 141 makes provision for regulations under the new clause relating to costs contribution notices to be subject to the draft affirmative procedure. I want to ask the Minister about the power given to government to make new legislation. What scrutiny will these new powers be subject to?
The noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, and the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, talked about the important issue of long leases. It is a fascinating debate, but perhaps it is not for now, because this Bill is about building safety. When the noble Lord, Lord Young, was a Minister in 1984, I was five—in fact, I was a safety hazard in my parents’ building at the time. His point about the future of long leases is important, and I am sure it will be discussed and debated in a future Bill. I also appreciate the experience brought by the noble Earl in discussing his points.
The noble Lord, Lord Stunell, made an interesting and very important point about product safety. It is difficult to digest. Even the Construction Products Association is confused about this area. There is a lack of clarity which I hope the Minister and the Government will address.
Finally, I will single out Amendment 147, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, which looks at publishing assessments of the impacts on businesses, in particular, of remediation changes. It is an important amendment because there is a shortage of homes and we want to make sure that we look at how this impacts on everybody in the whole chain and that we do not move to a situation where we are building fewer homes. That is an important point, but today has to be about impact assessments on citizens of this country and every person living in an unsafe building.
The Minister in debate on a previous day mentioned that this is a landmark Bill and an opportunity. Unfortunately, at this moment it is not being taken forward with the really strong, meaningful, well-intentioned and well-purposed amendments that have been presented, so I hope that the Government will reflect, listen and make that impact.
Lord Thurlow (CB)
Before the Minister stands up, perhaps I can make two points. This is a large group of quite diverse amendments. My concern is over the accountable person role. Judging by the discussion today—I will not go through the list of different contributions—I think it is going to be a very difficult job indeed. That person is going to need help in creating a co-operative working relationship with tenant groups, and the situation could be exacerbated by bad and difficult freeholders or managing agents, often in league, and if the accountable person finds himself or herself in their pocket it will not be made any easier.
I do not overlook difficult leaseholders. There are some tenants who will not let anybody into their building. That is also a problem to be dealt with, but I have two suggestions. The accountable person should be prepared to prove reasonableness in all their behaviours and should also be prepared to prove value for money. An autocratic manager refusing to engage with a leaseholder makes life even more difficult. In the second case, concerning value for money, whether it is the fire extinguisher example given by the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, or some captive insurance company or an arrangement with a very high commission-bearing insurer offering kickbacks to freeholders, that would be avoided.
Lord Greenhalgh (Con)
My Lords, I rise to say how amazed I am by how young the noble Lord, Lord Khan, is. I thought I was a whippersnapper as someone in my mid-50s, but the noble Lord must have been born in—what, the late 1970s?
Lord Greenhalgh (Con)
My maths is not that bad, but that is impressive.
I will start with the noble Lord, Lord Stunell, who focused on the government amendments. It is fair to say—he will know this as someone who played my role in the coalition Government—that we cannot possibly move amendments without considering A1P1 rights and the impact of the amendments. We would never get them through the legal system. Obviously, we are tabling the amendments but not moving them, but we have done all the checks, as you would expect, and taken legal opinion and so forth to make sure that they are all workable, and indeed lawful. Otherwise, we would just not be allowed to do it.
I also say that there has been considerable engagement with the organisations that the noble Lord mentioned, but we need to continue that engagement and that is something we can do. I reassure him that we have had representations from Build UK, the Association for Project Safety and the Construction Products Association, but we should continue to engage. My view is that there is never too much engagement with these organisations. However, I also said to him, and I put this now into Hansard—it was raised in a previous debate by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman—that if you breach building regulations implemented in 1984 by the then young whippersnapper, my noble friend Lord Young, it is a criminal act.
The noble Lord will also know that if you commit a crime in this country, there is no statute of limitations for most crimes. In this case, we are saying that we have seen appalling practices over the previous 30 years, and there should not be a statute of limitations period that does not allow us to rectify that. That is why we are looking backwards 30 years and forwards 15 years. Of course, we have taken considerable legal advice about taking that position, but it is to ensure that there is no legal reason why someone who has broken building regulations is not open to face redress. I accept all the points he makes around the practicalities of doing that, but there should not be a small, narrow limitations period when we tackle this historically difficult problem that has crept up on us over not one decade, but three decades.
I turn to the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, who wanted to understand how we are regulating construction products. It is not straightforward, but it is pretty straightforward, so I will not take too long over this. We have created a national regulator. In the same way as we have a building safety regulator in shadow form until the Bill gets Royal Assent, the Bill will put into statute a national regulator for construction products in the Office for Product Safety and Standards. The CEO is a phenomenal chap called Graham Russell. He is there and it has already started to flex its muscles with a prohibition notice to Kingspan. This Bill formalises the national regulator for construction products and there are at the same time local regulators of products, as the noble Baroness will know, with her local government background within trading standards, that provide that local role. It is the national and local regulation of construction products that provides the regulatory environment for construction products.
The noble Baroness also raised construction products testing. This is something that the inquiry showed as an area of concern. The Building Research Establishment was a nationalised entity that it was privatised in the 1980s, I think—my noble friend Lord Young will know the exact date, I do not—but we also have the British Board of Agrément, which has always been in the private sector. Neither of those have come out as great, robust testing houses, which is why my predecessor as Secretary of State asked for a construction products testing review. I believe that report is nearly finalised. I will ask for a copy. There will be recommendations on how we improve the robustness of construction products testing. I hope that addresses the questions raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock.
One of the three wise men, the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, raised a very important point, but it is fair to say that, when we are talking about construction product manufacturers, we are talking not about all construction product manufacturers but about those that contributed to this crisis. Three of them have been raised, front and centre, as being responsible for the Grenfell Tower tragedy: Celotex, Arconic and Kingspan. These were all products that should never, frankly, have been able to have been put in that position. We can argue about why, but you cannot put flammable material that spreads like petrol up the side of a building and say that that adequately resists the spread of fire, which is what the regulations stated in Approved Document B. You cannot put flammable insulation behind it, et cetera. There are a number of product companies that contributed to this. Whether they were installed incorrectly or not is irrelevant: these products should never have been put on our buildings. We can look at the responsibility for that, but the responsibility also lies with the manufacturer, in large part, and in those cases, the polluter must pay. However, it is not all construction product manufacturers by any means, and I make that point absolutely clear.
Secondly, the way in which those products are installed is a matter for the construction company. The construction company, not the manufacturer, is responsible for following the instructions and installing the product correctly. We can see examples of perfectly good cladding systems that are installed incorrectly. In such cases, that falls on the developer in the first instance, or on whoever the developer got to install the system. We must be absolutely clear about that. If we start creating confusion around it, we avoid accountability and we do not move forward. It is pretty clear in my mind where culpability falls. I hope that that addresses some of the concerns raised by the noble Earl, Lord Lytton. This has been a fantastic debate. I have enjoyed every second of every minute of every hour. We have had one hour and 40 minutes on this group, and it has been absolutely tremendous. Thank you all for your contributions.
Lord Greenhalgh (Con)
My Lords, I was caught mid-sentence so I will go back to the beginning of that particular sentence. The noble Baroness suggests that we require detailed requirements on contravention notices to ensure the proper use of these powers, but that is better suited to regulations. Indeed, the balance between what is reasonable to expect of an accountable person, the urgency of building safety risks and protecting residents from potential misuse of powers is crucial. That is why we believe that this detail should be set out in regulations, developed in consultation with residents and accountable persons and subject to public consultation.
Amendment 52B would allow residents a reasonable time to remedy any alleged contravention before an application to the court; indeed, the Bill provides that the accountable person must specify the steps that the resident should take and a reasonable time for taking them. The court is very unlikely to issue an order before that time has expired.
Amendment 55C would require the building safety regulator to consult on and issue a statutory code of practice regarding powers of entry. Subsequently, Amendments 53B, 53C, 53D, 54B, 55A and 55B would require the accountable person to comply with a statutory code of practice and ensure that the right of entry into homes applies only in urgent cases or emergencies. In respect of Amendments 52A and 54A, the Government are closely listening to these points; however, the noble Baroness’s intention is already being achieved, as the resident would be notified of the application from the accountable person as part of the court process.
I would like to reassure the noble Baroness that there are already safeguards against misuse in this Bill. Under Clause 86, we will prescribe principles under which the accountable person must operate. These have been published in draft and include the requirement to consider the impacts on residents within the building.
In addition, the clause provides that accountable persons have a right of entry to a resident’s home with an order awarded by the court. The courts will apply established principles when considering any such application for entry and will grant access only when they consider it just to do so. This provides an effective safeguard against misuse. As noted in response to the points raised by my noble friend Lord Blencathra, we would expect the accountable person to seek to resolve issues directly with residents in the first instance to gain entry where it is needed.
The building safety regulator will issue guidance to accountable persons, which will set out the expectations for their system for handling residents’ duties and enforcing them. It is important to note that these powers are necessary for the accountable person to be able to discharge the legal duties we are placing on them. Although their use covers emergency cases, access may be needed where a resident refuses to allow the accountable person to discharge their duties. Indeed, the provision is designed for the discharge of day-to-day duties and not for emergency situations, which would require calling the emergency services.
As such, we must again strike a balance between protecting residents and affording the accountable person the tools needed to keep their building and residents safe. We believe that this balance is correctly achieved in the Bill. I understand the noble Baroness’s intentions with these amendments but, for the reasons I have given, I ask her not to press them.
I now turn to Amendment 107A in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Stunell, which seeks to probe whether the retrospective liability provisions in Amendment 107 apply only to higher-risk buildings. I reiterate the points I made earlier when outlining the intent of the Government’s amendments. This course of action will apply to all dwellings and all buildings containing dwellings. The Government’s position is that the ability to recover cost contributions from product manufacturers should not be restricted to those who live in multi-occupied high-rise buildings. While it is true to say that the amount of cladding on lower-rise buildings is likely to be lower, we do not think it appropriate to exclude these just because the building is not as tall. The crucial factor must be the safety risk.
We are not restricting this course of action to buildings over 18 metres because we intend to enable all individuals who have suffered a loss as a result of a dwelling being made unfit for habitation due to the mis-selling of a product, a product being inherently defective or a breach of existing building regulations to seek cost contributions for the losses they have incurred. This course of action protects leaseholders and home owners by ensuring that all construction product manufacturers are held liable for their part in the creation of building safety defects. The broad application of this course of action to include all dwellings reinforces this principle and delivers a proportionate approach. The scope of this course of action to apply to all dwellings will mirror the Defective Premises Act.
Finally, I turn to my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe’s Amendment 147. I assure her that the Government have considered the impact on business of the measures I tabled on 14 February. We are clear that the principle of protecting leaseholders is paramount. It is fundamentally unfair that innocent leaseholders should be landed with bills that they cannot afford to fix problems that they did not cause. These amendments will right this wrong, and the Government consider it critical that the provisions take effect as soon as possible. I must therefore ask my noble friend to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
Are the Government planning to produce an impact assessment on the new measures? My amendment was drafted the way it was on the advice of the Bill clerks, but obviously my main concern is to understand the detail of this promising package.
Lord Greenhalgh (Con)
I am sorry; with the sheer length of the debate, we are now approaching the two-hour mark, so I hope that my noble friend will forgive me if I did not address that specific point. However, I did address the point that the Valentine’s Day amendments, tabled on 14 February, were made in haste. The work around impact assessment was therefore not carried out at that time, but obviously we intend to update our impact assessment to reflect all the amendments that the Government have brought forward; that is the good practice my noble friend seeks, I think.
I thank noble Lords for this debate, which has been an important and necessary part of the scrutiny of this legislation. I hope that, with the reassurances given, noble Lords will be happy to withdraw or not press their amendments. This has been a feast of a debate so let us conclude it with the two words that we used to say in our formal hall: benedicto benedicatur.
Lord Blencathra (Con)
My Lords, we have spent two hours on this group of amendments. It is probably the second-most important group in the Bill, after the one we dealt with last week. There were more than 45 amendments down, so I make no apology that we have spent considerable time discussing them.
Lord Young of Cookham
“(1A) Such a charge is for all purposes to be treated as a service charge within the meaning of section 18 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment, along with others to Schedule 8, preserves the existing Building Safety Charge but treats it as a service charge due under the lease to be demanded and regulated in the same manner as existing service charges. This is to ensure that there are not two parallel sets of demands, accounts etc, one for the normal service charge and one for the building safety charge.
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
My Lords, I recognise that the government amendments in this group may be of greater significance than mine. I think it would be in the interests of the Committee if I sat down and allowed the Minister to explain them, and perhaps responded later. I beg to move.
Lord Greenhalgh (Con)
My Lords, I rise to introduce the government amendments in this group. This is an important group—equally as important as the previous group—and is about leaseholder protections.
We have been clear that it is fundamentally unfair that innocent leaseholders, most of whom have worked hard and made sacrifices to get a foot on the property ladder, should be landed with bills they cannot afford for problems they did not cause. That is why I have laid a series of amendments to the Bill to right this wrong. I want to outline these important government amendments and highlight how they will provide much-needed protections to leaseholders from exorbitant costs for remediation of their buildings.
These leaseholder protection provisions will make landlords liable, partially or in full, for the costs of remediating historical building safety defects. Amendments 62 to 64 and Amendment 66 are definition clauses setting out the types of defects, buildings and leases that are in scope of the protections. The new clauses state that leaseholders living in their own home or subletting in a building over 11 metres will be entitled to protections from unjust and unaffordable remediation costs. It will not apply to buildings that have exercised the right to collective enfranchisement or are on commonhold land, as in those buildings the leaseholders together effectively are the freeholders.
Amendment 68 would insert a new schedule into the Bill before Schedule 9, which sets out the circumstances in which service charges relating to historical building safety issues cannot be passed on to leaseholders, and the circumstances where service charges can be passed on to leaseholders are limited. Paragraph 2 of the new schedule provides that, where the landlord is responsible or has links with the developer that is responsible for the defect, they will be required to pay in full for the historical building safety issues. This will ensure that, as far as possible, those who are responsible for creating the defects take on the burden of costs and remove all liabilities for the historical defects from innocent leaseholders.
A definition of an “associated person”, for the purpose of determining which building owners have links to the developers of the building, is set out in Amendment 67. Similarly, where building owners are not linked to the developer but can afford to pay, they will be required to put the money up to do so and pay in full. We intend to table further amendments to provide details of the affordability test on Report. I welcome any suggestions from noble Lords on how this could work.
Paragraphs 5 to 7 of the new schedule provide that, where building owners are not linked to the developer and are not able to afford the remediation, some costs can be passed on to leaseholders. This will be subject in most cases to caps of £10,000, or £15,000 for leases in Greater London. These caps will limit how much leaseholders can be asked to pay for non-cladding costs, after—I repeat, after—building owners and landlords have exhausted all other cost recovery options, such as litigation under the Defective Premises Act or the new construction products causes of action we have just debated.
The amendments also provide that any costs paid out by leaseholders over the past five years will count towards the cap, meaning some leaseholders will pay nothing more. They also provide that cladding costs cannot be passed on at all. Paragraph 6 sets out caps to be applied to very high-value properties. It provides that, for properties with a value of over £1 million but under £2 million, the maximum permitted charge is £50,000 and, for properties with a value of over £2 million, the permitted maximum is £100,000.
Building owners and landlords must comply with the law as set out by Parliament. However, there may be some who attempt to avoid their liabilities. These landlords may be associated with a company with substantial assets. Given the extent of the building safety crisis, it is morally right that these associated companies are asked to shoulder their fair share of the costs. Amendment 69 would give the First-tier Tribunal powers to make a remediation order on the application of an interested person, meaning the regulator, local authority, fire and rescue authority or another person specified in regulations by the Secretary of State. A remediation order will require a landlord to remedy defects in their building, as specified in the order.
Amendment 70 would give the First-tier Tribunal powers to make a remediation contribution order on the application of an interested person if it considers it just and equitable to do so. For the purposes of Amendment 70, interested persons include the new regulator, the local authority and the fire and rescue service, as well as leaseholders and other persons who have a legal or equitable interest in the building. A remediation contribution order will require an associated company to make specified payments, at a specified time or event, to the landlord to remedy relevant fire safety defects in the building.
Where a company needs to be wound up, our provisions enable the liquidator to apply to the court to access the assets of associated companies to contribute to the remediation of building safety defects. All too often, companies let subsidiaries go into liquidation to cut their losses. It is morally wrong that they can just fold a company up and leave leaseholders in unsafe buildings with outstanding building safety defects and the corresponding liabilities. The court’s decision will be based on whether it is just and equitable to do so—in other words, whether it is right for that associated company to help to meet the building safety remediation liability of the failing landlord.
Some unscrupulous companies may try and wind up subsidiaries before these provisions come into force, which is why we have included provisions to enable liquidators to pursue associated companies of those landlords who are currently going through insolvency proceedings. It is unfair that innocent leaseholders have had to pay for remediation of building safety defects while those who caused the fire safety issues are able to exploit company law to escape liabilities that are morally theirs. I ask your Lordships to support this significant and important set of amendments.
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend. It was bit like listening to one of the advertisements on the radio when, right at the end, all the terms and conditions are read out very quickly and one has to listen to them very carefully. I welcome the assurances that my noble friend gave right at the beginning; I will come back in a moment to some of the things he said.
In the meantime, I will speak to Amendment 56 in my name and also to Amendment 131 in the name of two of the three wise men. This group of amendments focuses on Schedule 8 to the Bill, which defines building safety charges. It takes up no less than 12 and a half pages of rules and regulations. My Amendments 58 and 60 would eliminate eight of them, but any benefit so gained would be wiped out by the 13 government amendments tabled since the Bill left the other place.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Watkins of Tavistock) (CB)
There is a Division in the House. We will have up to 10 minutes to cast our votes but, if noble Lords return earlier, we will proceed because we are taking quite a long time this afternoon.
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
I was explaining to the Committee that an existing service charge has a line headed “Health and safety”. Under Schedule 8, that line will have to be removed and relocated under the new building safety charge—or it will appear again under the building service charge with an appropriate credit because you have already paid it in your safety charge. Crucially, leaseholders will have to bear the costs of running, in effect, another set of service charges. The noble Baroness, Lady Fox, touched on some of these issues in an earlier debate.
I have read Schedule 8 and the Explanatory Memorandum. While, as far as I can see, it does not expressly forbid the incorporation of the building safety charge with the normal service charge, the whole structure of Schedule 8 certainly gives that impression, because the Secretary of State is able to apply different dates for the building safety charge and the service charge; and he can specify different deadlines for paying the two charges and for landlords to respond to requests from leaseholders. The whole impression given by these pages is of unnecessary, bureaucratic parallel invoicing processes, with all the business of reconciling accounts and all the costs to be borne by the leaseholders. I hope that the Minister will be able to assure me that this is not the intention and that it will be possible to incorporate the building safety charge into the service charge—and that the necessary amendments will be made if that is not the case.
On a related point, if you develop a building safety charge that is separate from the service charge, the entire body of case law that we have that relates to the service charge will not apply to the new building safety charge and we will have to start from scratch. So I very much hope that we can streamline the whole process and, with all the transparency that is necessary, incorporate the building safety charge into the existing service charge.
My other amendment is Amendment 131, which is very much a probing one. It is a continuing injustice that leaseholders are paying the costs of others’ mistakes. Some leaseholders have paid the full cost of remediating their buildings. For example, at Skyline in Manchester, they have had to pay the whole amount and have had to borrow substantial sums for remediation. Others continue to pay for waking watches and increased insurance costs. Ideally, there should be some means of compensating these leaseholders, who are, in the words of the Secretary of State, “innocent”. But I recognise the problems of retrospection, even though there are precedents.
This amendment requires the Secretary of State to commence a public inquiry to inquire into the costs of remediation and mitigating measures incurred by leaseholders after 10 January 2022 that are not otherwise recoverable through the Bill. The date of 10 January has been chosen because it is the date of the announcement in the other place about statutory protection for leaseholders.
The proposed inquiry’s aim would be to come up with methods of compensating affected leaseholders for the sums they paid after that date—which, as I said, are not covered by the Bill. Perhaps my noble friend can shed some light on exactly what protection is intended. There may be measures to stop freeholders pressing ahead now, before the Bill comes into effect, and passing costs on to leaseholders who would otherwise be protected. There are certainly leaseholders who think they have statutory protection now—but what about invoices received but not paid for work that is in progress? What about service charges payable when the next quarter begins on 1 April, possibly before the Bill has become an Act? There is a grey area here, on which some light should be shone, and I hope that in his reply my noble friend will be able to shed some illumination.
Lord Naseby (Con)
My Lords, I shall speak to my Amendment 65, which would modify the major statement in government Amendment 64. I was greatly encouraged when my noble friend the Minister sent the letter on 14 February. I thought, “Ah, here’s a good letter”, because it says clearly:
“The key principles that I outlined were a more proportionate approach to building safety risk”,
and
“the need to protect leaseholders”.
That is in the first paragraph. The second paragraph even starts:
“I committed to protect leaseholders”.
So I thought, “Oh, good, we’ve got there now”. But then, of course, I looked at the letter in more detail—and what is proposed in new subsection (2)(d) proposed by government Amendment 64 will have a major adverse effect on buy to let.
I remind my noble friend, who has been in housing for many years, as I have—I first got elected to the London Borough of Islington in 1968—that it was in 1993, under the Major Government, that the whole concept of buy to let was produced. That was at a time when, as all of us who were involved in housing would have known, there was a terrible situation for private tenants. They were basically exploited. We remember Rachman, De Lusignan and the others at that time. Here, it was not launched with trumpets or anything; nevertheless, it started in 1993 and it built up, because it offered good-quality housing for people to rent in the private sector. We now have a situation today, which I find really amazing, having done a bit of donkey work on this, where there are more than 2 million buy-to-let properties that are mortgaged and successful.
I will not take much of the Committee’s time, but I will just highlight that over the past 25 years, landlords have made a tangible improvement to the whole rented sector, so now we have a situation where millions of tenants today are proud of their home, although they have it on a buy-to-let basis. That is all fine and dandy, except that when you look at what is actually proposed at the moment, the net result is that, basically, buy-to-let landlords, or some of them, will not qualify for the remit of the cladding scheme that was announced in January. If they rent out no more than one flat in a block, they are okay, but if they have any more, they are in trouble. I have had strong representations, of course, from the National Residential Landlords Association, which states:
“We still fail to see why the Government is making it so difficult for buy-to-let landlords who are leaseholders to access the same level of support as all other types of leaseholders.”
The reality is, if you are a buy-to-let landlord renting out however many flats, or an owner-occupier leaseholder, you have been treated unfairly by the developers that installed dangerous cladding on blocks of flats. What Her Majesty’s Government are doing, as matters stand in Amendment 64, is introducing a very dangerous principle, basically stating that there are worthy and unworthy victims of the cladding crisis. I ask my noble friend to reflect that the Government should make it clear that any and all leaseholders should be treated the same. That is why I have tabled this amendment. I have not sought any publicity on this at all, but people have read the Bill, thankfully, and I have just brought a small sample of the huge number of emails I have received. Each is an indication of a case. The first is from a retired solicitor—so this is a perfect gentleman—who had a flat on buy to let. His wife bought one as well, and they now have two flats and are facing a problem. He says it is vital that all leaseholders are treated equally, and I do not think I can disagree with that.
Another one comes from a lady who was affected. She had a one-bedroom flat, which she bought in St Albans when her mother died, and then they bought one more, yet they are caught again. Then there is one from a lady called Katherine Wilde in Croydon. A single-parent family, two sisters, bought a flat jointly, then another flat jointly, then another flat jointly. They are caught. I could go on, although I have not brought many. It is clear. This is from a gentleman called Paul Bullock. It is clear that all these people are victims of this national scandal. As further evidence from the Grenfell inquiry comes to light, it is obvious that many parties have played a role in creating this crisis, the only innocent party being the leaseholders who purchased the flats after being guaranteed that everything was in order, only to find out that this was not true. There are moving words at the end of this email:
“Personally, I am caught up in this mess. I can’t even start to explain the toll of the past two years on my physical and mental health”.
I will not read the rest, but I will say to my noble friend that there is a problem here and I hope that he will have another look at it. I think that when he was introducing the letter of 14 February, he said that some of it had been done in a bit of a rush—so I think there ought to be an opportunity to have another look at this issue.
Lord Blencathra (Con)
My Lords, my Amendment 59 is concerned with the first two lines of paragraph 5 of Schedule 8, which begins:
“Building safety costs may be taken into account in determining the … building safety charge payable by a relevant tenant”.
You can bet your life they will be. Leaseholders know that every other week a notice comes from the managing agents to say that the freeholder or landlord has decided that the corridor lighting needs updating, new lines need to be painted in the car park, the entry phone system needs replacing and so on, ad nauseam. This schedule gives them another excuse for possibly unnecessary, gold-plated, so-called safety improvements and contracts let to their favourite contractors. That is why my amendment seeks to add these words at the end of the sentence I have just quoted:
“only if they are below a maximum as specified in regulations made by the Secretary of State”.
It is another plea for the Government to take a permissive power so that, if it proves to be the case that service or safety charges have been jacked up, they can use a regulation to put a control on it.
These regulations may not be necessary—I hope they are not—but the power should be there just in case it is needed. If your Lordships just google “leasehold scandals”, up will pop names such as McCarthy & Stone and Peverel, now calling itself FirstPort—I can assure your Lordships that Mr Tchenguiz has not made his millions by being nice to leaseholders.
My Amendment 66A adds to the definition of “relevant defect” in new subsection (2) in Amendment 66. At the moment it says:
“‘Relevant defect’ means a defect as regards a building that … arises as a result of anything done (or not done), including anything used (or not used), in connection with relevant works, and … causes a building safety risk.”
I propose to add at the end:
“which may relate to but is not limited to … external cladding … internal walls and the materials contained inside any walls … fire doors … balconies … a lack of sprinklers, fire detection and control systems … inadequate escape routes.”
Quite simply, I believe that builders should pay for all fire safety remedial work and not just external cladding. But I also hope that common sense can prevail and the Government can lay down the law that wooden decking on a steel balcony is not a fire risk, and that potentially flammable materials sandwiched inside non-combustible inner and outer walls do not need to be removed. There are a lot of excessive suggestions on fire risk materials going round at the moment, and that needs to be stamped on.
My Amendment 86 seeks to insert a new clause to prevent managing agents charging excessive amounts for undertaking fire risk assessments or preparing applications for assistance. In particular, I suggest that the regulations may include—again I stress “may”:
“setting limits on the charges managing agents may impose for fire risk assessments … setting limits on the charges managing agents may impose for making applications to the Building Safety Fund or any other source of funding for fire risk remedial works … setting limits on the charges managing agents may impose for inviting tenders for fire risk remedial works … preventing service charges being inflated by fire risk remedial works.”
I suggest that these are all reasonable. My noble friend the Minister knows what managing agents are like. If we are not careful, this Bill will be a licence for them to print money: charging for the work of the accountable person and for drawing up the strategy, coming into all our homes to look for safety dangers, and a host of other things they will be able, quite legitimately, to charge leaseholders for. While they can do so, I suspect that the charges will be excessively high. Thus, the backstop of a regulatory power is essential.
I commend Amendment 131 from my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham. He made a compelling case for a short, sharp inquiry into the charges for fire safety work which leaseholders have had to pay and which are not covered by this Bill. That is eminently sensible stuff.
Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)
My Lords, with some trepidation after that, I rise to speak to my Amendment 94ZA, as advertised by my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham. I welcome the Government’s clear commitment that no leaseholder in a medium or high-rise building will have to pay to remove dangerous cladding, so I therefore support the significant legislative changes being introduced in this Bill. I am also pleased to see that legislation is coming forward to identify the beneficial owners of freehold and leasehold properties, because without that I am not sure how this Bill would work in its entirety. We need to know who owns property in the UK.
However, there is a small group of leaseholders who have fallen through the Government’s net of protections. They are leaseholders who have already paid for the removal of ACM Grenfell-type cladding from their buildings through an exceptional service charge imposed by their landlords, but whose landlords have unilaterally decided not to pursue available government remediation funding because they have no incentive to do so, given that the leaseholders have already borne all the costs. No encouragement by or pressure from their leaseholders or the Government has resulted in any change in their position, particularly in one specific case of which the Minister is aware.
This was not the intent of the well-meaning government cladding remediation scheme, as it assumed that landlords would behave appropriately. The scheme required applications to be made by landlords. Leaseholders had no right to do so directly, nor could they force landlords to seek funding. As a result, these leaseholders remain without reimbursement for the considerable sums that, in some instances, they have expended on removing dangerous cladding to live safely.
This behaviour has been described in the other place as outrageous; my noble friend the Minister described it as unacceptable in his Written Answer to me on 26 January. However, the Government’s proposed legislation does not expressly address this inequitable situation. My O-level Latin was even worse than that of most Members of the Committee, so to provide some balance I will quote from my coat of arms the Hebrew “Im low achshav aymarthie”, which, as the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans, who is not in his place, would explain, means “If not now, when?”
Paragraph 8 of new Schedule 9 prohibits a service charge being payable under a qualifying lease in respect of cladding remediation if the tenant was resident at the qualifying time, as we have heard. This does not help resident tenants who have already paid up by way of service charge before the Bill becomes law. My proposed amendment extends paragraph 8 of Schedule 9 to include situations where resident tenants have paid for cladding remediation at any time during the five years before the commencement of the Bill. This will leave the landlord with the choice of applying for available qualifying remediation funding or having to reimburse relevant resident tenants out of their own funds.
I appreciate that this will be relevant in only a small number of situations but that is not a reason not to have legislation. There is a glaring hole in the legislation, and we have the opportunity here to correct it. I can see that some might argue that this is retrospective, but it is not because the amendment covers only situations where the lessees have paid and the freeholders will not act as they should. It is up to the Minister, inspired by the call to arms, to widen this amendment—on Report if not here—to cover future situations where lessees pay for recladding as they are fed up with waiting for landlords, knowing that, if this amendment passes, the freeholders will be forced to apply for reimbursement.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
My Lords, I will speak to my Amendments 93 and 94. I thank the Minister for explaining the many amendments relating to the costs of remediating cladding and other fire safety and building defects, including who will pay and how.
However, my amendments are to his Amendment 92 and are about my favourite issue, which is that leaseholders should not pay a penny. It is not their fault. The Government and everybody else accept that, and therefore, they should not pay anything. The easiest way of ensuring this is to amend the government amendment to change the maximum amount—that is, the cap—to £15,000 or £10,000, be it in London or outside London, to a peppercorn; in other words, to zero, zilch, nothing. This would achieve the aim I started with two years ago.
There are reasons for this. The Minister may not want to do it, but I certainly do. He said, “Of course”, so I assume he will now accept my amendment. However, if it helps the Minister, I am willing to exclude paragraphs 6(4) and 6(5) of the new schedule proposed by Amendment 92. They relate to properties with a value of £1,000,000 or £2,000,000 or more.
I appreciate that the Minister and others in the Government have laboured long and hard to reach a more just outcome for leaseholders. However, as we have heard from the noble Lord, Lord Naseby, the letter we received said that the Secretary of State had stated on behalf of the Government that leaseholders must not be required to pay anything. That is what my amendment would achieve. The building failures were not theirs. As we have all agreed, those who made the failures, who put up flammable cladding and failed to put in firebreaks, are the ones who have to pay.
In his introduction to his amendments, the Minister said that cap will be offset by costs already being paid for waking watch, fire alarms and other such things, which will reduce the final liability. In that case, why on earth are we pursuing it? Let us say that the amount liable is £7,000. If it is paid over a period of five years, that is less than £1,500 a year. What bureaucracy will be set up to collect that? The cost of collecting it will almost certainly outweigh the benefits. So there is a practical reason as well as a reason of justice, and I guess that the Minister will therefore accept my amendment. We will have a whole new bureaucracy for nothing very much. It is not a practical proposal at all, and it is not a just one.
The amendment is straightforward, but there are one or two things I want to ask the Minister to explain and to give some very straightforward answers to some very easy questions. Some things are not clear from all this. There are good intentions in all these clauses to try to solve who pays for remediation, but what happens if nobody pays up? Who takes on the liability? Secondly, if they all go to litigation—which is my guess about what is going to happen, and we heard earlier that there are already moves in that direction—that could take a long time. So what happens then when buildings are not safe? Who will pay for the removal of the cladding and putting right the fire safety defects? Are we expecting leaseholders, shareholders and tenants to remain in those unsafe buildings for all that period of time? So who will pay, and what about the timing? If we do not get the cash, what happens and, with that timing, what happens—peppercorn rents excepted? My noble friend Lord Stunell will wind up for us on these Benches.
The Earl of Lytton (CB)
My Lords, I will try to be brief. I will just pick up on the last point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, who has been a doughty campaigner on all this. We have the problem that this Bill creates a bureaucratic and quite complex situation. That can only weigh in favour of those who hold the real money here, which are the developers. We must try to focus on rebalancing that so that the leaseholders are on some sort of even playing field.
I noted very carefully what the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, said on the detail of the accounting process. I very much support what he said. There is an element of discrimination, which was brought out by the noble Lord, Lord Naseby. Why do we discriminate between different categories of person and what does anybody think that will result in in terms of some class action further down the road? This whole thing has to be robust against applications to some international court, to the High Court or for judicial review. There absolutely has to be proof against serial activity. I know into whose hands that will play, and it will not be to the leaseholders’ benefit. There are an awful lot of exclusions here. The noble Lord, Leigh of Hurley, made a potent point about those who have already paid up. What about them? A point has also been made about proportionality and risk.
I will cut my other comments really quite short and just pose a few questions. As I see it—I was in dialogue with the British Property Federation about this—only in the case where you have a non-cladding effect, where the developer does not exist or cannot be found, does that trigger the freeholder responsibility to make a contribution for remediation, and only after the cap liability of the leaseholder. The Minister does not need to reply to me now, but I would like to be absolutely clear that that is the scenario—one of several—that applies here.
Moving on to Amendment 67, I would like to make a comment. As drafted, does the amendment cover limited partnerships? They are not corporate entities and are different from limited liability partnerships, which are covered by the amendment. For instance, the effective owner of Waterside Park, where a lot of issues have arisen, is just such a limited partnership. Is it the Government’s intention that limited partnerships should be included in the definition of “associated persons”? If not, why not? Because that would create a gaping hole.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, some very good questions have been asked in this debate. I am grateful to the Minister for setting out his proposals. I rise briefly, as it is late, to say that I very much support two practical amendments; as noble Lords know, I am essentially a practical person. They are Amendment 56 in the name of my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham, on aligning building safety charges and service charges, and Amendment 94ZA in the name of my noble friend Lord Leigh, on the dilemma facing leaseholders who have already paid service charges.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
My Lords, I have two amendments in this group. Before I introduce them and talk about the things that we are perhaps not so content with in the group, I just want to say that we recognise that the Government have introduced some very important amendments here. We welcome the work they are trying to do to improve the Bill from its previous incarnation.
The first amendment in my name is Amendment 88. The reason we introduced it is that, looking at all aspects of the crisis that this Bill is trying to address, these Benches are concerned that the Government’s approach does not appear to have a central plan. This amendment was also tabled in the other place by my colleagues, so we are repeating their call for the Government to act across the piece to solve the crisis. We ask that the Minister considers accepting our proposals for a building works agency, which would provide a more hands-on approach.
As we have heard, home owners, many of them first-time buyers, have become trapped in a perfect storm in unsafe buildings because they cannot sell their homes, and are forced to pay thousands in remediation works through no fault of their own. We propose that a team of experts does what the Government have not done so far with this Bill: go from building to building to assess real risk, deciding what needs to be fixed and in what order, using the building safety fund to get those buildings fixed and overseeing the work. Crucially, the Government could then sign off the buildings as safe and sellable, bringing certainty back into the market.
To make it clear, we see the building safety works agency as a separate body to the building safety regulator, with no duplication or crossover; in the debate in the other place, the Minister felt that there was crossover. We see the building safety works agency overseeing the remediation works and the other body regulating. One regulates and one does the work. This would mean that the Government could really take on those who are responsible for creating the crisis and who need to pay. This approach was put in place by a cross-party group of politicians and experts in Victoria, Australia, after there was a serious fire there. That is why we think it would work here: it is not just an idea off the top of our heads but something that has been done and worked before. It would enable the Government really to lead from the front on this matter.
Briefly, my Amendment 125 was tabled before the most recent government amendments. It replicates the McPartland-Smith new Clause 5 from the Commons, amending Part XVI of the Housing Act 1985. Now that the Government have tabled their amendments, it has been superseded, but I will still speak to it to remind the Committee that there have been previous attempts to address the fire safety question during the passage of the Bill. This amendment illustrates that there are different approaches to how the issue can be solved in legislation. It was previously tabled with a range of other amendments addressed to Part 5 of the Bill with the aim of allowing the Government and local authorities to enable grants for remediation work—specifically, by allowing the Government and local authorities to designate dwellings with cladding and fire safety defects as defective.
Having now seen the government amendments, I ask the Minister why the Government could not back the original amendment, which was after all tabled by Conservative Members of Parliament. How did the Government then arrive at the decision to table what they have come up with?
I want now to look at some of the other amendments in the group, and in particular at the implications of government Amendment 92. We do not think that any of the announcements benefit leaseholders who have already paid for remediation work—this has been mentioned by other noble Lords today. The fact that there is no retrospective coverage means that even if the proposed amendments become law and are effectively implemented, many leaseholders will continue to suffer the financial impact of the building safety crisis.
I therefore indicate our strong support for Amendment 131, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, which proposes that the Secretary of State set up a statutory public inquiry. It is really important for us to understand exactly what the situation is. Otherwise, there will be no recovery of these costs to leaseholders. Any steps which will lead to full retrospective protection for leaseholders who have already paid remediation costs should be taken seriously by the Government.
If the Government choose to introduce a cap on non-cladding remediation works—the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, talked about this extensively in relation to her amendments, and we fully support what she is trying to achieve—it would mean that the maximum amount payable would be a peppercorn amount, which is effectively nothing and is where we need to be. Leaseholders should not be liable to pay for any costs that have resulted from a faulty regulatory system, whether these are related to cladding or non-cladding remediation, or interim safety measures. As the noble Lord, Lord Naseby, said, all leaseholders should be treated exactly the same.
Further, it is unclear who will be liable to pay for remediation costs or the provision of interim safety measures such as waking watch in cases where the £10,000 or £15,000 cap has been met. Many buildings with fire safety issues can be occupied thanks to waking watches and other interim measures. If these are removed, there is a risk that the building receives a prohibition or decant notice and/or a withdrawal of building insurance cover. I hope that the Minister has his thinking cap on, because I have quite a lot of questions and requests for clarification. There have been a great number of amendments to consider and fully understand, so I hope that he will bear with me.
The combined effect of the various amendments is pretty complex. They seem to create what I can describe only as a system of cascading statutory protection, each stage of which is triggered only if the prior one is exhausted. I shall go through my understanding of it. Can the Minister confirm that I am correct or clarify where I have got it wrong? I know that the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, also asked for clarification in a number of areas.
My understanding is that the system would work as follows. First, developers who are still the freeholders of a given building or are linked to it by a subsidiary, as well as cladding manufacturers, are expected to pay first. Secondly, freeholders of buildings who are not the original developers or linked to the original developers are expected to pay second, subject to an affordability test to be set out in the future via regulations. Thirdly, if those freeholders cannot pay, leaseholders will be expected to pay only a capped amount based on Florrie’s law towards non-cladding costs only. Anything they have paid to date counts towards the capped amount. Assuming that I have understood this correctly, I ask the Minister for more clarity on how this cascade system is expected to work in practice and what estimates, if any, the Government have made.
For example, how do the Government expect to define the affordability test at stage 2 of the cascade in regulations, given that this will make a huge difference to the number of cases that then get to stage 3? Why is there no protection for social landlords at stage 2, given the impact on affordable housing supply? What happens if freeholders of buildings who are not the original developers or linked to the original developer cannot pay and the costs exceed the leaseholder cap by a substantial amount? Who makes up the difference? Would it be from the department’s affordable housing budget, for example?
Lord Stunell (LD)
My Lords, first, I am very sorry if taking a long time last time irritated the Minister. It was an important set of amendments and I think these amendments are also important, although I will try not to irritate him. It is a pity that he did not feel able to accept the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, about openness and transparency and impact assessments. I remind him that he dealt with my argument by assuring me that I would know that the Government clearly would not have brought forward proposals unless they had been cleared at the highest level and that lawyers had looked at them and he wanted to assure me that they all worked. That sounded to me very much like an impact assessment or, at the very least, an explanatory note, so I am hoping that he can publish the documents that were used inside the department to decide that this is indeed a viable system to place before your Lordships.
With that preliminary, I enthusiastically support my noble friend Lady Pinnock’s Amendments 93 and 94 proposing a peppercorn figure for the cap. The Minister indicated at an earlier stage that the figures in the Bill are, to an extent, arbitrary. A number has been decided, perhaps based on some total amount of money that the Treasury thinks it is prepared to pay which has been divided by an assumed number of residents to produce a cap figure. It may be neat arithmetic for the Treasury, but it is not neat arithmetic for leaseholders facing their payment.
Some very pertinent questions have been asked by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, and other participants in this debate. I hope that the Minister will at least be able to commit to writing a letter, having carefully read Hansard, about this group of amendments and the previous group to make sure that he has ticked off all the queries that have been raised. They have all been advanced by noble Lords who very strongly want to see effective legislation but have various levels of severe concern about whether this legislation will be effective. I am sorry that it may be a little painful for him, but we need to understand the correct answers to this and, if not, to try again on Report.
This is a sensational policy development by the Government in interfering with the market. We believe it is justified in principle, but we want to see that it has not just been waived through without serious thought and consideration. It is easy to have popular legislation, although it would be more popular if the cap were a peppercorn, as my noble friend Lady Pinnock has proposed, but that does not mean that it will work. Plenty of popular legislation turned out not to work. The Dangerous Dogs Act occurs to me, and we must not turn this into a dangerous buildings Act full of good intentions but unable to deliver.
In relation to the other amendments, in Amendments 56 and 57, the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, has produced, as he always does, extremely reasonable amendments and it is hard to see how the Minister can dismiss them. When we look at this, and bearing in mind that the Minister said in relation to the whole of this debate that the Government are still in listening and learning mode, it might be important to listen to them and to bring them forward again.
There was a theme too about excluded groups. It starts with a bold statement that no leaseholder will have to pay and then, as the noble Lords, Lord Leigh and Lord Naseby, and others have pointed out, there are little nooks and crannies in this which means that there are groups of leaseholders who will not benefit from the pledge, apart from the fact that there is a cap, which there certainly should not be.
In the debate on the last group, I commented on government amendments in some detail. I am sorry that it was a bit too hard for some people—it was a bit hard for me and I probably got some of it wrong—but I want to pick out from this current group some points that arise from government Amendment 70, which puts in place remediation contribution orders. I have a feeling that when it comes to assessing what the sum should be, the quantum that appears in a remediation order, all the issues I raised on the last group will raise themselves again. I hope the Minister is not persuaded by an argument that says, “The facts will speak for themselves. It is easy with a building, you can just go and look at it and tell whether it is compliant or not, and then you can decide how much it cost, and then they have to pay.” It is all a question of who decided that that would be used, who put it up in that particular way and what kind of regulation was carried out. We are talking about events that may have taken place 20, 25 or 30 years ago; the current opportunities to retrieve that information are very small and the chance of delivering it is very small as well.
The noble Earl, Lord Lytton, raised the point about the interaction of this process with the courts, which will be required to decide what a building safety order and a remediation contribution order should actually be. What should it be when it gets signed off by the courts? They will want to know the answers to this and I think the Minister will have heard that a number of noble Lords have a sneaking feeling that that will prove a very difficult hurdle to get over with the provisions in the form that they are.
Lord Greenhalgh (Con)
My Lords, this has been a fascinating debate, it really has. I shall start with the noble Lord, Lord Stunell, because he served as Minister from 2010 to 2012 and we are graced by his presence. I think that in the coalition he was succeeded by the noble Lord, Lord Foster, from 2012 to 2014, and then there was a chap called Stephen Williams, who never made it to this place. If the noble Lord talks to his colleague Stephen Williams of the Liberal Democrats, who was in the coalition Government, he will know about Florrie’s Law, because that came into existence in 2014. The protection we are talking about today is based on Florrie’s Law that came into effect in public housing. This is about applying that principle of a liability cap across all types of tenure. In fact, I had a meeting in this place with the noble Lord, Lord Pickles, who introduced that amendment in response to a leaseholder who received an enormous bill which was so great that, through the shame of receiving it, she subsequently died. That is why we came up with the cap, as a coalition Government, through Florrie’s Law, and it is that principle we are looking to apply.
I turn to the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman. My admiration for her has increased, with her detailed grip of policy. She read it out with such aplomb, I have to be honest. I think it is important for me to take the high level and I will respond to her in writing, but I want to give her the outline. She is absolutely right in her assessment; what she read out was absolutely correct and the phrases “cascade” and “waterfall” have been applied to the approach we are taking. The waterfall or cascade is in five parts. We start with the developers. Then we move to the freeholders, via an affordability test, and other interim landlords; that is the second wave of the cascade. The third is freehold and interim landlords seeking redress from third parties that have contributed to pollution. The fourth is leaseholders who pay a capped amount—that is for non-cladding costs, to be clear, and is where Florrie’s Law kicks in. Of course, the fifth is freeholders and interim landlords who pay the remainder. That is the cascade approach, but I will write to the noble Baroness, because it was so eloquently put that I believe her questions of me deserve full and detailed answers.
Lord Greenhalgh (Con)
Therefore, the scope of “relevant defect” is sufficiently broad and will take account of many of the defects listed by my noble friend Lord Blencathra.
In relation to cladding, the Government have already put in place separate provisions, whereby leaseholders of properties in buildings over 11 metres will be protected from all costs associated with cladding remediation. I know that my noble friend has raised very real examples of leaseholders with narrow, not broad, shoulders who may have a certain amount of property in their retirement portfolio and have chosen to invest in property as a way of guaranteeing their income in old age. I would like to sit down with my noble friend and policy officials to see that we have got the policy intention right. He raises an important point that, sometimes, there are landlords with pretty narrow shoulders, and I do not think it is the intention of the Secretary of State and the Government to be unduly unfair on those people. We will sit down to understand the concerns. At this stage, there are a number of protections in place, but we recognise where my noble friend is coming from.
I forgot in the desire to get going that I should have declared my residential and commercial property interests as set out in the register. They are all properly laid out.
I also forgot to mention something in response to the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, who raised the important point about retrospection. I got through the waterfall and the cascade but forgot about retrospection. It has been raised by a number of noble Lords; even the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, probably mentioned it as well.
The important thing is that day zero for the building safety reset is 14 February 2022. Once we have got this Bill through, that is the date we will start from. However, retrospection does kick in, in the sense that leaseholders who have spent money to date will not pay more than the cap. We will take into account the money they have already spent. Admittedly, we are not going back to refund those who have already spent money, but there is a cap in terms of liability. I shall also deal with the specific issue raised by my noble friend Lord Leigh of Hurley.
I shall now address the building safety charge amendments tabled by my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham. I shall race through these, because, basically, my noble friend is right to recognise that there may be other ways of skinning a cat, and looking at service charges as opposed to the building safety charge. Let us just see how we evolve that as time goes on—so I shall leave that, if I may. I thank him for raising those points. The Government’s intention was not as it has been painted by some people, but we recognise the points that he has raised.
Turning to Amendment 131, I thank my noble friends for raising this interesting matter, but I am afraid that the Government will not be able to accept the amendment. It would require the Secretary of State to establish a statutory inquiry into costs leaseholders have paid since 10 January 2022 which are not recoverable by those leaseholders. As I have already described, the Government have tabled a series of amendments either to remove or to greatly restrict the costs that the vast majority of leaseholders living in blocks over 11 metres will have to pay. Given these significant protections, the Government do not consider that the costs and bureaucracy involved in setting up another statutory public inquiry would be appropriate or justified. On that basis, I ask my noble friends not to press their amendment.
Turning to Amendment 86, I thank the noble Lord for raising this important matter, but I am afraid that the Government will not be able to accept the amendment. Managing agents play an important role in managing and maintaining buildings on behalf of their clients, and it is fair that they should be paid for the services they provide. I agree with my noble friend that it is important that managing agents do not charge excessive fees for those services, and that such charges must be reasonable. Managing agents also need to be clear about the charges they pass on. This Government strongly believe that service charges should show this. They should be transparent and communicated effectively, and there should be a clear route to challenge or redress if things go wrong.
The law is already clear that service charges must be reasonable and, where costs relate to work or services, the work or services must be of a reasonable standard. Leaseholders may challenge the reasonableness of the service charge through the appropriate tribunal, whether that is the First-tier Tribunal in England, or the leasehold valuation tribunals in Wales.
It is also important to recognise that there may be practical challenges in setting a fee. The cost of carrying out a fire risk assessment specific to the safe occupation of an individual building will range considerably, owing to the significant variations between buildings and their individual risk profiles.
It may have unintended consequences to impose a cap on a charge for work carried out by managing agents solely on fire risk assessments. Capping one cost, without considering whether charges for other activities they carry out should also be capped, might simply allow managing agents to recoup costs from other services they provide. Any such cap would need to ensure that the intended outcomes were achieved.
The Government are already considering in what circumstances fees or charges are justified and whether they should be capped or banned. We established a working group, chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Best, who looked at this alongside the regulation of property agents and reported back to government in 2019. We are currently considering those recommendations.
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, for her work in preparing the codes of practice. As the Minister, I can say that we take on board the need to ensure that managing agents are professionalised and properly regulated. The Government will respond on that, and we take it extremely seriously. It is all about getting the right legislative vehicle, with some forward planning. Noble Lords will hear more about that—“in due course” is, I think, the phrase we use.
With regard to legal costs, not all leases allow landlords to recover their legal costs incurred through the service charge. Even where the lease permits this, there are already statutory protections in existence. Where a landlord has incurred, or has intended to incur, legal costs in connection with proceedings before a court or an appropriate tribunal involving a leaseholder, leaseholders can apply under Section 20C of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 for some or all of those costs not to be regarded as “relevant costs” in determining the amount of any service charge payable by the leaseholder. I thank the noble Lord for raising this important matter and assure him that the Government are actively considering the issues raised. With that assurance, I ask him to not move his amendment.
Now we turn to the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, the Workington Warrior. She highlighted an amendment raised in the other place on the proposed building works agency, which would undertake the work the department is already doing on the auditing and monitoring of buildings over 18 metres with unsafe cladding. This represents poor value for money and would have the effect of increasing costs and burdens. Furthermore, the proposed works agency would oversee an audit of cladding, insulation and other building safety issues in all buildings over two storeys. This would result in hundreds of thousands of buildings being audited and would be very expensive and take numerous years. We do not consider this proportionate and therefore we oppose it.
The Earl of Lytton (CB)
The Minister answered a query I raised in connection with Amendment 72; I apologise for jumping a group. It was to do with commercial developers. I think I used the term “commercial developers”, but I intended to say “developers of commercial property”—that is, as opposed to commercial developers of residential property.
The Earl of Lytton (CB)
I said commercial developers, but I meant to say “developers of commercial property”. However, I will leave that point for the next debate.
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
My Lords, as the Committee enters its sixth hour of sitting, this is not the time for a comprehensive wind-up. However, I thank all those who have taken part in this debate.
My noble friend Lord Naseby made a valuable point about buy-to-let investors. Over the past 10 or 20 years, buy to let has become an alternative to a conventional pension for many people. I am grateful that my noble friend the Minister said that he is open to discussion on this; we count that as a win.
My noble friend Lord Blencathra had a series of amendments on the theme of protecting leaseholders. I am grateful for them.
My noble friend Lord Leigh of Hurley made a legitimate point about the freeholder who had not claimed the money he could have. I wrote down the solution that my noble friend the Minister arrived at. He said, “We will fix it at the political level.” The mind boggles as to what exactly that involves but I am sure that, with his robust physique and experience of government, he will come up with a satisfactory outcome on that.
The amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, would remove the cap for leaseholders. I have a lot of sympathy with that. New paragraph 2(1), proposed by government Amendment 92, states:
“No service charge is payable under a qualifying lease in respect of a relevant measure relating to a relevant defect if a relevant landlord … is responsible for the relevant defect.”
That is fine, but then there is a whole series of exclusions, of which this is one. I find it difficult to reconcile the cap with the principle that the leaseholder is innocent and should not pay; I think we will have to come to back to that.
The noble Earl, Lord Lytton, made the same point as my noble friend Lord Leigh of Hurley: that the leaseholder should be able to apply. If the leaseholder could have applied in my noble friend’s case, there would not have been a problem and the freeholder would not have been in the loop, as it were.
I am grateful to my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe for supporting a number of the amendments. The noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, had her own, thoughtful approach to protecting leaseholders. She referred to the cascade. I hope that her many questions will be answered; perhaps we can all share in the letter that goes round. She also supported the request for an inquiry into compensation, for which I am grateful.
On the waterfall, the Government did not seem to appear in it. I thought that they were right at the end, but they have somehow been left out. I think that the Government are at the end of the waterfall if all else fails; my noble friend the Minister is indicating that this may not be the case, but what are the levy and fund for if not to help where the costs are not otherwise met by the freeholder, the leaseholder or the developer?
The noble Lord, Lord Stunell, asked how the cap was arrived at. It may well have been through a reverse process involving the Treasury.
Finally, my noble friend the Minister said that I thought he was a snake oil salesman. I believe that he believed what he said; my comment was about the pace at which he said it, which was like an advertisement where the terms and conditions are spelled out at an accelerated pace and one does not really have time to hear them. I think my noble friend said that enfranchised leaseholders are now within the scheme; I think he said that because I read his lips. I find that difficult to reconcile with what is in government Amendment 63:
“‘Relevant building’ does not include a self-contained building or self-contained part of a building … in relation to which the right to collective enfranchisement … has been exercised.”
If that should not be there, that is fine, but that is how I read it; I also made that point in an earlier contribution.
Lord Greenhalgh (Con)
We can sort it out. I am told by my lawyer that you are wrong.
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
If I am wrong, the Bill may be wrong, because I have just read out what is in it, but I think this is something we can sort out at the political level.
I am grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Greenhalgh
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment removes the provision providing that Part 4 does not apply in relation to the Palace of Westminster.
Lord Greenhalgh
“Remediation of certain defects
(1) Sections (Meaning of “relevant building”) to (Meeting remediation costs of insolvent landlord) and Schedule (Remediation costs under qualifying leases) make provision in connection with the remediation of relevant defects in relevant buildings.(2) In those sections—(a) sections (Meaning of “relevant building”) to (Associated persons) define “relevant building”, “qualifying lease”, “the qualifying time”, “relevant defect” and “associate”;(b) section (Remediation costs under qualifying leases) and Schedule (Remediation costs under qualifying leases) contain protections for tenants under qualifying leases in respect of costs connected with relevant defects, and impose liabilities on certain landlords;(c) section (Remediation orders) makes provision about remediation orders, under which a landlord in a relevant building is required to remedy certain relevant defects;(d) section (Remediation contribution orders) makes provision about remediation contribution orders, under which an associate of a landlord in a relevant building is required to contribute towards the costs of remedying certain relevant defects;(e) section (Meeting remediation costs of insolvent landlord) makes provision about cases where a company that is a landlord in a relevant building is being wound up, and confers on the court a power to require an associate of the company to contribute to its assets.”Member’s explanatory statement
This new Clause introduces provisions about the remediation of certain defects arising out of works carried out before commencement.
“Meaning of “relevant building”
(1) This section applies for the purposes of sections (Meaning of “qualifying lease”) to (Meeting remediation costs of insolvent landlord) and Schedule (Remediation costs under qualifying leases).(2) “Relevant building” means a self-contained building, or self-contained part of a building, in England that contains at least two dwellings and—(a) is at least 11 metres in height,(b) has at least 5 storeys, or(c) is of a description prescribed by regulations made by the Secretary of State. This is subject to subsection (3).(3) “Relevant building” does not include a self-contained building or self- contained part of a building—(a) in relation to which the right to collective enfranchisement (within the meaning of Chapter 1 of Part 1 of the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993) has been exercised, or(b) which is on commonhold land.(4) For the purposes of this section a building is “self-contained” if it is structurally detached.(5) For the purposes of this section a part of a building is “self-contained” if—(a) the part constitutes a vertical division of the building,(b) the structure of the building is such that the part could be redeveloped independently of the remainder of the building, and(c) the relevant services provided for occupiers of that part—(i) are provided independently of the relevant services provided for occupiers of the remainder of the building, or(ii) could be so provided without involving the carrying out of any works likely to result in a significant interruption in the provision of any such services for occupiers of the remainder of the building.(6) In subsection (5) “relevant services” means services provided by means of pipes, cables or other fixed installations.(7) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision supplementing this section, including in particular—(a) provision defining “storey” for the purposes of this section;(b) provision about how the height of a building is to be determined for those purposes.”Member’s explanatory statement
This new Clause defines “relevant building” for the purposes of the provisions relating to the remediation of defects arising out of works carried out before commencement.
Lord Greenhalgh
“Meaning of “qualifying lease”
(1) This section applies for the purposes of sections (Remediation costs under qualifying leases) to (Meeting remediation costs of insolvent landlord) and Schedule (Remediation costs under qualifying leases).(2) A lease is a “qualifying lease” if—(a) it is a long lease of a single dwelling in a relevant building,(b) the tenant under the lease is liable to pay a service charge,(c) the lease was granted before 14 February 2022, and(d) at the beginning of 14 February 2022 (“the qualifying time”)—(i) the dwelling was a relevant tenant’s only or principal home,(ii) a relevant tenant did not own any other dwelling in the United Kingdom, or(iii) a relevant tenant owned only one dwelling in the United Kingdom apart from their interest under the lease.(3) Where a dwelling was at the qualifying time let under two or more leases to which subsection (2)(a) and (b) apply, any of those leases which is superior to any of the other leases is not a “qualifying lease”. (4) For the purposes of this section—(a) “long lease” means a lease granted for a term of years certain exceeding 21 years, whether or not it is (or may become) terminable before the end of that term by notice given by or to the tenant or by re-entry, forfeiture or otherwise;(b) a person “owns” a dwelling if the person has a freehold interest in it or is a tenant under a long lease of it;(c) “relevant tenant” means a person who, at the qualifying time, is the tenant, or any of the tenants, under the lease mentioned in subsection (2);(d) “service charge” has the meaning given by section 18 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985.”Member’s explanatory statement
This new Clause defines “qualifying lease” for the purposes of the provisions relating to the remediation of defects arising out of works carried out before commencement.
Lord Greenhalgh
“Meaning of “relevant defect”
(1) This section applies for the purposes of sections (Remediation costs under qualifying leases) to (Meeting remediation costs of insolvent landlord) and Schedule (Remediation costs under qualifying leases).(2) “Relevant defect” means a defect as regards a building that—(a) arises as a result of anything done (or not done), including anything used (or not used), in connection with relevant works, and(b) causes a building safety risk.(3) In subsection (2) “relevant works” means works relating to the building (including its initial construction) that were carried out—(a) before completion, if completion occurred in the period of 30 years ending with the coming into force of this section, or(b) by or on behalf of a relevant landlord or management company, after completion and within that period.(4) For the purposes of this section—“building safety risk”, in relation to a building, means a risk to the safety of people in or about the building arising from—(a) the spread of fire, or(b) the collapse of the building or any part of it;“completion” and “management company” are defined by regulations made by the Secretary of State;“relevant landlord” means a landlord under a lease of the building or any part of it.”Member’s explanatory statement
This new Clause defines “relevant defect” for the purposes of the provisions relating to the remediation of defects arising out of works carried out before commencement.
Lord Greenhalgh
“Associated persons
(1) For the purposes of sections (Remediation costs under qualifying leases) to (Meeting remediation costs of insolvent landlord) and Schedule (Remediation costs under qualifying leases), a person (A) is associated with another person (B) in the circumstances mentioned in subsections (2) and (3).(2) If A is an individual, A is associated with any body corporate of which A was a director at any time in the period of 5 years ending at the qualifying time.(3) If A is a body corporate, it is associated with another body corporate (B) if—(a) at any time in the period of 5 years ending at the qualifying time, a person who was a director of A was also a director of B, or(b) at the qualifying time, one of them controlled the other or a third body corporate controlled both of them.Subsections (4) to (6) set out the cases in which a body corporate is regarded as controlling another body corporate.(4) A body corporate (X) controls a company (Y) if X possesses or is entitled to acquire—(a) at least half of the issued share capital of Y,(b) such rights as would entitle X to exercise at least half of the votes exercisable in general meetings of Y,(c) such part of the issued share capital of Y as would entitle X to at least half of the amount distributed, if the whole of the income of Y were in fact distributed among the shareholders, or(d) such rights as would, in the event of the winding up of Y or in any other circumstances, entitle it to receive at least half of the assets of Y which would then be available for distribution among the shareholders.(5) A body corporate (X) controls a limited liability partnership (Y) if X—(a) holds a majority of the voting rights in Y,(b) is a member of Y and has a right to appoint or remove a majority of other members, or(c) is a member of Y and controls alone, or pursuant to an agreement with other members, a majority of the voting rights in Y.(6) A body corporate (X) controls another body corporate (Y) if X has the power, directly or indirectly, to secure that the affairs of Y are conducted in accordance with X’s wishes.(7) In subsection (5) a reference to “voting rights” is to the rights conferred on members in respect of their interest in a limited liability partnership to vote on those matters which are to be decided on by a vote of the members of the limited liability partnership.(8) In determining whether one body corporate (X) controls another, X is treated as possessing—(a) any rights and powers possessed by a person as nominee for it, and(b) any rights and powers possessed by a body corporate which it controls (including rights and powers which such a body corporate would be taken to possess by virtue of this paragraph).”Member’s explanatory statement
This new Clause defines “associated person” for the purposes of the provisions relating to the remediation of defects arising out of works carried out before commencement.
“Remediation costs under qualifying leases
Schedule (Remediation costs under qualifying leases)—(a) provides that certain service charge amounts relating to relevant defects in a relevant building are not payable, and(b) makes provision for the recovery of those amounts from persons who are landlords under leases of the building (or any part of it).”Member’s explanatory statement
This new Clause introduces a new Schedule, containing protections for certain leaseholders and others, relating to certain remediation costs, and imposing corresponding liabilities on certain landlords.
“Remediation orders
(1) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision for and in connection with remediation orders.(2) A “remediation order” is an order, made by the First-tier Tribunal, requiring a relevant landlord to remedy specified relevant defects in a specified relevant building by a specified time.(3) In this section “relevant landlord”, in relation to a relevant defect in a relevant building, means a landlord under a lease of the building or any part of it who is required, under the lease or by virtue of an enactment, to repair or maintain anything relating to the relevant defect.(4) The following persons may apply for a remediation order—(a) the regulator (as defined by section 2);(b) a local authority (as defined by section 29) for the area in which the relevant building is situated;(c) a fire and rescue authority (as defined by section 29) for the area in which the relevant building is situated;(d) any other person prescribed by the regulations.(5) In this section “specified” means specified in the order.”Member’s explanatory statement
This new Clause confers a power to make provision about remediation orders, which are orders requiring a landlord to remedy relevant defects.
“Remediation contribution orders
(1) The First-tier Tribunal may, on the application of an interested person, make a remediation contribution order in relation to a relevant building if it considers it just and equitable to do so.(2) “Remediation contribution order”, in relation to a relevant building, means an order requiring a specified body corporate to make payments to a specified person, for the purpose of meeting costs incurred or to be incurred in remedying relevant defects (or specified relevant defects) relating to the relevant building.(3) A body corporate may be specified only if it is associated with a landlord under a lease of the relevant building or any part of it.(4) An order may—(a) require the making of payments of a specified amount, or payments of a reasonable amount in respect of the remediation of specified relevant defects (or in respect of specified things done or to be done for the purpose of remedying relevant defects);(b) require a payment to be made at a specified time, or to be made on demand following the occurrence of a specified event.(5) In this section—“associated”: see section (Associated persons);“interested person”, in relation to a relevant building, means— (a) the regulator (as defined by section 2),(b) a local authority (as defined by section 29) for the area in which the relevant building is situated,(c) a fire and rescue authority (as defined by section 29) for the area in which the relevant building is situated, or(d) a person with a legal or equitable interest in the relevant building or any part of it;“relevant building”: see section (Meaning of “relevant building”);“relevant defect”: see section (Meaning of “relevant defect”);“specified” means specified in the order.”Member’s explanatory statement
This new Clause confers power on the First-tier Tribunal to make an order requiring a person associated with certain landlords to contribute towards the costs of remedying certain defects in relevant buildings.
“Meeting remediation costs of insolvent landlord
(1) This section applies if, in the course of the winding up of a company which is a landlord under a lease of a relevant building or any part of it, it appears—(a) that there are relevant defects relating to the building, and(b) that the company is under an obligation (howsoever imposed) to remedy any of the relevant defects or is liable to make a payment relating to any costs incurred or to be incurred in remedying any of the relevant defects.(2) The court may, on the application of the liquidator, by order require a body corporate associated with the company to make such contributions to the company’s assets as the court considers to be just and equitable.(3) An order may be made where proceedings for the winding up of the company were commenced before (as well as after) the coming into force of this section.(4) In this section—“associated”: see section (Associated persons);“the court” means a court having jurisdiction to wind up the company;“relevant building”: see section (Meaning of “relevant building”);“relevant defect”: see section (Meaning of “relevant defect”).”Member’s explanatory statement
This new Clause confers power on a court winding up a company to require a body corporate associated with the company to contribute to the assets of the company.
“Building industry schemes
(1) The Secretary of State may by regulations—(a) establish a scheme, and(b) make provision about the scheme.(2) Regulations that establish a scheme must prescribe the descriptions of persons in the building industry who may be members of the scheme (“eligible persons”).(3) Where a scheme is established, the Secretary of State must set and publish the criteria that an eligible person must meet in order to become, and remain, a member of the scheme (“membership criteria”).(4) Membership criteria may be set for any purpose connected with—(a) securing the safety of people in or about buildings in relation to risks arising from buildings, or(b) improving the standard of buildings. (5) The Secretary of State must ensure that a list of members of a scheme is kept and published (and may publish a list of persons who are eligible persons but are not members of a scheme).”Member’s explanatory statement
This new Clause confers power on the Secretary of State to establish one or more building industry schemes.
“Building industry schemes: supplementary
(1) This section supplements section (Building industry schemes).(2) Regulations may provide that a scheme is to be maintained by—(a) the Secretary of State, or(b) a person designated by the Secretary of State (a “designated person”), acting on behalf of the Secretary of State.(3) Regulations may provide for the charging of fees, in connection with—(a) an application for membership;(b) renewal of membership;(c) a review;(d) any other prescribed matter.(4) The Secretary of State may publish a document setting out the procedure relating to any of the following—(a) applications for membership of a scheme;(b) the periodic renewal of membership;(c) termination of a person’s membership;(d) the review of any decision relating to a person’s membership;(e) the suspension of a person from membership.(5) Membership criteria may be framed by reference to—(a) standards, or a document, from time to time published by any person;(b) the opinion of the Secretary of State, or a designated person, in relation to any matter.(6) Different membership criteria may be set for different purposes.(7) In section (Building industry schemes) and this section—“building” means a building in England;“building industry”: a reference to persons in the building industry is to persons carrying on, for business purposes, activities connected with the design, construction, management or maintenance of buildings, including persons carrying on activities in relation to construction products (within the meaning of paragraph 24 of Schedule 11) in England;“prescribed” means prescribed by the regulations;“regulations” means regulations under section (Building industry schemes);“scheme” means a scheme established under section (Building industry schemes);“standard”(except in subsection (5) of this section) is to be read in accordance with section 29.”Member’s explanatory statement
This new Clause makes supplementary provision about building industry schemes.
“Prohibition on development for prescribed persons
(1) The Secretary of State may by regulations prohibit a person of a prescribed description from carrying out development of land in England (or a prescribed description of such development). (2) A prohibition may be imposed for any purpose connected with—(a) securing the safety of people in or about buildings in relation to risks arising from buildings, or(b) improving the standard of buildings.(3) A prohibition under the regulations applies despite planning permission (or any prescribed description of planning permission) having been granted.(4) The regulations may provide that, in prescribed cases, no prescribed certificate under the 1990 Act may be granted (and any purported grant is of no effect).(5) The regulations may require a person of a prescribed description to give a notification relating to the proposed beginning of development (and may make provision about the content and form of a notification and the way in which it is to be given).(6) The regulations may contain exceptions.(7) The regulations may make provision about enforcement, including in particular provision applying (with or without modifications), in relation to a breach of the regulations, any provision of Part 7 of the 1990 Act (enforcement).(8) For the purposes of this section—(a) “the 1990 Act” means the Town and Country Planning Act 1990;(b) a reference to the “beginning” of development is to be read in accordance with section 56(2) of the 1990 Act;(c) “building” means a building in England;(d) “development” has the meaning given by section 55 of the 1990 Act;(e) “planning permission” has the meaning given by section 336 of the 1990 Act;(f) “prescribed” means prescribed by regulations under this section;(g) “standard” is to be read in accordance with section 29.”Member’s explanatory statement
This new Clause confers power on the Secretary of State to prohibit a prescribed person from carrying out development (or certain development).
“Building control prohibitions
(1) The Secretary of State may by regulations impose a building control prohibition, as regards buildings or proposed buildings, in relation to persons of a prescribed description.(2) A prohibition may be imposed for any purpose connected with—(a) securing the safety of people in or about buildings in relation to risks arising from buildings, or(b) improving the standard of buildings.(3) A “building control prohibition”, in relation to a person, prohibits—(a) the person from applying for building control approval or from depositing plans,(b) the person from giving an initial notice (whether or not jointly with anyone else) or a public body’s notice, public body’s plans certificate or public body’s final certificate,(c) the granting of building control approval to the person,(d) the passing of plans deposited by the person,(e) the acceptance of an initial notice given by the person (whether or not jointly with anyone else) or a public body’s notice, public body’s plans certificate or public body’s final certificate given by the person, (f) the giving of a final certificate in relation to works carried out by the person,(g) the person from giving a prescribed document,(h) the giving of a prescribed document to the person or in respect of works carried out by the person, or(i) the acceptance of any prescribed document given by the person or in respect of works carried out by the person.(4) A building control prohibition applies despite any provision made by or under the Building Act 1984.(5) The regulations may contain exceptions.(6) The regulations may provide that anything done in contravention of the regulations is of no effect.(7) Any reference in this section to a building or proposed building is to a building or proposed building in England.(8) In this section—“building” and “building control approval”, and references to the deposit and passing of plans, are to be read in accordance with Part 1 of the Building Act 1984;“initial notice”, “final certificate”, “public body’s notice”, “public body’s plans certificate” and “public body’s final certificate” have the same meaning as in Part 2 of that Act;“prescribed” means prescribed by regulations under this section;“standard” is to be read in accordance with section 29.”Member’s explanatory statement
This new Clause confers power on the Secretary of State to impose building control prohibitions on prescribed persons.
“Building liability orders
(1) The High Court may make a building liability order if it considers it just and equitable to do so.(2) A “building liability order” is an order providing that any relevant liability (or any relevant liability of a specified description) of a body corporate (“the original body”) relating to a specified building is also—(a) a liability of a specified body corporate, or(b) a joint and several liability of two or more specified bodies corporate.(3) In this section “relevant liability” means a liability (whether arising before or after commencement) that relates to a building in England and is incurred—(a) under the Defective Premises Act 1972 or section 38 of the Building Act 1984, or(b) as a result of a building safety risk.(4) A body corporate may be specified only if it is, or has at any time in the relevant period been, an associate of the original body.(5) A building liability order—(a) may be made in respect of a liability of a body corporate that has been dissolved (including where dissolution occurred before commencement);(b) continues to have effect even if the body corporate is dissolved after the making of the order.(6) In this section—“associate”: see section (Building liability orders: associates);“building safety risk”, in relation to a building, means a risk to the safety of people in or about the building arising from the spread of fire or structural failure;“commencement” means the time this section comes into force;“the relevant period” means the period— (a) beginning with the beginning of the carrying out of the works in relation to which the relevant liability was incurred, and(b) ending with the making of the order;“specified” means specified in the building liability order.”Member’s explanatory statement
This new Clause confers power on the court to make an order under which certain liabilities relating to buildings in England are imposed on a person associated with the person who is primarily liable.
“Building liability orders: associates
(1) For the purposes of section (Building liability orders), a body corporate (A) is associated with another body corporate (B) if—(a) one of them controls the other, or(b) a third body corporate controls both of them.Subsections (2) to (4) set out the cases in which a body corporate is regarded as controlling another body corporate.(2) A body corporate (X) controls a company (Y) if X possesses or is entitled to acquire—(a) at least half of the issued share capital of Y,(b) such rights as would entitle X to exercise at least half of the votes exercisable in general meetings of Y,(c) such part of the issued share capital of Y as would entitle X to at least half of the amount distributed, if the whole of the income of Y were in fact distributed among the shareholders, or(d) such rights as would, in the event of the winding up of Y or in any other circumstances, entitle it to receive at least half of the assets of Y which would then be available for distribution among the shareholders.(3) A body corporate (X) controls a limited liability partnership (Y) if X—(a) holds a majority of the voting rights in Y,(b) is a member of Y and has a right to appoint or remove a majority of other members, or(c) is a member of Y and controls alone, or pursuant to an agreement with other members, a majority of the voting rights in Y.(4) A body corporate (X) controls another body corporate (Y) if X has the power, directly or indirectly, to secure that the affairs of Y are conducted in accordance with X’s wishes.(5) In subsection (3) a reference to “voting rights” is to the rights conferred on members in respect of their interest in a limited liability partnership to vote on those matters which are to be decided on by a vote of the members of the limited liability partnership.(6) In determining under any of subsections (2) to (4) whether one body corporate (X) controls another, X is treated as possessing—(a) any rights and powers possessed by a person as nominee for it, and(b) any rights and powers possessed by a body corporate which it controls (including rights and powers which such a body corporate would be taken to possess by virtue of this paragraph).”Member’s explanatory statement
This new Clause sets out who is an associated person for the purposes of the preceding new Clause.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Watkins of Tavistock) (CB)
The question is that Amendments 79 to 81 be agreed to.
Lord Greenhalgh (Con)
I am sorry. Those amendments are not government amendments. Will they go in Hansard?
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Watkins of Tavistock)
Do not worry. They will not because Hansard will cover your back and my back. I have been told that this is the most complicated thing that has been done in Grand Committee for years, so I think we have to accept it if I have made a mistake. I thought they were government amendments.
Lord Greenhalgh
“(c) the relevant Northern Ireland department.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment places the Secretary of State under a duty to consult the relevant department in Northern Ireland before making arrangements to establish the new homes ombudsman scheme.
“(5) In this section, “the relevant Northern Ireland department” means—(a) the Northern Ireland department designated for the purposes of this section by the First Minister and deputy First Minister acting jointly, or(b) failing such a designation, the Executive Office in Northern Ireland.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment explains which department in Northern Ireland is the relevant Northern Ireland department.
Lord Greenhalgh
“SCHEDULE REMEDIATION COSTS UNDER QUALIFYING LEASESInterpretation
1_ In this Schedule—“associated”: see section (Associated persons);“building safety risk” has the meaning given by section (Meaning of “relevant defect”);“qualifying lease”: see section (Meaning of “qualifying lease”);“the qualifying time” has the same meaning as in section (Meaning of “qualifying lease”); “relevant building”: see section (Meaning of “relevant building”);“relevant defect”: see section (Meaning of “relevant defect”);“relevant measure”, in relation to a relevant defect, means a measure taken—(a) to remedy the relevant defect, or(b) for the purpose of—(i) preventing a relevant risk from materialising, or(ii) reducing the severity of any incident resulting from a relevant risk materialising;“relevant risk” here means a building safety risk that arises as a result of the relevant defect;“service charge” has the meaning given by section 18 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985.No service charge payable for defect for which landlord or associate responsible
2_(1) No service charge is payable under a qualifying lease in respect of a relevant measure relating to a relevant defect if a relevant landlord—(a) is responsible for the relevant defect, or(b) is or has at any time been associated with a person responsible for a relevant defect.(2) For the purposes of this paragraph a person is “responsible for” a relevant defect if—(a) in the case of an initial defect, the person was the developer or carried out works relating to the defect;(b) in any other case, the person carried out works relating to the defect.(3) In this paragraph—“developer” means a person who undertakes or commissions the construction or conversion of a building (or part of a building) with a view to granting or disposing of interests in the building or parts of it;“initial defect” means a relevant defect arising in connection with works carried out before completion (within the meaning of section (Meaning of “relevant defect”));“relevant landlord”, in relation to a qualifying lease, means the landlord under the lease or any superior landlord.Paragraph 2: extension of protection to superior leases
3_(1) This paragraph applies if, as a result of paragraph 2, an amount of service charge (an “unrecoverable amount”) that would otherwise be payable under a qualifying lease in respect of a relevant measure is not payable.(2) Any superior lease has effect as if any liability of the tenant under the superior lease to pay an amount in respect of the relevant measure (“the relevant amount”) were a liability to pay an amount equal to—(a) the relevant amount, minus(b) the unrecoverable amount.(3) In this paragraph “superior lease” means any lease which is superior to the qualifying lease.No service charge payable if prescribed conditions are met
4_(1) No service charge is payable under a qualifying lease in respect of a relevant measure relating to any relevant defect if any prescribed conditions, relating to a relevant landlord or the value of the qualifying lease, are met.(2) In this paragraph—“prescribed” means prescribed by regulations made by the Secretary of State;“relevant landlord” has the same meaning as in paragraph 2. Limit on service charge in other cases
5_(1) A service charge which would otherwise be payable under a qualifying lease in respect of a relevant measure relating to any relevant defect is payable only if (and so far as) the sum of—(a) the amount of the service charge, and(b) the total amount of relevant service charges which fell due before the service charge fell due,does not exceed the permitted maximum.(2) In this paragraph “relevant service charge” means a service charge under the lease in respect of a relevant measure relating to any relevant defect that—(a) fell due in the pre-commencement period, or(b) falls due after commencement.(3) In sub-paragraph (2) “the pre-commencement period” means the period—(a) beginning 5 years before commencement or, if later, on the day the relevant person became the tenant under the qualifying lease, and(b) ending with commencement.“The relevant person” means the person who was the tenant under the qualifying lease at commencement.(4) In this paragraph—“commencement” means the time this paragraph comes into force;“the permitted maximum”: see paragraph 6.Paragraph 5: the permitted maximum
6_(1) In paragraph 5 “the permitted maximum”, in relation to a qualifying lease, has the following meaning.(2) The permitted maximum is (subject to sub-paragraphs (3) to (5))—(a) if the premises demised by the qualifying lease are in Greater London, £15,000;(b) otherwise, £10,000.(3) Where the qualifying lease is a shared ownership lease and the tenant’s total share was less than 100% at the qualifying time, the permitted maximum is the tenant’s total share (as at that time) of what would otherwise be the permitted maximum.(4) Where the value of the qualifying lease at the qualifying time is at least £1,000,000 but does not exceed £2,000,000, the permitted maximum is £50,000.(5) Where the value of the qualifying lease at the qualifying time exceeds £2,000,000, the permitted maximum is £100,000.(6) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision about the determination of the value of a qualifying lease for the purposes of paragraph 4 and this paragraph.(7) In this paragraph “shared ownership lease” and “total share” have the meaning given by section 7 of the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993.Annual limit on service charges
7_(1) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision limiting the total amount of service charges payable in any period of 12 months under a qualifying lease in respect of relevant measures relating to any relevant defect to one fifth of the permitted maximum.(2) In this paragraph “the permitted maximum” means the permitted maximum as defined by paragraph 6 in relation to the lease.No service charge payable for cladding remediation where tenant was resident
8_(1) No service charge is payable under a qualifying lease in respect of cladding remediation if the condition in section (Meaning of “qualifying lease”)(2)(d)(i) (resident tenant) was met at the qualifying time. (2) In this paragraph “cladding remediation” has the meaning given by regulations made by the Secretary of State.No service charge payable for legal expenses relating to relevant defects
9_(1) No service charge is payable under a qualifying lease in respect of legal expenses relating to the liability (or potential liability) of any person incurred as a result of a relevant defect.(2) In this paragraph “legal expenses” means any costs incurred, or to be incurred, in connection with—(a) obtaining legal advice,(b) any proceedings before a court or tribunal,(c) arbitration, or(d) mediation.Paragraphs 2 to 9: supplementary
10_(1) This paragraph supplements paragraphs 2 to 9 (the “relevant paragraphs”).(2) Where a relevant paragraph provides that no service charge is payable under a lease in respect of a thing—(a) no costs incurred or to be incurred in respect of that thing (or in respect of that thing and anything else)—(i) are to be regarded for the purposes of the relevant provisions as relevant costs to be taken into account in determining the amount of a service charge payable under the lease, or(ii) are to be met from a relevant reserve fund;(b) any amount payable under the lease, or met from a relevant reserve fund, is limited accordingly (and any necessary adjustment must be made by repayment, reduction of subsequent charges or otherwise).(3) In this paragraph—“the relevant provisions” means sections 18 to 30 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 (service charges) and section 42 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987 (service charge contributions to be held on trust);“relevant reserve fund” means—(a) a trust fund within the meaning of section 42 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987,(b) an express trust of a kind mentioned in subsection (9) of that section, comprising payments made by the tenant under the qualifying lease and others, or(c) any other fund comprising payments made by the tenant under the qualifying lease and others, and held for the purposes of meeting costs incurred or to be incurred in respect of the relevant building in question or any part of it (or in respect of that building or part and anything else).No increase in service charge for other tenants
11_ Where—(a) an amount (“the original amount”) would, apart from this Schedule, be payable by a tenant under a lease of premises in a relevant building, and(b) a greater amount would (apart from this paragraph) be payable under the lease as a result of this Schedule,the lease has effect as if the amount payable were the original amount.Recovery of service charge amounts from landlords
12_(1) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision for and in connection with the recovery, from a prescribed relevant landlord, of any amount that is not recoverable under a lease as a result of this Schedule.(2) In this paragraph—“prescribed” means prescribed by regulations under this paragraph;“relevant landlord”, in relation to a lease, means the landlord under the lease or any superior landlord. Information
13_(1) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision requiring a tenant under a qualifying lease to give prescribed information or documents to the landlord under the lease or any superior landlord.(2) The regulations may provide that the information or documents are to be given in a prescribed way.(3) In this paragraph “prescribed” means prescribed by the regulations.Anti-avoidance
14_ A covenant or agreement (whenever made) is void insofar as it purports to exclude or limit any provision made under this Schedule.”Member’s explanatory statement
This new Schedule contains protections for certain leaseholders and others, relating to certain remediation costs, and imposes corresponding liabilities on certain landlords.
Lord Greenhalgh
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is to ensure that the new homes ombudsman scheme includes provision about provision of information to the relevant department in Northern Ireland.
“(2) In this paragraph, “the relevant Northern Ireland department” means the Northern Ireland department designated for the purposes of this paragraph by the First Minister and deputy First Minister acting jointly.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment explains which department in Northern Ireland is the relevant Northern Ireland department.
Lord Greenhalgh
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment glosses the meaning of “occupation condition” for homes in Northern Ireland.
Lord Greenhalgh
“(c) in relation to land in Northern Ireland, a legal estate which is—(i) an estate in fee simple absolute in possession,(ii) an estate in fee simple in possession subject to a rent payable under a fee farm grant, or(iii) a term of years absolute granted for a term of more than 21 years from the date of the grant.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment provides the meaning of “relevant interest” for land in Northern Ireland.
“(d) in relation to homes in Northern Ireland, the Northern Ireland department designated for the purposes of this section by the First Minister and deputy First Minister acting jointly.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment confers power on a Northern Ireland department to make regulations about who is a “developer”.
“(10A) If no Northern Ireland department has been designated for the purposes of this section then, for the purposes of subsection (10), “the relevant national authority” in relation to homes in Northern Ireland is the Executive Office in Northern Ireland.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is to ensure that the Secretary of State, Welsh Ministers and Scottish Ministers will still be able to make regulations for their own jurisdictions even if there is no Northern Ireland department designated for the purposes of making regulations for homes in Northern Ireland.
Lord Greenhalgh
(a) in the case of regulations made by the Secretary of State or the Welsh Ministers, by statutory instrument, and(b) in the case of regulations made by a Northern Ireland department, by statutory rule for the purposes of the Statutory Rules (Northern Ireland) Order 1979 (S.I. 1979/1573 (N.I. 12)).”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment provides for procedural matters connected to the power conferred on a Northern Ireland department to make regulations.
“(d) if made by a Northern Ireland department, may not be made unless a draft of the regulations has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, the Northern Ireland Assembly.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment provides for the parliamentary procedure for regulations made by a Northern Ireland department.
Lord Greenhalgh
“(c) the relevant Northern Ireland department.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment places the Secretary of State under a duty to consult the relevant department in Northern Ireland before making regulations about the new homes ombudsman scheme.
“(8) In this section, “the relevant Northern Ireland department” means—(a) the Northern Ireland department designated for the purposes of this section by the First Minister and deputy First Minister acting jointly, or(b) failing such a designation, the Executive Office in Northern Ireland.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment explains which department in Northern Ireland is the relevant Northern Ireland department.
Lord Greenhalgh
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment places the Secretary of State under a duty to consult the relevant department in Northern Ireland about the code of practice.
“(5) In this section, “the relevant Northern Ireland department” means—(a) the Northern Ireland department designated for the purposes of this section by the First Minister and deputy First Minister acting jointly, or(b) failing such a designation, the Executive Office in Northern Ireland.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment explains which department in Northern Ireland is the relevant Northern Ireland department.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Watkins of Tavistock) (CB)
I cannot call Amendment 107A, as it is an amendment to Amendment 107.
House of Lords
Refugees and Asylum Seekers
(2 years, 2 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Chakrabarti
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what regular conversations they have with the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR); and how this relationship informs (1) their policy on the interpretation of the Refugee Convention, (2) day to day operational policy for the protection of refugees and asylum seekers, and (3) their legislation.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)
My Lords, the Home Office has regular and routine engagement with UNHCR on a number of matters, including through its quality protection partnership and as a standing member of the asylum strategic engagement group and decision-making subgroup. There are also additional ad hoc meetings to discuss individual policies and issues.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
I am grateful to the Minister for that. She will appreciate that due to tragic events in recent days, our defence of the refugee convention is now totally inseparable from our defence of the Ukrainian people. Can the Minister comment on reports over the weekend that relatives of Ukrainians here in the UK have been denied visas? Can she assure us that the widest group with connections to this country will be welcome here and that no one—no one—will be turned back or criminalised on account of their means of escape?
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
I can absolutely assure the noble Baroness that everything that we do will be aligned with the refugee convention. The Prime Minister and my right honourable friend the Home Secretary have made a number of statements this weekend to that very end: that we will do everything we can to help our friends in Ukraine.
Lord Cormack (Con)
Does my noble friend agree that tweeting should be a breach of the ministerial code?
Lord Paddick (LD)
My Lords, given that the UNHCR has criticised the UK’s response to the humanitarian crisis unfolding in and around Ukraine, why have the Government not allowed visa-free entry of refugees from Ukraine into the UK?
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
As we speak, my right honourable friend the Home Secretary is outlining some of the further things we will be doing to help our colleagues and friends in Ukraine, as has the Prime Minister over the last 24 hours. This Question is about the UNHCR in relation to the refugee convention, and we do not think that anything in what we do breaches the convention.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)
My Lords, does the Minister not recognise that although it is very welcome that she says that the Government will be sticking by their obligations under the convention, it is not terribly convincing when they are simply marking their own homework? What does she have to say about the extremely detailed and well-argued views put forward by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees about the legislation we will be considering later today? Why should we accept her word rather than the UNHCR’s word? Surely, they know about their own convention?
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
It is absolutely for the UNHCR to comment on our interpretation of the refugee convention, but it is for Parliament to determine our interpretation of it.
Lord Hylton (CB)
My Lords, is it not surprising that this Government are trying to legislate to enact their own interpretation of the convention without apparently consulting anyone else in the rest of the world?
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
We do consult our partners, including the UNHCR.
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, the noble Baroness will have seen the reports over the weekend that maybe as many as 5 million people will become refugees from Ukraine. The UNHCR has estimated that maybe 1 million will go to Poland alone. She will have seen pictures of three-mile long queues of people trying to get out. I thank her for what she said already about the British Government’s response. Does she not agree that the Home Secretary should now call on all Interior and Home Office Ministers across the whole continent of Europe to come together to speak to one another about how they will deal with this unfolding crisis, which is adding to the more than 82 million people already displaced in the world today?
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
I agree with the noble Lord that the crisis that is unfolding is horrifying in the extreme. Poland has been generous to a fault to its neighbours. We will assist with some of the humanitarian assistance in Poland and other places. Of course countries should come together to decide the best way forward for what is yet another humanitarian crisis.
Baroness Ludford (LD)
My Lords, the EU has said that Ukrainian refugees, who do not need visas to get into the Schengen zone anyway, can stay for three years without having to regularise their situation. I thought that the UK took back control in order to regulate better than the EU. Can the noble Baroness tell me what the UK will do better than the EU for Ukrainian refugees?
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
It is a very peculiar word to use, to do “better”. We all need to do our part. I absolutely hear what the noble Baroness said about what the EU is doing. We will of course play our part.
The Lord Bishop of Durham
Can the noble Baroness offer us any other examples of alternative interpretations of the refugee convention worldwide? If not, on what basis does she believe the Government are entitled to do so in reference to Clause 11 of the Bill we will discuss later?
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
It is up to states to interpret the refugee convention for themselves in line with the Vienna convention, which is a crucial part of it. There are examples across the world of states having interpreted in different ways but, as I said, it always has to be in line with the Vienna convention.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, we heard from various Cabinet members over the weekend, including the Prime Minister, about the Government’s willingness to help Ukrainian refugees and all that sort of thing, but that is totally not what is happening. How come they can say that, which sounds like a blatant lie, when in fact the Government are doing everything they can to make it harder for refugees, including Ukrainian refugees, to come in?
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
It is not about just willingness to help them; we will help them.
Lord Dholakia (LD)
My Lords, is the Minister able to indicate how many visas or entry clearances have been refused to Ukrainian citizens since the crisis started?
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
The crisis is about 72 hours old, so I cannot say. I really do not know the answer so I will not pretend, but I am sure that, as the hours and days go on, the Government will have in place a system for helping refugees here and, do not forget, back in their home country. Ukrainians want to go back to Ukraine, and the best thing we can do for the whole global effort is to ensure that the war in Ukraine comes to an abrupt end.
Lord Rosser (Lab)
What did the Government mean by the assurance that I believe was given to my noble friend Lady Chakrabarti? The assurance given in relation to Ukraine was that, whatever the Government did, it would be aligned with the refugee convention—I think those were the words. Is that aligned with the refugee convention in the same way the Government think the Nationality and Borders Bill is aligned with the refugee convention?
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
The Nationality and Borders Bill is aligned with the refugee convention.
Lord Laming (CB)
My Lords, amid all the distressing news about what is happening in Ukraine and the movement of people across Europe, can the Government be particularly sympathetic to any children who get separated from their parents? We have seen some awful photographs of children who are really very disturbed and distressed already. Can the Government make sure that they care for children who are separated from their parents?
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
I commend so much what the noble Lord has said. At the heart of any Government with a heart will be those children who are displaced.
Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall (Lab)
My Lords, in an earlier answer the Minister asserted, no doubt rightly, that the Government had consulted with the UNHCR, and by implication with other people, before bringing forward the legislation we are to consider later today. Can she give the House any examples of ways in which the Government’s original intentions for this legislation were changed or modified as a result of those consultations?
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
Obviously, I will not go into the details of individual conversations, but we consulted with the UNHCR, as would be expected. Clearly, we did not come to the same conclusion as the UNHCR.
Baroness Sheehan (LD)
My Lords, the evidence of the horror unfolding in Ukraine on our TV screens over the last several days must surely put to bed once and for all the Government’s grotesque assertion that it is pull factors that attract refugees to seek asylum in Britain or anywhere else. Surely the Minister sees that the Government must do the decent thing and pull the abominable Clause 11 from the Nationality and Borders Bill, because they will be defeated when it comes to a vote in this House.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
I think we should separate out pull factors from those in war-torn countries who need our humanitarian protection. I do not think we should conflate the two things. These people desperately need our help, and they shall get it.
Crypto Currencies
Lord Young of Cookham
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the use of crypto currencies in the United Kingdom.
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, certain crypto assets offering new ways to transact and invest are part of a trend of rapid innovation in financial technology. However, these developments also present new challenges and risks, including risks to consumers and the financial system. In 2018 the Government established a Cryptoassets Taskforce, which is responsible for assessing developments in the crypto asset market. Her Majesty’s Treasury and UK authorities have taken a series of actions to support innovation while mitigating risks to stability, market integrity and consumers.
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
I am grateful to my noble friend. While blockchain technology has much to commend it, with the UK being a world leader in financial technology, should not cryptocurrencies be subject to the same rules as other currencies? While many law-abiding citizens may have modest holdings of bitcoin, have not cryptocurrencies greatly facilitated the operations of blackmailers, drug dealers, fraudsters, tax evaders and terrorists, with crypto-based crime reaching an estimated $14 billion last year, as against nearly $8 billion the year before? What plans does my noble friend have to tame the beast?
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, we are taking action to manage the most pressing risks from crypto assets. That includes including crypto assets in the most robust standards for money laundering and countering terrorist financing, and moving to regulate crypto asset promotions to ensure that they are held to high standards for fairness, clarity and accuracy.
Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab)
My Lords, crypto assets are used extensively for money laundering, as the Minister implied and the noble Lord, Lord Young, made clear. Since January 2020, crypto asset businesses in this country have had to comply with money laundering regulations and to be registered with the Financial Conduct Authority. Helpfully, the FCA has a list of approximately 30 businesses that are compliant and registered, but for some bizarre reason it also has a list of 200 or more companies that are non-compliant and not registered. Whatever the original reason for that, it seems to me to be a directory for kleptocrats, drug dealers and criminals to access some business that will not comply with the regulations. What are the Government doing about it, and about these businesses?
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, if I understand the noble Lord correctly, he may be referring to the transition arrangements that were put in place following the inclusion of crypto assets into the anti-money laundering regime. That transition regime is due to expire on 31 March 2022, when all companies will need to be registered.
Lord Lee of Trafford (LD)
My Lords, given the worrying numbers of young people ignorantly speculating in cryptocurrencies, is there not now a compelling case to substantially increase the quality and quantity of financial education in our schools and colleges?
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, financial education is something that the Department for Education looks at and, I believe, is supportive of. The noble Lord is right that more and more people are getting involved in crypto assets. That is why the Government took the decision to bring crypto assets into the financial promotions regime. One of the proposals in there is to limit the amount that any individual can hold in crypto assets.
Baroness Greengross (CB)
My Lords, I declare my interests as set out in the register as co-chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Corporate Responsibility Group, which last week heard evidence that the blockchain technology used to power cryptocurrencies is increasingly being used to ensure both security and transparency in the supply chain. What steps are the Government taking to encourage research and investment in blockchain technology, which would mean that the UK could be a world leader in this area?
Baroness Penn (Con)
The noble Baroness is right that we should not forget the opportunities that the underlying technology for crypto assets present for businesses in the UK. The Government are very focused on that; for example, in financial services, we have announced a financial market infrastructure sandbox to support technological innovation in financial markets using that technology. That is something we want to learn from and build on.
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, the financial sanctions on those supporting Putin may well lead to a flight to crypto among those trying to squirrel away their assets. Can my noble friend the Minister please reassure us that the regulations due shortly that will oversee these sanctions will have in them provisions for crypto?
Baroness Penn (Con)
Crypto assets are classed as funds or economic resources for the purposes of financial sanctions restrictions. Circumvention of financial sanctions by any means, including use of crypto assets, is a criminal offence.
Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)
My Lords, the FCA advice to customers, last updated on 18 June 2021, says:
“Before you invest in cryptoassets you should be aware of the following … cryptoassets are considered very high risk, speculative investments … if you buy these types of cryptoassets, you are unlikely to have access to the Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS) or the Financial Services Compensation Scheme (FSCS) if something goes wrong … if you invest in cryptoassets, you should be prepared to lose all your money”.
It is quite clear that this whole area of activity has the potential to go wrong. In going wrong, it could be very big—indeed, it could be so big as to impact on financial services in a systemic way. Which Government Minister is responsible for the monitoring and development of crypto assets tracking? What resources does that person have, and when can we expect appropriate reports and legislative proposals?
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, that work would fall to the Cryptoassets Taskforce, which was set up by the Treasury, the Bank of England and the Financial Conduct Authority to look at the regulation of crypto assets as well as, for example, their implications for financial stability. Day to day it is the Economic Secretary to the Treasury who takes responsibility for these areas.
Baroness Kramer (LD)
My Lords, as soon as Russia invaded Ukraine, the Ukrainian Government announced that they could receive donations in bitcoin, Ether and Tether to help with their efforts, and raised over $10 million in the first 24 hours; it is a much larger sum now. So will the Government be slightly careful in what they do around closing down the crypto area? The Government of Ukraine have asked that all major DeFi—decentralised finance—exchanges are blocked to Russian-based transactions; something that is rather easy to evade. Will the Government support those exchanges in trying to put in place those blocks?
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, I will take the noble Baroness’s latter point back to the Treasury. On her first point, she is absolutely right that, while we take steps to regulate the use of these assets, we also need to avoid unintended consequences or the stifling of information.
Baroness Altmann (Con)
My Lords, will my noble friend help the House understand the advantages of cryptocurrencies? I confess that I see plenty of disadvantages; this does not seem to be about investing but pure gambling, and the technology is based on anonymity and untraceability, unlike the banking sector. The environmental damage associated with the so-called mining of bitcoins itself undermines some of our COP 26 objectives. I would very much welcome the understanding that the Government have of why this is in any way positive rather than wholly negative for the economy and society.
Baroness Penn (Con)
It is probably worth trying to distinguish between different forms of crypto assets: unbacked crypto assets such as bitcoin can be highly volatile and speculative, and are therefore being regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority in terms of promotions; stablecoins tied to a reference asset could be used as a widespread means of payment and potentially deliver improvements in cross-border transactions; and the underlying blockchain technology could have a number of benefits, improving the efficiency of the settlement processes and reporting and enabling greater automation. So, it really is a question of a having a slightly more nuanced view of these different assets and regulating them appropriately.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)
In one part of the United Kingdom, the Scottish National Party cannot make up its mind even on the existing currency and—if it were, unfortunately, to move towards independence—whether to accept the pound, move to the euro or go back to the groat. Is that not an extra reason why we should all be saying to Ms Sturgeon and her mob that they should concentrate on delivering services in the devolved areas and forget about their independence campaign?
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, whenever the noble Lord stands up, I either strongly agree or strongly disagree with him; in this case, I strongly agree.
Public Health: Media Advertising
(2 years, 2 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what plans they have to assess (1) the impact on public health of advertising in the media, and (2) whether the tax system regarding such advertisements could be restructured to improve both physical and mental health outcomes.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay) (Con)
My Lords, Her Majesty’s Government do not have plans for a comprehensive assessment of the impact of advertising on public health but are committed to assessing its impact in a proportionate way and in response to emerging evidence. For example, we will use a post-implementation review to assess the impact of forthcoming restrictions to the advertising of less healthy food and drink products on television and online. There are no current plans to review the tax treatment of advertising but the Government keep all taxes under review.
Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe (Lab)
I am disappointed that the Government are not extending the review of the effects of advertising on health over a wider front; I hope that might be reconsidered. It is important that we take from the Chancellor’s move to a variable taxation on alcohol—in which the highest taxes are placed on those drinks with the highest element of alcohol and incentives are offered for lower taxes on those with lower alcohol—that advertising will be looked at in a similar way, particularly where advertising damages people, such as in the case of gambling and so on. Why do such advertisers not pay higher rates of tax than the present standard rate, which applies to all advertising? This is a way in which revenue could be increased and we could also seek to get behavioural change, which would be positive for the country.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
On gambling specifically, as the noble Lord will know, we are reviewing the Gambling Act and looking specifically at advertising issues as part of that. More broadly, we recognise that advertising can have an impact on public health, which is why we continue to keep that impact on all aspects of public health under review and will assess any emerging evidence in a proportionate and measured way. That is why, for instance, we are responding to evidence that children’s exposure to less healthy food-and-drink product advertising can affect what and when they eat. DCMS will of course continue to work with other departments, and the regulators as necessary, to keep the impacts of advertising on public health under review.
Baroness Boycott (CB)
My Lords, just 2.5% of all food and soft-drink advertising in the UK is spent on fruit and vegetables. Despite Change4Life and the 5 A Day campaign, obesity rates have risen sharply. Yet the relatively simple and extremely cost-effective act of banning advertising of HFSS food on the London Underground has, according to a report published just 10 days ago by the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, on 17 February, led to households buying 1,000 calories less a week of HFSS food—6.7% less than would have happened. Will the Government look at expanding schemes of this type and banning adverts for HFSS food? Will they also agree not to water down the excellent proposals in the forthcoming Bill to ban HFSS adverts in prime time on children’s TV?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
The Health and Care Bill introduces new UK-wide restrictions for the advertising of less healthy food and drink products, which are due to come into force from 1 January 2023. The noble Baroness referred to the recently published evaluation of the advertising restrictions introduced by Transport for London, which we note were limited to outdoor advertising. We intend to look at and analyse that evaluation in more detail.
Lord Foster of Bath (LD)
My Lords, I declare my interest as chairman of Peers for Gambling Reform. The Minister made reference to gambling just a few seconds ago and will be aware that the gambling industry spends in excess of £1.5 billion a year on advertising and associated marketing. Does he believe that that improves or damages public health?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
As the noble Lord will know, I cannot pre-empt our review of the Gambling Act, which is looking at all these issues and taking evidence from many, including Peers for Gambling Reform. It is a thorough and evidence-led look at gambling regulation; advertising is an important part of that, and we will set out our response in a White Paper in due course.
Lord Vaizey of Didcot (Con)
My Lords, the Government remain committed to banning junk-food advertising as part of their drive to introduce more and more regulation. Can my noble friend assure me that he will have a discussion with his colleagues in the health department about the timing of implementing this ban, which is coming in at breakneck speed? It will be very damaging to the public service broadcasters, which of course his department supports very vigorously.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
Yes, I will speak to my colleagues in the Department for Health and Social Care, not least as the Bill is still before your Lordships’ House.
Baroness Bull (CB)
My Lords, there is good evidence that advertising that presents idealised and unrealistic bodies can drive negative body image and trigger or exacerbate mental health conditions, including eating disorders. Will the Government support the call for advertisers to be required to make it clear where images are digitally altered for commercial purposes?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, we are aware of evidence which demonstrates a link between poor body and poor mental health, which can cause people anxiety, depression and many other harms. It is not currently the Government’s intention to legislate on body image in advertising. We want to make sure that any government intervention makes a real and positive difference. We intend to consult on this issue and the harms created by it as part of the online advertising programme, which will allow us further to develop our evidence base on this issue.
Viscount Colville of Culross (CB)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, wrote to Peers saying that the Government intend to consider platform liability for ad content as part of the online advertising programme, which the Minister has just mentioned, but the consultations will not start until spring. HFSS advertising on television has been under consultation since 2017. Why are the Government only now discussing platform responsibility for this ad content? Surely, they are just kicking this important issue into the long grass.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, the advertising on television is a matter in the Bill before your Lordships’ House, which introduces a 9 pm watershed for advertising of less healthy food and drink products on TV and on-demand programme services which are under the jurisdiction of the UK and regulated by Ofcom. On advertising in other media, the Government intend to review how online advertising is regulated through the online advertising programme, as I say, but they are happening in different timeframes.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
My Lords, while many adverts for tobacco products are banned in the UK and the EU, such restrictions do not apply in the same way to products containing nicotine. Can the Minister comment on why the McLaren Formula 1 team cars are able to carry the logo of the British American Tobacco Velo product range at the British Grand Prix when similar products cannot be promoted in other host countries, including Austria and France? Does the Minister feel that this is appropriate?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
The advertising and promotion of tobacco products was banned through the Tobacco Advertising and Promotion Act 2002. As the noble Baroness rightly alludes to, products and technology have moved on a lot in the intervening 20 years. An independent review into tobacco control, led by Javed Khan, is currently under way. This will help us ensure that future policies will be effective in meeting the Government’s smoke-free ambition.
International Development: Sexual and Reproductive Health
(2 years, 2 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Sugg
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what plans they have to make investment in sexual and reproductive health and rights a priority in their International Development Strategy.
The Minister of State, Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park) (Con)
My Lords, the Government will publish a new international development strategy this spring that will guide our work for the coming decade and beyond. It will align our development work with the aims and objectives of the integrated review and will continue to prioritise women and girls through support to educate girls, empower women and end violence, including by strengthening sexual and reproductive health and rights and working to end female genital mutilation.
Baroness Sugg (Con)
My Lords, UK investment in sexual and reproductive health not only promotes health and well-being across the whole of life but also leads to improvements in education, gender equality, political stability, economic development and, indeed, environmental sustainability, so it is a very worthwhile investment. Sadly, SRHR and family planning programmes are extremely disproportionately impacted by the cuts to UK aid. Can my noble friend the Minister reassure me that we will retake our place as a global leader on this issue, that SRHR will be an explicit priority in the upcoming strategy and that funding will be returned to previous levels of around 4% to 5% of ODA as part of the Foreign Secretary’s commitment to restore funding to women and girls?
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
I thank the noble Baroness for her campaigning on this issue. Sexual and reproductive health and rights are central to achieving the UK Government’s manifesto commitment to end the preventable deaths of mothers, babies and children by 2030 and our ambitious commitments on girls’ education and Covid recovery. The Foreign Secretary has been clear that we will restore funding to women and girls. The UK plays a vital role in global partnerships and funds to support and strengthen the ability of countries to deliver life-saving maternal reproductive and child health services. We certainly regard ourselves as a world leader in this area and we will continue to be.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, global donor support for reproductive health fell in 2020 by $100 million to the 59 low and middle-income countries. That cut was driven by the UK cuts. The place on earth that is the most unsafe for mothers and babies is South Sudan, which I have asked the Minister about before, where one in 10 babies dies before the age of five, but the Government are discussing a new round of cuts for health support for women and babies in South Sudan. If the Government are proposing to restore funding, why are they proposing to cut further in South Sudan? Will the Minister please intervene to make sure that this does not happen?
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
My Lords, as I said, the Foreign Secretary has been clear that we are restoring funding to women and girls. I am not able to answer region-specific questions at the moment because that work is being done and until it has been completed and our spending review settlement translates into programmes on the ground, I am afraid I cannot go into the specifics.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My Lords, we know that the cuts this year have resulted in 9.5 million fewer women and couples receiving services. The noble Lord keeps repeating the assurances of the Foreign Secretary in terms of devoting resources to women and girls, but how much of that will be devoted to sexual and reproductive health? We want to know the answer.
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
My Lords, we will know the answer, but we will not know it until the IDS is published and the allocations are made and the programmes are chosen. As a principle, the Foreign Secretary has made clear that we are restoring funding and this House and the other House will be able to hold the Government to account against that promise.
Lord Deben (Con)
My noble friend has said that this is important in order to carry through the Conservative Party manifesto. In that manifesto we committed ourselves to 0.7% for overseas aid. We have cut that, contrary to both morality and our manifesto. When can we expect that to return and us to have the shame removed?
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
My Lords, I start by saying something I have said many times: no one welcomes the cut from 0.7% to 0.5%. Notwithstanding that cut, we will have spent more than £10 billion on ODA in 2021. We will return to 0.7% as soon as the fiscal situation allows. Based on 2020 OECD data, the UK will be the third largest ODA donor in the G7 as a percentage of GNI. We will spend a greater percentage of our GNI on ODA than the US, Japan, Canada or Italy, and forecasts fortunately suggest that government will be able to return to 0.7% on aid in the final year of this spending review.
Lord Winston (Lab)
My Lords, I wonder whether the Minister fully understands the impact of sexual and reproductive health in many parts of the world. There are large areas of the world where, if a woman is infertile, she does not have a roof over her head or a meal to eat; she has to abandon the family and is left completely without support. That is common and it is not just a matter of children and girls, but the education of a whole population and better infrastructure.
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
My Lords, we fully understand the importance of this area. That is why the Foreign Secretary has made the commitment that she has, and why it appeared in the manifesto. SRHR means that women and girls can have control over their bodies and if, whether and when to have children, giving them the choice to complete their education and take up better economic opportunities. In turn, the children will likely be healthier and better educated. It is central to the effective delivery of a country’s universal health coverage. Good quality maternal and newborn health services and survival outcomes are often used as a proxy for the strength of an entire health system, so we fully understand the importance of this area.
The Lord Speaker (Lord McFall of Alcluith)
My Lords, we have a virtual contribution from the noble Baroness, Lady Masham of Ilton.
Baroness Masham of Ilton (CB) [V]
My Lords, is the Minister aware that many countries have very inadequately staffed maternity services and pregnant women who have HIV can get stigmatised? Can the global fund help and make the situation better? Can the Minister ask it to do this?
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
The noble Baroness makes an important point. Every year nearly 300,000 women die from pregnancy-related causes, 2.5 million newborns die in their first month and 2 million babies are stillborn. Most of these deaths are avoidable with access to better health services to help mothers and newborns through pregnancy and delivery. The UK supports maternal and newborn health through global and country programmes, often integrated with wider work to strengthen health systems.
Baroness Armstrong of Hill Top (Lab)
My Lords, last week I met young people who had been working on programmes on reproductive and sexual health with the International Citizen Service and VSO. That programme was pulled by the Government, meaning that hundreds of young people, here and in the developing country working with them, have now lost that opportunity to work on those issues and make a real difference in local communities. Will the Government commit to refunding that programme and making sure that VSO is able to continue the very valuable work it has been doing in this area?
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
My Lords, funding levels for individual programmes across the FCDO will be confirmed after the departmental planning process taking place over the coming months has concluded. I am afraid that is the only answer I can give, but I will take the noble Baroness’s comments back to the FCDO, where I am absolutely certain they will be met with a nod of agreement.
Lord McDonald of Salford (CB)
My Lords, when I joined the Foreign Office in 1982, I learned that there were only two seasons in government: spring and autumn. The curious thing is that each can last for longer than six months. Once again, the Minister has said that the international development strategy will appear in the spring. Can he at least give us a month?
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
I will go out on a limb and say that the IDS will be published within what is normally regarded as spring. I am afraid that I cannot give the noble Lord a date.
Baroness Sheehan (LD)
My Lords, improving sexual and reproductive health and rights is among the most cost effective of all development investments and would give personal, social and economic benefits, as well as helping to stabilise population growth and reduce poverty. I ask the Minister the same question as the previous noble Lord: when will the international development strategy be published and the Minister’s promises fulfilled?
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
I refer the noble Baroness to my previous answer. I very strongly agree with her comments about the importance of family planning for a whole range of issues, including stabilising the populations of relevant countries.
Baroness Jenkin of Kennington (Con)
My Lords, how will the Government harness the expertise of international medical professionals within the SRHR programmes?
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
Most of our programmes across the FCDO are delivered through trusted partners on the ground. Where we do not have the expertise, we look for it. Health is one of the most obvious areas where that is important.
Ukraine: Visa Restrictions for Refugees
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they will remove all visa restrictions for refugees coming from Ukraine.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, I am sure that the thoughts and prayers of your Lordships’ House are with all those in Ukraine. This Government stand with Ukraine. However, a visa waiver is not the solution to the challenges faced by Ukrainians. Visas are an important security tool. In addition, there are now no direct travel routes from Ukraine to the UK. The safest route for people to leave Ukraine is via neighbouring countries to the west. We have made changes to the immigration system to support both British nationals and their families in Ukraine, and Ukrainians in the UK. My right honourable friend the Home Secretary has announced additional support measures today.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, that is a very disappointing response to the critical position which so many people face in Ukraine. Last week, the Prime Minister said that this country would do what it has always done and receive those who are in fear of persecution. So far, however, all that has been done is to allow immediate family members or fruit pickers to apply for visas. It has been a shameful response.
I believe that the Refugee Council spoke for the British people when it made a plea for the Government to immediately establish safe routes and to work with the EU and others. Will the Government take in those refugees without their having to apply for asylum?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
I think it might be helpful to refer to some of the things that my right honourable friend the Home Secretary announced earlier today. She said:
“Ukrainian nationals on an existing points-based system route … can extend their leave in the UK … Ukrainian nationals on an existing visitor visa can exceptionally switch into a points-based system immigration route without having to leave the UK … Ukrainian nationals on an existing visitor visa can apply under the family route for further leave without meeting the immigration status requirement, provided they meet the requirements for leave based on exceptional circumstances … Ukrainian nationals on an existing seasonal worker visa will have their leave in the UK extended to 31 December 2022.”
The noble Lord also referred to some of the measures which have been taken with regard to families. I apologise for the long answer, but I will also say that we have surged staff to visa application centres in neighbouring western countries.
Baroness Meyer (Con)
My Lords, how is it that our Government keep talking about unwavering support for Ukraine, and how it is possible that we pride ourselves on doing more than any other European country? We are doing less to accept those people who are in crisis. Will the Minister do something to help them?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
I thank my noble friend for that question. It is important to restate that this Government have done a hell of a lot to support Ukraine.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
Objectively, they have. I also think it is important to emphasise again that visas are an important security tool. There are, unfortunately, a small number of people who, due to their connection to Russian intelligence services, for example, may represent a threat to UK national security. Security checks related to the visa application process assist in addressing this threat. I of course accept that there is a humanitarian crisis, but the appropriate route is via the visa application centres in neighbouring countries.
Lord Scriven (LD)
My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, said at the Dispatch Box in an answer on the first Oral Question that it is about playing our part. Telling people fleeing Putin’s bombs to apply for a fruit-picker visa is not playing our part. What has stopped the UK Government acting with the same speed and compassion as the 27 EU countries in granting Ukrainians fleeing war asylum for three years without having to apply for a visa?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, I do not think it is fair to talk about fruit-picker visas. I would also point out that, as I have just said, there are no direct travel routes from Ukraine to the UK at the moment. The safest route for people to leave Ukraine is via neighbouring countries to the west. We have, as I say, searched after visa application centres. Dependents of British nationals resident in Ukraine who need a UK visa can apply through new temporary locations in Lviv or through a visa application centre in nearby countries, including Poland, Moldova, Romania and Hungary. We are setting up a new pop-up visa application centre in Rzeszow in Poland next week.
Lord Singh of Wimbledon (CB)
My Lords, the Bible says that we should be kind to strangers. Would the Minister agree that the policy of the Government in that respect is not in accord with Christian teachings?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
I agree that we should be kind to strangers, and I am afraid I do not agree that the Government’s policy is not in accord with Christian teachings.
Lord Porter of Spalding (Con)
My Lords, while my noble friend must surely agree that we may be a world-leader in supplying defensive armaments to the people of Ukraine, and no doubt a world-leader in supplying defence forces to train the defensive forces of Ukraine, he must also agree that we are now not a world-leader in looking after the people of Ukraine. We must allow those people to come here, without the bureaucracy that the visa system would add. These are genuine people, fleeing what is only to be described as terror in their own country. These are not economic migrants, spies or traitors. These are relatives of the people already living in this country, and we should make sure they can get here quickly and uninterrupted.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
I thank my noble friend for that question. I have to go back to what I said earlier, I am afraid. We believe that visas are an important security tool. However, there are safe and legal routes for people to apply for visas.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
My Lords, does the Minister remember that the reason we have a refugee convention in the first place is because we have been here before, with ships of Jewish refugees not being allowed to stop at any safe port? The Minister has said now at least twice that people should go west and claim in the first safe country. The Government repeatedly tell us that that is where they should claim asylum and that is where they should stay. How does that involve us doing our part?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
I understand the point about ships, but there are no direct travel routes from Ukraine to this country at the moment. The safest route for people to leave Ukraine is via neighbouring countries to the west.
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)
My Lords, might I suggest to the Minister that it is not very difficult to get from Poland or Slovakia to England? Why cannot the Government, if they insist on using visas, set up an entirely separate system wherever anybody is trying to get to this country, so that they can be fast-tracked and not go through the main system?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
I do not know how difficult it is at the moment to get from Poland to this country, but I take the noble and learned Baroness’s point. As I have already said, I am afraid the safest route is to apply is via the visa application centres.
The Lord Bishop of Durham
My Lords, I have every sympathy for the Minister trying to defend the indefensible. He has to do that; that is his job. However, what are we going to say to Poland and Moldova and all the other neighbouring countries about how we will take our share of those who will arrive in the first instance into their country but who they cannot support entirely on their own because they will need the support of other countries to the west, including ourselves?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
I thank the right reverend Prelate for his sympathy. I do not know, unfortunately, what conversations will be had with those neighbouring countries, but they must, by definition, be ongoing.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
My Lords, I think most people in this country will be baffled by the response of the Minister and upset by the fact that the Government have not got a grip of the refugee crisis that faces Europe. We have been proud of the way our Government have acted to support Ukraine, but hundreds of thousands of people are fleeing across the border and the Minister has simply turned round and said that there is no safe route for them to get here. It is not good enough. Families need a reunification programme, and we should set an example to the rest of Europe—the way we have done with the rest of the Ukraine crisis. It is not good enough. The Government need to get a grip and give us something to be proud of.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
I thank the noble Lord for that. On the family side, we are allowing Ukrainian family members, settled persons or British nationals to come to or remain in the UK where they would otherwise not meet the core requirements of the family rules. We will make applications under the family rules fee-free for this cohort. This will mean applicants will be exempt from the immigration health surcharges, as well as visa fees. There will be a pathway to settlement if they are unable to return to Ukraine when their leave expires, and department officials will be reaching out to the Ukrainian diaspora in the UK, seeking their support to house and support Ukrainian family arrivals. This is one of the most generous family reunion offers that we have ever made to any country in the world, demonstrating our firm commitment to the people of Ukraine.
Lord Paddick (LD)
My Lords, the Minister says that visas are an important security tool. Can he say whether, if I was a Ukrainian settled in the UK and I had elderly parents—say, in their 90s—in Ukraine right now, they would have to apply for a visa to come to the UK in the normal way? Yes or no.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
It is not a simple yes or no question, as the noble Lord knows. There are safe and legal routes, as I have tried to explain, via the visa application centres and via the family reunion rules that have been announced.
Lord Austin of Dudley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I have listened carefully to the Minister’s answers, but last night the Prime Minister joined a mass at a Ukrainian church in London and said that thousands of refugees would benefit from the suspension of normal visa rules in the light of the humanitarian crisis developing in Ukraine. How does that square with the answers the Minister has given this afternoon?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
I answered partially that question earlier, when I talked about the announcements that my right honourable friend the Home Secretary has made. I will not run through those again, but I think it does square with them. I appreciate the points the noble Lord was making.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)
My Lords, the First Minister of Wales has said that Wales should be a country of sanctuary. What discussions are the Government having with Wales to allow Welsh people who can vouch for somebody coming from Ukraine to come in, particularly when those families in Wales are prepared to provide financial support for travelling and so on?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
I am afraid I do not know what conversations are being had with the devolved Administrations, but I would imagine they are ongoing in the normal way.
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, will the Minister remind the House of the figures that were given to your Lordships during consideration of the Nationality and Borders Bill about the number of people who are currently in our system and whose asylum claims have not yet been settled, and how long it normally takes for a visa to be processed and expedited through our system?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
I am afraid I do not have those statistics to hand. I will have to write to the noble Lord.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I want to follow on from the question of the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, about Ukrainians who are settled here with elderly parents. I think there is a lack of clarity about this. There seems to be some provision if those parents need care, but of course a technical provision of needing care under some kind of medical provision is different from a confused older person who is extremely unsafe and just needs their family. Will people in that situation be allowed to come to the UK and stay in the UK? Will their families be able to go and pick them up from wherever they are in Europe and bring them here safely?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
I thank the noble Baroness for that question. I can only refer back to the answer I gave earlier on family concessions. My understanding is that those things will be dealt with under those rules.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean (Lab)
My Lords, the Minister will have noted the general dissatisfaction of the House with the answers he has given to all the questions. Some questions he did not know the answer to; to others, he has given very sparse answers. Will he undertake to report back to his colleagues and try to come back next week to give us more satisfactory responses, after the wide range of discomfort and dissatisfaction there has been with his answers today?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
I reassure the noble Baroness that I will most certainly be doing that.
Baroness Watkins of Tavistock (CB)
My Lords, can the Minister explain the Government’s stance on preparing accommodation for those whom we will eventually allow to come from Ukraine, after the rather unsatisfactory approach to accommodation for those who have come from Afghanistan?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
I cannot answer that at this stage. As I said, we will be reaching out to members of the Ukrainian diaspora to seek their help and support with this, but beyond that, I am afraid that I cannot go.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
Will my noble friend confirm that, under the provisions of the Nationality and Borders Bill before us this afternoon and later this week, the Government will not seek to arrest and prosecute Ukrainian refugees who may happen to arrive on boats from northern France?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
The noble Baroness asks me to stray into territory we will be visiting later, and I am afraid I cannot do that.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
One of the answers the Minister struggled with before was confirming that it is relatively easy to get from Poland to the United Kingdom at the moment. There are more than 670 flights a week from Poland to the UK; a simple check on Skyscanner can confirm that. Will he please confirm one thing: that Ukrainian people fleeing—even to join their family, as my noble friend said—will not be charged £95 and will not have to wait in a long process? Please can he confirm that there will be an expedited process and it will not cost a penny?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
The noble Lord has obviously had better access to Google in the past few minutes then I have, so I apologise for being unable to answer the earlier question on flights because I did not know the answer, but I have said that under the family reunion rules, that will be fee-free for this cohort.
Marriage and Civil Partnership (Minimum Age) Bill
Monday 28th February 2022
(2 years, 2 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Marriage and Civil Partnership (Minimum Age) Act 2022 View all Marriage and Civil Partnership (Minimum Age) Act 2022 Debates Read Hansard Text Amendment Paper: Consideration of Bill Amendments as at 25 February 2022 - (25 Feb 2022)
Pension Schemes (Conversion of Guaranteed Minimum Pensions) Bill
Monday 28th February 2022
(2 years, 2 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Pension Schemes (Conversion of Guaranteed Minimum Pensions) Act 2022 View all Pension Schemes (Conversion of Guaranteed Minimum Pensions) Act 2022 Debates Read Hansard Text
Tax Credits, Child Benefit and Guardian’s Allowance Up-rating Regulations 2022
Baroness Penn
That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 17 January be approved.
Considered in Grand Committee on 23 February.
Immigration and Nationality (Fees) (Amendment) Order 2022
(2 years, 2 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Williams of Trafford
That the draft Order laid before the House on 12 January be approved.
Considered in Grand Committee on 23 February.
Nationality and Borders Bill
Monday 28th February 2022
(2 years, 2 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Nationality and Borders Act 2022 View all Nationality and Borders Act 2022 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 82-R-I(Manuscript) Amendment for Report (Supplementary to the Marshalled List) - (28 Feb 2022)
16:10 - Division on Amendment 1 - Ayes: 237 / Noes: 154 - Amendment 1 agreed.
18:42 - Division on Amendment 20 - Ayes: 209 / Noes: 173 - Amendment 20 agreed.
19:15 - Division on Amendment 24 - Ayes: 218 / Noes: 140 - Amendment 24 agreed.
20:33 - Division on Amendment 28 - Ayes: 204 / Noes: 126 - Amendment 28 agreed.
“Provision for Chagos Islanders to acquire British nationality
(1) Part 2 of the British Nationality Act 1981 (British overseas territories citizenship) is amended as follows.(2) After section 17H (as inserted by section 7), insert—“17I Acquisition by registration: descendants of those born in British Indian Ocean Territory(1) A person is entitled to be registered as a British overseas territories citizen on an application made under this section if they are a direct descendant of a person (“P”) who was a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies by virtue of P’s birth in the British Indian Ocean Territory or, prior to 8 November 1965, in those islands designated as the British Indian Ocean Territory on that date.(2) An application under this section must be made before the date specified in subsection (3).(3) The specified date means—(a) in the case of a person aged 18 years or over on the date of coming into force of this section, five years after the date of coming into force of this section, or(b) in the case of a person under the age of 18 years on the date of coming into force of this section or born within 4 years of that date, before they reach the age of 23 years.(4) A person who is being registered as a British overseas territories citizen under this section is also entitled to be registered as a British citizen.(5) No charge or fee may be imposed for registration under this section.””Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would allow anyone who is descended from a person born before 1983 on the British Indian Ocean Territory to register as a British overseas territories citizen. They may also register as a British citizen at the same time. Both applications would be free of charge. The application must be submitted within 5 years, or in the case of a minor born before the date of coming into force or born within 4 years of that date, before they reach 23 years old.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
My Lords, in moving Amendment 1, I am grateful to my fellow signatories; to BIOT Citizens and Chagossian Voices for their assistance; to the APPG on the Chagos Islands, of which I am a member; and to all those noble Lords from across the House who supported a similar amendment in Committee. The breadth and strength of that support reflected the recognition that this amendment is about rectifying a long-standing injustice in citizenship law, just as earlier, welcome clauses in the Bill do.
The injustice that Amendment 1 addresses concerns the descendants of Chagossians, who were all evicted from their homeland by the British Government to make way for a US airbase back in the 1960s and early 1970s, and who remain exiled. Those descendants are now denied the right to register as citizens, which they would have had were they still resident in their homeland. The reason they are denied that right is because they are no longer so resident, but that is because they have been exiled from that homeland by the British Government.
The amendment would simply end the “appalling injustice”, as Conservative MP Henry Smith put it. To allay government concerns about the open-ended nature of his Commons amendment, which received considerable support, this one applies a five-year time limit for registration. The consequences of the injustice include broken families, divided communities, insecurity for those living here who are undocumented, hardship and the aggravation of the trauma associated with exile.
To give one example, provided to me by Chagossian Voices, S, born in Mauritius, is the son of a Chagossian who is British by descent and is now in exile in Crawley. S has lived in the UK since the age of eight. When he turned 18, his mother used her meagre savings from her job as a cleaner to apply for his British citizenship; this was rejected, but he was then granted a limited visa, which has now expired. She cannot afford to reapply and fears that her son could be deported at any time. “I am terrified of my family being split up”, she says. This cannot be right.
What this means to Chagossians has been made painfully clear to me in emails I received following Committee, and I think, too, to the Minister, who very kindly met some of us, including Rosie Lebeck of BIOT Citizens last week. In Committee, the Minister expressed her sympathy and empathy, and I believe that she genuinely understands what is at stake here, but that has not yet been translated into the actions needed to remedy this injustice. Instead, she pointed to how some second-generation Chagossians would benefit from the earlier clauses in the Bill, which address discrimination in nationality law. When questioned, neither she nor her officials could say how many that would be—I suspect not many.
The Minister has also spoken about how the Government are looking at what more can be done to help Chagossian families seeking to settle here, but we have been given no details of what that might mean and, in any case, that is to ignore once again the importance of citizenship—a theme running through many of our debates in Committee. She also talked about a willingness to consider how the £40 million fund set up to support Chagossians settled in the UK might be used, but that fund was announced more than five years ago and, to date, I understand that only £800,000 has been spent. Certainly, some of the fund could be used to defray any costs associated with this amendment, but it is no substitute for it.
We come to the nub of the matter. In Committee, the Minister reiterated the Government’s concern that the amendment would be contrary to long-standing government policy and warned that it goes further than the rights available to many other descendants of British nationals settled elsewhere around the world—but how many of those other descendants are settled elsewhere because they have been forcibly exiled by the British Government? None, I would suggest. As a junior Minister in the Commons acknowledged, the Chagossians’ case is unique, yet the Government appear terrified that to concede on this amendment would create a precedent, despite there being no other group in this situation. Why can they not follow the advice of the noble Baroness, Lady Falkner of Margravine? In Committee, the noble Baroness suggested that the Minister needs to make it clear in the response today—it may not be her response; it may be his response—that he or she
“does not intend this Act—a humanitarian Act—to set a precedent”.—[Official Report, 27/1/22; col. 494.]
In conclusion, no one knows for sure how many Chagossians would avail themselves of the right contained in this amendment, but the best estimate, based on a census carried out by BIOT Citizens, is no more than 1,000. That said, this is not a question of numbers but of finally putting right what everyone accepts is an injustice. I hope that we will take the opportunity provided by the Bill to end this injustice. If the Minister does not accept the proposed new clause or offer to come back with an alternative at Third Reading, I shall beg to test the opinion of the House. I beg to move.
Baroness Whitaker (Lab)
My Lords, as vice-chair of the All-Party Group on the Chagos Islands, I will add one brief point to the amendment so persuasively moved by my noble friend. If resettlement had taken place following the High Court ruling of November 2000 that the ordinance banning the Chagossians’ return was unlawful, it would have much reduced the need for an immigration route to the UK. Her Majesty’s Government should lift that ban immediately, in addition to accepting my noble friend’s amendment. The recent Mauritian expedition helpfully showed that there is no reason why the Chagossians should not return to their homeland. Some will probably want to do that rather than come to the UK, which would much diminish the apparent problem that the Government have.
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)
My Lords, I sat as a judge in one appeal on the Chagossians and learned about the disgraceful behaviour of successive Governments of all political views—not, I have to say, the Lib Dems because they were not in power, but certainly the Conservatives and Labour have each left the Chagossians to their fate. One appalling thing they did was take an agreement from them whereby they signed away their rights for some paltry sum, such as £1,500. It is time that at least some of these Chagossians got some rights. As the noble Baroness who moved the amendment pointed out, this situation is unique. Therefore, the Government really should be generous and understanding and do something to repair the appalling damage done in the past by this Government, as well as the previous Labour Government.
Baroness Ludford (LD)
My Lords, I recognise that the Bill removes discrimination against those, including some descendants of Chagossians, unable to claim previously through their mothers or unmarried fathers. But with this amendment we are talking about a limited number of people, in the hundreds—maybe 800 to 1,000—who, as descendants of Chagossians evicted from the islands, will still have no rights to British overseas citizenship and, in due course, British citizenship even with Part 1, even though they would have that right if they had not been evicted. In Committee, the Minister’s only answer was that
“offering this right is contrary to long-standing government policy.”—[Official Report, 27/1/22; col. 497.]
That position does not take into account the exceptional nature of what happened to the Chagossians. No other British Overseas Territories citizens suffered this fate. Chucking out colonial subjects in the modern age was also, I hope, contrary to good government policy. If an exception could be made for the Chagossians then, one can be made now.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, in Committee there seemed to be some representations from noble Lords who did not know about the plight of the Chagos Islanders; they were hearing about it for the first time. There is so much injustice in the world that it is very difficult to keep track of all the consequences of British and American imperialism, but it is one of the beauties of your Lordships’ House that any of us can table amendments that can be debated and discussed. I say a big thank you to the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, for debating this issue and for her powerful speeches on this cause. Having had the issue raised in Committee, and now again on Report, no one can claim ignorance of this real injustice. We have to take action. It is time for the United Kingdom to make reparations for forcing changes on the Chagos Islanders. This amendment is the beginning of that process and the Greens support it completely.
Baroness Altmann (Con)
My Lords, I commend the Government, in that this Bill seeks to remedy some long-standing injustices and discrimination in British nationality law. That is why I am so sad that there has been a refusal so far to accept this amendment. The Chagossians are the only category of British Overseas Territories citizens who were expelled and excluded from the British territory in which they lived by the British Government themselves in modern times. I commend the BIOT Citizens group, the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, and my honourable friend Henry Smith in the other place, who called this an “appalling injustice”. He is right.
As others have said, this is a unique case and it sets no precedent, but unfortunately the Government seem to be relying on the cause of the injustice to refuse to remedy that same injustice. I know my noble friend is sympathetic and has empathy with the situation that these good people find themselves in. In his response, could he explain why the Government are refusing, without simply saying that this sets a precedent? Clearly, it does not. There is no other group in this situation. If there is, could the Government enlighten us as to who that group might be? Knowing that this situation arose as a result of Britain wanting to support the United States in the Cold War, and, at this time, as we face global perils, today would be a timely opportunity to remedy this injustice. It is an enormous injustice in terms of the Chagossians’ lives, but tiny in the scope of this Bill. Action would show that we recognise our responsibilities to people we have wronged in the past.
This amendment is wholly reasonable. The noble Baroness, Lady Lister, has tried again and again to change the wording to include stricter time limits, accommodate the Government’s concern and reach some kind of compromise. So I hope my noble friend will be able either to accept it or commit to coming back with the Government’s own amendment at Third Reading. Otherwise, I shall, in good conscience, vote in favour of this important amendment.
Lord Ramsbotham (CB)
My Lords, I strongly support Amendment 1, to which I have added my name. I declare an interest as a vice-chairman of the Chagos Islands (British Indian Ocean Territory) All-Party Parliamentary Group. How do the Government have the neck to condemn others for far less, while at the same time standing condemned by both the International Criminal Court and the General Committee of the United Nations for refusing to allow the Chagos Islanders and their descendants citizen rights to return to their homeland, despite promises that they would be allowed to do so after 30 years? I remember, as long ago as 2013, reading out a letter from a Pentagon Minister to the then Foreign and Commonwealth Office Minister saying that the Pentagon had no objection to the return of the islanders to Diego Garcia, being used to having indigenous people living alongside island military bases in the Pacific.
Lord Horam (Con)
My Lords, I must correct the noble Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, in one regard: the Lib Dems could have done something about this when they were part of the coalition Government. I am not particularly pointing to the Lib Dems: we are all guilty of the shame of what has happened to the Chagos islanders. All three parties, I am afraid, have done nothing to deal with the dreadful situation the Chagos islanders find themselves in as a result of successive Governments of all parties. I hope that my noble friend the Minister—he is having a hard time today, now having to answer this question as well as previous ones, and I really do feel sorry for him—can offer us some hope in this matter today.
My noble friend Lady Williams explained when we discussed this issue previously that the problem is that what we are asking for runs counter to long-standing government policy. However, the truth is that we ourselves created this situation. Surely, long-standing policy should be flexible enough to deal with a problem which we ourselves created. There is no group of people other than the Chagossians in this situation, and that is why we have to be flexible. I know that the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, has looked again at this amendment and drawn it ever more tightly, so that fewer additional problems can arise. I commend her on that effort.
We know from events such as the Windrush scandal that issues such as this are a matter not just of law but of how individual cases are handled in Home Office administration. I do not criticise that administration because I know from my own experience as a Member of Parliament how difficult such cases can be to deal with, and I often sympathise with it regarding the decisions it has to make. However, I would like the Chagossian community to be given some particular form of access to government. Perhaps an officer should be allocated to deal with their problems on a regular basis, so that there is a point of contact in the Home Office whom they can go to as a matter of course. I found during my previous experience as a Member of Parliament that this can make a huge difference to those who often simply want to contact in an easy and friendly way people who understand their problems, having been long versed in them.
I hope that my noble friend the Minister can give us some succour on this administrative issue, as well as on the legal matters. This issue is not going to go away.
Baroness Verma (Con)
My Lords, I declare my interests as set out in the register. This would be absolutely the right thing to do at this time, in order to demonstrate UK leadership. When it comes to long-standing government policy, we are a democracy and we should evolve, and policies should evolve with it. These people deserve our support in being given the right to go back to their homes. If we are to have any standing in the world, let us show that leadership today.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern (Con)
My Lords, this is a unique situation. These islanders were forced out of their homes not because of any objection to them, but to facilitate the development of bases desirable, perhaps, rather than necessary, in war. They have done nothing wrong and would be entitled, were they still there, at this level, to the citizenship which the Act gave them. The only reason they are denied it is that they are not now living where they would be, had they been left at home. That cannot in any way be imputed to their blame or against them in desiring to get what they would have otherwise had.
I want to understand what this long-term government policy is. Is it that people who have been damaged by activities of that kind should not be recompensed, or is it some other policy? Unless and until this extended government policy is explained, it is hard to see what sort of policy worthy of the name could be applied to making a refusal in this situation. It is difficult for those of us who are old enough to carry responsibility for what the Government did, but more difficult still to carry responsibility for what the Government are now apparently refusing to do.
If there is anything wrong with the drafting of the amendment—I am not conscious of it, but it may be pointed out—I see no reason why the Government should not extend this until Third Reading and correct any mistake. As I say, I do not see anything wrong with it, but I am always subject to being corrected and therefore I leave that open for my noble friend the Minister to deal with.
The real essence of it is that these people were put out of their homes for reasons that had nothing to do with any deficiency, damage or ill-considered action on their part. Nobody has suggested that they did anything wrong, and I find it very difficult to see why they should not get the benefit of what they would have had if they had not been wronged.
Lord Cormack (Con)
My Lords, I rise very briefly to say a few words in tribute to one of the most remarkable parliamentarians I have ever known and one of the best friends I have had in my time in Westminster: the late, great Tam Dalyell. He was on to this before anybody. He campaigned publicly and in the House of Commons. If he is looking down on your Lordships’ House as we debate this afternoon, I think he will have a thrill of satisfaction having heard the speeches we have just heard, particularly that of my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay of Clashfern.
It is never too late to put right a wrong. It is never too late to offer justice to those to whom it has been denied. It is incumbent on any Government who value their own self-respect to put right this wrong. I had to hear my noble friend’s other answers from the Bar of the House. I sympathise with him; he has drawn not one but two short straws today, and he is a new Minister, but he will earn enormous credit from your Lordships’ House if he is able to get up and say, “Yes, this is an overwhelming moral argument. Yes, I accept the justice of it. Yes, I will take it away, talk to my ministerial colleagues and come back with something satisfactory”—although, in my view, this is satisfactory—“at Third Reading”. If he does that, I know the noble Baroness who moved the amendment will be satisfied; she is indicating that she will. If he cannot do that, I hope she divides the House and I will be with her.
The Lord Bishop of Durham
My Lords, I hold my hands up: I am one of those who, as the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, mentioned earlier, did not know much about this issue before we started this debate. However, I followed it and pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, for the way in which she has led this. It is quite clear that it is completely unjust and needs to be dealt with. I hope that the Minister has noted that, while in most debates, many of us around this House and the noble Lord, Lord Horam, will not agree, we agree on this one completely—100%. There is no justification for anything other than accepting this amendment.
Lord Paddick (LD)
My Lords, to assist the House to move swiftly on to votes, we on these Benches will try to restrict ourselves to one speaker who will speak for us all, unless we are provoked by subsequent contributions. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, that it is rather unfair to the Minister—particularly as he is a new Minister—to ask him to deviate from his script. However, we agree with my noble friend Lady Ludford and with all other noble Lords.
Lord Rosser (Lab)
My Lords, my noble friend Lady Lister of Burtersett has set out the background to and purpose of this amendment. As we know, currently only those born on the islands and the first generation born in exile have the right to British Overseas Territories citizenship and, therefore, to British citizenship. As a result, families have been broken up and communities divided. Some members have access to citizenship rights while others do not.
In the Commons, as has already been commented on, the Government accepted, on 4 November last year during the Committee stage of the Bill, that the Chagossians presented a unique case. By Report Stage in the following month, however, the Government seem to have decided that the Chagossians were no longer a unique case, because going down the road proposed,
“would undermine a long-standing principle of British nationality law … under which nationality or entitlement to nationality is not passed on to the second and subsequent generations born and settled outside the UK and its territories”.—[Official Report, Commons, 7/12/21; col. 258.]
The reason that the small number of Chagossians in question do not meet this condition is because they are descended from people who were evicted against their will from a British overseas territory. That is why they are unique, as the Government have already conceded. They did not leave of their own free will to settle elsewhere: they were kicked out—forcibly evicted. There would be no precedent set by agreeing to this amendment. In effect, the Government are using, in support of their case to deny these Chagossians the right to British citizenship, the cause of the very injustice which this amendment seeks to address. We support this amendment, and it would appear that we are far from the only ones in this House to do so.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate. I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, for meeting my noble friend Lady Williams last week and for the opportunity to hear further about the issues impacting the Chagossian community. As has been said previously, both in Committee and when my noble friend met the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, last week, and as noted by my noble friend Lady Altmann, the Government empathise and sympathise with the Chagossians about how they were treated in the 1960s and 1970s.
It is, however, important to clarify who this amendment seeks to assist. It is not those Chagossians who were of the generations born on the British Indian Ocean Territory, as they have always been British nationals and have been automatically considered both British Overseas Territories citizens and British citizens since 2002. Similarly, it is not their children, the first generation of Chagossians born outside of British territory, who are also both automatically British Overseas Territories citizens and British citizens. It is also not those in the first generation of Chagossians born outside of British territory, who, as the Chagossian community highlights, have missed out on rights to British nationality due to historical legislative unfairness, and this Bill already seeks to rectify that issue.
This amendment is limited to those in the second and successive generations of Chagossians born outside of British territory who, like all children of British nationals by descent, face a different route to British nationality. For this generation, if they wish to acquire British nationality, it is right that they must establish a close, continuing connection with either the UK or a British overseas territory by lawfully residing and settling there, although I recognise that since the 1970s, it has not been possible to establish such a link to the British Indian Ocean Territory. This must be in line with either the UK’s or an overseas territory’s Immigration Rules. This has also been the case with Hong Kong British Nationals Overseas, who do not have a right of abode in British territory and must complete a period of residence in the UK before acquiring the permanent residence status that is required in order to naturalise as a British citizen.
The points raised by the descendants of Chagossians, who are members of the second generation born outside British territory and who are now seeking to settle in the UK under the Immigration Rules, are often very complex. As the Minister for Safe and Legal Migration has stated in the House of Commons, the Home Office is keen to consider what more we could do to support those families seeking to settle here under the current system.
The Home Office is actively engaging with the Chagossian community to identify practical proposals that would support the second generation born outside British territory in navigating the system. In addition, the Home Office is discussing with the FCDO how the £40 million Chagos support fund, referenced by the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, could be used to deliver further support for Chagossians seeking to settle here under the Immigration Rules. Those discussions are current and ongoing, and I had some this morning.
As the Government have consistently stated, allowing entitlements to—
Baroness Altmann (Con)
I thank my noble friend for giving way. Can I ask him to confirm that, had the grandparents of these individuals not been expelled against their will from their islands, these people would now be entitled to the citizenship we are currently denying them?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
I think I have already answered that question. It is to do with the generations born outside British territory, so yes.
As the Government have consistently stated, allowing entitlements to citizenship to be passed on beyond the first generation born outside the British territory, bypassing requirements to reside and settle here by those who do not have a continuing connection with the UK, would unfortunately undermine a key principle in British nationality law that applies to all other descendants of British nationals born abroad.
I recognise that the noble Baroness’s amendment has sought to limit the right to register as a British national to current generations who must apply within a limited timeframe. However, this does not alleviate the Government’s concern that offering this right is contrary to long-standing government policy and goes much further than the rights available to many other descendants of British nationals settled elsewhere around the world today.
I finish by saying that I have listened very carefully to this debate, and I realise I am something of a lone voice.
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)
I apologise to the Minister, but could I ask him to deal with this unique position? There is, as far as we know, no other group of people who have been evicted as they have and have not been allowed to go back. They are in a special position, but the noble Lord is not even dealing with that point.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
I can only deal with it by extension, which is to say that it would be contrary to long-standing government policy to even deal with it.
I have listened very carefully to this debate. I have taken on board what the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham has said about broad agreement—of course I have, and I will take it back to the Home Office. I will also take my noble friend Lord Horam’s suggestion back to the Home Office about dedicated support within the department, which strikes me as a very sensible suggestion. I am afraid that I am going to earn no credit with my noble friend Lord Cormack, because I invite noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken. I think it is unusual to have more support from the Government Benches than from any other Benches—and very strong support it has been.
The two interventions really put their finger on how the poor Minister—I am afraid he is making a face—did not address the fact that this is a unique case, as the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, said. As the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, said, if their grandparents had not been forcibly evicted and kept in exile, these people would probably still be living on the Chagos Islands and be entitled to British citizenship. It is citizenship that they want. Certainly, the Chagossians who have been in touch with me are desperate to be seen as citizens; they do not want to come through some intricate way of dealing with the Immigration Rules—that is not what they are seeking.
I am sorry that the Minister has not addressed the key issues here. The noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, described successive Governments as demonstrating “disgraceful behaviour”. As the noble Lord, Lord Horam, said, we all, in terms of our political parties—not the Green Party, but all the others—have responsibility here. This is our opportunity to put this injustice right. I wish to seek the opinion of the House.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern (Con)
My Lords, the Minister has said that he would take it back. It may well be that if he takes it back—
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
The Minister said that he would take it back, but not with a view to bringing it back at Third Reading. Therefore, I must test the opinion of the House.
Lord Russell of Liverpool
“(1A) In section 1 (acquisition by birth or adoption), in subsection (5)—(a) in paragraph (a), for “minor” substitute “person”, and(b) after paragraph (b), for “that minor shall” substitute “that person or minor (as the case may be) shall”.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to bring British nationality law in line with adoption law in England and Wales. In those nations, an adoption order made by a court may be made where a child has reached the age of 18 but is not yet 19. Yet such an adoption order currently only confers British citizenship automatically where the person adopted is under 18 on the day the order is made.
Lord Russell of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, your Lordships will be delighted to know that I will be extremely brief in moving Amendment 2. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, who moved this amendment in Committee in my absence when I was laid low by some lurgy that has thankfully now gone. I declare that I am a governor of Coram, the children’s charity; this includes the Coram Children’s Legal Centre and CoramBAAF, which has been quite involved in briefing for this amendment. I am pleased to tell the House the good news that, amazingly, we have made some progress between Committee and Report.
The amendment highlights an anomaly in that British nationality law is not in alignment with adoption law in England, Wales and Scotland. A very small number of children have fallen foul of a Catch-22 situation whereby the automatic right to UK nationality has been denied them. This is because, while the adoption proceedings began before their 18th birthday, the adoption was not ratified until after. The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, Edward Timpson from the other place, the Immigration Law Practitioners Association, the two parts of Coram that I referred to earlier and I have been working with the Minister and her colleague in another place—Kevin Foster, the Minister with responsibility for this area—and we are pleased to be able to say that we seem to have found a way through this situation. This was outlined in a letter sent to Edward Timpson and me this morning. We look forward to the Minister replying in as much detail as possible when winding up.
The Government are proposing to deal with these cases through using Clause 7 in the Bill, putting in place detailed guidance—I quote from the letter—to
“help caseworkers assess applications fairly and consistently and to provide applicants with guidance when applications are likely to be granted.”
The letter continues:
“We are still in the process of developing guidance but, given that you would understandably want assurances on this, I will place a copy of this letter in the Library of the House confirming this intention.”
I am most grateful to the Minister and his Home Office colleagues for their co-operation and at least their willingness to listen. However, I have some questions arising from the letter, to which I would be grateful for answers, either at the Dispatch Box or, if that is not possible, in writing as soon as possible hereafter.
First, in Clause 7, would adopted children—the examples in subsection (2) do not include adoption—come under
“(a) historical legislative unfairness” or
(b) an act or omission of a public authority, or
(c) exceptional circumstances”?
Would the Government consider putting adopted children over 18 in primary legislation as an exceptional circumstance? This would be more secure than guidance, which could be changed without parliamentary scrutiny.
The letter mentions any delays that were beyond the parent/child’s control. If this means delay of the adoption, it seems to suggest that there is an obligation to adopt before the 18th birthday. This is not in line with current adoption law. The letter says that new guidance will be
“subject to there not being any adverse factors”.
While I understand that this is meant to cover situations where, for example, the individual might have a history of offending, what about a real-life example where the child being adopted has no immigration status? This is in no way, shape or form the child’s fault. Would this be held against them as an adverse factor? Surely not, so clarification on that would be appreciated.
I expect that I am primarily going to leave this debate open to those noble Lords discussing Amendment 21. I hope that the Minister will be able to give as full and comprehensive an answer as possible when he winds up. We shall listen to, and subsequently read, what he says with great care. I beg to move.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
My Lords, I do not want to take the time of the House other than to say, with thanks for the letter, that I hope the Minister will accept that discretionary registration is qualitatively different from automatic citizenship, which is what we have been seeking, and understand my concern that the letter uses terms such as addressing
“exceptional cases in a flexible and proportionate way”.
This is vaguer than one would wish to see and a situation which I am sure is nobody’s fault but one of those unintended consequences of legislation not aligning.
Lord Paddick (LD)
My Lords, I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool, has reached agreement with the Government. I wish I could say the same.
I will speak to Amendment 21 to Clause 10, which requires the Secretary of State to be satisfied that a child aged between five and 17 cannot reasonably acquire another nationality in order to be registered under the stateless child provisions. The Government allege that parents were deliberately not registering the birth of their children and acquiring citizenship of the parents’ home country to wrongly claim British citizenship, by falsely claiming their children were stateless. We believe this clause should be taken out of the Bill.
In Committee the Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, provided, at column 548, figures of five cases of this route being used in 2010, which peaked at 1,775 cases in 2018. The Minister concluded “I rest my case”, but this raised further questions: for example, were those 1,775 cases in 2018 the number of stateless children born in the UK who were granted British citizenship in total, legitimately or otherwise, or the number where parents had deliberately chosen not to register their child’s birth to take advantage of the system? The Minister assumed it was the latter but said that she would write, and she did so on Friday.
In Committee, I specifically asked the noble Baroness whether the 1,700 odd cases in 2017 that she referred to were the total number of stateless children granted UK citizenship, or the number of cases of deliberate abuse of the system that Clause 10 purports to tackle. The Minister replied:
“I assume … the latter, but I will write to the noble Lord with the details of the figures I have here”.—[Official Report, 27/1/22; col. 550.]
However, when the Minister wrote, the figures in the letter do not equate to those she gave from the Dispatch Box. Neither is there an answer to the question: of those cases, how many were a deliberate—or even a suspected—case of abuse of the system?
The letter goes on to talk about the sampling of over 200 stateless child applications received between 2015-2021, which on my calculations is about 1% of the applications received. It goes on to say that, in 96% of the sample, the parents were Indian or Sri Lankan and then:
“90% of Indian and Sri Lankan parents had been able to take steps to contact the High Commission to obtain a letter to show their child was in fact not a citizen of that country”
and, in brackets:
“(We do not have data on how many actually attempted to register the birth)”.
In summary, we have numbers in the letter that appear to be at odds with what the Minister said at the Dispatch Box, we have a sample of only 1% of all applications and we do not know how that sample was selected. In the sample, in 90% of cases the relevant high commission confirmed the child was stateless and the Government have no data to show whether parents attempted to register the birth at the time. Despite this, the letter concludes:
“This demonstrates a clear and conscious decision by the parents not to acquire a nationality for their child for at least 5 years”.
That conclusion cannot possibly, in good faith, be drawn from the facts, whichever sets of facts presented by the Government that the House chooses to believe—either the facts the Minister gave from the Dispatch Box or the alternative facts contained in the all-Peers letter.
If the Government cannot now determine how many cases are genuine and how many are the result of attempting to inappropriately acquire British citizenship, on what basis will the Secretary of State exercise her powers under Clause 10 to decide whether the child in question is able to acquire another nationality? Specifically, if, as in 90% of cases in the sample, the relevant high commission confirms the child is stateless, on what basis will the Home Secretary decide not to believe the high commission, decide that the child could acquire the relevant nationality and deny the child British citizenship? What happens to the child denied nationality by the relevant high commission and by the Secretary of State?
If, as the Government suggest, this route is being used inappropriately by parents to acquire British citizenship for themselves, the Government should bring forward legislation to prevent parents acquiring British citizenship through their children by this route, rather than making innocent children, born in the UK, stateless. I was hoping the Minister would write in good time, with a clear and unambiguous answer to the questions I put to her in Committee on 27 January. She did not and she has not.
I am reluctantly left with two options: either the Minister addresses the apparent discrepancies and presents the House with a clear case for Clause 10 now or he agrees to take this away and address our concerns at Third Reading—otherwise I will be forced to conclude that the case is not made for Clause 10 and will divide the House. We cannot leave UK-born children stateless at the whim of the Home Secretary. Clause 10 should be taken out of the Bill.
Lord Rosser (Lab)
My Lords, I will not say anything on the amendment addressed by the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool, in view of what he has indicated about the progress that has been made between Committee and Report, although of course we will listen very closely to what the Minister has to say and indeed read what is in the Minister’s letter, which I think is what the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool, referred to.
As has been said, Clause 10 is intended to disentitle stateless children in the UK from their statutory right to British citizenship. Under our international obligations we have safeguards that mean that a child who was born in the UK and has always been stateless can acquire British citizenship after five years of residing here. Through Clause 10 the Government propose to restrict and amend that obligation. Clause 10 requires the Secretary of State to be satisfied a child was unable to acquire another nationality before being permitted to register as a British citizen. That, of course, creates an additional—and one would probably feel unjustified—hurdle to stateless children’s registration as British citizens which could be difficult for a child or those acting on their behalf to prove.
There is also the issue that the uncertainty created by Clause 10 could be highly damaging to a child’s personal development and their feelings of security and belonging, due to this exclusion and potential alienation being inflicted in their formative years. Indeed, the question was asked in Committee: how can this be in the best interests of the child?
The noble Lord, Lord Paddick, made reference to the figures which were given by the Government in their response. He also referred to the question which was asked as to whether the figure of 1,175 was the number of stateless children born in the UK who were granted British citizenship, or whether it was the number of cases where parents deliberately chose not to register their child’s birth in order to take advantage of the system. The noble Lord, Lord Paddick, referred to the letter that was received on behalf of the Government, and to the apparent discrepancies between what was said in Committee and the figures which appear in the letter.
I wait with interest to hear the response of the Government, because we, too, asked the question about what the case for Clause 10 was. I think I am right in saying—I recall it being said—that the Government felt that the figures that they gave at Committee were a fairly conclusive argument in favour of abuse of the system, and therefore that this was the case for Clause 10. On the basis of the letter which has been received, and the comments which have been made by the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, there is some doubt as to whether the case has been made.
The noble Lord has asked a number of questions and asked for a number of assurances. The answers he receives will clearly influence the decision he then makes in respect of Clause 10 standing part, and will influence what we, as the Official Opposition, do if the matter is put to a vote.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
I thank noble Lords who have taken part in this debate.
I turn first to Amendment 2. As has been acknowledged, there are differences in adoption law in various parts of the UK. This is why we do not think that amending Section 1(5) of the British Nationality Act 1981 would be the answer. The Adoption and Children Act 2002 applies only to England and Wales, whereas the territorial reach of the British Nationality Act 1981 includes the whole of the UK. This means that this amendment could have different results in a person’s ability to acquire citizenship, according to where they were adopted. For example, Scotland permits adoptions for those over 18, but differs from England and Wales as there is no upper age limit. Northern Ireland does not currently permit adoptions to happen after the age of 18. Therefore, the effect of this amendment would be to create differences across the UK in who can acquire British citizenship. This should not and could not be right.
Within nationality legislation, automatic acquisition of citizenship is generally reserved for minors. Granting automatic citizenship to adults could result in unintended consequences, possibly affecting another nationality which they hold. Where other countries do not allow their nationals to hold dual nationality, there are often exemptions for children which do not apply for adults. We normally offer adults a registration route so that the person can make a conscious choice about becoming British and take into account any potential implications of doing so.
While we do not want to amend Section 1(5) as proposed, we could use Clause 7 of the Nationality and Borders Bill in these cases. Clause 7 creates a route to British citizenship for those who missed out on acquiring it because of historical legislative unfairness, an act or omission of a public body, or exemptional circumstances relating to that individual. The noble Lord, Lord Russell, has noted this, and I will come to his specific questions in a moment. Registration would allow a person to acquire citizenship without causing unintended consequences as a result of the different legislation in devolved regimes and the overarching nationality law framework.
We will set out in guidance how we intend to use the adult discretionary registration provision created by Clause 7. The discretion must be considered on a case-by-case basis, but we can give examples of where it would normally be used. We think it would normally be reasonable to grant citizenship to an applicant where, for example, an application for adoption is made before a child’s 18th birthday but the adoption order is made afterwards for reasons beyond the control of the parent or child, or where the adoptive parent is a British citizen and the child would have become a British citizen under Section 1(5) of the British Nationality Act 1981, if they had been 18 at the time when the adoption order is made.
Lord Russell of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his response. I will not deal directly with Amendment 21, whose time will come in due course, but will respond on Amendment 2.
I understand that, given the current Government’s slightly prickly relationship with the Government north of Hadrian’s Wall, issues to do with the extent of UK legislative authority, when it comes to possibly clashing with Edinburgh’s idea of what its own jurisdiction should be, are a tricky area. I understand why they do not wish to tread there too much. It is a pity, though, because we are talking about the interests of a small group of children rather than the niceties of bouts between the devolved Administrations and Westminster. I take the point.
I thank the Minister for confirming that Clause 7 will be used and guidance produced. In addition, I understand that Edward Timpson found out that apparently—it was a surprise as much to the Home Office as to anybody else—in its office in Liverpool there is a specialist adoption unit whose remit is to look specifically at adoption issues. Kevin Foster said that the unit will be involved under this guidance and that any of the types of cases we are talking about that are flagged up will be brought to the attention of this adoption unit, which I hope will have enough expertise, experience and specialism to be able to really understand the situation and to avoid any mistakes of the kind we have evidenced in the past happening in future. When the guidance is forthcoming, I would be grateful if that could be made clear.
I am also grateful for the confirmation that a child’s immigration status would not be considered an adverse factor when it comes to considering their case. I thank Edward Timpson very much for all the work he has done and the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, among others, for their support.
I do not know how quickly the draft guidance will be available—does the Minister think it might be available before Third Reading? Clearly, it would be very helpful if it were, and rather unhelpful if not, so could the Minister come back to me as quickly as possible with confirmation on when it will be ready? Will he and the noble Baroness commit to a meeting with those of us most directly concerned, including Edward Timpson, to review this and perhaps help guide the draft guidance in the right direction? That would be much appreciated. If we are unable to resolve this situation satisfactorily before Third Reading, we shall be back, but in the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
“(1A) Schedule 1 also amends the British Nationality Act 1981 to allow the Secretary of State to treat a person who has indefinite leave to enter or remain as meeting certain residence requirements in relation to an application for citizenship under those sections.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the amendments to Schedule 1 in the name of Baroness Williams of Trafford.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)
My Lords, I will aim to speak to all 11 amendments in my name, given that they touch on the same issue of requirements for citizenship applications. In doing so, I particularly thank the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, both for raising this issue in previous debates and her willingness to meet me, along with the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, to explain more fully her concerns. The noble Baroness has retabled her previous amendment on this subject, and I will set out how measures that we are proposing will, I hope, address her concerns.
As noble Lords will know, the British Nationality Act 1981 set out the requirements for persons wishing to become British citizens based on a period of residence in the UK, be that through naturalisation under Section 6(1) or Section 6(2), or registration under Section 4(2). All three of those application routes have a number of residential requirements designed to demonstrate sufficient ties to this country. One is commonly referred to as “lawful residence”—essentially requiring that the applicant was not in breach of the immigration laws during the requisite residential period prior to the application.
For the majority of applicants this requirement causes no issues. However, as highlighted previously by the noble Baroness, it can lead to frustration for some people. While not restricted solely to those who hold indefinite leave to remain—also known as settled status—under the EU settlement scheme, this group serves well to highlight the problem. In particular, those individuals who had previously been resident here as students or self-sufficient persons were required to hold comprehensive sickness insurance under the EEA regulations. That they had not done so did not preclude their being granted indefinite leave to remain under the EU settlement scheme.
Many of that group understandably wish to progress to become British citizens. However, because they did not hold comprehensive sickness insurance, they technically were in breach of the immigration laws during their previous residence and fall to be refused in any application to become a British citizen. While the British Nationality Act allows for discretion around the lawful residence assessment, this can be applied only in the special circumstances of a particular case. Inevitably, that creates uncertainty for the applicant and may necessitate additional evidence to be supplied to justify the use of discretion.
The main thrust of these amendments is to resolve that impasse. Although not removing the lawful residence requirement itself, we aim to provide the Secretary of State with a much broader power to not even inquire into lawful residence for those who hold indefinite leave to remain. This is based on the simple fact that, for the vast majority of such individuals, any concerns about their immigration history will have been considered and addressed prior to any grant of indefinite leave. In other words, the immigration system, and reforms made since 1981, already demonstrate fulfilment of that requirement.
The amendments do not create an obligation to follow such an approach, but it is expected that it will be in only an exceptional case that we would not want to do so. An example of that might be where adverse information comes to light after indefinite leave has been granted and serves to cast doubt on the wisdom of that decision, but I stress that that would be an exception. The vast majority of people, to whom this does not apply—certainly those whom the noble Baroness has championed so ably—will be able to benefit from these changes.
Baroness Ludford (LD)
My Lords, I very much thank the Minister, who has taken a very welcome personal interest in this matter, which is very encouraging. The government amendments are interesting and represent some progress, but they are unspecific for EEA citizens, and there is still that discretion, not certainty, that the Secretary of State “may” but not “must” do this.
As I said in Committee, I was grateful for the concession, announced by the Minister and which she has just talked about, to the effect that the Government would
“amend the Immigration Rules … to disapply any requirement for a Lounes dual national”—
this area is littered with technical terminology—
“to have held CSI in order to sponsor applications by relevant family members”
for settlement. I would be very grateful, as we asked in Committee, to know whether there is any further knowledge of what progress there is on that change to the Immigration Rules.
So far, so good—but on the other two arms of my amendment, on registration of children as British citizens and naturalisation as British for an EEA settled person, both without looking at past CSI history, as my amendment asked for, the Minister said in Committee that
“it would not be right to single out EEA nationals”,
and she has repeated that. We are slightly in the same territory as we were on the Chagos amendments, whereby the Government say that they cannot do something specifically for this group. The Minister also said in Committee that
“it would not be right to treat certain nationalities differently”—[Official Report, 1/2/22; col. 794-95]
and she is maintaining this approach.
However, EEA nationals are being treated differently. They have resided previously in this country, often for a long time; a large chunk of an international treaty, the withdrawal agreement, is devoted to them and to their counterparts, British citizens in the EU, and legislation specifically covering them; and there are various arrangements for monitoring and supervising how they are treated. So they are a special case. I would just mention that some children who should have been born British were not, and now have to be registered at a cost of more than £1,000 because of the specifics of the situation of EEA nationals.
After the meeting of the UK-EU joint committee last week—the committee on the withdrawal agreement—Vice-President Šefčovič recalled that
“it was a commitment from both of us that we will do our utmost for the UK nationals in the EU and the EU citizens staying in the UK.”
An EU official was reported as saying that the Commission would consider whether to launch consultations on citizens’ rights, and could ultimately trigger an arbitration process. I am not saying that those remarks were targeted at this specific problem, but that reminds us that there is an oversight mechanism for the fate of EEA citizens.
The CSI issue affects only EEA citizens, nobody else, so removing it entirely from being a virus—I called it “snakes and ladders”—in our immigration regime, would simply bring EEA citizens into line with all other migrants, who do not have a CSI problem. When Prime Minister, Theresa May said:
“The requirement for comprehensive sickness insurance is an EU requirement, and as long as we are members of the EU, it will continue to be there. Once we leave, we can indeed remove it”.—[Official Report, Commons, 26/6/2017; col. 315.]
It is true that the Government removed it for applicants for settled status but, as I hope I have explained through the passage of this Bill, the problem is that it pops up later. You do not get rid of it; that is why I call it a virus. You do not get rid of it—it sort of comes back.
What is not to like about removing red tape? I suggest that while the new government amendments represent some progress—again, I thank the Minister—they still rest on discretion and do not treat EEA citizens on the fair, legally secure basis that I believe they deserve under the withdrawal agreement. I hope that the Government can do more and ward off any possible action from the European Commission and enforce a slightly more secure basis.
If I cannot get what I really want—acceptance of my amendment—I ask the Minister to confirm at least that, when implemented, the guidance will be updated to always state that the Secretary of State will always exercise her discretion in favour of applicants by not inquiring as to whether they had CSI and by treating self-sufficient persons, students and their family members as not having breached immigration laws. That should be in guidance as a firm commitment. Otherwise, I would like to hear the Minister further.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
My Lords, we support much of what the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, has just said and some of the questions she has put forward. No doubt, the Minister will respond to those questions. It has to be said that the Minister has come forward with some amendments that do improve the situation.
Can I just emphasise the important points the Minister made and clarify, in the light of the questions from the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, that she said it would apply to all residents, not just EU residents? That is an important point that the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, made, and the House needs further clarification on what “all”—not to be pedantic—actually means in these circumstances for clarity of legislation.
Having welcomed the step forward the Minister has clearly made, I think that what “exceptional” means is also important—so that the Secretary of State will not use the power to prevent somebody without CSI gaining citizenship other than in exceptional circumstances. The noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, again, is right to ask for greater clarity about how “exceptional circumstances” will be defined and whether there will actually be guidance that any future Home Secretary will have to take into account in determining whether leave to remain should be changed to a full citizenship status in the particular circumstances with which this group of amendments is dealing.
I thank the Minister for coming forward with those amendments and trying to meet many of the concerns that were raised in Committee and before. I look forward, with the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, I am sure, to the answers to the important questions that have been raised, notwithstanding the amendments before us this afternoon.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
I thank both noble Lords for the points they have just made. I did refer to guidance in the points I was making in introducing. Yes, the guidance will make things clear.
In terms of “all”, “all” means all nationalities; the provisions will apply to all nationalities. I know the noble Baroness says this is a particular EU problem, but we are trying to make provisions that apply to all countries.
In terms of that point about “may” and “must”, “may” rather than “must” reserves the “may” for the most exceptional cases where it would not be appropriate to take that more generous approach. The provisions will be applicable to the vast majority of applicants, apart from those “may” applicants where a generous approach would not be appropriate—for example, criminality. I hope that explains it to the noble Baroness.
Baroness Ludford (LD)
I do thank the Minister for that reply. I am not absolutely certain. It may just be that I did not follow the detail, but I am not sure I quite heard that the guidance, apart from in the exceptional case of criminality, will say that the Secretary of State will always exercise her discretion in favour of EEA applicants by not inquiring about the CSI record of the people that it affected.
I have some understanding for what she said about people with a criminal record but, that apart, I should like to hear—perhaps I will not get this today—that the guidance will say that, in normal cases, for EEA nationals, there will always be a good outcome in disregarding a CSI gap. I am not sure that I have quite heard that. I do not know whether the Minister wants to clarify that now, or whether I should just accept—
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
I cannot make an absolutist comment, but I was trying to explain to the noble Baroness that anyone in the normal run of things—other than, for example, serious criminality—would be caught by the government amendments.
Baroness Ludford (LD)
I thank the Minister for that further clarification. I think I have got as far as I am going to get—
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Finlay of Llandaff) (CB)
My Lords, I think I should put the Question.
“(b) in section 41(4), for “that section” substitute “section 41 of the British Nationality Act 1981 (regulations)”.”Member’s explanatory statement
This is a minor clarificatory amendment which is consequential on the amendments to the 2009 Act made by Clause 8(2).
“(1) Section 4 (acquisition by registration: British overseas territories citizens etc) is amended as follows. (2) ”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the amendment in the name of Baroness Williams of Trafford at page 86, line 16.
“(3) After subsection (4) insert—“(4A) Subsection (4B) applies where, on an application for registration as a British citizen made by a person to whom this section applies, the applicant has indefinite leave to enter or remain in the United Kingdom.(4B) The Secretary of State may for the purposes of subsection (2) treat the applicant as fulfilling the requirement specified in subsection (2)(d), without enquiring into whether or not the applicant was in the United Kingdom in breach of the immigration laws in the period there mentioned.(4C) The reference in subsection (4A) to having indefinite leave to enter or remain is to be construed in accordance with the Immigration Act 1971.””Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would provide that, for applications for citizenship under section 4 of BNA 1981 where the applicant has indefinite leave, the Secretary of State may without further enquiry treat the applicant as fulfilling the requirement not to have been in the United Kingdom in breach of the immigration laws.
“(ba) after that sub-paragraph insert—“(1A) Sub-paragraph (1B) applies where the applicant has indefinite leave to enter or remain in the United Kingdom.(1B) The Secretary of State may for the purposes of paragraph 1 treat the applicant as fulfilling the requirement specified in paragraph 1(2)(d), without enquiring into whether or not the applicant was in the United Kingdom in breach of the immigration laws in the period there mentioned.(1C) The reference in sub-paragraph (1A) to having indefinite leave to enter or remain is to be construed in accordance with the Immigration Act 1971.”;”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would provide that, for applications for citizenship under section 6 of BNA 1981 where the applicant has indefinite leave, the Secretary of State may without further enquiry treat the applicant as fulfilling the requirement not to have been in the United Kingdom in breach of the immigration laws.
“(2A) In paragraph 4, in paragraph (a)—(a) for “the reference” substitute “the references”;(b) for “a reference” substitute “references”.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the amendment in the name of Baroness Williams of Trafford at page 86, line 27.
“(za) the existing text becomes sub-paragraph (1);”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the amendment in the name of Baroness Williams of Trafford at page 86, line 38.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the amendment in the name of Baroness Williams of Trafford at page 86, line 38.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the amendment in the name of Baroness Williams of Trafford at page 86, line 38.
“(c) after that sub-paragraph insert—“(2) Sub-paragraph (3) applies where the applicant has indefinite leave to enter or remain in the relevant territory.(3) The Secretary of State may for the purposes of paragraph 5 treat the applicant as fulfilling the requirement specified in paragraph 5(2)(d), without enquiring into whether or not the applicant was in the relevant territory in breach of the immigration laws in the period there mentioned.(4) The reference in sub-paragraph (2) to having indefinite leave to enter or remain is to be construed as a reference to any status formally granted under the immigration laws in force in the relevant territory which is broadly equivalent to the status of having indefinite leave to enter or remain under the Immigration Act 1971.””Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would provide that, for applications for citizenship under section 18 of BNA 1981 where the applicant has indefinite leave to enter or remain in the relevant territory, the Secretary of State may without further enquiry treat the applicant as fulfilling the requirement not to have been in the relevant territory in breach of the immigration laws.
“(4) In paragraph 8, in paragraph (a)—(a) for “the reference” substitute “the references”;(b) for “a reference” substitute “references”.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the other amendment in the name of Baroness Williams of Trafford at page 86, line 38.
Lord Anderson of Ipswich
“SCHEDULE 1A DEPRIVATION OF CITIZENSHIP WITHOUT NOTICE: JUDICIAL OVERSIGHTThis is the Schedule to be inserted after Schedule 4 to the British Nationality Act 1981—“SCHEDULE 4A Section 40(5E)DEPRIVATION OF CITIZENSHIP WITHOUT NOTICE: JUDICIAL OVERSIGHTDeprivation without notice: application to Special Immigration Appeals Commission1_(1) If the Secretary of State proposes to make a conducive grounds deprivation order without notice, the Secretary of State may apply to the Special Immigration Appeals Commission under this paragraph.(2) If the Secretary of State makes a conducive grounds deprivation order without notice, the Secretary of State must apply to the Special Immigration Appeals Commission under this paragraph within the period of seven days beginning with the day on which the order is made (unless an application has already been made under sub-paragraph (1)).(3) The function of the Commission on an application under this paragraph is to determine whether, in respect of each condition in section 40(5A) on which the Secretary of State relies, the Secretary of State’s view is obviously flawed. (4) In determining that question, the Commission must apply the principles that would be applicable on an application for judicial review.(5) If the Commission determines that the Secretary of State’s view is obviously flawed in respect of each condition in section 40(5A) on which the Secretary of State relies—(a) if the order in question has not been made, section 40(5) applies in relation to the order (notwithstanding section 40(5A));(b) if the order has been made, the Secretary of State must, within the period of 14 days beginning with the day on which the Commission made the determination—(i) give late notice in respect of the order,(ii) revoke the order, or(iii) make an application under sub-paragraph (6).(6) The Secretary of State may (at any time) make an application to the Special Immigration Appeals Commission for fresh consideration of a decision the Secretary of State has made under section 40(5A) where—(a) in the opinion of the Secretary of State, circumstances have changed materially since the determination mentioned in sub-paragraph (5), or(b) the Secretary of State wishes to provide further evidence to the Commission.Sub-paragraphs (3) to (5) apply to an application under this sub-paragraph.Deprivation of citizenship without notice: review2_(1) Sub-paragraphs (2) to (5) apply if—(a) the Secretary of State makes a conducive grounds deprivation order without notice, and(b) the Special Immigration Appeals Commission has not made the determination mentioned in paragraph 1(5) (Secretary of State’s decision obviously flawed).(2) The Secretary of State must, at least once in every review period, review the circumstances of the person in respect of whom the order was made (so far as known) and decide whether to give late notice in respect of the order.(3) On such a review, the Secretary of State must decide to give late notice to the person unless it appears to the Secretary of State that any of the conditions in section 40(5A) is met (reading any reference in those provisions to notice under section 40(5) as a reference to late notice).(4) If the Secretary of State decides at any point to give late notice in respect of the order—(a) the Secretary of State must give the notice as soon as reasonably practicable, and(b) once the notice is given, sub-paragraph (2) ceases to apply in relation to the person.(5) If on the expiry of the final review period the Secretary of State has not given, or has not decided to give, late notice in respect of the order, the Secretary of State must make an application to the Special Immigration Appeals Commission within the period of seven days beginning with the day after the final day of that review period.(6) Sub-paragraphs (3) to (6) of paragraph 1 (except sub-paragraph (5)(a)) apply for the purposes of an application under sub-paragraph (5) as they apply for the purposes of an application under that paragraph.(7) For the purposes of this paragraph, each of the following is a “review period”— (a) the period of four months beginning with the day after the day on which the Special Immigration Appeals Commission first determined an application in relation to the order under paragraph 1, and(b) each of the next five successive periods of four months.Interpretation3_(1) In this Schedule, references to making a conducive grounds deprivation order without notice are to making an order under section 40(2) without giving notice under subsection (5) of that section (in reliance on subsection (5A) of that section).(2) In this Schedule, “late notice”, in respect of an order under section 40(5), means written notice to the person in respect of whom the order was made specifying—(a) that the Secretary of State has made the order,(b) the reasons for the order, and(c) the person’s right of appeal under section 40A(1) or under section 2B of the Special Immigration Appeals Commission Act 1997.””Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment inserts a new Schedule into the British Nationality Act 1981, to make provision for judicial oversight of decisions to deprive a person of their citizenship status without notice on grounds that the deprivation is conducive to the public good.
Lord Anderson of Ipswich (CB)
My Lords, the circumstances in which British citizenship may be removed were keenly debated in Committee. This group concerns a narrower issue: whether it should be possible to remove someone’s citizenship without giving them notice of it at the time and, if so, in what circumstances. Clause 9 struck me as so problematic that, in Committee, I tabled a stand part notice; that is echoed today by Amendment 20 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady D’Souza. In Committee, I asked the Minister to take Clause 9 away and challenged her, if she could make the case for such an extraordinary power, to come back with a version of it that is far more limited in scope and subject to proper safeguards and accountability.
The Minister responded to that challenge as positively and wholeheartedly as I could have hoped. I pay tribute to her, to her fellow Minister, Tom Pursglove, to the Bill team and to those at the Home Office and in agencies with whom I have discussed these issues—and I pay no less tribute to the NGOs and individuals who have impressed on me the dangers of Clause 9. The result, after what I think I can fairly describe as very considerable movement on the part of the Government, is the first six amendments in this group, together with Amendment 85, which concerns commencement. They have been pulled into proper shape by the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel, and I hoped that they could be tabled last Monday as government amendments, with my support, but an extra day was needed to conclude our discussions, so they appear under my name. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald of River Glaven, and the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, for adding their support.
These amendments achieve four important things. The first is a far more restricted range of circumstances in which notice can be withheld. The original Clause 9 would have allowed the Secretary of State to withhold notice whenever that appeared to her to be in the public interest. Amendments 15 and 16 remove the subjective element and provide that notice may be withheld only if the Secretary of State does not have an address for service, or if she reasonably considers it necessary on one of the four exceptional grounds specified in Amendment 16.
Let me illustrate my understanding of how those exceptional grounds could arise in practice. A terrorist may be living in a safe house here, or more likely abroad, without realising that his whereabouts are known to the authorities. To require a notice of citizenship deprivation to be served on him at that address would reveal to him that he is the object of covert surveillance, contrary to the interests of national security: proposed new sub-paragraph (i). The same may be true of a participant in “organised or serious crime”—the phrase being taken from Section 1 of the Serious Crime Act 2015, which defines the remit of the National Crime Agency: proposed new sub-paragraph (ii). If intelligence as to location was supplied by a foreign liaison partner which does not wish its cover to be blown, notification at that address could jeopardise our intelligence relationship with that country: proposed new sub-paragraph (iv). The person in question might be, for example, with a dangerous armed group in a failed state. To require a courier to travel to such places to serve notice, at great personal risk, would be wrong: hence proposed new sub-paragraph (iii).
I do not believe that these grounds will be commonly advanced—it seems that, with a degree of ingenuity, workarounds have been found in the past—but neither, I suggest as a former independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, should they be dismissed as fanciful. It may be relevant that the laws of two of our closest allies are, if anything, more broadly drawn than this amendment. The New Zealand Citizenship Act 1977 allows for notice of deprivation to be dispensed with if it would be for any reason “not practicable” to serve it on the subject. The Australian Act of 2020 allows the Minister to determine that notice should not be given if it could prejudice the security, defence or international relations of Australia or Australian law enforcement operations.
The second feature of these amendments is to introduce powerful safeguards for conducive grounds deprivations that were entirely absent from the original Clause 9. In New Zealand, they have judicial scrutiny of these decisions. In Australia, they have regular ministerial review. Elements of both those safeguards are contained in the new Schedule 4A, which is set out in Amendment 14 and referred to in Amendments 17 and 19.
The judicial safeguard is in paragraph 1 of the schedule. If the Secretary of State wishes to withhold notice, she must apply to a superior court of record—the Special Immigration Appeals Commission—in advance or within seven days. SIAC will examine her reasons and decide, applying judicial review principles, whether her assessment is obviously flawed. That is the same test that is applied to the making of terrorism prevention and investigation orders under the TPIM Act 2011. SIAC will no doubt develop similar rules to deal with it, which might, in an appropriate case, provide for the appointment of a special advocate. If she does not succeed on her first attempt or on a subsequent application, which must be based on material change of circumstances or further evidence, the Secretary of State must either give notice in the normal way or revoke the deprivation order altogether.
The review safeguard is in paragraph 2 of the schedule. The Secretary of State must consider, three times a year for two years, whether the reasons for non-notification remain valid. If, after the sixth review, she still resists notification, she must make a further application to SIAC, which will, once again, give independent scrutiny to her decision.
The twin requirements of judicial approval and regular review will place a significant burden on the Secretary of State in any case where she wishes to exercise this power. I make no apology for that. Under the Immigration Rules, as they stood between 2018 and 2021, it was easy—far too easy—not to give notice but simply to record it on the file. That path was taken in no fewer than 29 of the 45 conducive grounds deprivations, mostly related to national security activity abroad, that were made in 2019, 2020 and 2021. These amendments not only require non-notification to be a last resort on paper; they make it hard work in practice. They should ensure that, in its own interests, the Home Office will take this exceptional course only when there really is no possible alternative.
The third feature of these amendments relates to appeals. Of course, a subject cannot appeal against a notice of deprivation until he has become aware of it. But Amendment 18 provides that time for appeal will begin to run only once notice has been given. It will not, therefore, be necessary to rely on the discretion of the court to extend time for appeal in cases where deprivation has not been notified at the time.
The fourth and final feature is in the proposed new subsections 5(c) and (d) inserted by Amendment 18. Any person whose citizenship was removed without notice must be informed of that fact, with reasons and information about appeal rights, as soon as they make themselves known to the Home Office, whether within the two-year review period or thereafter; for example, this might be by seeking consular assistance or a fresh passport.
Amendment 18 has another significant and, I would suggest, highly beneficial effect. The point has been well made by other noble Lords that upstanding citizens of this country, notably dual citizens, may be anxious about the removal of their citizenship without their knowledge. Amendment 18 provides such people with a means of reassurance. They have only to contact the Home Office to be told whether this has happened or whether, as will almost always be the case, it has not.
In Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, challenged the House to
“find a way forward on Report that takes away the genuine fear from millions of people who believe—erroneously, but they believe it—that Clause 9 as drafted and the implementation of further measures will put them and their families at risk”.—[Official Report, 27/1/2022; col. 518.]
These amendments rise to that challenge. They should ensure that non-notification is confined to those rare cases where it is truly necessary, and they are subject to strong safeguards, including regular review, judicial scrutiny and a right to be informed on request.
I come finally to subsections (5) to (7) to Clause 9, which seek to limit the effect of the D4 case by providing that an unlawful failure to notify a pre-commencement deprivation order should not affect the validity of that order. I will listen carefully to my noble friend Lady D’Souza develop her manuscript amendment to remove those clauses, but in the meantime, to assist our deliberations, I ask the Minister to give two assurances relevant to that amendment. First, will she confirm that anyone subject to a pre-commencement deprivation order will be informed of that fact if they contact the Home Office, by analogy with proposed new subsections (5C) and (5D), as inserted by Amendment 17? They would then be in a position to proceed with any substantive appeal. Secondly, will she confirm, by analogy with Amendment 18, that the Home Office will not suggest that any of these people are out of time for appeal as a consequence of the interval between the decision to remove their citizenship and the giving of notice?
If my amendments are accepted, and those assurances given, I believe that we will have played our part as a revising Chamber and achieved a broadly acceptable balance. Opinions on citizenship removal will, of course, continue to differ, but the aggravating factor of removal without notice will be strictly confined and properly safeguarded for the future, as it was not in the Immigration Rules as they stood prior to the D4 judgment of last year, and as it was not under Clause 9 as it was passed by the Commons. I beg to move my amendment and, if necessary, I will test the opinion of the House.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I am very grateful to the Minister for her support in drafting these amendments, and I hope that she will give an assurance that the Government do, indeed, support these amendments. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich, for addressing many of the concerns that I raised in Committee, particularly those expressed to me by the Law Society of Scotland, which was extremely dissatisfied that, in the original Clause 9, the Government had not fully justified the removal of citizenship without notifying the affected person. It asked that this clause be reconsidered, and I am grateful to the noble Lord for doing so.
Equally, in Committee, I raised the concerns expressed to me by the European Network on Statelessness in its briefing. It was very concerned that Clause 9 as drafted would
“have severe impacts on the rule of law and on a person’s fundamental rights”,
and that, as drafted, Clause 9
“disregards many of the UK’s international obligations, including the prohibition of arbitrary deprivation of nationality, the obligation to avoid statelessness, and the right to a fair hearing.”
In its view, the UK Government
“has not provided any justification as to why such a restriction on fundamental rights is needed.”
I pay tribute to the Minister and the noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich; many of my concerns have been addressed. I support the amendments introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, and support the reasons that he has given. The restrictive range of circumstances has been greatly reduced in which a citizen’s rights could be taken away. I support the powerful safeguards he set out as to why a citizen could be deprived of their citizenship, the rights of appeal, the provision that a citizen must be informed that their citizenship is going to be removed and the reassurance that he set out that could be given by condition C at that time. I support the amendments.
Lord Macdonald of River Glaven (CB)
My Lords, powers to deprive British citizens of their citizenship have historically been very tightly drawn under UK immigration law for obvious reasons. However, I reminded the Committee that in 2003, 2006, 2014 and 2018, these powers were very considerably expanded, so that now they are exercisable against any British citizen who has dual nationality, where the Secretary of State is satisfied that deprivation is conducive to the public good. The breadth of this power is perhaps best understood by the Supreme Court’s conclusion in the Begum case, that this includes situations where the individual is unaware that they hold dual nationality and even where that individual has little or no connection with their country of second nationality.
I reminded the Committee of the words of the leading immigration law silk, Raza Husain QC, who said:
“This progressive extension over the last two decades has meant that it is no longer necessary to demonstrate that someone is a terrorist or a traitor before stripping them of British citizenship. Individuals may be deprived of citizenship on general public interest grounds of the sort usually invoked to justify deportation, rather than on the basis of their severing the bonds of allegiance that are the hallmark of nationality.”
The drastic nature of this power was well described by the United States chief justice Earl Warren, a Republican, put on the court by President Eisenhower, who said that the loss of nationality amounts to
“the total destruction of the individual’s status in organised society… the expatriate has lost the right to have rights.”
He was channelling Hannah Arendt there.
Deprivation of citizenship is such a drastic and far-reaching power that it must be accompanied by proper procedural safeguards. That much is obvious. This is a power that has been beloved of some of the worst regimes in history. If we are to permit this power to a Secretary of State, it must be accompanied by procedural safeguards. In its original form, Clause 9 went in precisely the opposite direction, removing the most basic safeguard of all—the safeguard of notification —really at the Secretary of State’s whim. That was not good enough and, like my noble friend Lord Anderson, I am grateful to the Government for having listened to the debate in Committee and for having changed course. Again, like him, I am satisfied that serious movement has been made and that some of our most serious concerns about the clause as originally drafted have been responded to appropriately. For that reason, I will be supporting this amendment and am extremely grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, for moving it.
Baroness D'Souza (CB)
My Lords, the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, add hugely important safeguards to Clause 9, but subsections (5) to (7), which are set out on page 12 at lines 13 to 19, would remain in place and appear to make lawful what is clearly unlawful. The secret power to deprive citizenship without notice and/or appeal threatens our cherished British values of fair play and the rule of law. It would also risk unduly affecting ethnic minority communities. Subsections (5) to (7) seek to instruct the courts to treat past unlawful deprivations as if they were lawful, even where the courts have found that these actions failed to comply with statute at the time when they were made.
Parliament, it seems to me, is being asked to condone a disregard for the law by those Ministers who took away British national citizenship when it was illegal to do so. If these provisions remain in the Bill, a series of unlawful deprivation orders made against young women from minority ethnic communities will not be subject to any scrutiny whatever. This cannot be right.
It seems clear from what has been said so far on this clause that the most profound concerns still relate to Clause 9 as a whole and—although the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, alters the whole tenor of the Bill and grateful thanks are due to the Minister for enabling this—the concerns remain. These clauses would create a secret power. Clause 9 goes well beyond cases where the Government cannot provide notice. According to the Policy Exchange think tank, at no point in the last century has it been thought that national security called for depriving British citizens of their citizenship without notice. We cannot see the case for this now, at a time when our closest allies, such as the US, are warning that depriving individuals of citizenship is not an effective way to fight terrorism.
The main issue in this group of amendments is whether Clause 9 should remain part of the Bill. My suggestion is that it should be removed to create certainty and clarity. It seems to me that the optimal solution would be to remove this clause altogether, not only because, as it stands, it is contrary to British law and indeed to parts of the UN refugee convention, but because this clause—as well as new subsections (5) to (7) proposed by the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Anderson—seem to enable further restrictive orders, something that we as a scrutinising Chamber should avoid at all costs. Therefore, while I will of course support the noble Lord’s amendment, I will also seek to move my amendment, which would leave Clause 9 out.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady D’Souza, and I agree with what she said and that, although the amendments moved by the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, have made Clause 9 less bad, it is still a bad clause that should disappear from the Bill. When introducing this group, the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, said that these amendments were all about Clause 9. I would rather say that my Amendment 22, to which I will speak, was provoked by Clause 9. One thing revealed in public debate—and there has been an enormous amount of public debate around Clause 9—is the fact that so many people had not realised that what the Minister described earlier as the “warm embrace of citizenship” can be taken away, and that there is profound discrimination in the way that this can happen.
The noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, talked in Committee talked about two-tier citizenship; I talk about it as two classes of citizenship. I regret that I was not able to take part in Committee; I thank my noble friend Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb for very ably speaking for me. However, there are about 6 million Britons—I declare an interest as I am among them—who, because of another citizenship or their descent from people who came to Britain and chose to be Britons, have second-class citizenship. It can be taken away by the Government and, as the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald of River Glaven, just outlined very clearly, we have seen a very rapid and considerable escalation of the ways in which that power can be, and has been, applied.
My Amendment 22 makes one exception. If someone attains citizenship by means of fraud or misrepresentation, obviously, the power should remain for that citizenship to be taken away, but if that citizenship has been acquired honestly, my amendment says that it cannot be taken away. I suggest to your Lordships’ House that this is the only way that we can ensure that every British citizen is the same class of citizen and treated in the same way. Given that people who have, or have access to, alternative citizenships come from migrant backgrounds, the discrimination in how this is applied is very obvious. I note from having read the Hansard report of Committee very carefully that the noble Baroness, Lady Mobarik, expressed support for this. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, for also expressing support in principle for the idea that there should be only one class of citizenship and the Government should not be able to take it away.
I can imagine the response I might hear from the Minister: what about someone who is a security threat? If we have given millions of people British citizenship, we have benefited from the contributions, of all kinds, that they have made to the UK. Should we be able to say, “This person’s a problem so we’re going to get rid of them”, and make them someone else’s problem? If a person is a security threat to the UK, they might well be a security threat to the country that they hold citizenship for and that we send them to. Why should we be able to dump our problems on someone else?
I find myself torn. I aware of the desire in your Lordships’ House to take away some of the worst elements of the Bill, but I also find myself supported by many people in civil society who say that they want to ensure that there is one class of citizenship. I have said to all the relevant authorities that I will reserve the right to call a vote on this, because I find it a matter of principle on which it is very difficult simply to withdraw the amendment. I would really like to hear everyone’s position on this, particularly the Front-Bench speakers—I hope one of the Lords spiritual might contribute—and everyone’s explanation of whether they believe there should be two classes of British citizenship. Having heard that debate, I will make a decision about whether to push Amendment 22 to a vote.
The Lord Bishop of Chelmsford
Thank you. My Lords, I am grateful for the suggestion that the House might like to hear from the Lords spiritual. I support the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady D’Souza, which proposes that Clause 9 should not stand part of the Bill. We debated this at some length in Committee. It is somewhat disappointing that the Government have not taken the opportunity to reconsider more fully. I will not delay the House by repeating the arguments, but I will briefly speak about trust.
The Government seem genuinely confused by the level of opposition that the clause has triggered, but this should not have been surprising because I am afraid that it is symptomatic of a serious breakdown in trust between the Home Office and society groups, particularly minority ethnic groups, as we have heard. The response to the Windrush Lessons Learned Review promised a new culture in the Home Office—one that was more compassionate, that saw faces behind the cases and would rebuild and enhance
“public trust and confidence in the Home Office”.
The Bill as a whole does not do much to create the impression that this new culture has been embedded. Trust is hard to build and very easy to lose. On the issue of deprivation of citizenship and the treatment of minorities, trust is sufficiently low that any new changes to these powers must surely come with a compelling and overwhelming demonstration of a serious and widespread problem that needs to be solved.
I remain unconvinced that the Government have demonstrated that there is a sufficiently major problem that existing powers do not address. I am quite convinced that the impact this clause will have—indeed, already has had in continuing to undermine trust between the Home Office and civil society—is serious enough that the Bill would be greatly improved by Clause 9 being removed in its entirety. Having said that, I have heard the words of the noble Lord, Lord Anderson. He provided a compelling and informed case for his saving amendments. I will listen with interest to the Minister’s response.
Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)
My Lords, I apologise to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chelmsford for my lack of control over my new varifocals, and to your Lordships for entering the debate at this late stage. I have been listening to the debate in the context of my concerns about the majority judgments in the D4 case, which has already been mentioned. I read my noble friend Lord Anderson’s amendments and listened with enormous care to his very clear—indeed, brilliant—opening. I support his amendments. My view is that they go further than is absolutely necessary in terms of proportionality between the duties and rights of citizens and the setting of safeguards to ensure that this equation is well balanced. Overbalancing in favour of protections is a good fault in the circumstances, hence my declared support for my noble friend’s amendments.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
The noble Lord has displayed a very touching faith in the Home Office, which I do not think reflected the view of your Lordships’ House in an earlier debate in terms of how we are approaching Ukrainian refugees. Is he aware of the case of the gentleman known as E3, who was deprived of his British citizenship for many years, was eventually able to appeal that, has never been arrested or charged, and has finally—on 11 February—returned to the UK and is now back with his family after many years of separation.
Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)
I am not aware of the details of that case, but I would say to the noble Baroness that the architecture that the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, set out would protect such a person in a much better way than was the case before.
Baroness Warsi (Con)
My Lords, I start by congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich, on the detailed measures that he has brought forward. I really appreciate the time that he has given to the discussions and debates that he and I, and other Members of this House, have had over the last few weeks and months. I also pay tribute to my noble friend Lady Williams for her work and her calls, and for the way in which she has dealt with this issue, reaching out to try genuinely and sincerely to find a compromise. That is what this is—it is a compromise, and compromise is good, but fairness, justice and equality are better. Therefore, despite the fact that these amendments go some way to making what was really bad legislation slightly less bad, they are simply papering over the cracks.
Once again, we are being asked by the Government to keep incrementally changing this law from the early 1980s—each time it has been changed with one case law or one individual situation—so that more and more people in this country, from a wider and wider scope, with more and more different offences, are now included in a space where their citizenship can be stripped. Therefore, we have an opportunity in this House to, once again, incrementally, make a bad law slightly less bad—or we can take a position and say that the underlying law itself is so bad that we are no longer prepared to keep making these incremental changes.
This takes the bad law a little further. If we go back to what this law actually does, first, it strips citizenship from those who were born and raised here, know nowhere else and whose family have been here for generations, but who are deemed to have—they do not actually have—another citizenship through some tenuous link to a country that their grandfathers or great-grandparents may have come from. Secondly, under this law, in our courts in the United Kingdom we punish two people convicted of the same crime differently based upon their heritage—not on the crime committed, but on their heritage. That is what the underlying law does.
I take issue with the idea that these people are not second-class citizens; they are. Let me give an example. My grandfather came here in the 1950s; my father came in the 1960s. I was born here; I have no other citizenship. My children were born here; they have no other citizenship. My grandchildren have been born here; they have no other citizenship. However, if my grandchildren—we all bring our children up well, not to commit crime, but we can never predict how their lives will turn out—were to commit not just a terrorist offence but a criminal act such as a sexual offence or an offence involving fraud, they could, in court, be punished for the crime but also have their citizenship stripped. That is fact. That makes me a second-class citizen. It makes my children second-class citizens. It makes their children second-class citizens. How far back do we go before we say to people that they are as equal as anyone else in this country?
Today, by supporting the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady D’Souza, we can say, from this House, that despite all the assurances and the changes, we believe in equality for all in this country. My noble friend mentioned New Zealand and Australia, and I accept that changes have been put in place there; safeguards have been put in place where it is deemed not fit to serve notice. But we also have allies, such as the United States and Canada, who simply do not even have the law—they do not believe that we should be stripping our citizens of their citizenship.
The current law has been used throughout two decades of the war on terror, during the rise of ISIS, and while terrorist fighters from the United Kingdom have been going overseas. Over the years, we have managed to use the law, without this additional incremental change, to ensure that we have stripped people who we consider to be dangerous of their citizenship. We have managed under the current law; this further change is not required.
In conclusion, we may not have taken this moment to put right the wrongs of the past—many noble Lords, including many noble friends from my own Benches, stood up and asked for the original law to be considered. However, the least we can do is to stop a bad law becoming worse. If the noble Baroness, Lady D’Souza, tests the opinion of the House, I urge Members to vote for it because I will be voting for it, too.
Lord Pannick (CB)
My Lords, I shared the concerns expressed by my noble friend Lady D’Souza about Clause 9 as it was originally drafted. However, I am very satisfied with the amendments tabled by my noble friend Lord Anderson, particularly as the exercise of these powers is subject to the control of the independent Special Immigration Appeals Commission. I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, that this is not to have trust and faith in the Home Office. Whether or not that is justified, I have trust and faith in the independent Special Immigration Appeals Commission. I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Warsi, that this is not a compromise or papering over the cracks. Rather, this is a great tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, and to the work done by the Minister: it is to achieve the protection of both the public interest and the rights of individuals. This is what this House should be aiming to do.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern (Con)
My Lords, I had the honour, with the then Leader of the House, to present to this House the 1981 Bill which became the Act. We certainly understood that it was a very drastic power which enabled citizenship to be taken away. Therefore, it was only right that notice should be required, and provided for, in Section 40(5) of that Act. It included the need to make clear to the person affected that the application was on. It used the last known address as a possibility. However, the more that difficulties arise, the more it is seen that something further is required. Therefore, it is right that Section 40(5) should be amended. I think that the amendments, as now proposed—and subject to the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich, if, as I hope, the Government will accept them—are an acceptable way of dealing with this very delicate matter.
I agree entirely with what the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, said, that the real and ultimate protection is in the independent judicial review by the special court for that purpose. It is essential that, as this nation is subject to many different ways of being attacked, we should be protected as much as possible. This is a very sensible way to do it, provided that the Government are prepared to accept the proposal of the noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts (Con)
My Lords, I spoke in Committee and, obviously, after two and a half hours then and 50 minutes now, one is in danger of ending up with—in that famous phrase of the football manager—a sense of déjà vu all over again. I will try to avoid that and just raise a couple of points.
I listened very carefully to what was said by the noble Baronesses, Lady D’Souza and Lady Bennett, and the right reverend Prelate—and I am not a lawyer. I also listened again to my noble friend Lady Warsi—having heard her passionate speech at the earlier stage—and the noble Baroness, Lady Mobarik. I did not see the provisions of Clause 9 as an attack on people, and particularly not an attack on a particular part of our community. I saw the clause as a defence of the values that tie us all together and the glue that binds our society: the tolerance, freedom of speech and economic opportunity that has brought people to this country over the years, some more recently than others. That has been the essence of the attractions that have brought people here.
However, I was extremely concerned, and pointed out in Committee, that there was a gap in the arguments using the phrase
“conducive to the public good”.
I was worried about that, but I said—and still believe—that there is a need for the Government to protect the citizens of the country and that that is the overriding proposition we need to follow. Do I find the issues of Clause 9 easy? I do not. Do I wish we did not have to have Clause 9? I do so. But there are evil people about and wishing will not make it so. I thought in Committee, and still think now, that the underlying purpose of Clause 9 is right.
I pointed out in my speech then that, without the informed consent of the population of the country, the respect for and the importance of the rule of law become undermined. The travellers on the Clapham omnibus would regard some of the issues that have been raised this afternoon—such as having to send a courier into an extraordinarily dangerous country and put his or her life at risk—as a perverse outcome.
I recognise that there is a gap. I said that I hoped there would be some opportunity for smoothing some of the sharp edges in Clause 9 as originally drafted. As a non-lawyer, it seemed to me that the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, answered the points that were made. Can it answer all the points? No, but it answers them effectively. It seems to provide a means to smooth the corners or close the gap—whichever metaphor you wish to use.
I would support the Government, whatever happened, as I think the underlying purpose of Clause 9 outweighs the disadvantages. However, I hope very much that my noble friend will be able to see the advantages of the amendments from the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, and will be able in that way to make the compromise that I think makes the argument unanswerable.
Baroness Mobarik (Con)
My Lords, I speak in support of the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady D’Souza, to leave Clause 9 out of the Bill. I find it difficult to comprehend that we are even debating something so out of step with our rules of justice and fairness. Depriving someone of their citizenship without even informing them, as would be the case if Clause 9 were to be enacted into law, is in effect an addition to the already punitive measures that have existed since 1918.
As the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald of River Glaven, stated, Clause 9 effectively removes the right of appeal, which has evolved over the decades to become ever more powerful. If the Home Office deems it to be in the public interest or, as is worded,
“conducive to the public good”,
then the long-standing position under the British Nationality Act 1981 that an individual must be notified if they are to be deprived of their nationality is being amended, so that they do not even have to be informed. Currently, citizenship deprivation letters can be delivered to the individual’s last known address, so why are we changing that? Essentially, over this past decade, the Government have failed to provide notice on many occasions, and it appears they are now seeking to declare all unlawful deprivation orders as lawful by making Clause 9 retroactive.
Clause 9(5) purports to make lawful deprivation orders which courts have found unlawful because of failure to give notice. That is making lawful a breach of requirements as laid down by Parliament, after the fact. This completely undermines the rule of law as we understand it. While I support the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich, which would provide some safeguards on the use of Clause 9, the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady D’Souza, to remove the retroactive application of Clause 9 in its subsections (5)(6) and (7), should be considered seriously.
Former Prime Minister Sir John Major has warned that we should search our souls before taking this step. Others such as the Institute of Race Relations, the House of Lords Constitution Committee, the think tank Policy Exchange and the former Attorney-General Dominic Grieve, as well as five separate UN bodies, have stated that such deprivation orders made under Clause 9 are likely to be discriminatory and unlawful. I hope that we would give attention to such notable organisations and individuals.
I add that I support in principle the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, to omit subsections (2) and (4) of Section 40 of the British Nationality Act 1981, but understand that it is probably outwith the scope of the Bill. However, we have to address this, because we are in danger of creating a two-tier system of citizenship.
The fact is that Clause 9 has a disproportionate impact on people from ethnic-minority backgrounds. As a person cannot be made stateless according to international conventions, by default it is more likely to affect those who have a connection to the Commonwealth or a country where they are entitled to dual nationality. But it is not even as obvious as that, for some Commonwealth countries allow dual nationality or will accept people if they have a connection through their parents or grandparents, while others do not. Take south Asia, for example: while Bangladesh and Pakistan offer dual nationality to British citizens who have a direct link, India does not, so citizenship deprivation would not impact British citizens of Indian heritage. As I said in Committee, if Clause 9 is enacted into law, we are heading towards a society made up of degrees of citizenship, where some are full citizens while others are half-citizens and others somewhere in between.
Growing up between two distinct cultures, one is acutely aware of certain idiosyncrasies and traits which define each. The core values are, of course, the same, but there are always certain endearing features: the British sense of humour, with its self- deprecation and the ability to laugh with others at one’s own expense is one. The other is this sense of fairness. How often do we hear the phrase “That’s not fair”? Then there are all the variations: “Let’s be fair”, “Fair enough” and “Fair is fair”. Do noble Lords think it fair to have a two-tier system of citizenship? Do we think it is fair to deny someone their citizenship without informing them?
I understand that our intention is to root out ruthless individuals and deny them entry to our country, which is absolutely right. Not one of us would disagree that we must do everything to protect our people, but it begs the question: will it protect our citizens to have ill-intentioned people free to continue to conspire against us elsewhere, rather than having them locked away safely, following the rigours of our excellent courts? It also begs the question: what if there is a mistake, as has already happened in the case pointed out by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, of the British Bangladeshi man referred to as E3? He spent five years in Bangladesh trying to get back, having had his citizenship revoked without him even being informed. He eventually got back, as there was no evidence that he had committed any crime or had any intention of doing so—a completely innocent man, wrongfully accused. Was that fair or unfair?
Britain has a proud tradition of justice, equality and fairness. Let us keep it that way.
Baroness Verma (Con)
I was not intending to intervene, but may I ask my noble friend the Minister whether there is any major change to the current law that forces the commentary that my noble friend has just made? I have seen on WhatsApp groups worried people and citizens of this country with a lot of misinformation, and I have gone through the Bill and fact sheets and tried to get my head around what this is about—apart from the fact that we want to make sure that people are aware when their citizenship may be taken away, when they cannot be reached, and that is not based on anything other than their performing a criminal or terrorist act.
May I have some clarification? Sitting here, I have listened very carefully to every contribution made today, and while there are lawyers among us who know the details very well, ordinary citizens out there—people in groups with WhatsApp messages going around—are very frightened. They feel very scared, and they need to know that this is not the case.
Lord Marlesford (Con)
My Lords, I support the amendments from the noble Lord, Lord Anderson. I think that the way this matter has been handled reflects extremely well on the flexibility and the detailed application of the minds of Members of your Lordships’ House in dealing with very great problems, especially when these problems are new and have recently arisen.
I was struck by the words of my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay of Clashfern, when he referred to the fact that when the 2011 Act was passed, he could not have imagined the need for these arrangements. Let us be aware that the thing that is new is the creation of a new political body, which has nothing do with religion, the Islamic State. It claims the ability to grant citizenship and demands loyalty but also—by definition, because it believes in theocracy rather than democracy, and the theocracy itself is an aberration with little to do with the noble aspects of Islam—believes in something that puts its members in permanent enmity with this country. They deny the right of other states to exist, which is why, of course, we should be taking steps to defend the realm against the possibility of such people using citizenship for the destruction of this country.
Lord Paddick (LD)
My Lords, although at first glance it would seem reasonable for the Home Office not to have to give notice to a terrorist overseas that they were being deprived of their British citizenship, it of course means that there is no effective right to appeal, as the subject would be unaware of the decision. We have also seen cases where the Home Office could have given notice, even to the last known address or by email, and chose not to. The increase in the use of this power needs to be reversed.
The amendments proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich, seek to introduce a range of judicial oversights, would remove the subjective element of the decision and tighten the grounds on which a deprivation of citizenship order may be made without notice to the person concerned. Others would strengthen the test for making such a decision; ensure, if the person concerned contacts the Home Office, that he is told what has happened and that he has a right of appeal; and allow the Special Immigration Appeals Tribunal to oversee such decisions. Any time limit on appeal would start when the subject is notified.
I understand that a government Minister would have signed these amendments from the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, had they not been out of time—the deadline for tabling government amendments being several days before that for other amendments. I pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, for the time, effort and ingenuity he has brought to bear in bringing forward such a comprehensive suite of amendments that could arguably halt, if not throw into reverse, the current practice by the Home Office increasingly to use this power to deprive citizenship without notice. We wholeheartedly support these amendments.
However, were the House to divide on taking Clause 9 out of the Bill, we would, along with the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chelmsford, support that Division. At the end of the day, the Government should be taking ownership of the actions of British citizens, including terrorists overseas, ensuring, wherever possible, that they are extradited to the UK to stand trial, rather than depriving them of British citizenship, preventing them returning to the UK, and making them some other country’s problem, whether with notice or not. However, while therefore agreeing with much of what the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, has said, we are unable to go so far as to support her amendment, as there could be exceptional cases where, as a last resort, citizenship should be removed.
Lord Rosser (Lab)
I think I am right in saying that until the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, spoke, all those speakers who had spoken against Clause 9 were noble Baronesses. I am not sure what the significance of that is, and I do not say that in any wrong way; I think it is a great credit to them. Like the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, I hope they will forgive me for intruding on their space.
Although we appreciate that the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich, are certainly an improvement on Clause 9—I, too, would like to express my thanks to the noble Lord for all the work I know he has put in—as it stands, we do not feel the case has been made by the Government for why Clause 9, and deprivation of nationality without prior notice to the individual concerned, are actually necessary. That is what we are talking about: not whether nationality should be removed but whether it should be possible for the Secretary of State to remove it without prior notice.
Currently, under the British Nationality Act 1981, an individual must be notified if they are to be deprived of their citizenship. So what is the problem when, for example, the present rules already allow for citizenship deprivation letters to be delivered to an individual’s last known address, or to a parent, or to a parent’s last known address? I say that against the background that the Government have already said there have been no cases where the requirement to give notice has stopped—prior to the recent High Court decision—a deprivation of citizenship order coming into being. It is also against a background where the number of people deprived of their citizenship has risen considerably over the last 12 years—an upward trend with a peak, I think, in 2017.
One thing we can be sure of is that if the Government have the powers under Clause 9, even with the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich, we will see deprivation of citizenship orders being made without prior notice, because if it is not the Government’s intention to take advantage of the powers to deprive a person of their citizenship without prior notice, why are they seeking them? Against that scenario, we need to be satisfied that there is a real and overriding necessity for this additional power now, when it has not been deemed necessary before, beyond it being perhaps more convenient or helpful on occasions not to have to go through the procedure of giving prior notice to the individual concerned. The lack of a compelling and meaningful government response on that point, and there having been no cases where the requirement to give notice has stopped the deprivation of citizenship order coming into being, is significant.
If a proven national security need does arise for the power not to have to give prior notice of a deprivation of citizenship notice coming into being, the Government can get such necessary legislation through Parliament, as we know, with remarkable speed. In the absence of such a case being made for this power—and the lack of it clearly has not caused a serious difficulty until now—we should be wary of agreeing to Clause 9, even as amended, remaining in the Bill.
I suggest that the situation has not been helped by finding out from information in the Court of Appeal decision that in the D4 case the Home Secretary
“argued that notification had been given to D4 … by simply placing a note on her Home Office file, relying on regulations introduced without parliamentary approval.”
That ought to make us very wary about giving the Secretary of State and the Home Office the additional powers in Clause 9, now that we know how existing statutory powers and requirements on notification have been interpreted and implemented in the D4 case.
The consequences of the clause are likely to be felt most—but certainly not exclusively, as the noble Baroness, Lady Mobarik, said—by those from ethnic minority backgrounds. It is no surprise that it is in this area that the Bill, particularly Clause 9, has caused most concern about how the new powers might be applied and interpreted and what the evidence is that they are needed now and have not been needed before.
It is unlawful to deprive someone of their citizenship and leave them stateless. Even so, the Home Office is still on record that British citizenship
“is a privilege, not a right”.
Yet without citizenship people do not have rights, and we are talking about significant rights. It has been estimated that nearly 6 million people in England and Wales could be affected, and that under this proposal two in five British citizens from an ethnic minority background are eligible to be deprived of their citizenship without being told, since they have, or may have, other citizenships available to them—I think that was the basis of the comment about two classes of citizenship—compared with one in 20 characterised as white. That is a sobering consideration for the Government, or should be, when looking at the merits or demerits of Clause 9, not least in the light of how the Secretary of State and the Home Office in the D4 case interpreted and implemented the requirement to give prior notice under the law as it exists at present. What would be tried if Clause 9, even as amended by the amendments by the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, gave the power not to have to give prior notice?
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chelmsford raised the issue of trust, or rather the lack of it, among society groups. The Government ought to reflect very carefully on that in considering whether Clause 9, even as amended, should remain in the Bill. I have to say that as far as we are concerned the case has not been made for Clause 9, even as amended, to remain in the Bill, and we shall certainly be looking for an opportunity to vote against it.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate, especially the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, who has tabled these amendments; I am very grateful for his expertise in this matter. I also acknowledge Amendment 20, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady D’Souza, and Amendment 22, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle.
The House will recall that we debated this matter at length in Committee. I say now, as I said then, that inaccurate and irresponsible media reporting continues to fuel fear and concern about how Clause 9 is to operate. I will repeat what I said then, starting with my noble friend Lady Verma: the deprivation power itself is not altered. Clause 9 does not alter the reasons why a person is to be deprived of British citizenship and we are not stripping millions of their citizenship.
To answer the noble Baroness, Lady D’Souza, and others, Clause 9 does not target dual nationals, those from ethnic minorities or particular faiths, or indeed women and girls; there is no secret decision-making, and law-abiding people have nothing to fear from Clause 9. It is simply about the mechanics of how a deprivation decision are conveyed to the individual concerned.
Lord Anderson of Ipswich (CB)
I am grateful to all noble Lords who spoke in this debate on a subject that I suspect none of us found particularly easy. I do not want to pre-empt anything, but it is possible, having heard the debate, that my amendments may not be very controversial. My noble friend Lord Carlile was alone in suggesting that these amendments go too far; he always was a little bit tougher than me. The real question for your Lordships might be whether they go far enough—whether, in short, we stick with my amendments or, as the opposition Front Benches maintain, twist by removing the whole clause.
The manuscript amendment shone a spotlight on subsections (5) to (7), which my amendments do not touch. With great respect to the noble Baroness, Lady D’Souza, it is not right that the effect of those subsections is that pre-commencement deprivation orders would, as she put it, not be subject to scrutiny. Their effect is rather that a pre-commencement deprivation would not be invalid purely because it was served to the file, in accordance with the Immigration Rules then in force.
Subsections (5) to (7) do not prevent a person who becomes aware of the deprivation—as the Minister just confirmed just now, they have only to ask—appealing it on any substantive ground. Indeed, the Minister also just confirmed, in providing the other undertaking that I sought, that the Home Office would not suggest that such appeals were out of time.
As to the suggestion that Clause 9 should be removed in its entirety, when I secured the agreement of the Government to my amendments, noble Lords will understand that it was not with a view to pocketing the gains and then asking for more. Therefore, I cannot in all conscience support that amendment myself, either as a tactical gambit or in the substance. I do, however, support my own amendments and I beg to move.
Lord Anderson of Ipswich
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment removes the subjective element from the condition in paragraph (a) of new subsection (5A)(notice of deprivation of citizenship not required if Secretary of State does not have the requisite information).
“(b) the Secretary of State reasonably considers it necessary, in the interests of—(i) national security,(ii) the investigation or prosecution of organised or serious crime,(iii) preventing or reducing a risk to the safety of any person, or(iv) the relationship between the United Kingdom and another country,that notice under that subsection should not be given.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment limits the grounds on which a deprivation-of-citizenship order may be made without notice to the person concerned, and also strengthens the test, so that one may only be made if the Secretary of State reasonably considers it necessary.
“(5C) Subsection (5D) applies where—(a) the Secretary of State has made an order under subsection (2) and, in reliance on subsection (5A), has not given the notice required by subsection (5), and(b) the person in respect of whom the order was made makes contact with the Secretary of State for the Home Department.(5D) The Secretary of State must, as soon as is reasonably practicable, give the person written notice specifying—(a) that the Secretary of State has made the order,(b) the reasons for the order, and(c) the person’s right of appeal under section 40A(1) or under section 2B of the Special Immigration Appeals Commission Act 1997.(5E) Schedule 4A makes provision for the Special Immigration Appeals Commission to consider a decision of the Secretary of State not to give notice to a person before depriving them of a citizenship status on the grounds mentioned in subsection (2) (deprivation conducive to the public good).” Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment inserts three new subsections into section 40 of the BNA 1981. The first two provide for late notice to be given to a person who has been deprived of their citizenship without notice if they subsequently make contact with the Home Office. The third introduces the new Schedule 4A to the British Nationality Act 1981, which provides for the Special Immigration Appeals Commission to oversee decisions to deprive a person of their citizenship without notice.
“(b) after subsection (2) insert—“(2A) In the case of an order made as described in subsection (1)(b), for the purposes of any rule or other provision limiting the time within which an appeal under this section may be brought, time does not start to run unless and until the person is given notice of the fact that the order has been made (see section 40(5D) and Schedule 4A).”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment provides that in a case where a person is deprived of their citizenship without notice, time for bringing an appeal will not start to run unless and until they are subsequently given notice.
“(3A) After Schedule 4 to the 1981 Act insert the Schedule 4A set out in Schedule 1A.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment inserts the new Schedule 4A into the British Nationality Act 1981.
Baroness D’Souza
Baroness D’Souza (CB)
My Lords, having listened with great care to a number of Lords speak about Clause 9, I think it is accepted that citizenship of the UK is an enormous privilege, but it is also a right. It seems that, despite the wonderful amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, there remain sufficient loopholes in Clause 9 for it to become, once on the statute book, a hostage to fortune. In view of that, I would like to test the opinion of the House.
Lord Judge
“Compliance with the Refugee Convention
Nothing in this Part authorises policies or decisions which do not comply with the United Kingdom’s obligations under the 1951 Refugee Convention and the 1967 Protocol relating to the Status of Refugees.”Member’s explanatory statement
This new Clause reflects the Government’s stated intention of compliance with the Refugee Convention and ensures Part 2 provisions are read subject to that international legal obligation.
Lord Judge (CB)
My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, has asked me to open the batting on this amendment. It is a very short, important and simple amendment that addresses an unnecessary problem. The Minister has told us—no doubt on the basis of legal advice—that the Bill in its present form is compliant with the 1951 convention and the 1967 protocol. In being so, the argument is, it will fulfil the Government’s repeated assertions that this is precisely what the Government intend. Indeed, the Minister said so in terms in answer to my request in Committee, and I apologise to her because at that late time of night I had simply missed what she said, or at least I had not fully absorbed it. She said:
“We are absolutely firm … that nothing in the Bill undermines our convention obligations”.—[Official Report, 10/2/22; col. 1985.]
So what is this all about?
I mean no disrespect to the Minister, of course not, but her statement is no more than mere assertion—an assertion of opinion based on what the department’s legal advisers have told and advised her. Some of us—indeed, many of us—share the Government’s apparently absolute commitment to the convention, but we do not think that the Bill does. We believe that the Government are wrong. In our view, provision after provision in Part 2—the debate will happen later on—contravenes the convention. With many others, I shall support the later amendments that seek to achieve compliance, simply because we believe that the provisions are not compliant. Many of us are lawyers too; we have to address convention issues, but many of us are not lawyers and are simply reading what the proposed legislation actually says. We are convinced that, as things stand, the Bill contravenes the convention, and does so repeatedly.
This is not a lawyerly quibble: even as we speak the problems of refugees are being shown to us in Ukraine. Rather than a lawyerly quibble, what worries me is that the debate has gathered echoes of the Christmas pantomime: “Oh yes,” say the Government, “This Bill is compliant with the convention”, and I reply, on behalf of others, “Oh no it isn’t compliant”, and the Government say, “Oh yes it is”, and we say, “Oh no it isn’t”, and so it goes on. But this is not a pantomime; this is lawmaking. I suspect that I am not the only person here who thinks it is a very strange parliamentary debate in which honest views exchanged in this way overlook that this is a deeply sensitive debate about which there has been much human suffering. The level to which it has plunged in relation to the pantomime is really rather serious.
The only place where this “Oh yes it is, oh no it isn’t” exchange can be resolved is in the legislation itself. If it is accepted, this very simple amendment will achieve both the frequently declared intention of the Government and the objective of those of us who believe that the legislation fails to do so. Let me explain this in a few words.
In future cases, the court will be bound by the provisions of the legislation which we have enacted—by its statutory provisions, not by repeated government declarations of their intentions. Even an advocate of the immense standing of the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, who sought to rely, in court, on the repeated assertions of the declared intentions of the Government, was met with: “But that’s not what the legislation says”. Maybe the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, would have an answer to this, but even if he produced one, it would not be very effective.
If we are right—and I believe we—then we have this absurdity whereby the expressed intentions of the Government will be defeated by their own legislation. That is rather stark. If the expressions on behalf of the Government are genuine—and, although she is not here, I do not for one moment doubt the Minister’s personal good faith—we really are in cloud-cuckoo-land. The amendment will avoid that absurdity. There will be no uncertainty or equivocation. Any decision or policy in relation to the provisions of Part 2, whatever form they may eventually take, will be subject to the convention and protocol. This is on the unequivocal basis that it is a primary requirement of the legislation that any decision of the Home Office officials responsible, and any decision of the court considering those decisions under Part 2, must comply with them.
There is nothing new about a provision like this. I am indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, among others, for drawing my attention to Section 2 of the Asylum and Immigration Appeals Act 1993. We are right here in this very field. Nothing in the Immigration Rules shall lay down any practice which would be contrary to the convention. This is all that we are asking for here. Let us have that principle set out in the Bill in the form of this amendment.
Viscount Hailsham (Con)
My Lords, those who heard the Minister outline the position of the Government earlier today with regard to the plight of Ukrainians must have been dismayed by his response. None the less, I make no personal criticism of him at all.
Some of us have in mind the cavalier attitude of Mr Johnson to treaties that he recently signed, such as the Northern Ireland protocol. When I consider many of the suggestions which come out of the Home Office as to how to deter migrants from coming to this country, I have no confidence that this Government will always comply with the letter—far less the spirit—of the convention. I do not suppose that the new clause proposed by Amendment 24 will be a complete remedy. However, it is a very useful statement of an important principle, and I shall vote for it.
Lord Rosser (Lab)
Not surprisingly, there is nothing I could add to what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, has said. We shall certainly be supporting this amendment if it ends up being put to a vote.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
My Lords, from these Benches, I told the noble and learned Lord that we will be supporting him. He said that that was the right answer.
Lord Pannick (CB)
My Lords, I signed this amendment for all the reasons that were given by the noble and learned Lord and because it is of vital importance, especially at this time, that the legislature makes it clear that it intends and requires that the Government comply with their international obligations.
The Paliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Wolfson of Tredegar) (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, and the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, for proposing the new clause. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, said that it was a short one; I respectfully agree, and hope that I can be brief in response without any discourtesy to the noble and learned Lord or, indeed, the other proposers of the clause. One point in his speech on which I think the whole House agreed was when he reminded us that, whatever the question, the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, will always be able to think of an answer.
Turning to the subject matter of the amendment and the proposed new clause, I first underline what was said by my noble friend Lady Williams of Trafford as to the Government’s commitment to their international legal obligations flowing from the refugee convention. Not only is it our intention to continue to comply with all of the legal obligations under that convention but we consider that this legislation does precisely that.
Our starting point is that the provisions of the Bill are compliant with the refugee convention but, none the less, the new clause is not something that I can support. Let me set out why.
The refugee convention, as I have said before, and effectively by design, leaves certain terms and concepts open to a degree of interpretation. That is an important feature of international instruments such as the refugee convention, allowing it not only to stand the test of time—some might say that it could now usefully be reviewed, but that is a separate point—but, more importantly, to be applied in and across many jurisdictions with differing legal systems. Necessarily, therefore, there is then a need to ascribe meaning to the terms of the convention at a domestic level. That meaning is determined by each signatory to the refugee convention in accordance with the principles of the Vienna convention, taking a good faith interpretation in accordance with the ordinary meaning of the language used in the convention.
Against that background, I suggest that it is absolutely right that Parliament may pass legislation setting out how the UK interprets the refugee convention and the UK’s obligations under it. Having a clear framework of definitions, and setting out unambiguously the key principles, promotes clarity and consistency in how decisions are made; as I have said in previous debates, that is a desirable approach. The mischief that I see in this amendment is that it would risk undermining the clarity and certainty that we are trying to create by effectively giving the courts a chance to look behind the interpretation agreed by Parliament in primary legislation when that interpretation is then applied through policy and subsequent decisions.
On the one hand, we want to give the pen to Parliament, so to speak, to set out a clear understanding and interpretation of the convention; Part 2 of the Bill is very clear as to our intentions in this respect. However, I suggest that this amendment would afford the courts an opportunity to come to a different understanding when looking at the policies and practices which put that system into effect. Of course, I accept that it will be for the courts to interpret the legislation once enacted, and I do not disagree that the courts have a role in overseeing whether policies or decisions comply with the interpretation of the convention as set out in the Bill; that is a given. But it is Parliament’s interpretation that is key here. It is not for the court to set out its own, potentially conflicting interpretation of the refugee convention and the obligations under it.
Therefore, far from creating a certain and consistent approach, this promotes uncertainty with policies and decisions being potentially judged against differing interpretations. If we are content, as I suggest we should be, that Parliament is legislating in compliance with the approach open to all state parties under the Vienna convention—that is, affording a good faith interpretation to the refugee convention—then this clause is not only unnecessary but promotes confusion and uncertainty for all those seeking to apply to, and comply with, the asylum system.
It would also be unusual to put in primary legislation the statement that Parliament, when legislating, is complying with its international obligations. International conventions cover a wide area of legislation, and if we did so here it could create questions as to why we did not do so in other statutes and why other statutes do not provide the same assurances.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, as alerted by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, mentioned Section 2 of the Asylum and Immigration Appeals Act 1993. That already sets out the primacy of the refugee convention in domestic law. I will repeat what it says:
“Nothing in the immigration rules (within the meaning of the 1971 Act) shall lay down any practice which would be contrary to the Convention.”
Accordingly, if the aim of this proposed new clause is that the policies implemented under Part 2 of this Bill through the rules or connected guidance are meant to be compatible, and not incompatible, with the refugee convention, as interpreted by Parliament in this Bill, that can already be challenged by way of Section 2 of the 1993 Act. Our policies and decision-making will continue to be made in accordance with the Immigration Rules or published guidance.
What, therefore, would this proposed new clause add? My concern is that it adds a means for the court to question the interpretation given by Parliament to the refugee convention. I suggest respectfully that this would be contrary to a fundamental purpose of this Bill: for Parliament to define the nature of our obligations under the refugee convention while remaining compliant with those obligations. The proposed new clause potentially leaves the nature of obligations and terms under the convention open to the interpretation of the courts, removing the certainty that we are trying to achieve.
To put it in two sentences, if the aim is to make sure that the Immigration Rules and guidance are compliant with the refugee convention, that is already done under the 1993 Act. If the aim is any more than that, I respectfully suggest that it trespasses on a fundamental purpose of this Bill: that Parliament, and not the courts, should interpret how the UK implements the refugee convention. For those reasons, I respectfully invite the noble and learned Lord to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood (CB)
Before the noble Lord sits down, do I understand that it is the Minister’s intention that, if this Bill is passed in its present form, in future no court shall look behind its provisions and consider what, under the convention and with the advice of UNHCR, its proper application and interpretation are? Is that the Minister’s intention?
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
In so far as the court has been told by Parliament that it can do that in the 1993 Act when it comes to the Immigration Rules, the court can do so. But, with the greatest respect, the courts interpret legislation; they are not there to go behind legislation with an autonomous meaning, so far as the courts are concerned, of what the refugee convention means. What the convention means is a matter for the member states, each interpreting it under the terms of the Vienna convention. With respect, it is not for the courts to second-guess Parliament’s interpretation of the UK’s obligations under the refugee convention.
Lord Judge (CB)
My Lords, faced with the problems to which Part 2 gives rise, we end up, on the basis of the Minister’s response, with the situation in which the court will look at provisions that we say contravene the convention and say, “Ah, Parliament has said that this provision must apply. Although it contravenes the convention, it must still be applied.” The court must do so, notwithstanding that the intention of the Government was that the provision should be compliant.
We are going around in circles. We are back to “Oh, yes, it is” and “Oh, no, it isn’t”, and that is no way for us to be on a measure of such crucial importance to many people suffering from the consequences of persecution, war, famine and so many things that afflict other nations and with which fortunately we are not afflicted. The House really ought to decide this. I ask the House to decide and tell us what its decision is.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment ensures equality of treatment by removing the distinction between Group 1 and Group 2 refugees.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, when I tabled these amendments, I had sought to seek a greater reassurance from my noble friend the Minister than I achieved in Committee. Obviously, I realise, given the result of the last few votes, it may be that Amendment 28, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Kerr of Kinlochard, and others, will find greater favour with the House. However, I shall take this opportunity to set out my opposition in principle to what the Government are seeking to do here: it is not just the fact that two groups are being created, but the way in which those two groups will be treated differently.
Perhaps the most offensive provision in Clause 11 is subsection (5). The Explanatory Notes refer to it as
“differential treatment of refugees based on their group. Differences may, for example, apply in terms of the duration of their permission to remain in the UK, the availability of routes to settlement, the ability to have recourse to public funds, and the ability of family members to join them in the UK. There is no obligation for these powers to be exercised and discretion may be applied.”
The greatest difficulty that I have is that it is not clear that there will be discretion or, indeed, how that discretion will be applied.
I hate to say it to my noble friend, but I find it offensive that this differential between groups 1 and 2 has been created. In taking the two groups out and substituting the general term “person”, I draw attention to Amendment 27, which asks for “reasonable discretion” to be exercised. I believe that is the key to all the amendments before us. This comes directly from the advice that I have received from the Law Society of Scotland as to how the provision will apply, if the original clause is left unamended. It says:
“We take the view that how a person enters the UK should not impact on family reunion. Safe and legal routes have been reduced since the UK left the European Union with the removal of the Dublin III Regulation. This provision appears to be actually reducing the prospect of families using one of only the two safe and legal routes the Asylum seeker has i.e., refugee family reunion – the other being UNHCR resettlement. Fewer safe and legal routes are likely to result in more unsafe and perilous journeys.”
Given the new situation arising daily in Ukraine, and the dreadful humanitarian crisis that we see there, I hope that the Government will resist the provisions in the clause and look favourably on my amendments and think again—but I fear that perhaps the House will favour the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Kerr of Kinlochard. I beg to move.
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)
My Lords, I welcome the new clause proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, but we need to do a belt-and-braces job here. I am afraid we have to go back to the issue of compatibility and “Oh yes it is; oh no it isn’t.”
In Clause 11, we are introducing something entirely new. This two-class categorisation of refugees—the real refugees who came direct and the class 2 refugees who did not—is not anywhere in the refugee convention. None of that is in the refugee convention. The Government say that it is all perfectly compatible with the convention and assert that it is our right to interpret the convention in this new way, differently from the way that it has been interpreted up to now by our courts, differently from the way that the UNHCR, the custodian of the convention, interprets it in its authoritative judgment on our Bill, and differently from the way in which 146 signatory states interpret it.
We did the “Oh yes it is; oh no it is not” game at length in Committee and the Government stuck to their view, but I think it is fair to say that the Committee found it rather hard to understand the Government’s view. I wondered whether the Minister perhaps let the cat out of the bag when he told us:
“It may … be”—
to be fair, he did put it tentatively—
“that a convention entered into in 1951 is not absolutely suitable for the world of 2022.”—[Official Report, 8/2/22; col. 1463.]
Tonight, we heard the Minister seeming to hint that it might be time to review the convention as if it was in some way out of date. I could not disagree more.
I refute the Minister’s contention in one word: Ukraine. Life itself—zhizn’ sama, as a Russian would say—refutes the Minister’s contention. In the world of 2022, we see these hundreds of thousands of people—now over 500,000, the UNHCR says—abandoning their homes, trudging the motorways, crowding on to the trains, fleeing the tanks and rockets, and streaming into Poland and Hungary, Slovakia, Moldova and Romania. Are they refugees? Yes, of course they are refugees, just like the Hungarians in 1956 and the Czechs in 1968. Are they entitled to refugee convention rights? Yes, of course they are. But if the Bill, including Clause 11, is enacted or had been enacted, any of them who wanted to come to this country could be only group 2 refugees, without full convention rights, because they had not come directly from Ukraine and could have asked for asylum in Poland or Hungary. That is even though there are no direct flights from Ukraine, and even though we say Ukrainians have to have visas to come here—although we do not issue visas to asylum seekers.
The key point for the House tonight is that there is nothing in the convention or, as I understand it, subject to correction from the legal authorities round me, anywhere in international law requiring an asylum seeker to apply in the first safe country they reach. This, the rationale for Clause 11, is a Home Office invention. The convention sets only one test: not how the refugee got here, but why. What was it that drove him to come here? Was it a well-founded fear of persecution back home? That is the question. But if Clause 11 is approved, that question or test becomes redundant and irrelevant because, no matter what horrors he is fleeing from, if a refugee did not come here directly he could be only a group 2 refugee, subject to the harsher regime, detention and offshore processing set out in all the subsequent clauses that we are also going to have to look at closely, in my view. This just will not do.
My concern is with the refugees but also for the reputational damage we do to ourselves, if we go down this road, and the practical consequences for the refugee convention. Suppose our new invention caught on and other countries started following suit. Well over 20 million refugees are in countries contiguous to their homelands—just across the border—and nearly all these countries are developing countries. Suppose the convention were in future to be interpreted by all and sundry to mean that the exiled Syrians and Iraqis must always stay just across the frontier in Lebanon or Jordan, and that the Afghans must always stay in Pakistan, but the developed world can wash its hands of these problems and leave it to the Jordans and Pakistans, because the refugees could never move on and obtain asylum elsewhere. The only places they could obtain asylum were in the Jordans and the Pakistans.
What would the consequences of that be? They would be disastrous for the first host country; there are 1.5 million people in Lebanon from Iraq and Syria, and more than that from Afghanistan in the camps around Peshawar in Pakistan. We would be saying that Pakistan and Jordan are going to be stuck with that for ever, as far as we are concerned. It would be disastrous for the refugees, too.
If this doctrine caught on—if it were the general reading of international law that first hosts had sole responsibility—anyone seeking to flee persecution would find the gates of freedom clanging shut in their face. If we leave Clause 11 in the Bill, we do not just betray our values and trash our reputation, we could kill the refugee convention, sadly, though we need it in the world of 2022 as much as ever. I propose that Clause 11 be deleted.
Lord Horam (Con)
My Lords, we had a long debate on this subject in Committee, so I shall be brief. We ought to remember throughout what the Bill was originally about. It is fundamentally about stopping, or curbing, the channel migrants. Obviously, we hope to do it in a sensible way. If we could have an agreement with the French, the Belgians or the Dutch to deal with this in a bipartisan way, that would be ideal, but none of us is very optimistic, particularly before a general election in France and so on.
We need other options: a plan B, or maybe a plan C. I agree that some of them stretch the credibility of what any Government would want to do, because the problem of the cross-channel migrants is indeed very difficult to deal with. You have to deal with them separately because, however sympathetic one may be with people in the hands of traffickers coming across the channel for whatever reason, it is a difficult way to come across. It is unsafe, they are clearly behaving illegally—it is against the law to enter this country in that way—and they are doing so in a very public way. Every night on television, you can see people coming across the channel and on to the beaches in Kent and so forth. They add to the number of people the Government have agreed to accept by proper routes—the Chinese from Hong Kong, the Afghans and, now, Ukrainians. Like the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, I hope we will have a generous scheme to allow Ukrainians who wish to come here to do so, just as I hope that Europe will have a generous scheme. I suspect and hope that they will come here only temporarily.
Coming across the channel is an open-ended and uncontrolled method and, if successful, encourages even more to come. Last year, 29,000 came; the prediction is that 60,000 will come this year. That is more money for the traffickers. The traffickers now make more money out of human beings than they do out of drugs, which will increasingly be the case. If we allow that to carry on uncontrolled, it makes it more difficult for local authorities, which have to deal with these people—housing them, making welfare arrangements, schooling their children and dealing with their families.
They add to the problems in the most disadvantaged parts of the country. It is not the leafy areas of Hampstead where these people end up; it is in places such as Blackpool, Stoke-on-Trent, Middlesbrough and Doncaster. I was talking to a red wall MP from the north-west. Blackpool has five of the eight poorest wards in the country; it has real problems. There is fury on the streets of Blackpool at the way they are being dumped on with people such as the migrants who come across the channel. They do not understand why they have to receive them.
The levelling-up agenda, which is central to this Government, is set at nought when that situation is arising in the areas of this country which need to be levelled up. It makes a proper, organised, rational immigration policy more difficult. As my noble friend Lord Hodgson said in a previous debate, informed consent—the consent of the people—is essential for a rational, substantiated and long-term immigration policy. If we do not have a policy that people are comfortable with, in the long run, we will not sustain it.
The Lord Bishop of Durham
My Lords, if the names had not been filled on Amendment 28 then I would have added my name to it. I remind the House of my interests as set out in the register, both in RAMP and Reset.
In Committee I laid out the understanding of the two groupings proposed and argued that almost no one will actually qualify as being in group 1. I had no repudiation offered to that argument. As the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, said, Ukraine is currently illustrating the problem precisely. I was also concerned in the response to the debate in Committee by some of the language of discretion within the two groupings.
We need a simpler, more efficient asylum system, and I continue to be convinced that what is proposed will provide a more complex, slower process. Fundamentally, I am with all those who oppose the two-group system, as it creates a fundamental injustice for fair treatment of all refugees, regardless of how they arrive.
Today, a letter signed by over 1,000 leaders from all the major faith communities of this country was delivered to the Prime Minister. I quote from that letter:
“Dear Prime Minister, As leaders within faith communities across the UK, we are horrified and appalled about the potential repercussions of the Nationality and Borders Bill. We urge you to reconsider the proposals even at this late stage.”
It goes on later to say:
“Currently, Clause 11 sets out the differential treatment of refugees. This separation of refugees into ‘Group 1’ or ‘Group 2’ undermines the longstanding and widely understood expectation that a person’s asylum application is decided on the individual merits of their case and whether they would face serious threats to their life or freedom if they were not to be granted refugee status. The artificial manufacture of a two-tier system creates two different classes of refugees. This would not be based on needs or merits but would depend on the ability of a person to arrive in the UK via a ‘regular’ route of travel. This is a clear breach of the principles of the Refugee Convention, and we have seen no credible evidence that it will stop irregular migration across the English Channel; it is therefore, policy made without a basis in evidence or morality. Criminalizing and punishing vulnerable asylum seekers who have little choice but to arrive in the UK through ‘irregular routes’, when the majority are subsequently able to prove that they have a legitimate basis for their asylum claim, is a disgraceful and dishonourable policy, and should be abandoned.”
The letter says some more about other clauses, but concludes:
“What we need now, is political leadership which acknowledges and allays the concerns of the public while promoting the importance of compassion, human life and dignity. We remain willing to assist in any way we can to this end, and ask that key representatives on this issue from the government would agree to meet with faith representatives to explore what both we, and the government, can do to help address some of the concerns we have raised.”
Just to be clear, Members on these benches who are engaging in the debates during the progress of the Bill made a conscious decision not to sign that letter because of our privilege of being able to speak here. If we were not here, we would have all signed it. It has over 1000 signatures of those from all major faiths. I doubt the Minister is going to agree to withdraw all of Clause 11, but I sincerely hope that she will ask the Prime Minister to respond positively to the letter and recognise that faith leaders representing faith communities across the land should be heeded and not ignored.
If I may add that, on the Australia example, it is not as simple as the noble Lord, Lord Horam, has suggested. There are many in Australia who will tell you that the system is not working and has not stopped the problems; indeed, I think Novak Djokovic might tell you of his own personal experience of how it is not working because of the people he met in the hotel that he was held in, some of whom have been held for a very long time. There is another simple reason it does not work: geography. The United Kingdom is in a very different geographic setting from Australia. I long that we remove Clause 11.
Lord Dubs (Lab)
My Lords, I very much agree with the right reverend Prelate, and I am totally in support of the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, and his amendment.
I agree with the right reverend Prelate: all the evidence we have from Australia is that it is not working. I have talked to people in Australia who say that we should not go down this path because it is not sensible and it does not work.
I shall be extremely brief. The idea that, at this stage, we start renegotiating the 1951 Geneva convention—presumably on the basis of clauses such as Clause 11—is a frightening prospect. This is no time to be tearing up one of the most fundamental human rights documents that we have, which protects vulnerable, innocent victims of war and persecution. This is no time to be saying that we will change that. If the Government are not proposing to do it that way, why have this clause?
It seems to me that there are too many examples—whether it is Afghans who have got to neighbouring countries but cannot get any further, or Ukrainians who have got to neighbouring countries—that give the lie to the idea that, somehow, you can get here by the sort of route that the Home Office approves of. It is complete nonsense. It is not workable and it diminishes this country in the eyes of the world.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
I was so annoyed by what the noble Lord, Lord Horam, was saying, because part of it was absolute nonsense. Australia is actually riven with debate on the whole system of asylum that it offers to refugees, and the offshoring is extremely contentious, not to mention inhumane. Plus, of course, what he has described as all the problems that we have with refugees are actually failures of the Government. Why does he not ask his Government to set up safe systems for refugees to arrive in Britain? That is the real problem: we do not have them.
I shall go back to what I want to say: compliance with the refugee convention seems absolutely part of what we should be doing as an honourable country. We should not think in terms of interpreting it in our own way. Just as countries all over Europe are throwing open their doors to Ukrainian refugees and refugees from other countries who have found themselves in Ukraine, we are putting up walls and nailing doors shut, rather than being honourable about the situation. Imagine people from Ukraine being subject to the two-tier refugee system, as the so-called legitimate ways of escaping Putin’s violent invasion are cut off and Ukrainian refugees have to use so-called illegitimate ways of getting to the UK. The Bill harms those refugees.
If people do get here from Ukraine or other countries, are they to be left homeless and begging on the streets because there is no recourse to public funds and they are banned from work? These people are professionals: they are teachers, nurses, skilled engineers and tradespeople with lifetimes of hard work behind them. They are all banned from contributing in this country, and it makes absolutely no economic or social sense. When Ukrainians claim asylum, do we lock up the women and children in detention centres if they are struggling to find the right paperwork?
If this Government were brave, they would go out and celebrate the asylum system and create one that was fit for purpose and champion the UK as a place of refuge. But this Government are not brave: they pander to the far right and use national rhetoric to divide and rule. At this point, the Government ought to reflect on the whole Bill and realise it is not appropriate for the circumstances we are in. It is cruel, it is inhumane, and quite honestly, the invasion of Ukraine should be a turning point for us. The Government should abandon the Bill and perhaps start thinking about a “refugees are welcome” Bill.
Baroness Stowell of Beeston (Con)
My Lords, may I just ask my noble friend a question, based on listening to this debate and looking at Clause 11 as it stands? Subsections (5) and (6) say that the Secretary of State “may” treat group 1 and 2 refugees differently. My interpretation is that this clause is introducing an element of discretion to the Home Secretary to deal with a situation in a way that allows some difference of treatment, should she see fit—not a requirement that she must do so.
On the point the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, just made in response to my noble friend Lord Horam, I say that the Government are not seeking not to comply with the refugee convention, but seeking to allow for some flexibility and discretion to deal with some of the changing situations in this context, which are very different now from when the convention was introduced 50 or so years ago.
Lord Etherton (CB)
My Lords, I entirely endorse and support what the noble Lord, Lord Kerr of Kinlochard, has said. I do not want to develop this as a lawyer, because the issues can be very well understood by anybody with any degree of common sense. The starting point is that the English courts have reached a view about the meaning of “directly” in the convention, and the contrary view that has been rejected by the courts is the one found in Clause 36; and Clause 11 is to be read with Clause 36. I take issue with the proposition that the introduction of “may” in some way or other alleviates this problem. It does not. The Government have adopted a view about the meaning of the convention, and the meaning of “directly” that is critical to the division between groups 1 and 2, which has been rejected. Perhaps more importantly even than the fact that it was rejected expressly by the English courts is that it has not been adopted by the UNCHR either, which has followed the English jurisdiction since the expert round-table conference in Geneva in November 2001, set up specifically to discuss and agree Article 31.
Lord Russell of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, I was not intending to speak in this debate but, rather like the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, I was prompted to by some of the interventions from behind the Front Bench, so as a non-politician I will speak briefly about the political context used to justify some of this rather egregious legislation.
I have the privilege of being the only non-political member of the UK delegation to the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe. The Council of Europe is nothing to do with the EU. It is the foremost human rights organisation in our continent, with 47 countries until Friday, when we ejected Russia, so we are now down to 46.
Although I am independent, and I am not a politician, to function there you have to be part of a political grouping, so I sit with what happens to be the political grouping of the Government of the United Kingdom of today: the Conservative Party. The political grouping it is in is called the European Conservatives Group and Democratic Alliance. The group that we—all the Conservative MPs and Peers and I—sit in when we are in Strasbourg contains some of the political parties that the noble Lord, Lord Horam, referred to by name, saying we did not want to go that way.
In Strasbourg, the Conservative Party sits with the AfD, the laughingly named Sweden Democrats, who are effectively neo-fascists, and, from my wife’s native Italy, the Fratelli d’Italia, who are the direct descents of Mussolini, and the Lega Nord, led by the wonderful Mr Salvini, usually seen on the beach. These are not good bedfellows. Some of the comments that I hear from politicians, particularly from another place but also from some members of the Cabinet, are remarkably similar to some of the views I hear in the meeting room in Strasbourg when some of these individuals are speaking—views which most of us would find pretty horrendous but one steels oneself to listen to because, I suspect, they are probably reflecting pretty accurately the views of the people who voted them into office.
I will briefly refer to being in office. My great-grandfather, who was Prime Minister three times, said, “You are not elected into power; you are elected into office. You are elected into office as much to represent those who didn’t vote for you, or who didn’t vote at all, as those who did vote for you”. What we are hearing is a sort of “I’m all right, Jack” view of the world.
My wife’s native country of Italy is a contiguous country, in the way referred to by my noble friend Lord Kerr. Italy’s citizens did not want or vote for a large migration from north Africa to come. They may not like it, but they have accepted it; they really do not have any choice. Part of the reason that they are having a lot of problems and they are quite cross with countries such as ours is that we have completely and utterly refused, as have most other EU countries, to share the burden equally. The noble Lord, Lord Coaker, and I have been to Jordan, another contiguous country. We went to Zaatari, the largest refugee camp for Syrians, in northern Jordan, where some 80,000 men, women and many children are huddled in reasonable conditions, thanks to the UNHCR. In Lebanon and Turkey no citizen voted for this, but that is what they have ended up with. We are a very long way from being contiguous but we are behaving in a way which, frankly, I find shameful.
The great-grandfather I referred to earlier was involved in raising the equivalent of about £34 million in 1939 after the Kristallnacht in Germany, which enabled a great many Kindertransport children to come to this country—that is what the money was used for. He would be ashamed by what is going on in this Chamber tonight.
Lord Green of Deddington (CB)
My Lords, I will just say a word in support of what the noble Lord, Lord Horam, said, about public opinion. We have to be careful here. A substantial slice of public opinion is concerned about the scale and nature of the inflow of people claiming to be refugees, and the shambles in the channel at the moment is no help. We need to bear that in mind in all our discussions. I do not think that the policy itself will work, and I do not think that the division into this or the other class of refugee will help. But let us not, for goodness’ sake, get carried away by our own righteousness and forget that there are a lot of people in this country who are not in situations as comfortable as ours who look to us to make sure that, in so far as there is an input of refugees, they are genuine.
Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood (CB)
My Lords, I would not want that to be quite the last word. The speech made by my noble friend Lord Kerr was not merely powerful, it was compelling and irrefutable. As a matter of law, I have spoken on this before in Committee. I am not going to repeat all that, but do we really believe that the inhabitants of Blackpool, Doncaster or the deprived towns spoken of by the noble Lord, Lord Horam, and reflected in the contribution of my noble friend Lord Green, are so much less understanding, less sympathetic or less kind than the Poles, who are welcoming these vast hordes of people? We are not going to be asked to take that sort of number.
It is a dismaying thought that we really believe that our fellow countrymen, at this crisis in world events, would turn their backs, which is, in effect, what is being suggested. Are we really going to condemn, as Clause 11 is designed to do, rafts of asylum seekers—genuine refugees—to the loneliness, isolation, desperation, destitution and failure to be able to bring their families that it is suggested we now must to stop people crossing the channel, or to appease those in our deprived areas who do not want vast numbers of more refugees? I fervently suggest not. I would have hoped that, in this ghastly moment of history, the Minister would say, “This is not a moment to promote a Bill like this. We must withdraw it and think again”. No doubt, that is above his pay grade: indeed, considering that he is unpaid, that is not a very high bar. However, I really urge those responsible for this grotesque piece of legislation not to try to persist in it at this juncture.
Lord Paddick (LD)
My Lords, if those seeking asylum in the UK are genuine seekers of sanctuary from war and persecution, they are entitled to all the rights afforded to refugees under the refugee convention. Even if they are eventually found not to be genuine refugees, they are entitled to have their claim considered and their welfare safeguarded while it is being considered. A number of noble Lords have talked about public opinion. In answer to the noble Lord, Lord Horam, who appears to think that this is all about people crossing the channel, Clause 11 would make Ukrainian refugees who made it to Poland and then flew to the UK second-class refugees. If—I say “if”; I am not saying that this is the case—there is concern in public opinion, it is a concern about immigration, not a concern about refugees.
This is a very generous nation. If you speak to people in the towns and cities that the noble Lord, Lord Horam, has mentioned, the vast majority will say, “Of course we want to help those people fleeing the war in Ukraine”. They are concerned about being overwhelmed by immigrants, but only 6% of immigration in recent years has been by asylum seekers. That is why Clause 11 is not right and not necessary. Once asylum seekers have presented themselves and their claim in the UK, they are entitled to have their claim considered without fear or favour, regardless of where they came from and how they got here. They should not be treated differently on that basis. We should take Clause 11 out of the Bill and, when the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, tests the opinion of the House, we will be voting with him.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
With the greatest respect to the noble Lord, under the rules of Report stage, one is allowed to speak only once during the debate.
Lord Rosser (Lab)
My Lords, as has been said, Clause 11 is about differential treatment of recognised refugees. There is the distinction that the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, referred to between refugees and immigration generally. We believe that Clause 11 contravenes the 1951 refugee convention: it sets a dangerous precedent by creating a two-tier system—group 1 refugees and group 2 refugees—and, frankly, it is also inhumane.
Under the Bill, the Home Secretary will be given sweeping powers to decide asylum cases based on how someone arrives in this country and their mode of transport, not on the strength of their claim, contrary to the 1951 refugee convention, of which Britain was a founding member. The different ways those two groups could be treated is not limited in any way by the Bill, although Clause 11 provides examples: those who travel via a third country, who do not have documents or who did not claim asylum immediately will routinely be designated as group 2 refugees.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who spoke to these amendments. At the outset, I will dispel one widespread misapprehension about this clause. Under Clause 11, those who meet the terms of the refugee convention will be granted refugee status. There is no question of this clause making it harder to be a refugee or otherwise enabling the Government to refuse refugee protection to those who need it. That is simply not true. What the clause does is enable the Secretary of State to distinguish between refugees based on whether they came directly and claimed without delay, but anyone considered under this policy will be a refugee.
The status of Clause 11, as a deterrent, is closely tied to secondary movements and the first safe country principle. In Committee it was claimed that, for a number of reasons, the UK must allow people to choose to come here from other safe countries to claim asylum, if they wish. This is not sustainable. It has also been posited that requiring refugees to claim asylum in the first safe country would undermine the global humanitarian and co-operative principles on which the refugee system is founded. I categorically reject this. In fact, it would strengthen them, because more countries would have the capacity for resettlement via safe and legal routes. Quite simply, if spontaneous intake falls, our ability to bring over refugees from regions of origin increases.
I will also reiterate at this stage that the first safe country principle is itself internationally recognised. Not only does it underpin the Common European Asylum System but there is a long-standing safe third country agreement between the USA and Canada which means that, barring certain exceptions, anyone arriving at the Canadian border is ineligible to make a claim. As my noble friend Lord Horam might have mentioned, Norwegian legislation similarly sets out that an application for asylum may be refused where a person has travelled to Norway after having stayed in a place where they did not face persecution. Australia—much mentioned this evening—also has those statutory powers to designate countries as safe, with the effect that anyone from that place will be barred from claiming asylum. In Australia, they have almost entirely stopped small boat crossings.
The evidence on which such policies are based is not only the fact that certain safe countries are clearly more popular than others as a destination for asylum seekers but comes from academic analysis. To be clear, I am going to talk about the reasons for secondary movements from one safe country to another, not why people leave their countries of origin in the first place. The two are clearly not the same. Secondary movements were assessed in a comprehensive analysis by Takle and Seeberg in 2015. An important part of their conclusion was that “future possibilities” play a crucial role in explaining secondary movements:
“For the individual migrant, it makes sense to ask: ‘If I make it through the waiting period and if I gain protection in this country—will I have the means to survive here? Will I be able to work, to find adequate housing, to fulfil my family obligations, to complete my education, to find friends, to belong: will I have a life? If not, where might I be better able to build myself a new life?’”
These are entirely sensible and understandable things to ask oneself. However, every last one of those things can be found in France and other safe countries without the need for a dangerous journey to the UK.
Another study concerning secondary movements of Eritreans between Italy and Norway by Brekke and Brochmann in 2014 noted the following:
“National differences in the quality of the reception system, in welfare policies, and in labour market opportunities motivated the secondary migration of asylum seekers and refugees in Italy.”
They also observed:
“The UK, Norway, and Sweden stood out as attractive destinations for the Eritreans. One informant stated: ‘There you get everything if you are accepted: housing, pocket money, education and work.’”
Again, this is totally understandable. The notion, as I have heard repeated in this House, that people are motivated by singular and discrete “pull factors” unrelated to economic considerations is therefore reductive and misleading. In fact, commonly cited pulls, such as language, family, and diaspora links, are not only intrinsically valuable but instrumentally valuable to improving future possibilities, including work and education. I repeat: France offers perfectly good future possibilities. There is no need to take a dangerous journey across the channel to improve future possibilities. We must do everything within our powers to stop this, including putting Clause 11 into law.
Briefly, the “without delay” element of Clause 11 is intended simply to deter other unwanted behaviours that we see in the asylum system. This includes making late claims without reasonable excuse, often in response to a negative immigration decision to delay removal. This is intended primarily to improve operational efficiency, enabling us to focus resources on those most in need and to carry out quick and cost-effective returns of those who have no right to be in the UK.
Distinguishing between different refugees forms part of the refugee convention itself. For example, the entire structure of entitlement under the refugee convention rests on different levels of attachment, with physical presence and lawful presence distinguished for the purposes of various entitlements. Article 31 does not contain a blanket prohibition on the imposition of penalties on refugees who enter or are present illegally. Article 31 prohibits penalties only in respect of refugees who either are coming directly from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened or present themselves without delay to the authorities, and who show good cause for their illegal entry or presence.
We think that differentiation is not a penalty, taking into account that the convention does not explicitly define “penalty” and the fact that there is no unanimity on the definition of penalty. In any event, the convention does not prohibit differentiation and the clear implication of Article 31 is that states are entitled to impose penalties on refugees who enter their territory illegally when the three conditions are not satisfied. I have already spoken at length about the broad and flexible nature of the powers under Clause 11, which I have consistently argued enable the Secretary of State to exercise sensitive and compassionate discretion in each and every case.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham stated that nobody would be in group 1. That is not true. Those who could not be reasonably expected to claim in another safe country may well be in group 1 if, for example, they were trafficked. This goes to my noble friend Lady Stowell’s point: despite a number of misleading media and NGO reports, there is a vanishingly low risk that anyone who has, for example, suffered sexual or gender-based violence, is coming to terms with their sexuality or is the victim of trafficking will face differentiated entitlements.
Our definitions of concepts such as “come directly” and “without delay” are drafted in a manner that is responsive to those who may have legitimate reasons for being unable to comply with the standards set out and, as per my noble friend’s amendments, as drafted already enable us to use reasonable discretion when considering imposition of differentiated entitlements—again, a point that my noble friend Lady Stowell made. Indeed, there is no obligation to impose any particular condition on group 2 refugees. There is ample room for people to show that they could not reasonably have been expected to claim asylum in another safe country or that they could not claim as soon as reasonably practicable.
Group 2 refugees will still be protected and receive relevant entitlements in accordance with the refugee convention so that the object and purpose of the convention are upheld. Accordingly, Clause 11 is considered a good faith, compatible interpretation of the refugee convention.
My noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering lamented the diminution of safe and legal routes. We have not diminished such routes; I have set them out and distributed them to noble Lords. Some of those routes are not capped—for example, the BNO and refugee family reunion routes. On that note, my right honourable friend the Home Secretary stated today the ability of Ukrainians to come fee-free via the family reunion route. Potentially 100,000 Ukrainian refugees will come here, and we will be very glad to see them. On the point about visa waivers, I think it is very important that we continue to have the simple security checks that my right honourable friend talks about, because there is evidence that people who would do us harm are masquerading as Ukrainian refugees.
Just to finish, I have a point on Jordan, which I think the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool, mentioned. The standards of housing, recourse to public funds, education and healthcare in Jordan are not comparable with the UK. I shall say no more about that, but it is a difficult one to compare the UK with Jordan in terms of the infrastructure and facilities for Jordanians.
I think that every concern from noble Lords thus far has been met with a very clear and reassuring answer. This clause strikes a robust balance between firmness and fairness, with a firm policy response to the evidential picture about secondary movements and upholding the first safe country principle, but fair in its acknowledgement that we absolutely must be sensitive to the vulnerabilities of certain asylum seekers. I hope that, on that note, noble Lords do not press their amendments.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, obviously I am disappointed that my Amendments 25, 26 and 27 have not found favour with the Minister or the House. My noble and very good friend Lord Horam said that he hoped that France and Belgium would take some of the asylum seekers and refugees back. That would indeed have been the case if we had managed to negotiate that we stayed within the Dublin III convention—so that is another source of disappointment.
My right honourable friend the Prime Minister stated yesterday in a very holy place that the UK would be very generous with Ukrainian refugees, but I regret to say that I do not hear how that is going to be applied in what I heard from the Front Bench this evening. However, I shall not press my amendments, because I believe that Amendment 28 carries more favour, so I beg leave to withdraw.
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)
My Lords, there are two ways in which to break a treaty, and I think that, looking back on it, I rather preferred the Brandon Lewis way—the straightforward, “Yes, we’re breaking a treaty, in a specific and limited way.” This rather weaselly approach, whereby the Government say, “Oh well, we’re perfectly entitled to interpret the treaty as we choose, and no, as a matter of fact we’re not in breach of it”, seems to me unconvincing and undesirable, and rather bad for our international reputation and for refugees.
I have not heard an answer to the key point, which is that, if I were coming from Ukraine, I could not be a group 1 refugee because I cannot come directly. The clause says that the requirement of being a group 1 refugee is that you have come to the United Kingdom directly from the country or territory where your life or freedom were threatened. So nobody from Ukraine can be entitled to full refugee convention rights in this country, if this becomes the law. I do not think that is right, so I think I have to test the opinion of the House.
Higher Education Reform
(2 years, 2 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
My Lords, in May 2019, the then Prime Minister, Theresa May, launched the report of the Augar review. That was a long time ago, and it feels like a very long time ago. I wish I could say that the time has been well used, but let us have a look at what has been put out in this report.
First, there are changes to student loans. From the academic year 2023-24, the interest rate on loans will be changed to RPI for everybody, which is interesting, because Ministers keep telling me that RPI is no longer an official statistic because of concerns over its methodology. I can only assume that, somehow, it is not good enough when you are paying money out to benefit recipients but it is fine when you are taking money away from students. If only the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, were here, I think he would have something to say about that.
Secondly, it reduces the repayment threshold to £25,000 and increases the repayment term to 40 years—much of a working life. For those on the current loan scheme, the repayment threshold will stay at the current level until 2024-25, which, given the current inflation rate, is quite a bit of fiscal drag. The effect of these measures together is highly regressive, hitting the lowest earners the hardest.
Paul Johnson of the IFS said this about it:
“looked at from the point of view of progressivity, redistribution, winners and losers, the reforms look truly horrible. Low-to-middle-earning graduates could be made about £20,000 worse off over their lifetime by the changes; the highest earners could benefit by £25,000.”
The equality analysis published alongside the consultation document said that
“among new borrowers, the largest proportional increases in lifetime repayments will be from lower earners … by 174% for those in the 4th decile”.
Meanwhile,
“the highest lifetime earners among new borrowers will experience large decreases in lifetime repayments (down 26%)”.
Why have the Government chosen to reform the loan system in a way which so profoundly benefits higher earners and hits those on lower incomes?
If noble Lords are wondering what the attraction of this particular approach is, it is perhaps worth mentioning that, thanks to a quirk of government accounting rules, these changes make the public finances look quite a bit better, but only in the short term. The IFS says that it will take about £1 billion off the cost of the student loan scheme, but:
“We expect the budget deficit to fall by about £5 billion in 2023 as a result of the changes, with subsequent hits to the deficit further down the road as new loans accumulate less interest.”
It finishes, drily:
“This will please the Treasury.”
Indeed it will.
However, this will not please many people because the pain does not fall equally in other ways. The equality analysis says that women, disabled people, some ethnic minorities and those from certain regions are likely to face increased lifetime repayments. Men gain and women lose. On average, men will repay around £5,500 less and women will pay £6,600 more. The IFS notes a remarkable comment:
“the taxpayer cost of funding men’s student loans will actually increase as a result of the reform … the saving on women’s student loans alone is greater than the total at £1.6 billion.”
Women students are not only paying for the reduced cost to the Exchequer; they are paying for the men’s changes as well. The Minister will doubtless say that this discrimination is not intentional, it is just that women earn less. But the Government know that women earn less across their lifetime. So, having known that, can the Minister tell the House what consideration was given to the differential impact of these proposals before deciding on them?
The Government are also consulting on other measures, including reintroducing government controls over student numbers. But not just by a global figure; they are consulting on whether to control them by sector, provider, subject, level or even by mode of study. Are the Government planning to do all of them? Might they do them all? Could the Government conceive of a world in which the Secretary of State could decide that physics is in but history is out? Could he close down the music department at Lindchester University completely? Could he decree that all computing is going to be done in FE from now on? This may not be their plan, but there is no way to tell from the documents published what their plan is. So could the Government give the House some hints?
They are also consulting on minimum eligibility requirements, including an option of requiring level 4 or above—that is a grade C in old money—in maths and English at GCSE. I found it quite hard to work out the numbers affected, because the tables in the equality analysis are quite confusing, but the Minister may be able to shed some light on that. I am pretty sure this will have a differential effect with regard to region and disadvantage.
It is not just about access to university; it is about access to the loan book. The Minister can confirm that presumably a student whose parents—or who themselves—could pay fees upfront has no problem, but then what happens to the more than half of pupils eligible for free school meals who will leave education without GCSE maths and English? Can the Minister tell the House what work has been done to look at the effect of such a plan on poorer children and young people from deprived areas?
There is also a proposal to limit funding for foundation years—and yes, once again this has differential effects. The equality analysis says that
“mature students and black, Asian and mixed/other ethnic minority groups … may be at greater risk of reduced access to HE and choice of provision”.
This is all really very disappointing. Augar was launched amid concerns about fairness and affordability for students, but those are clearly not the drivers at the heart of this response. The loan reforms are regressive and will hit lower-earning graduates. Rather than focusing on raising standards in schools and in HE, they risk penalising those who already find it hardest to get on through education.
Meanwhile, there is nothing on living costs for students, nothing to boost efforts on widening participation and nothing on the timing of admissions—except after a very big think they have decided not to do anything at all about post-qualification admissions. The consultation on the lifelong learning entitlement is still really vague. There is quite a lot on the how but not very much on the what, and certainly not on the why.
We have waited a thousand days for a response to Augar. That is roughly the length of an undergraduate degree, I reckon—you could probably do a PhD in that time; it is pretty much three years. After all that time, where is the strategic plan? Where is the vision for a strong, diverse higher education system that could help all of our young people and students to fulfil their potential? This feels like a missed opportunity. I hope the Minister can persuade me otherwise.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, this is a very odd Statement because it suggests one or two nice things but does not really give us much detail. As the noble Baroness has just pointed out, the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, is missed on this one. His intellectually honest toe-caps have gone into the ribs of many of us here and the Government Front Bench has actually felt them on many an occasion. A student finance system that celebrates going from 23% repayment to maybe half is a weird thing. Why do we still persist with this loan system? It is seen to be financially failing—unless creating a form of junk bond at the end of it is the aim. There will be not quite so much junk; that would seem to be about the essence of it.
If we are looking at how we get further education better into the system by giving better bonuses for lifelong learning—a suggestion of something that might be better in the future—we have to get people to go on the courses. What are we doing about careers guidance that would improve what people know about this? The first thing you will have to do is to train teachers, who are, let us face it, predominantly graduates, and we all know that what we did is right—if you do not come from that group, then you are very much in a minority—as we “stick to nurse”. Where is the training to make sure teachers are giving the right information to people or at least stand half a chance of so doing?
This has not got any easier with the introduction of T-levels and the removal of BTECs, which provided a series of fairly established ways of finding your way into higher education and the level 4 and 5 qualifications which are mentioned. We need some clear guidance to get this through and see how they are going to all tag in together. At the moment, I would say that it is an optimistic mess. We are not quite sure what the Government are expecting. It is going to be better, and it just might be that, after my entire lifetime, in relation to people at levels 4 and 5—I think it is technician-level qualification—we might be starting to address that, but we are doing it in a very chaotic way. The paths into education have fundamentally changed over the last couple of years, and they have changed in an incoherent manner.
To come to the last point, which the noble Baroness also touched on, if we have a special educational needs review taking place, why are we putting in a requirement for English and maths, which are the things that certainly the group I come from—that is, dyslexics—find difficult? It is 10% of the population; stick in dyscalculia, and that is another 3%, and those are conservative figures. Why are we making it so much more difficult for this group to get on to that pathway? When it comes to adult entrants into education, we are getting rid of BTECs, which were the way in, and we are saying that people have to have two A-levels. If you want later entrants—if you want entrants after having done, say, a level 4 course—why are we putting this in? It does not make any sense. Can we have some coherence about this?
Reading this as it stands, the Equality Act might have quite a lot to say about it. I have mentioned only two groups; others are available. Can we get some coherence around this? At the moment, the Government have waved a few ideas at us. The repayment structure may be slightly better for the Treasury, but I do not think it makes much difference to anybody else. Can we please hear what the Government are really about? If they are going to limit the amount of money we waste on the repayment structure, they have set themselves a very unambitious target.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Education (Baroness Barran) (Con)
I thank the noble Baroness and the noble Lord for their remarks and their questions. The noble Baroness rightly focuses on issues of fairness and access to higher education. The Government have tried to balance fairness to students with fairness to the taxpayer. Currently, a great proportion of the subsidy that the taxpayer makes towards higher education is funded by those who did not have the benefits of that higher education themselves. Students going to university have the advantages of their degree throughout their working lives.
Our estimate is that, over the course of their degree, the average graduate will borrow £39,300 from next year. Today, the average graduate would repay £19,500, and under the new proposed system, they would repay £25,300, so there is still a tremendous subsidy for the average graduate. The noble Baroness focuses on those who are more marginalised and are lower-earners, and she will be well aware that below £25,000 there is no repayment at all.
The noble Baroness also talked about the consultation around limitations on student numbers and minimum-entry requirements. This is, as she well understands, very much part of our drive towards having higher-quality courses. The numbers affected by the consultation—and I would stress it is a genuine consultation; we genuinely want to understand how stakeholders feel about this—and affected by proposed GCSE requirements would be less than 1% of students, and around 1% for the suggested entry requirement at A-level.
The noble Lord focuses on the barrier that that may present to those with special educational needs, but I would respectfully suggest it is also a tremendous barrier for everybody not to have English and maths at a basic level, since they are such an important entry requirement for almost every job. There are not many jobs in this country that you can do if you cannot read, write and add up. That is why the Government have extended their support, so that students can retake English and maths for whatever reason that might be.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, will the noble Baroness give way for a moment? If you have got a disability, it means you have trouble doing it. You have legal requirements that say you are not supposed to discriminate and there are other ways around it. For instance, voice operation—which is available as a standard item on every computer for English. If you are not going to bring that into the system—which would have been a perfectly valid answer—why are you excluding them?
Baroness Barran (Con)
There is absolutely no intention to exclude at all. The department is heavily focused on trying to improve outcomes for pupils with special educational needs and the noble Lord will be aware of the enormous range of outcomes depending on which school a child with the same disability or special need goes to. We want to equalise those, so it should make no difference where a child goes to school in terms of their outcomes.
If I may continue, the noble Baroness questioned what we were doing in relation to foundation years. I did not quite follow her argument. We are consulting on reducing the maximum fee and loan limits for foundation years, from the current just over £9,000 to £5,197, and that is to bring it in line to be the same amount as an access to a higher education diploma. We hope it will make those foundation years—which are an important access route for those who may be more disadvantaged to get into higher education or potentially for mature students—more accessible.
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
The Minister did not follow my argument. Maybe when she reads Hansard, she will see that all I did was to quote from the equality analysis that her own department produced to accompany the proposals, to show that it could have a differential effect on different groups.
Baroness Barran (Con)
Hopefully there will be a less differential effect than there is currently.
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
No, I am sorry—I do not want to delay the House—but if she could actually read the equality analysis, it said that, as a direct result of the reduction in the foundation years loan, if providers found they could no longer fund and provide those courses at the lower rate, it could reduce access to higher education. It is there in the equality analysis.
Baroness Barran (Con)
I thank the noble Baroness for clarifying that.
Both the noble Baroness and the noble Lord questioned whether there was a strategy and a plan behind this. I am impressed, but not surprised, that the noble Baroness can do a PhD in 1,000 days. I will, if I may, try to set out the wider context a little. Our clear ambition is that students should succeed and achieve their potential. We are doing that in a number of ways. The first is by expanding the choices that we are offering them—for example, by expanding the higher technical qualifications, offering modular learning options and introducing T-levels, as well as the existing qualifications. We are expanding choice.
We are investing very substantially in higher education: £900 million pounds in the next three years, in addition to the £2.8 million that we have announced for further education, and the recent settlement for schools, as well as introducing a specific scholarship option for high-achieving disadvantaged students, so that they too can realise their potential. A great deal of work is going on, led by the Office for Students, on the quality of degrees.
On the noble Baroness’s point on student number caps, these approaches have been used in the past. I think our real aim is to identify those courses with very high drop-out rates or very poor graduate progression outcomes, and make sure that those are limited, but in no way to try to affect the more successful and higher-quality courses.
Our bottom line is that we want to maximise and continue to build on the successes in offering opportunity to students. Students from disadvantaged backgrounds are 82% more likely to go to university today than in 2010. We want to build on that and on the increase in students from black, Asian and minority ethnic communities going to university, in making sure that this country offers opportunity to all.
Baroness Falkner of Margravine (CB)
My Lords, I welcome the lifelong learning and other measures that will improve social mobility, but the higher education sector needs a root-and-branch review of the business model of our universities. Perhaps I need to declare that I have a family member who works in higher education and I have been associated with several universities in the past.
We are in another week when UCU members are on strike because of a broken system, where their pensions and working conditions are under attack, while managers pay themselves such astonishing amounts as to make even the private sector blush. USS administrators are using valuation scenarios so risk-averse as to lack any credibility, and the world-class system that the Government rightly applaud is in real danger of being depleted of future academic talent as rewards fall further behind, and the taxpayer’s interests are ignored under the pretext of university autonomy. When will the Government address these blatant anomalies in a sector that seems to have lost its sense of purpose? I associate myself with the remarks of the Labour Front Bench about vision.
Baroness Barran (Con)
The noble Baroness asks a number of important questions about the funding model for our universities but, as she acknowledged, they are incredibly successful in attracting international students, with over 605,000 of those students coming to our universities. In the other place the other day, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State quoted the figure that of every four international students, two go to the US, one comes to the UK and the rest of the world shares the last one.
We are aiming to build on that success; the investment that we announced along with this package aims to focus on both teaching and facilities to make sure that the highest-quality future-facing education is offered in our universities. My right honourable friend the Minister for Universities and Higher Education has been extremely active in stressing her concerns about how students’ experience has suffered over Covid and the responsibility of universities to respond, get back to face-to-face teaching and meet their needs, but I am happy to pick up in writing some of the wider points that the noble Baroness raised.
Lord Johnson of Marylebone (Con)
My Lords, I strongly support the Government’s student finance reforms, which strengthen what I think is the least bad system of funding higher education, but I have to say that I am puzzled by why the Government appear to be disavowing what in my view has been the standout levelling-up policy of the last decade: the removal of student number controls, which have allowed disadvantaged young people to go to university in far greater numbers—they are 80% more likely to do so in 2021 than they were in 2010. I would be very grateful if the Minister could reassure me that any student number controls will be imposed only in the most egregious cases of poor outcomes identified by the OfS and will not be used as a back-door means of reimposing sweeping caps or quotas on aspiration across the entire system.
Baroness Barran (Con)
I am delighted to reassure my noble friend that we will not be introducing the sweeping caps to which he alludes. As he said, universities have been extremely successful in terms of social mobility. By consulting on student number controls, we are not taking a position on what the correct proportion of people going to university should be, but we want to tilt provision towards the best outcomes for students and, as I said, make sure that our further education system also offers fantastic pathways to success.
Baroness Blackstone (Ind Lab)
My Lords, I admire a great deal of what the Government are trying to do in relation to the future of higher education but I suspect that there is a bit of a muddle going on: the Government’s right hand does not seem to be doing the same as their left; that was just very ably put by the noble Lord, Lord Johnson. I start by asking why it has taken so long—it is two and a half years since the Augar report was published. If the Government are so concerned about having a high-class higher education system, with large numbers of international students, to reach out to the most disadvantaged and to ensure better outcomes, there is some urgency in this. Of course it is complex but perhaps the Minister can say why it has taken so long to reach any kind of conclusions on this report. Moreover, we are going to have a lot more consultation. I am not against consultation, but this one could have started two years ago, in which case we would be rather nearer to getting some kind of conclusion on where we are going next.
I also want to pick up what my noble friend on the Front Bench said about the effects of the proposed changes in student finance. How can the Government justify the much higher repayments that the least well off will pay because of the many years of interest charges—a lower rate of interest than now but, nevertheless, a much longer period for which they will be paying interest—whereas the wealthier students will pay off their loans very quickly and not incur all this interest? Is it not time to introduce a truly progressive graduate tax, rather than the regressive system of repayments being put forward today?
Baroness Barran (Con)
The noble Baroness partly answered her first question herself. She understands it very well. This is hugely complex and sensitive. The issues around repayment rates and the relative burden on the taxpayer versus the student all need careful consideration. Obviously, there are huge financial implications. The noble Baroness will have seen the figures on the projected size of the student loan book in 2043 if we did not do anything about this, which is half a trillion pounds—I was about to say dollars, because “trillion” always sounds like dollars, but it is pounds.
On the consultation, I feel slightly that as a Government we are damned if we do and damned if we do not. If we had not consulted, I am sure we would have been criticised. I know that the noble Baroness was asking about the timing of the consultation; that also had to align with the work done on the policy. We hope that the consultation will help to answer some of the disadvantage questions to which the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, on the Front Bench and the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, referred. We really do want to understand how those groups that might feel the most difficulty in accessing higher education, particularly this new modular approach that will be offered, will be impacted so that we can structure the policy in a way that makes it most accessible.
The Lord Bishop of Durham
My Lords, I declare my interest as chair of the National Society. I thank the Minister for what is a very significant Statement, with wide-ranging implications for higher and further education, social mobility and the economy, current and potential students, and the future of many communities. A number of the policy ambitions are welcome, such as the higher technical qualifications. My concern, and hence my question, is about the unintended potential consequences of some of the proposals. What steps are the Government taking to ensure that these proposed reforms actively increase opportunities for students from disadvantaged backgrounds who aim at professional careers in our vital public and community services, or in fields such as the creative industries, which seem to fall outside the high-quality and high-cost criteria for intended increases in strategic investment described in the consultation documents?
Baroness Barran (Con)
I may have touched on some of the points that I hope can address the right reverend Prelate’s question. To go back to the consultations, they are explicitly to help us avoid unintended consequences and to get input from as wide a circle of stakeholders as possible. Obviously, we believe, as Philip Augar did in his review, that a modular, lifelong education system with the funding to back it up will be accessible, lead to greater career development over somebody’s lifetime and meet the skills needed in the economy. Specific elements, such as the scholarship I mentioned, can be used not just for higher education but for further education and apprenticeships. Lastly, these changes must also be taken in the context of the major investment in and major reforms we have made to further education and the bringing together of the funding approach between higher technical qualifications at level 4 and 5 and degrees.
Lord Storey (LD)
My Lords, the Minister talks about fairness in access and increasing the options for young people. But we know how the EBacc has reduced the options for young people in our schools, particularly those who want to do a creative subject. By doing that, the pipeline into universities, and indeed FE colleges, has become less, so we are seeing low numbers following creative subjects in higher education. Indeed, in the whole university sector there is only one professor of music. Surely if we want to increase options, we have to ensure that those options are available at our secondary schools.
Baroness Barran (Con)
I am certainly aware from the many schools I visit that some of the best of them offer a great deal of choice, both within and outside their curriculum. I understand and hear the noble Lord’s concerns, but if we look at the success of our creative industries—which are world beating, in that well-known phrase—we see that we are clearly providing our children, through school and through further and higher education, the skills they need to be very successful within them.
Lord Willetts (Con)
My Lords, I am very grateful to the Minister for her Statement and very much agree with the points made by my noble friend Lord Johnson. The changes to the financing of higher education make sense, because the system was always envisaged as one in which the majority of graduates would pay back the cost of their education. An arrangement in which we ended up with more than half of all student loans being written off was not the kind of balanced system originally envisaged.
I ask the Minister to agree that one of the reasons why the English higher education system stands out as one of the better systems in the world is the autonomy enjoyed by universities. We already have a consultation from the OfS on minimum thresholds to measure university performance, we will now have a consultation on number controls and we have another consultation on minimum educational requirements. Does she accept that if all these different, highly intrusive and detailed interventions are piled up on top of each other, the Government will be not boosting the quality of universities but eroding their ability to run their own affairs and therefore threatening the quality of our universities? I invite her to agree that if all those measures are imposed in total on universities, it would be hard to describe our system as one of university autonomy.
Baroness Barran (Con)
I absolutely agree with my noble friend about the importance of autonomy, but I hope he agrees with me that there is also a real responsibility to have transparency and for students to be really clear on the impact of this major decision and financial commitment they are making and what their future career and further education prospects are, based on the choice of course. We are not aiming to restrict university autonomy. We are aiming to improve transparency and, through transparency, to see that autonomy translate into even higher quality than we have today.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I welcome HE reform and have no objection to, for example, introducing minimum academic eligibility requirements to go to university, although linking access to student finance seems a cheap avoidance of winning the arguments for the virtues of the academic purpose of university. Is linking the value of a course’s quality to good jobs not a philistine undermining of knowledge for its own sake, turning universities into glorified job training centres? Is there a danger of a technocratic version of social mobility that instrumentalises the purpose of university, confirming that the only way to improve your social standing is to get a degree or go to university—the very opposite of what I assume the Government intend?
Baroness Barran (Con)
I apologise to the House if I was not completely clear in my earlier answer. I hoped and intended to refer to both the quality of jobs and the further education opportunities. Absolutely, our R&D is critical for the future of the country, and the quality of our thinking and debate, which I know the noble Baroness supports profoundly, is also really important. This is not just about jobs. But equally, I was made aware of six computing courses where the dropout rate is over 40%. Is that not something we should look at, compared with other courses where the dropout rate is much lower?
Baroness Morris of Yardley (Lab)
I understand why the Government want to make sure that students have the skills they need to manage the course, but there has been a lot of concern caused by the minimum eligibility requirements. Can the Minister confirm that the important thing is that the students have the skills they need to do the course, not that they have GCSE English or maths at level 4? The two things are not the same.
Secondly, successive policy papers from this Government have undermined the creative sector within universities. They have very much encouraged, and I agree with it, maths, science and engineering. I notice that humanities get a mention in this Statement; that is the first time for a long time. But in this policy document, what is there that will nurture and help to progress the creative industries in our universities, which are very much wanted by the economy and employers?
Baroness Barran (Con)
In relation to the point about skills, on one level, of course, I cannot disagree—I never enjoy disagreeing with the noble Baroness. Of course, people should have the skills they need to access their degree. However, in the majority of cases, if not the vast majority, English and/or maths at GCSE level may well be necessary for the course that they are aiming to do. I stress that this is a consultation; we genuinely have not taken a view on it. There has been a great deal of focus in the media, in the other place and in your Lordships’ House tonight on the GCSE requirement. We will also be consulting on whether one should reintroduce a minimum A-level requirement. But our focus on foundation degrees and on additional opportunities to achieve the levels in English and maths are also part of how we will make sure that this happens.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, on the new lifelong learning entitlement, are the Government not simply loading even more debt on to a generation already carrying an enormous weight of debt, and extending that debt for even longer? It is a great privatisation of the cost of education, which used to be borne by the public purse collectively, by an entire society that benefited from it, and by employers who benefited from those skills. Instead, what we are seeing is an individualisation and a privatisation. For the 40 years when people would expect normally, in many cases, to be settling down, having a family and buying a house, they are going to have this weight of debt settling on their shoulders, and it will be even a higher percentage of this generation.
Baroness Barran (Con)
I absolutely do not recognise the description that the noble Baroness paints of the lifelong learning entitlement. If she does not agree with the Government’s decisions on this, she might want to, if she has not already, look at the Augar report’s recommendations. There is a clear need expressed: 24% of people when surveyed said that they had considered continuing and part-time education. We do not know how many students who go straight from school to university would rather do a more modular approach. Nobody is imposing this on the student body; this is a choice for people to build their careers and their skills, to seize opportunities and to build our economy.
Nationality and Borders Bill
Monday 28th February 2022
(2 years, 2 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Nationality and Borders Act 2022 View all Nationality and Borders Act 2022 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 82-R-I(Manuscript) Amendment for Report (Supplementary to the Marshalled List) - (28 Feb 2022)
22:53 - Division on Amendment 30 - Ayes: 112 / Noes: 89 - Amendment 30 agreed.
The Lord Bishop of Durham
“(4A) In section 16 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 (establishment of centres), at end insert—“(4) For the purposes of this Part, references to “persons” does not include—(a) children;(b) women;(c) individuals with a disability; (d) individuals who have been referred to the National Referral Mechanism;(e) individuals who have a received a positive conclusive grounds decision following a referral to the National Referral Mechanism;(f) survivors of torture;(g) individuals who identify as LGBTQ+; and(h) family members of any individuals referenced in this subsection.(5) For the purposes of this section, “family members” includes—(a) dependent children;(b) partners and spouses;(c) in relation to children—(i) their siblings;(ii) any other individual who is the relevant child’s guardian.””Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is to restrict the use of accommodation centres for accommodating people seeking asylum so that the stated groups and their family members cannot be accommodated in them.
The Lord Bishop of Durham
My Lords, I have tabled Amendment 29, with the noble Baroness, Lady Lister. I declare my interests in relation to RAMP and Reset, as set out in the register.
I have tabled this amendment again because in Committee we did not have as satisfactory a response to our questions as we had hoped on the basic details of what these accommodation centres will look like. We do not know how many or where these will be. We do not know how many people will be accommodated in each one. I am not assured that the previously terrible, and now still wanting, conditions provided at Napier will not be repeated. We are being asked to agree to the use of accommodation centres without any information or reassurances of what they will look like, where they will be, and so on. We can only go on what we see as existing provision on MoD sites. That makes me very concerned—I remind the House that I had the privilege of visiting Napier barracks recently—and gives me strong reason to call for their use to be restricted, so that the vulnerable groups set out in this amendment cannot be accommodated in them. I continue to believe that placing people seeking asylum in housing in communities is much better for everyone.
I therefore ask the Minister for her agreement that we are given opportunities to discuss the design of these centres before the relevant regulations are laid in draft and before contracts are offered. We would like some clarity on when the regulations will be laid, a clear commitment that no unaccompanied children will be placed in such centres, and, although we would prefer no families at all in such centres, if there were to be families with children there, that suitable family accommodation and suitable safety arrangements for them would be provided in them. It is not my intention to press this to a vote. We hope that this debate will give an opportunity for the Minister to place some further reassurances on the record about accommodation.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
My Lords, I am very pleased to support this amendment—
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Russell of Liverpool) (CB)
I assume that the right reverend Prelate is moving the amendment.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
My apologies; it is getting late.
I am very pleased to support this amendment. When we debated it in Committee with regard to children and families, the Minister said that there were no current plans to place them in accommodation centres but that if a child was destitute and there was a place for the night, she could not say that the child would not be so placed. However, she promised to think further on the points made and I hope that she has been able to do so. I have two reflections which build on what the right reverend Prelate has said.
First, the Minister suggested that a child in a family, who was destitute, might have to be placed in a centre, but given that she told us that such centres were only for people who are destitute anyway, I am not sure how much comfort to take from that. Can she elucidate further please? Can she also confirm that it would only be for a night, or possibly two, that a family would be housed in an accommodation centre as an exception, which was what she implied? Can she give us an assurance that no family with children will be placed in a centre for more than the briefest of time in an emergency?
The Minister also reminded us that unaccompanied asylum-seeking children would not be placed in such centres. As the right reverend Prelate said, it would be good to have absolute assurance to that effect. Can she tell us what will be the position of a child who turns 18? Might they be moved into such a centre at that point? It is impossible to consider this group without also taking into account the fears expressed by many organisations that the age assessment clauses, which we will debate later, could mean many more children wrongly being assessed as adults. Therefore, in practice, unaccompanied children might be housed in such accommodation, which clearly the Government rightly consider unsuitable for unaccompanied children. What safeguards can there be against that? In Committee, I also asked the Minister what assurances she could give us that the use of accommodation centres will be accompanied by more robust screening and protection than exists at present, to ensure that those with particular vulnerabilities are not housed in such centres.
However, no such assurances were given, other than the repeated statement that there will be individual assessment before placement in accommodation centres. None the less, it is clear from various sources of evidence that such an assessment does not exist at present nor is it providing effective screening for those with particular vulnerabilities. Indeed, the APPG on Immigration Detention, of which I am a member, has been told that, despite the June 2021 High Court ruling, there does not appear to be any significant improvement in such assessments. Charities report that people with particular vulnerabilities continue to be accommodated in Napier barracks. Therefore, can the Minister tell us what is being done to improve the assessment process?
Finally, as a fellow insomnia sufferer, the Minister said she would take back the point I raised about the impossibility of sleeping in Napier barracks dormitory-style accommodation because of the constant noise at night. I wondered if she had anything to report on that.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
My Lords, I do not make light of the difficulty of providing accommodation. Batting the blame between central and local government, as is sometimes done, is not going to advance the issue at all. As the right reverend Prelate has said, the debate in Committee focused on Napier. I thought it rather conflated accommodation of asylum seekers on arrival with long-term accommodation. Only a decade ago, my honourable friend Sarah Teather MP—as she was then—achieved very significant change, as a Minister, in both the law on, and the attitudes towards, the care of children with families in detention and subject to removal. More recently, we have had Stephen Shaw’s report on the impact on vulnerable people, and so on.
I accept that the Minister will say that the accommodation in question is reception and not detention. In a way, that is my point. The objective must be to receive people thoughtfully, humanely and in a welcoming and supportive way. Accommodation centres must not feel like detention. There was some discussion in Committee about whether people would be able to leave them—not for specific appointments, but because they felt like going out for a walk. The way that they are designed, organised and staffed is absolutely essential to their good working. The Explanatory Notes refer to “efficiency”. I do not think that this is incompatible with the approach that I have outlined, but they also refer to “compliance” and that worries me more. I wonder why that merits a separate mention.
This amendment demonstrates the concerns of the sector which arise from experience over a long period. I missed signing it by a couple of minutes on the day it was tabled by the right reverend Prelate. However, on behalf of these Benches, we support it.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I rise very briefly to offer Green support for this amendment and to address one specific point and one specific question. The right reverend Prelate, in introducing this, set out how little we know about what is proposed of these accommodation centres, and how much we know of their horrors. In Committee, the Minister and I discussed a particular horror with which I had personal contact during the Covid pandemic.
I also note that there is a continuing situation where the High Court ruled that people in hotels and other accommodation are entitled to £8 a week to meet some of their basic needs. This includes being able to afford a bus fare to attend an interview, or to buy some basic hygiene products. Looking at the list of people who the right reverend Prelate has included in this amendment, it is worth a question here. Imagine being a parent of a child and not ever being able to buy any sort of treat for your child. If the child really wanted some little piece of food, the parent would not be able to buy it. Instead, they would get only what is provided in the three meals a day in the canteen.
I know that we are still waiting for a description of what these accommodation centres are like. Can the Minister confirm, following the High Court ruling, that there will be at least a very small basic payment for people in the accommodation centres so that they can have some kind of choice and some kind of life?
Lord Rosser (Lab)
My Lords, I will certainly wait with interest to hear the response that the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham gets to this amendment, because, if I understood him correctly, he said that it is the same amendment he tabled before. I understand that he asked for information and assurances about accommodation centres in Committee, and it is because he did not get them either in Committee or since then—he has had nothing in writing; presumably he asked the questions quite clearly in Committee about what he wanted—that he has had to table this amendment today, and will table it again, seeking to exclude vulnerable groups from the accommodation centres.
I hope that in their response the Government will explain why it has been so difficult to give the right reverend Prelate the answers to the questions he raised last time seeking information and assurances in respect of these accommodation centres. I do not understand what the difficulty can be since, presumably, in putting forward that there will be accommodation centres, the Government have some idea of what they will and will not provide and what they will and will not be like, and are in a position to give assurances when they are sought.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)
My Lords, I thank noble Lords who have spoken to this amendment. I just say from the outset that the Bill does not actually create accommodation centres—that was done back in 2005—but when we have more detail on the accommodation centres, I will be very happy to provide it to the right reverend Prelate, including any detail about design.
On the question of how long someone might stay there, the usual time is about six months. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, that they have to be humane, welcoming environments.
On the question of who we might accommodate in the centres, as I said before, we will accommodate people only after an individual assessment. There are no current plans to use the centres to house families beyond this. The centres will be used to accommodate only those who require support because they would otherwise be destitute, so those who obtain accommodation with friends or family are not affected by the measure. It is to prevent people becoming destitute.
The provision has nothing to do with unaccompanied minors; it is about adults in the asylum system and their dependants who are accommodated by the Home Office under the powers in the Immigration Act. Unaccompanied minors are not accommodated under these powers.
On the point about certain individuals not being suitable for these centres, there are no plans to accommodate in this type of accommodation asylum seekers and failed asylum seekers who are not destitute. As I have said, those who can obtain accommodation with friends and family will be unaffected. Individuals will have opportunities to disclose information as supporting evidence as to why they should not be housed in accommodation centres, and we do not have current plans to use centres to accommodate those with dependent children.
I may have said this before, and the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, has just mentioned it: it is not possible to completely rule out placing those with children in accommodation centres in the future, because if there are no available flats or houses to house them in, it might be a better option for them, depending on their situation, and certainly better than using hotels.
On whether they are detention centres, the answer is no. I do not think the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, was asking whether they were detention centres; she was making the point that they are not detention centres, and that is correct: people are free to move about. Individuals applying for support because they are destitute will naturally be expected to live there because they have nowhere else, but, as I have said, they can leave the centres at any time they wish because they have obtained alternative accommodation.
I had just asked a question of the Box about payment, and I am going to double-check whether I have the answer. Here it is: facilities at the accommodation include catering, therefore individuals will not require cash for food during their stay, but cash might be provided for other essential items not provided in kind. I hope that with that, the right reverend Prelate will be happy to withdraw his amendment.
The Lord Bishop of Durham
My Lords, I thank the Minister. I take very seriously the commitment to ongoing conversations, because the important thing is that the sector and people like us can stay engaged in the conversation to ensure this. We will watch as accommodation centres grow in number so that they are places of welcome and so on, but the purpose was to get some more on the record, for which I thank the Minister. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Stroud
“Changes to the Immigration Act 1971
(1) The Immigration Act 1971 is amended as follows.(2) After section 3(2) (general provisions for regulation and control) insert—“(2A) Regulations under subsection (2) must provide that persons, and adult dependants of persons who are applying for asylum in the United Kingdom are granted permission by the Secretary of State to take up employment if—(a) a decision at first instance has not been taken on the applicant’s asylum application within six months of the date on which the application was made, or(b) a person makes an application or a further application which raises asylum grounds, and a decision on that new application, or a decision on whether to treat such further asylum grounds as a new application, has not been taken within six months of the date on which the further application was made. (2B) For the purposes of subsection (2A), regulations must ensure that permission granted allowing people applying for asylum in the UK, and their adult dependants to take up employment, are on terms no less favourable than the terms granted to a person with recognised refugee status.(2C) This permission is to be valid until the claim is determined and all appeal rights have been exhausted and individuals granted permission to work will be issued with physical proof of the right to work.””
Baroness Stroud (Con)
My Lords, Amendment 30 in my name aims to introduce the right to work for asylum seekers who have been resident in the UK for more than six months. The arguments for the right to work have been well articulated in Committee and earlier, but I will summarise them so that we are clear.
I will begin with the economic arguments. The latest figures show that 125,000 people are waiting for an asylum decision. Every study shows that the net benefit to the state would be tens or hundreds of millions of pounds every year in improved tax-take. The UK economy is recovering after Covid and a lot of jobs have been created, but this has, in turn, created labour shortages. It makes no sense that asylum seekers who can drive HGVs or serve in our NHS are forced to sit around doing nothing for more than a year while they await a decision from the Home Office.
The second argument is one of integration. There is considerable evidence that the right to work has a large, positive impact on the integration of asylum seekers. The Government’s Migration Advisory Committee itself recently underlined that shorter waiting times had a large, positive impact on long-term employment outcomes for asylum seekers. Indeed, discussing refugees’ access to the UK labour market, one leading academic in asylum and refugee policy refers to what she calls the
“inherent contradiction between UK refugee integration strategies that focus on employment, and restrictive government policies that negatively affect access to the labour market.”
There is also the argument of public support for this policy. The policy is overwhelmingly popular with the public: 73% of red wall voters support the right to work, according to recent polling. Business leaders back easing the ban on the right to work, with the Survation poll showing that two-thirds of business leaders back it. It is rare to find a policy that has these three characteristics: economically advantageous, socially advantageous and politically advantageous.
There is one final reason why this is an amendment that the Government should accept. There is also a basic human dignity argument for this policy. We believe that every individual should be able to support themselves and their family. In fact, we would go further and say that, as Conservatives, we believe that every family has a personal responsibility to do so where they can. We have repeatedly, as a party, made the argument that work is the best route out of poverty, so the intention of this amendment is to ensure precisely that. Let people support themselves and create their own pathway from poverty to prosperity while they await a decision. The lack of the right to work makes people vulnerable to exploitation, declining mental health, poverty and modern slavery.
If the human dignity arguments do not convince Ministers, this amendment should also be viewed as purely pragmatic. Reforms to the asylum system proposed through the Nationality and Borders Bill will take time to come fully into effect. In the interim, while asylum cases are being processed, the asylum system continues to be under considerable strain. By offering asylum seekers the right to work, the Government will take pressure off themselves. I anticipate, however, that the Minister and other colleagues might be inclined to dismiss this amendment, using the argument that the right to work could be a so-called pull factor. So, before I finish, I want to address the reasons I believe this is not the case.
First, push factors, such as war and famine, as we are seeing in Ukraine, drive refugee flows far more than pull factors do. Secondly, as I have said before in this House, the real pull factors are our language, our culture, the rule of law, democracy, historical ties through the Commonwealth, family connections and liberty—and we are not about to sacrifice any of these, thank goodness. Thirdly, it is worth noting that the UK is currently an outlier in enforcing a 12-month wait period for work and then placing strong restrictions on which employment can be taken up. No other nation, whether any across Europe, the States, Australia or Canada, has such stringent requirements. It is worth asking why they have not considered the right to work to be a pull factor. Finally, this view is backed up by the experts. The Government’s own Migration Advisory Committee underlined that there is no evidence in academic research that people decide to claim asylum based on these kinds of factors. The Home Office itself commissioned a study that showed little evidence of a link between economic rights and the destination choices of those seeking asylum, and, to my knowledge, it has never produced evidence to the contrary.
All of this is to say that I believe that the Government could quite legitimately, without any nervousness and in line with their own poverty strategy of families working their way out of poverty, adopt this amendment that allows asylum seekers to work after six months of being in the UK. I will be listening carefully to the Minister’s response. I beg to move.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
My Lords, I strongly support Amendment 30. In Committee, the Minister said that the Government’s opposition to the right to work was based less on the pull factor argument than on the impact on the integrity of the labour market. That is just as well. As the noble Baroness said, we have yet to see convincing evidence of the pull factor any better than the selective and somewhat misleading quote from a study that the Minister offered in Committee. She mentioned an impact assessment on that, which I believe is yet to materialise. When can we expect it?
If we consider the numbers involved, it is difficult to see how labour market integrity will be compromised. Indeed, the combination of the effects of the Bill and the welcome promised speeding up of applications, to which Amendment 53 in the name of my noble friend Lord Coaker should add some teeth, should reduce the numbers affected significantly. I imagine that the Migration Advisory Committee will have considered the integrity of the labour market before recommending the right to work after six months and in any occupation. Yet the Minister did not even mention the MAC report raised by a number of noble Lords in Committee.
Neither did she mention the MAC’s argument, and one central to the case I made, concerning the impact of the ban on working on integration, mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Stroud, which supposedly remains a government goal. Nor did she acknowledge the statement I read out from MIN Voices, made up of asylum seekers, who said that not being able to work made them feel less than human and corroded their self-respect and dignity—again, echoing what the noble Baroness, Lady Stroud, said. As the chair of Surrey Heath Conservatives pointed out on ConservativeHome —my new favourite reading—this very much chimes with Conservative values, so that in his view the ban is “fundamentally un-Conservative”.
I conclude by repeating the plea of MIN Voices’ plea to
“see us as human beings not a number. Let us build our life and future and not waste our time and skills”.
I should also mention the article by Sarah O’Connor of the Financial Times, who ended her recent analysis of the labour market implications of the ban by saying that
“if people want to work, we should let them”.
Baroness Meacher (CB)
My Lords, I very strongly support this amendment, to which I have added my name.
In Committee, the Minister referred to the integrity of the labour market as a route being one reason to reject this amendment and the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, dealt with that very well, so I will not repeat her comments. The only other real argument against reducing the UK’s exceptional period before asylum seekers can apply for permission to work was, as the noble Baroness, Lady Stroud, said, the so-called pull factor encouraging asylum seekers to come to this country. I want to say a bit more about that because it really is very difficult to take seriously under the circumstances. When Germany allows asylum seekers to work after three months, Italy after two months, Portugal after just one week, can our Government really justify the current one-year ban and argue that if we changed it, there would be this serious pull factor problem?
If the Minister accepts this amendment, we will have the same employment restriction as France, Spain, Denmark, Poland, the Netherlands, Ireland and Greece, and we would remain more restrictive than all other western European countries. Ireland was the only other western European outlier until it recently reduced its nine months restriction down to six months in 2021. This amendment would do no more than Ireland did to bring it into line with the list of countries I have already referred to.
The fact is, the UK has a longer employment restriction for asylum seekers than any other comparable country. I just feel ashamed of us, to be honest—I think it is disgraceful. Moreover, it seems the Government have no grounds to argue that enabling asylum seekers to work will, in fact, act as a pull factor. A recent review of 29 academic papers on this subject found that there was no correlation between the right to work and where people seeking asylum chose to seek protection; the noble Baroness, Lady Stroud, explained that perfectly clearly so, again, I do not need to repeat her words.
The other very important reform in this amendment is to end the iniquitous limitation on asylum seekers, even after the 12-month ban, to jobs on an extremely limited shortage occupation list—I seem to remember one of them was a ballerina or something. How many asylum seekers can really take up ballet? This renders employment impossible for the vast majority of asylum seekers until their application is finally approved.
The assumption behind this amendment is that asylum seekers would, after six months, become automatically eligible for a work permit, enabling them to become self-employed or to take up any job, to pay taxes and national insurance, and so on. It will be very difficult to justify not accepting this amendment.
In summary, I do not accept the arguments put by the Minister in Committee. I just hope that she and her colleagues have reconsidered their position. On 8 December 2021, I understand that the Home Office said in a Written Statement that it had concluded its review of the current policy. This is surely a perfect moment to introduce reform.
The Earl of Dundee (Con)
My Lords, I join my noble friend Lady Stroud and others in strongly supporting this amendment. The proposition is that asylum seekers who have waited six months for an initial decision should be allowed the right to work.
Clearly, and as has already been said, this measure can provide important safeguards. Not being held up from work assists motivation, attitude of mind and mental health, as it also preserves dignity and protects against the danger of modern slavery. Yet it might be alleged, or wrongly assumed, that such benefits to the applicant come at a high price—even at an unacceptable price—to the host country: that the workforce would thereby become top-heavy causing much national resentment and attracting too many to come here from other countries. Yet, on all these three counts, the truth is the complete opposite.
As my noble friend Lady Stroud pointed out, 125,000 people await an asylum decision. With our current labour shortages these numbers, if allowed to work, would considerably boost our economy; that is also well recognised. Far from fear and resentment, there is wide national approval, with over 70% believing that asylum seekers in the system longer than six months should have the right to work.
Baroness Ludford (LD)
My Lords, the arguments have been put very well and very strongly. I am very pleased to co-sign the excellent amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Stroud. Her speech was really excellent. Others have demolished the pull factor argument and I do not wish to say any more on that.
The noble Baroness, Lady Williams, said in Committee:
“To relax the policy would be totally to undermine everything that the British people voted for in 2019”.—[Official Report, 3/2/22; col. 1062.]
This has really nothing to do with Brexit, but the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, just quoted a statistic of 70% of people supporting asylum seekers being able to work. That is quite similar to a YouGov poll today which says that 77% of the British public support relaxing visa restrictions on Ukrainian refugees, refuting the idea that the public do not appreciate these arguments, whether it is about refugees or, in this case, asylum seekers.
This is not a partisan proposal; it has been said that it is thoroughly Conservative—I would like to say it is thoroughly Liberal Democrat or Labour as well—but it is not of itself party political. To us, its proponents, it is a win-win. It enables asylum seekers to stand on their own two feet, support their families, pay tax—that is the economic side—and to help them integrate. I cannot remember whether I quoted it in Committee, but I saw a statistic that said that if asylum seekers do not get that sort of flying start—and of course those who do not qualify for refugee status will have to be removed in the normal way, whether they have been working or not—it can take 10 years to recover from a period of initial deterioration. People’s mental and physical health, their self-regard and ability to mesh with their community is so damaged by not being able to work in an initial period that it takes a very long time for them to recover, and that harms the host society.
I do not believe that the Government are on the same page as public opinion on this one. It really it not logical. If the Government were able to meet the target, which they are failing at horribly, to make an initial decision within six months, then this proposed new clause would not come into effect, because the right to work comes into effect after six months. There is nothing to fear if the Government actually put their resources into frontloading the system—as so many of us have argued for ad infinitum.
Accepting this amendment is a no-brainer, and the noble Baroness has got a considerable brain, so she is going to find it quite difficult to refute the truly heavy arguments for this amendment.
The Lord Bishop of Chelmsford
My Lords, I give my strong support to Amendment 30 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Stroud. She has eloquently made the case for this amendment, so I do not intend to take a great deal of the House’s time, but I wish to add a few brief remarks in support.
At Second Reading, I raised the question of how different our migration policy might be if we stopped looking at asylum seekers as either victims without agency or criminals seeking to exploit us and instead as future citizens and neighbours. In this light, the right to work for asylum seekers who have waited six months or more for a decision represents an excellent opportunity. It would be good for asylum seekers and for the soul of this nation. Such people are often left without agency or dignity. Their identity becomes limited to a sort of victim status. Being unable to work leaves them dependent on the state or at risk of falling in with illegal labour exportation.
Legal employment represents a chance for people to contribute to their own welfare and that of the common good. It is a way for them to bring their skill and efforts to their new communities, to make friends and to integrate. It provides an opportunity for others to meet and understand these newcomers, and to see them as willing contributors rather than chancers or criminals.
Work is not just a means to a wage or an economic benefit to a business and a community—although, as we have heard, it might be all these things—but innately social. It is activity done with and for others. It is a contribution to common life. That is something we should look to foster and encourage, as it is a means of building stronger ties of fellowship, stronger communities and stronger citizens.
This argument has been advanced before in this place and has been rejected. However, with new recommendations from the Migration Advisory Committee and the sense of momentum we can hear in the House this evening, I hope we might be able to make some progress.
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, I support Amendment 30. My noble friend Lady Stroud has put extremely well the reasons why this was never a good policy. On basic Conservative principles—that the route out of poverty and into prosperity is through work—this measure fails dismally. It was never good even when it was first brought in. I concede that maybe the people who brought it in thought it would give them some kind of credibility in the public eye that they were being tough on migration, and that maybe 20 years ago it looked like we faced the end of history. But both those things are no longer true, and if we look just a little down the line to the future they will be emphatically not true. As a number of noble Lords, including the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, pointed out, the public are strongly with us on this. The sight of Ukrainian refugees coming to Britain looking for sanctuary will only increase that.
We have not seen the end of history. I am afraid we are going into a very turbulent period of history where refuge and asylum will be sought by hundreds of thousands of people around the world. We will we face an enormous debt to our neighbours to try to provide them some form of sanctuary. We already have 125,000 people waiting over six months for a determination. What kind of number do we need to get to before we change the system? I hope the Minister will use this opportunity to review a bad policy, to move on and to develop a better policy that is suited to the future.
Baroness Stowell of Beeston (Con)
My Lords, my noble friend Lady Stroud makes some very strong and compelling arguments in favour of her amendment. I certainly take the view that asylum seekers should indeed be allowed to work as soon as possible once a decision has been made about their application. I think the citizens of this country would support that and want that very much. However, a matter that would raise concern for people would be if we introduced a law that allowed asylum seekers to start work before a decision on their appeal—or rather their application for asylum—had been decided.
Rather than support my noble friend’s amendment, I ask my noble friend the Minister what the Home Office is doing to deal with the backlog of applications for asylum currently sat in the system. My noble friend Lady Stroud referred to the number: 125,000. What more resources is the Home Office applying to become much more efficient and effective in processing those applications? To me, that is where we should focus our effort—not on introducing a law that would mean that asylum seekers are automatically allowed to work before a decision has been made on their status in this country.
Lord Marlesford (Con)
My Lords, I strongly support my noble friend Lady Stroud’s amendment for one simple, overriding reason. One of the big problems of handling the big numbers involved—125,000, as we have been told—is morale. One of the crucial elements of morale is hope. If people do not have hope, they really do deteriorate. The loss of hope for a long time is a terrible thing to inflict on anybody.
As to whether their employment can be accommodated, there is one obvious area where there are limitless opportunities to do something that would make people really feel part of the country and would remain for ever: the whole field of conservation. An enormous number of projects could be carried out; they would be exciting to do and very fulfilling. I certainly hope the Government accept my noble friend’s amendment.
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)
I hope the Government accept the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Stroud, which clearly is supported all around the House. I believe it is supported in the higher ranks of the governing party. I quote from no less an expert than Mr Dominic Raab in the Spectator from 2 October:
“If they learn the language and they can work, they integrate much better and they make a positive contribution.”
Correct.
The noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, said it is a win-win. No less an authority than the Adam Smith Institute and Bright Blue said that asylum seekers pay increased tax and national insurance revenue and we pay them a lower asylum support payment, and that it is a win for the Exchequer. These are very Conservative arguments, and they happen to be true. It is a win for them and a win for us. I hope the Government accept the amendment.
Baroness Hollins (CB)
My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendments 30A and 84A, but I also support the amendments from the noble Baroness, Lady Stroud, and I will explain why as I introduce these two amendments.
I first thank representatives from the Royal College of Psychiatrists and the Helen Bamber Foundation for their support of these amendments. The proposed new clause in Amendment 30A would make provision for the Secretary of State to
“commission a review of the processes and services”
that will be in place and their impact on
“the well-being of refugees and asylum seekers.”
We know a great deal more about the long-term impact of trauma on people’s mental and physical health, their memory and their ability to make sense of their experiences, adjust to a new situation, engage productively in work, advocate for themselves and avoid being retraumatised. The very system designed to protect them, whether by poor design or by poor execution, risks worsening the health of refugees and people seeking asylum, and increasing their vulnerability.
With respect to work, there is evidence that people with mental health problems of any sort who are out of work for more than six months have real difficulty getting back into work—ever. This is a really key, important point. Research by the Royal College of Psychiatrists has evidenced that people with significant mental illness, as well as those with evidence of torture or sexual or gender-based violence, are being detained despite their mental health-related vulnerabilities, and that their mental health is deteriorating further in immigration detention. This remains the case, despite the statutory guidance on adults at risk and associated caseworker guidance introduced by the Government in response to the highly critical Shaw report.
The health needs of refugees and those seeking asylum require close multidisciplinary working, continuity of care and a regular review of these processes to ensure that, unlike what happened in Napier barracks, these systems are working in the way intended. I urge the Minister to commit to a review of the processes and services in place with regard to the well-being of refugees and asylum seekers, carried out by a body with the necessary expertise.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts (Con)
In following my noble friend Lady Stroud, I shall plough a lonely and, I fear, unpopular furrow by suggesting to the Minister that we ought to reject this amendment. I greatly admire my noble friend Lady Stroud for her commitment and the work that she has done in these areas, but I still think that her amendment should be rejected. As my noble friend Lady Stowell pointed out, of course these are asylum seekers whose cases have not been determined. Some of them will be asylum seekers, and some of them will not find their case, and they will become in effect economic migrants. I absolutely accept that the time that it is taking to determine the cases is very long and debilitating to all parties concerned, but I am concerned because, if we allow people to use the asylum route as a means to move forward faster, it is at the expense of those who wish to come here as economic migrants from the beginning.
Secondly, I do not accept the argument that forum shopping—looking around for the best place to make your future—is not a factor. Of course, it is not in every case, but it is a factor. I will not weary the House at 10.20 pm with the list of things, which run from the diasporas to the respect for individuals, the chance to learn English, flexible labour markets, and so on, but they are undoubtedly factors that encourage people to come here.
Nearly every case that I have heard being made now is based on the economy, and the economic prism is undoubtedly an important one, but there are prisms other than that. The impact of each one of us—whether we have just arrived here, seek to come here or have been here for some time—is not just about our economic performance. We make demands on our society of a house, a school, a hospital and a place for our children to play. We have an impact on the green belt, the availability of open space and our future food and water security in an increasingly uncertain world. We expect, overall, that between now and 2040 there will be another 4 million people in this country.
Members of your Lordships’ House have talked about public opinion and where it stands on the issue, but I can tell your Lordships that 71% of people believe that this country is already too crowded and that the Government do not have any plans to deal with the challenges that that causes. If you reset that polling so that it just asks the minority communities, 61% are still equally concerned about the prospects that lie ahead not for us in this House but for our children and grandchildren, if we do not take steps, wherever we reasonably can, to ensure that the growth of population in this country is limited as far as possible. With the best will in the world—I accept the good intentions of my noble friend—her amendment does not tick that box. It encourages the growth of population; it does not discourage it.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I point out to the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, that the whole point of the amendment is to ensure that people who may be making demands on houses, schools and hospitals can also build those houses, staff those schools and provide care in those hospitals. Briefly, I want to add “Green” to the list of of parties mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, that support the right to work for asylum seekers. Indeed, I can date that back to at least 2006, when I joined the Green Party. Pretty well the first event I went to was one hearing from refugee women who expressed their desire for the right to work and were very pleased that that was Green Party policy.
I am well aware that the Minister is far more likely to listen to voices behind her—and I urge her to do so—then she is to me, but I point out that the six-month restriction on the right to work was brought in by the Labour Party in 2002 and strengthened in 2005, so the Government would be reversing a Labour policy.
Finally, as I often seek to do in your Lordships’ House, I reflect the voices of the people most affected, who are calling, as the hashtag goes, to “Lift the Ban”. A man called Mahmoud was recorded by Asylum Matters. He said: “It would make our lives meaningful and useful at the same time if we could work.” Please listen to that voice.
The Lord Bishop of Durham
My Lords, I fully support the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Stroud, and my noble and right reverend friend behind me here supports it as well. I will speak to the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, and the two amendments from the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, which I fully support.
We may have 125,000 asylum seekers but let me focus on two. This is why I support both amendments. One is an asylum seeker who lives in my area who heard from the Home Office within the first three weeks of arrival then heard nothing for 12 months, in spite of inquiry after inquiry. That is why we need a code of practice. That is why we need better ways of working. It beggars belief what that says to him about how he is seen in our society and by our society. That is, of course, told time and again.
The second case is an Afghan who came out last summer on the planes and whose family is still in hiding in Afghanistan. Last week they were hunted by the Taliban; they escaped. He sent me through last week the letter he had just received from a Home Office official. It is four lines long, giving him the number that he has been allocated, with not one jot of sympathy about what he might be facing.
I accept that the official will not know or be able to verify the story that I have heard but the processes themselves do not treat people as people. They treat them as case numbers. We need the kinds of provisions that the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, has proposed and we need to deal with these cases much faster. That means we employ more people and we upskill them. That is why I support the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Coaker. The right to work falls away, as the noble Baroness, Lady Stowell, noted. That is not going to happen in a hurry, so we need the right to work now but we also need the other provisions.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
My Lords, the argument from the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, seemed to be addressed more to refugees than asylum seekers and I think that almost everyone who has spoken about the right to work of asylum seekers has urged faster decision- making. I want to speak to the two amendments in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, to which I have added my name.
The House has heard many noble Lords stress the importance of a trauma-informed approach and the difficulties of almost every asylum seeker, I would have thought, in telling their story almost as soon as they get here after dreadful experiences. It must be dreadful, even if the journey is quite straightforward, to tell the story coherently and fully. I fear the Home Office has not yet got it.
The Minister wrote to me last week on the interpretation of “without delay” and I thank her for that. She has had an awful lot of letters to write during the course of the Bill. The official who wrote this one said that
“if someone was fearful of acknowledging their homosexuality to the authorities, then it may be reasonably practicable for them to make a claim some time after arrival, as we recognise the extremely difficult process of coming to terms with one’s own sexuality.”
If an asylum seeker has experienced what we know in some countries people experience because of their sexuality, I do not think that “coming to terms with one’s own sexuality” begins to describe it. That is why these amendments are needed.
Lord Green of Deddington (CB)
My Lords, I will very briefly speak to Amendment 30 and say that I very strongly agree with the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, who I thought said some very valuable things.
I would like to say and make it clear that I am actually in favour of asylum. I believe that it is absolutely right in principle but I find in this debate and more generally that there is something of an assumption that all asylum seekers are genuine and, frankly, they are not. Indeed, the very careful process that they go through finds that nearly half of them are not accepted as asylum seekers.
The risk of moving this to 12 months is that some applicants—those who are not genuine, of course—would have an incentive to spin out their cases until they reach the six-month point, which would not be too difficult, and then they are here and that is it.
The noble Baroness, Lady Stowell, hit the nail on the head. First, what we must avoid is the possibility of work before acceptance as a genuine refugee. Secondly, that points to the need to speed up the process, which is what is causing all this difficulty. If we could get the cases resolved in a reasonable time, those who really deserve it would get it—and good on them—and those who do not would be in a queue to be removed.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
It is good to see the Chamber filling up, despite the fact that it is me speaking.
I speak in support of all the amendments in this group. I am interested in supporting the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Stroud—I am going to be a Conservative—but I welcome the noble Baroness, Lady Stowell, and the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, clearly speaking in support of my amendment. It is good to see them supporting a Labour amendment, so it is interesting here.
The really serious point about the amendment was made by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham. I apologise to the Chamber because I really should have put this down in Committee. It is more of an amendment for Committee than for Report, but it goes to the heart of the problem that we are trying to deal with. I do not agree with the noble Lord, Lord Green, on much, but he often makes the point that, until the administration of the asylum system is sorted out, we are trying to knit fog. That is the basic problem. The Government are chasing this, as the previous Labour Government did, and there is a real problem with respect to it.
The example that the right reverend Prelate gave could have been given by most people in this House. As a Member of Parliament, I could have given example after example of people who have come here and claimed asylum and the system has lost them. Then they reappear a few years later, having been to school. It is unbelievable quite how the system has allowed them to operate and work within it, yet officially they are not supposed to be here; their claim is still supposed to be being sorted out.
My Amendment 53 is simply a way of trying to say that, unless we get a grip on this, in the next year there will be another asylum Bill and in two years there will be another. And then the Labour Government will come in with another asylum Bill. The reality is that, while each and every one of us is motivated by the desire to do the best thing by those fleeing persecution, in the way we have seen with refugees, the system simply cannot find a way of dealing humanely and properly with people who seek asylum in our country. You get euphemisms about accommodation centres, et cetera, and people having to report on a regular basis—all those sorts of things. That is why the business of being able to sort out whether people have a legitimate claim and are accepted by the system as asylum seekers or refugees, or not, is so important. That goes to the heart of it.
I apologise to the Minister because, as I say, this is a debate for Committee rather than for Report. I have no intention of voting on it; I just got frustrated with the fact that each and every one of us was chasing our tail trying to deal with a system which, by the Government’s own admission, is broken. They are trying to fix it but in a way which makes many of us say “We understand there are problems, but the way you are trying to fix it won’t work and we will be left with the same situation”. That is why I support the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Stroud. She very articulately and powerfully argued the point as to why it is important to give the right to work to people who are still awaiting their decision after six months.
I agree with the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham: you could say that, if the Government adopted Amendment 53, it would be a real incentive for them to get their act together, so that they did not have the situation where people had the right to work even though their decision had not been made, in the way that the noble Baroness’s amendment would indicate. I think it was the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, who pointed out that country after country has different arrangements with respect to the right to work and does not have the same problems as we do. I very much support that.
I want to highlight one aspect rather than repeat everything that the noble Baroness, Lady Stroud, has put so ably—and other Members have supported her amendment. My point is this: the Government will oppose this amendment on the basis of the pull factor; they have no evidence for it, but that is exactly what they will do. The last Labour Government did exactly the same thing in 2002 and 2005 because they were persuaded by the argument that there must be a pull factor—there just must be. As the argument went, asylum seekers will come here, they will be able to work, they will tell all their friends and family and they will all pile over here, as it is easy to get in, they will be able to work and do the jobs and they will be well paid, whereas, actually, they will be in the hidden economy and half the time people will not even know that they are working. That will be the argument. They will put it in much better English, much more articulately, much more in civil servant speak—but that is what they mean.
I do not know what the politically correct term is any more, but the Government set up these false windows, where they put up their hands or palms, and say, “This is what we are having to go through: the Government are having to stand up to a middle-class establishment elite”—as represented by your Lordships, including me—“and we are battling through this because, in doing so, we are representing public opinion as evidenced by the fact that we won the 2019 election. Public opinion is on our side, so this is a necessary pain we have to go through.” That may be right on one or two things, but on this it is fundamentally wrong. That is not where the public are on this.
There is only one thing on which I slightly disagree with the noble Baroness, Lady Stroud: I think it is not about integration but, more importantly, about social solidarity. As it has been articulated, it is a belief that when people have been here a certain amount of time, they should work. That is what people think; that is the general view of the public. If the system has not sorted out whether they should be here but they are living in our country and our housing and things are being provided for them, they should work. That is what people think. I do not care whether it is a car mechanic, a brain surgeon, somebody who is out of work, somebody in the north or the west of the country—whoever; that is what they think, and it is what I think.
It is reasonable for people to expect that. People do not say, “I tell you what, they shouldn’t work because there’s a pull factor.” That would be ridiculous—it is just not true—but I do think that people look down their road, or across the road, or in the village next to them, or on the farm or in the supermarket and, when there is a problem, they say, “Why don’t those people who have come from wherever, who are awaiting a decision—why can’t they work? Why can’t they do it?” I have never heard anybody say, “They can’t do it: it’s a pull factor.” It is just nonsense; it beggars belief.
I wanted to highlight that because, for me, it goes to the absolute heart of it. People would expect those people to work. I agree that it is good for asylum seekers themselves and their family to contribute to a country in which they hope to have permanent residency, providing they go through the necessary checks, but the community around them expects that as well; and that social solidarity and human dignity is everything. That is why I support the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Stroud. Alongside that, I think that Amendment 53 is important, and the Government will have to get this sorted out. Otherwise, we will be knitting fog again in another year or two.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken to this group of amendments. I am grateful to my noble friend Lady Stroud for bringing Amendment 30. The issue has been much debated and it hinges on two issues really: the integrity of our immigration system and pull factors. I want to correct a figure that has been mooted a couple of times this evening: there are actually 81,000 people awaiting an initial decision, not 125,000, but it is a large number nevertheless.
A more relaxed asylum seeker right to work policy creates a back door into our labour market. We have just set up a world-leading economic migration scheme, which provides ample opportunity for people of varying skill and educational levels to apply to come and work in the UK. In fact, this scheme was a core manifesto commitment; it was not about Brexit. However, we cannot afford to turn around and offer people the opportunity to undercut it through simply lodging an asylum claim. Our policy is a constituent part of a whole; it does not operate in isolation. As my noble friend Lady Stowell said, someone who comes to the UK and is found working illegally can claim asylum as a way to prevent removal and then get the right to work. That does not seem logical to me.
I will repeat that, where reasons for coming to the UK include family or economic considerations, applications should be made via the relevant route: either the points-based immigration system or our various family reunion routes. We know that people want to work in the UK. Why would they not? We have a strong economy and labour market. That is why we cannot discount the risk of even more channel crossings if we relaxed our asylum seeker right-to-work policy. This issue has been debated at length in the past. However, I want to be clear that the motivations for fleeing one’s country of origin—of which noble Lords are well aware—and the motivations for moving from one safe country to another are not the same.
According to a 2009 article by Norwegian academics Jan-Paul Brekke and Monica Aarset, there is a hierarchy of considerations which migrants make when choosing a particular country. The first is, of course, that it is safe. The second—more important even than family networks—is the existence of future opportunities, which include:
“the welfare state, education, the jobs market and good conditions for bringing up children.”
These are things which are shared by all northern European countries, including France. This importance of future opportunities is clear through similar academic literature on secondary movements, in which economic considerations, including the ability to work, are consistently cited as a primary factor in choices about moving from one safe country to another. I am afraid that noble Lords continue to conflate reasons for leaving countries of origin with reasons for making those secondary movements, which is misleading and unhelpful for the purposes of this debate.
Noble Lords will be aware that the French cite the ability to work as a pull for those making channel crossings. Whether that is about the availability of work in the shadow economy or not is actually quite irrelevant. The point that we are being told by senior French Ministers is that these people are motivated to move from one safe country to another because they want to work. This was reiterated in a sobering BBC World Service investigation into the tragedy in the channel last November. Through deep research into the lives and families of the victims, the journalists ultimately found that they were all motivated to come to the UK from France for economic reasons. The solution here is to decide cases more quickly, and that is what we are doing through the wider new plan for immigration. I hope that this has been a good explainer of the background.
My noble friend Lady Stroud said that 71% of people think that the right to work is a good idea if people are waiting for a decision for six months or more. I would counter this with a YouGov poll from October of last year which showed that only 45% thought that the right to work was a good idea. This takes the issue completely out of context and ignores the bigger picture concerns. In light of the fact that 73% of people thought that illegal channel crossings were a serious issue, 50% of people thought that the UK does not have a responsibility to protect people—against 35% who thought that they did. In addition, 65% of people thought that Britain should refuse to accept asylum applications, and 55% thought that the current approach of the Government to small boats was too soft. I say that this Government have a clear mandate to ensure that there is no incentive for people to make secondary movements across the channel where academic evidence suggests that many do it for primarily economic reasons.
The noble Baroness, Lady Lister, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chelmsford talked about addressing the integration needs of asylum seekers. Of course, that is absolutely true, but not all of those who seek asylum are found to need international protection. As the noble Lord, Lord Green of Deddington, said, 50% of asylum seekers are refused even after appeal, so that spells that out.
Baroness Stroud (Con)
My Lords, I thank everyone who has contributed to this cross-party debate for their insightful and well-argued remarks. The comment of the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, that ConservativeHome is her new favourite reading, was the revelation of the evening. I felt that the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, on social solidarity hit the nail on the head.
I heard the Minister’s response. She used the twin argument of the integrity of our Immigration Service and pull factors to dismiss Amendment 30. Across the House, I thought we were able to pretty much rebut the right to work being a pull factor. The integrity of our Immigration Service is questionable too, when other European nations, Canada, Australia and all the other nations mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, can maintain the integrity of their immigration services and not reject the right to work for asylum seekers.
Like all of us across the House, I believe that if we are to become the nation I know we are meant to be, with well-managed borders but a respectful and compassionate asylum system, this amendment can contribute much to creating such an environment. As we have heard in the contributions this evening, the right to work for asylum seekers after six months is a policy that is economically, socially and politically advantageous. It confers dignity on those who have sought safety here and, as we have heard, there is little to no evidence that it creates pull factors. It would also help the Home Office with pressure on its claims system.
I believe that there is support in the House for the amendment and that, even at this hour of the night, it would be appropriate to test the will of the House.