House of Commons
Prayers
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Business Before Questions
Oral Answers to Questions
(1 year, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Gordon Henderson (Sittingbourne and Sheppey) (Con)
The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Brandon Lewis)
We are committed to making prisons a safe place in which to work and providing prison officers with the right support, training and tools to empower them to do their jobs. Our prison officers are the hidden heroes of the criminal justice system; they do great work, keeping the public safe every single day.
Gordon Henderson
I am grateful for that answer from my right hon. Friend, and I hope he would acknowledge that prison officers work in a dangerous and violent environment. I urge him to take this opportunity to acknowledge also that expecting them to work in such a violent environment until they are 68 is wholly unacceptable. Will he commit to an urgent review of how the pension age for prison officers can be reduced so that it reflects that of other public sector workers in similar challenging environments, such as police officers and firefighters, who are able to retire at 60?
Brandon Lewis
I appreciate the challenge that my hon. Friend fairly makes, and I would say a couple of things on that. First, anybody who is violent towards staff will face the full consequences of their actions and should be properly, effectively and swiftly dealt with—we will ensure that they are. On the age issue, all prison officers who joined the service after April 2001 go through and have to pass an annual fitness test. Obviously, that applies to prison officers over the age of 65, and even some of the people who have applied for those roles at that age range have passed the fitness test and are performing their roles effectively. The service, and the prisoners themselves, can benefit from people with that level of experience, who play an important part as key members of the team.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Minister for his response. It is not just the prison officers who feel the pain of the attacks and what happens to them—the families do, too. What is being done to help the families, not only of those who are suffering physically, but of those who are perhaps suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder coming out of prisons?
Brandon Lewis
The hon. Gentleman makes a valid point, as he often does in this House; we focus on the frontline service personnel, such as our brilliant prison officers, but their families and friends pick up on this, as they are the people who work with them and are in their social lives and family lives. We do provide post-incident support through our care teams, trauma risk management teams and the work associated with occupational health. Obviously, there is also counselling for staff who are impacted by violence in the workplace. The best way we can crack down on this is by being very clear that that kind of behaviour simply will not be tolerated and will be prosecuted.
Steve Reed (Croydon North) (Lab/Co-op)
Thank you, Mr Speaker. First, may I welcome the Secretary of State to his place and indeed welcome his colleagues on the Government Front Bench?
Uncontrolled violence in prisons is a key reason officers leave their jobs nearly as quickly as Tory Chancellors. One in four prison officers now quit their job within a year of starting, which damages the supervision of prisoners, leaving victims’ families sickened to see Stephen Lawrence’s killer bragging about using a mobile phone in his cell and the murderer Sean Mercer running a drugs empire from behind bars. When will the Government get back control of our prisons?
Brandon Lewis
First, I thank the hon. Gentleman for his initial remarks in welcoming our team to our places. I am sure that there will be a range of issues on which, across this Dispatch Box and away from it, we will be able to work together for the benefit of the safety of the public. Obviously, I also look forward to our exchanges here at the Dispatch Box.
We know that there is a link between staffing levels and prison violence, which is why we are continuing to strengthen the frontline. We have seen an increase in the number of prison officers from under 18,000 to almost 22,000; we have some 3,770 more full-time officers. He has also highlighted a couple of incidents. I agree that they are completely unacceptable, which is why I have initiated a review to ensure that those kinds of situations cannot happen again. People need to understand that if they are in prison, they are there for a reason: to keep the public safe. We will make sure that they are.
Mr Speaker
We might need to speed up; if we take eight minutes on one question, it is going to take time.
Kate Osborne (Jarrow) (Lab)
Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Rachel Maclean)
Since we published the end-to-end rape review, rape convictions have increased by 77% in the past year, and they are up by 30% on pre-pandemic levels. But there is much more to do, which is why, among other measures, we are more than quadrupling funding for victim support, to £192 million, and investing in increasing the number of independent sexual and domestic abuse advisers to 1,000 by 2024-25.
Kate Osborne
Crime is up, charges are down, criminals are getting off and victims are being let down—and that is just in the Met police. Yesterday, we saw the alarming weight of evidence from the Casey report, identifying structural misogyny, racism and homophobia in the Met, with thousands of serving police officers getting away with breaking the law. That cannot be a problem for the Met alone but goes across police forces. That culture explains the failures in our wider justice system, where sexism, racism and homophobia are unrecognised by police officers, and victims are not believed or supported. Unless those issues are addressed, we will never change the appalling low charge and conviction rates for rape and sexual assault, so will the Secretary of State—
Mr Speaker
Order. I am sorry, but I just said that we need to make progress. We cannot read speeches out; there has to be a question.
Kate Osborne
Will the Secretary of State look into whether this culture is symptomatic across police forces and take steps to ensure that victims get the justice that they deserve?
Rachel Maclean
I thank the hon. Lady for her remarks; I have two observations on what she said. First, she talks about the Met police. The Labour Mayor of London, Sadiq Khan, is the police and crime commissioner for the London police forces. I also ask her to direct her questions to the Home Office, which leads on these matters. Of course, we will play our part, which is why we are rolling out all the measures in the Crown courts to protect victims of sexual assault and rape, and there is a lot more to do.
Helen Hayes
Under this Conservative Government, people can be fined for cycling on the pavement but not for following a girl walking home from school. The problem is so widespread that research by Plan International revealed that one third of all schoolgirls have received unwanted sexual attention in their school uniform. For so many women, a lifetime of feeling unsafe on our streets starts in childhood. The Government continue to ignore the problem. Does the Minister agree that the law must be changed to criminalise street harassment?
Rachel Maclean
I thank the hon. Lady, but I strongly disagree with her remark that we are ignoring the problem. As she will know from Home Office questions, in which we have had many exchanges over the Dispatch Boxes about that issue, the Home Office is leading on a review of the laws relating to street harassment—not to mention the significant amounts of funding that we have put in to local councils all over the country to keep women and girls safe at night.
Mr Richard Holden (North West Durham) (Con)
Under the Ministry of Justice’s masterplan to increase the number of approved premises available, high-risk and very high-risk offenders could be located at Highfield House in Consett right in the centre of my local town, in a residential area near a lot of local youth facilities. Will the Minister meet me to discuss that, because it is quite inappropriate for the location that has been suggested?
Rachel Maclean
I thank my hon. Friend for bringing his constituents’ concerns to the House and I would be delighted to meet him to discuss that in detail.
Ellie Reeves (Lewisham West and Penge) (Lab)
I, too, welcome the Secretary of State and his ministerial team to their place.
Under the Tories, we have seen rape prosecutions reach record lows, court backlogs reach record highs and victims waiting more than three years for justice, yet in his conference speech, the Justice Secretary did not announce any tangible ways to change that. Labour, on the other hand, would introduce specialist rape courts to drive up prosecutions, reduce delays and fast-track cases through the system. Does that not show that the Tories have run out of ideas and that it is only under Labour that the public can again have confidence in our criminal justice system?
Rachel Maclean
It is lovely to have these exchanges across the Dispatch Boxes with the hon. Lady, and I am sure that we will have more of them, because it is in all our interests that we improve the criminal justice system and the response to rape. That is why, as she well knows, the work of the rape review is vital, and we have seen police referrals, Crown Prosecution Service charges and Crown court receipts increasing as a result of that vital work, driven by our law enforcement partners and the CPS. I draw her attention to two specific measures that we have introduced to assist: we have ended the criminal Bar strike, thanks to the efforts of the Lord Chancellor; and we have rolled out section 28 pre-recorded evidence to all Crown courts in the country to spare rape victims the trauma of live cross-questioning.
Jack Lopresti (Filton and Bradley Stoke) (Con)
Stephen Metcalfe (South Basildon and East Thurrock) (Con)
David Rutley (Macclesfield) (Con)
The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Brandon Lewis)
Getting prisoners into employment helps not only to fill the 1.25 million vacancies that businesses have right now, but to drive down reoffending. To achieve that, we are building stronger links with employers and suppliers and are offering more offenders the chance to work in prison, on release on temporary licence, and on release from prison.
Jack Lopresti
Will my right hon. Friend confirm that through the apprenticeships programme that his Department is running, prison leavers will be given the opportunity to achieve qualifications that will help them into new jobs and careers and help them to turn their back on crime?
Brandon Lewis
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We want to get more prisoners the skills and qualifications that they need to get into employment and have the chance to contribute to society, which cuts crime and grows the economy. I am delighted that the first apprentices have now started work. We are planning a roundtable to encourage a wide range of employers, particularly in the UK hospitality and construction industries, where there is a lot more that we can do.
Stephen Metcalfe
I welcome my right hon. Friend’s commitment to building links with employers to ensure that prison leavers go into sustainable employment. Will he assure me and the House that his Department will support that ambition with appropriate funding?
Brandon Lewis
Yes. My hon. Friend makes an important point. We are investing in new roles, such as prison employment leads and a head of education, skills and work, to give our prisoners the support that they need to get into jobs. We are also funding new infrastructure such as employment hubs. This investment will cut crime and help prisoners to get work-ready, which will mean a better, safer society and a healthier community.
David Rutley
Having visited HMP Thorn Cross recently while I was a Minister in the Department for Work and Pensions, I have seen the great work that Timpson and TalkTalk, among others, are doing to prepare offenders for the world of work. At a meeting in Macclesfield on Friday, Sodexo also demonstrated its clear commitment to the task. Does my right hon. Friend agree that we need more such partnerships, as well as clear pathways of support on leaving prison, including access to relevant benefits, to ensure that more prison leavers land better on their own two feet?
Brandon Lewis
My hon. Friend is absolutely right and gives some key examples. The employability innovation fund announced in our prisons strategy White Paper will help prisoners to build more partnerships with employers like those at HMP Thorn Cross. I have seen other organisations and initiatives such as twinning projects that are looking into different things and are even using sports such as football to prepare prisoners for leaving prison and contributing positively to their community and future life. Those are great projects, and my hon. Friend gives a good example of a good prison doing great work.
Dan Jarvis (Barnsley Central) (Lab)
One in three prisoners are released on a Friday, but many support services are closed over the weekend, which makes the transition and route into employment more complicated. It is welcome that the Government have said that they want to end Friday releases. Will the Secretary of State update the House on when that will happen?
Brandon Lewis
The hon. Gentleman makes a clear and correct observation about timing. A private Member’s Bill on the subject—the Offenders (Day of Release from Detention) Bill—will come before the House in the next few weeks, and we are looking at it very carefully.
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
Diolch yn fawr, Llefarydd.
Securing employment for offenders is vital to rehabilitation, and the role of experienced probation officers is key to success. Earlier this month, I visited the Caernarfon office of the north Wales probation delivery unit and learned that the region has 27 vacancies in a present workforce of 200. Does the Secretary of State recognise the risk to the effectiveness of rehabilitation and to public safety as a result of the loss of experienced probation staff and increased workloads? Will he commit to no further cuts in probation?
Brandon Lewis
I recognise the challenge across prisons and probation. Making sure that we have the right teams, with staff who have the right experience to work with people, is important in preparing people and avoiding reoffending, which is so important to the safety of our communities. I am very focused on the issue. We are recruiting people across His Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service at the moment. I look forward to making sure that we can support people across the country, and I look forward to visiting Wales to see that for myself.
Steve Reed (Croydon North) (Lab/Co-op)
The probation service is not finding jobs for prisoners, because understaffing is at crisis point: the service now faces a shortage of nearly 1,700 officers, according to the MOJ’s own figures. That allows serious offenders such as Katie Piper’s acid attacker to evade monitoring and escape abroad. Will the Secretary of State apologise to victims, including Katie Piper, for letting the probation service get so run down that it can no longer control offenders?
Brandon Lewis
I appreciate that for political reasons the hon. Gentleman will want to do the probation service down. I have to say that I think our probation officers across the country work hard every day, not only to keep communities safe but to help prisoners to rehabilitate and get into communities.
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to highlight situations that are not acceptable. The example of Katie Piper is a current one, and it is not acceptable. As Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State, I am determined to do everything I can, working with my ministerial team and the brilliant teams across probation, to ensure that such situations do not happen in future. It is not acceptable, and it should not have happened.
Marion Fellows (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
Chris Law (Dundee West) (SNP)
Owen Thompson (Midlothian) (SNP)
Kirsten Oswald (East Renfrewshire) (SNP)
Richard Thomson (Gordon) (SNP)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Gareth Johnson)
The Secretary of State works closely, and has regular discussions, with the Home Secretary and other members of the Cabinet on tackling illegal migration. The migration and economic development partnership is an essential part of the Government’s strategy to improve the fairness and efficacy of the United Kingdom’s immigration system. Its aim is to deter illegal entry to the UK, break the business model of people smugglers, and remove from the UK those who have no right to be here. There are ongoing legal challenges to the partnership, but the Government remain confident that it is fully compliant with national and international law.
Marion Fellows
I thank the Minister for his answer, and welcome him to his place—for the time being.
The United Nations refugee convention prohibits refoulement—returning a refugee to a place, including any third country, where they would face persecution. Given that UK Government officials are warning their own Ministers about Rwanda’s appalling human rights record, how can the Minister be confident that this plan is compatible with the convention?
Gareth Johnson
Nothing in the UN convention prevents people from being transferred to a safe country. Rwanda is a safe country. It is a signatory to the convention. It has been praised by the UN for its work on refugees, and it is a good partner to do business with.
Chris Law
Yesterday I returned from Rwanda, where I saw at first hand what some people are now calling Hopeless House, a refurbished orphanage. It is clear that there is zero transparency in respect of the £120 million payment to Rwanda.
Is the Justice Secretary not alarmed by the fact that the world’s largest refugee agency, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, has said that this policy will
“undermine, not promote, the Government’s stated goal of improving protection for those at risk of persecution”,
and, as a result, will send the clearest possible message to international partners that this UK Government are stepping away yet again from their international responsibilities on human rights protections?
Gareth Johnson
What is clear is that the current situation in the channel is deathly. What we need to do is smash the business model of the people smugglers, and ensure that we have a safe and human route for those people who have been transferred to Rwanda. I am confident that we are on track to do that. We are confident of our legal position; no court has deemed our plan to be in any way unlawful.
Owen Thompson
Under the Government’s plans people could be given as little as seven days’ notice of deportation, which is clearly insufficient time for them to seek any legal advice about their removal to Rwanda. Does the Minister agree with the Law Society of England and Wales, which says that anyone subject to a life-changing order must be able to challenge the decision and have their case processed fairly and transparently?
Gareth Johnson
Access to legal advice is, of course, extremely important to anyone seeking asylum, which is why legal assistance is available to all asylum claimants. For example, 30 minutes of telephone legal advice and access to legal aid are available to people who claim asylum in this country.
Kirsten Oswald
Does the Minister agree with the chief executive of the group Refugee Action that stepping back from the UK’s obligations under the 1951 convention would be
“a blatant breach of the international refugee laws that the UK proudly helped create in the first place”,
and does the new Justice Secretary not feel a responsibility to uphold those international obligations?
Gareth Johnson
Everything we are doing complies with the UN convention, and with the UN convention on human rights. It also complies with national law. I have to say to Scottish National party Members that if they spent a little more time looking at the border between the UK and France and a little less time looking at the border between England and Scotland, they might come up with some viable alternatives.
Richard Thomson
Does the Minister not realise how embarrassingly abject it is to hear the Home Secretary accuse judges in Strasbourg of mission creep, when all they are doing, when it comes to the refugee convention, is interpreting and upholding laws that successive UK Governments have helped to create and have tasked them with upholding?
Gareth Johnson
The hon. Gentleman should have more faith in our judges. I repeat that everything we are doing complies with the UN convention on refugees. It complies as well with UK law and with the European convention on human rights. We are determined to stop what is going on in the channel. This is the fourth question we have heard from the Scottish National party, and not once have we heard a viable alternative proposal from them. Not once.
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
Drew Hendry (Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey) (SNP)
The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Brandon Lewis)
The Government stand by their manifesto commitment to update the Human Rights Act 1998. Obviously we want to look at the best way to do this and we are therefore looking again at the Bill of Rights to ensure that we deliver on the Government’s objectives as effectively as possible. And, as the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Gareth Johnson) has just outlined, we remain a committed party to the European convention on human rights.
Sir Desmond Swayne
Has the Secretary of State proposals to protect free speech from the use of strategic lawsuits against public participation?
Brandon Lewis
Yes. SLAPPs, as they are referred to, are an abuse of the legal system involving people using legal threats and litigation to silence journalists, campaigners and public bodies. The invasion of Ukraine has heightened concerns about oligarchs abusing these laws and seeking to shut down reporting on their corruption and economic crime. I have met the Justice Minister and Deputy Justice Minister from Ukraine to talk about these issues. I am still determined to introduce legislation to deal with SLAPPs and with freedom of speech more widely.
Drew Hendry
The Minister is crying out for alternatives and advice, but section 3 of the Human Rights Act requires Parliament to ensure the compatibility of UK legislation with the European convention on human rights
“so far as it is possible to do so”.
Why, then, are his Government so intent on removing these protections altogether, when the Act already grants them this obvious flexibility?
Brandon Lewis
I will say two things. First, we want to ensure that we have protection of freedom of speech, as in some areas we are seeing a sad increase in the cancel culture and, importantly, the targeted anti-SLAPP reforms will be able to be deliver through a statutory definition of a SLAPP, with identifying characteristics and cost protections for SLAPPs cases, giving absolute confidence that we are not going to have our legal system abused by ne’er-do-wells and foreign oligarchs trying to suppress the reality of what is happening in situations such as those in Ukraine.
Anne McLaughlin (Glasgow North East) (SNP)
To save me raising a point of order later, I want to say in response to the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, the hon. Member for Dartford (Gareth Johnson), that we are constantly saying that there should be safe and legal routes. If he looks them up, he will find out what our solutions are to the Rwanda plan.
Professor Aileen McHarg, a professor of public law and human rights at Durham Law School, has told the Joint Committee on Human Rights that she has
“no doubt that…any changes to the Human Rights Act will have knock-on consequences for the scope of devolved competence.”
Does the Secretary of State agree with her? Assuming that he does, does he also accept that this brings any future reforms firmly within the scope of the Sewel convention and that he must therefore seek the consent of the Scottish Parliament?
Brandon Lewis
On the hon. Lady’s opening remark, one thing that was not clear from the questions asked is that we have to ensure we are cracking down on the people who are abusing the system and abusing people through modern slavery and using these tragic life-threatening transports. I make no apology, and nor does anybody in this Government, for trying to do the right thing and crack down on those criminals. I have already said that we are looking at the Bill of Rights, and she will be able to see what we are bringing forward in due course to ensure that we are delivering on our objectives correctly. I repeat that we are a committed party to the European convention on human rights.
Anne McLaughlin
I am not sure that that was an answer to my question. However, assuming that the Secretary of State does agree with Professor Aileen McHarg and that he will consult the Scottish Parliament, if the Scottish Parliament, on behalf of the people of Scotland, says no—as it absolutely will do—to tinkering with our human rights, will he stop tinkering with them, or will he do as many Members right across this House do and dismiss the views of the people of Scotland, thus adding to the very many reasons to say yes to independence and yes to retaining our human rights?
Brandon Lewis
It did not take long to get on to a separatist debate in oral questions today, but as I have said, we are looking at the Bill of Rights. Actually, the Government have consulted all the devolved authorities through the entire process of looking at the Bill of Rights; I know that my predecessor did that as well. I will always look to continue to engage, but we are committed to delivering on our manifesto pledges and doing the right thing by the people of the United Kingdom—all of the United Kingdom.
Nadia Whittome (Nottingham East) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Gareth Johnson)
We extended magistrates courts’ sentencing powers from a maximum of six months’ imprisonment to 12 months’ imprisonment for single triable either way offences in April of this year. We estimate this will save up to 1,700 Crown court sitting days a year, and we are keeping the impact of these increased powers under review.
Nadia Whittome
That does not really answer my question, although I thank the Minister for his response. My question is whether he intends to extend the sentencing powers further. Although I obviously share his desire to tackle backlogs and reduce waiting times in the Crown courts, concerns have been raised that further increasing the sentencing powers of magistrates is not the right way to go about this. More defendants may elect to be tried in Crown courts anyway, and expanded powers could result in higher sentences, putting even more pressure on already overcrowded prisons and leading to an increase in Crown court appeals. What consideration has he given to these concerns, and what alternatives are there?
Gareth Johnson
I make no apologies for locking up criminals. I have confidence in the good blend of district judges and justices of the peace in the magistrates courts. We have not seen how the existing increase in powers has been borne out, and we have not seen what the impact will be. We will keep that under review and, until we have that information, I cannot add anything further.
Mr Laurence Robertson (Tewkesbury) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Rob Butler)
The Government published the draft Mental Health Bill in June, and it is now subject to pre-legislative scrutiny. It includes vital reforms to support people with serious mental illness in the criminal justice system by speeding up access to specialist in-patient care and treatment, and it seeks to end the use of prison as a place of safety. The Bill will introduce a new statutory time limit of 28 days for transfers from prison to hospital.
Mr Robertson
As the Minister is aware, a very high percentage of prisoners have mental health problems. It may also be the case that they end up in prison because of mental health issues. Will the Ministry of Justice work more closely with the Department of Health and Social Care and other people who can provide mental health services to try to stop the spiral?
Rob Butler
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I am pleased to tell him that the Government are working very closely with the national health service. I will give two quick examples. We know that people leaving custody present a risk of reoffending, so we work with NHS England on a project called RECONNECT, which offers prison leavers targeted support to ensure they go to their appointments in the community to help them on their journey. At primary level, we are rolling out community sentence treatment requirements, including mental health treatment requirements. NHS England is on track to roll them out to every court in England by the end of 2024.
Dame Maria Miller (Basingstoke) (Con)
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Rachel Maclean)
The Government welcome the Law Commission’s review, and we are carefully considering its recommendations. As my right hon. Friend will expect, the Lord Chancellor is working very closely with his counterpart in the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport.
Dame Maria Miller
The Law Commission’s report says there are gaps in the law on online intimate image abuse that
“mean that harmful, culpable behaviour is not appropriately criminalised and victims are left without effective recourse.”
The Government have a strong record on tackling crime against women, including by introducing the new revenge pornography laws. Rather than just talking about it, can we please act now and either include this in the Online Safety Bill or have a standalone Bill, as the Government recently did to tackle upskirting?
Rachel Maclean
My right hon. Friend has a hugely impressive track record of campaigning on all these issues, to enable women and girls to live safely both online and in the real world. She points to some of our previous work. Of course, technology is always changing, and the Government always keep this under review. It is right that we take time to consider the Law Commission’s recommendations, but I would be happy to meet her to discuss it in more detail.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
Will the ministerial team go further in protecting women online? Is the Minister aware of the number of women journalists at the BBC who are trolled mercilessly into mental health issues? One dreadful troll was described as being in the Olympic class. These women have never been supported by the BBC, and they have never been given the support they should have been given. Will she join our campaign to secure justice through an independent inquiry into the negligence of the BBC towards its employees?
Rachel Maclean
I thank the hon. Gentleman for bringing that matter to the attention of the House. Of course, the Government have a range of responses to keep all women—not just BBC journalists—living their lives. It is absolutely right that we put in place the further protections that are contained in the Online Safety Bill. If he has further proposals, I ask him to bring them to me and I will be happy to look at them.
Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South East) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Gareth Johnson)
The outstanding case load in the Crown court in Bolton was 528 at the end of June 2022. We are taking action across the criminal justice system to deliver swifter access to justice for victims and to reduce the backlog of cases. That includes the investment of £477 million into the criminal justice system over the next three financial years to maximise the capacity of the system.
Yasmin Qureshi
As a former prosecutor, a barrister in private practice and a shadow Justice Minister, I find sitting in this House and watching the Government oversee the managed decline of our legal system deeply concerning. In Bolton, as the Minister has said, the backlog stands at 500—more than 10% greater than six months ago. It includes 20 rape cases among other serious criminal cases. Can the Secretary of State for Justice inform me why the Government have effectively legalised criminal activity in Bolton, in Greater Manchester and throughout Britain?
Gareth Johnson
The hon. Lady is right to raise the issue of the backlog; it is a serious matter. That is why we have put in a catalogue of measures to help tackle it, including: introducing Nightingale courts, which will be sitting until 2024-25; increasing the cap on sitting days; and raising the retirement age for judges. We have done a lot and I hope the hon. Lady will be gracious enough to congratulate the Lord Chancellor on successfully negotiating an end to the Bar strike, which will help tackle this serious problem.
Rehman Chishti (Gillingham and Rainham) (Con)
With regards to addressing the backlog of criminal cases, the Minister will know that the largest category in the backlog of 60,000 cases is sexual offences. Previously, I have made representations to the former Lord Chancellor and the No. 10 policy unit to have specialist sexual courts to address that category. On 16 June, the previous Justice Secretary announced pilot projects for sexual offences courts in Leeds, Newcastle and Snaresbrook Crown court. That is something that I pushed for along with Kim Hollis, the former Director of Public Prosecutions in the British Virgin Islands. Has that taken place and what further steps have been taken to ensure that those pilot project results are taken forward?
Gareth Johnson
I understand that, yes, that has taken place. My hon. Friend raises a very serious issue about the backlog and particularly about the serious offences that are contained within it. This is why we must get the number of outstanding cases, particularly the serious sexual offences, down. As far as the courts specialising in sexual offences are concerned, we are looking at pilots and considering the matter. There are pros and cons to that approach, and that is represented right across the criminal justice system with some people speaking up in favour of it and others against. That is why we need to look incredibly carefully at that very serious issue.
Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)
I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton South East (Yasmin Qureshi) for raising this question—a question that could be asked of each and every town and city with a courtroom, because the picture is dire up and down the country. I am glad, however, that the Ministry of Justice got back round the table with representatives from the criminal Bar and engaged with their concerns so that justice could get moving again. However, just a couple of weeks after that strike action ended, the Minister is facing more. It is about the failure of the Common Platform, which is preventing staff from doing their jobs effectively and holding up justice for victims and defendants alike. I welcome to his place the fourth Justice Minister that I have faced across the Dispatch Box. Will he now do what his managers and predecessors have refused to do and pause the further roll-out of this system until he gets it fixed?
Gareth Johnson
I totally reject the argument that somehow the Common Platform is responsible for the backlog in the courts; it is not. What happened is that the backlog in the courts increased during covid. We were the first country in the world to recommence jury trials and get our courts back working again. The backlog was going down, but we then had the Bar strike, which, understandably, increased it because barristers were not working, but thanks to the actions of the Lord Chancellor, we now have resolved that issue and can look forward to the backlog coming down.
Duncan Baker (North Norfolk) (Con)
The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Brandon Lewis)
We have boosted the system with additional investment and engagement with the Criminal Bar Association. I welcome its constructive engagement and that of the Bar Council, which led to the end of the strike. We have ensured there is an uplift on new cases and for the vast majority of existing cases, which will come into force by 31 October 2022, plus additional funding for case preparation work, further funding for defence barristers involved in pre-recorded cross-examinations, which are used to reduce the trauma of a trial for vulnerable victims and witnesses, by early 2023—coming back to the earlier question from the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Lewisham West and Penge (Ellie Reeves)—a substantial uplift per year for fees in the youth court and the criminal legal aid advisory board. All those changes, alongside the longer-term proposed reforms, mean there is an increased expected criminal aid spend of £1.2 billion per year. I am glad the barristers are back to work; that is good for victims and we can get these cases moving.
Duncan Baker
I thank my right hon. Friend for his collegiate approach and the speed with which he has brought about this situation with the Criminal Bar Association. Can he further assure me that, as well as the 15% uplift for barristers, his Department will continue to invest more widely in criminal legal aid, to ensure that it is adequately funded for the future as well?
Brandon Lewis
My hon. Friend makes an important point. The reality is that all lawyers, barristers and solicitors want to be working for the benefit of their clients and to ensure that victims are able to see cases come to justice. Speedy justice is good justice, with positive and proper outcomes through the right processes. Following the publication of the criminal legal aid independent review, we will be investing a further £135 million in criminal legal aid per year, the biggest increase in many decades, and setting out further plans for all parts of the profession as part of our response to CLAIR at the end of November.
Valerie Vaz (Walsall South) (Lab)
The Secretary of State mentions solicitors, so can he say why solicitors have received only a 9% increase in fees, prompting the Law Society to say that they may not undertake criminal defence work?
Brandon Lewis
I am not sure many people would class 9% as “only”, but that also does not reflect some of the other investments that solicitors will benefit from, particularly the substantial investment in youth courts, for example. As I said, we will respond more widely to CLAIR for the whole profession at the end of November and work with the relevant societies and associations.
Alex Chalk (Cheltenham) (Con)
I warmly commend the intervention of the Secretary of State to end the dispute; it was decisive and constructive and it is hugely welcome. I echo the points made just now: it is important for the criminal justice system to work well that solicitors too are properly remunerated. That is the view I take and I know the Chair of the Justice Committee would have made those points if he was not unavoidably detained today.
Brandon Lewis
My hon. and learned Friend makes an important point, and from the Dispatch Box I congratulate the Chair of the Justice Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill), who is otherwise engaged today on some very enjoyable and well-deserved matters. I hope he has a wonderful day. As I have said, we are going to be responding more fully to the CLAIR report, but my hon. and learned Friend is absolutely right that the criminal justice system works best when all parts of it are functioning fluidly and effectively for the benefit of all their clients and for wider society, and I am determined to ensure that we deliver that.
Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)
On the issue of solicitors’ fees, the Secretary of State clearly does not agree with his Justice Minister in the other place, Lord Bellamy, who said that the situation for criminal legal aid solicitors is more parlous than for barristers. The 9% is below the rate of inflation and it follows a 25-year pay freeze. When is the Secretary of State going to look properly at the issue of solicitors’ fees?
Brandon Lewis
In the classic phrase, I refer the hon. Gentleman to the remarks I have made many times already in the last few minutes.
Afzal Khan (Manchester, Gorton) (Lab)
I hope the Justice Secretary will join me in congratulating Lubna Shuja, who becomes the first Asian and Muslim president of the Law Society.
Sir Christopher Bellamy’s review of criminal legal aid was clear that legal aid rates needed to rise to 15% to put the system on a sustainable footing. However, the Government’s proposals would raise legal aid rates only to 9% for solicitors, which is below inflation. The Law Society warned that the justice system is on the verge of collapse without funding all parts of it equally. Will the Lord Chancellor adjust his proposals to meet the recommendations of the Bellamy review?
Brandon Lewis
I join the hon. Gentleman in congratulating the new president of the Law Society. I look forward to working closely with her, as I do with other parts of the criminal justice system’s leadership through the Criminal Justice Board. We will respond to the full CLAIR report and we will be working with solicitors. There is a wider package for the entire criminal justice system; even within what we have announced as part of the Criminal Bar Association package, there are substantial chunks that benefit solicitors as well. The hon. Gentleman should have a look at the wider package.
Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab)
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Rachel Maclean)
Our victims Bill will improve support for victims of crime, so they can cope with and recover from the impact. It will help them remain engaged with the criminal justice system and strengthen the transparency and accountability of those agencies and authorities that should be there to protect them.
Sarah Champion
I thank the Minister for her comments, but I want to raise something specific that could be done through the victims Bill, which is to ban the use of victims’ counselling notes in courts. In July, the Attorney General extended the guidance, making it easier for such notes to go into the public domain. That has had a huge and immediate chilling effect on victims getting pre-trial therapy and on them coming forward at all. Please can the Minister address this.
Rachel Maclean
The hon. Lady raises a vital issue to which we are paying close attention through the work of the rape review. It is not the case that it is now easier for those notes to be requested. I am aware that the hon. Lady is holding an event this afternoon. I would be very happy to come along, talk to her and put right some of the points she has made. We are determined to improve the experience of victims of rape and we are making great strides already.
Anna McMorrin (Cardiff North) (Lab)
While the Government derail the economy and crash the markets, victims and survivors are still being abandoned. This Government are too busy trying to save their own skin to care about what is happening to victims. One survivor told me her partner sexually assaulted her and abused her child. Her truth was misbelieved and mistrusted. She never got her day in court. Now she is just one of many Jane Does denied justice and traumatised by the criminal justice system. These are the victims being failed by this Government’s negligence, and now we have a victims Bill going nowhere. Will the Minister tell victims when she is finally going to put them first and bring forward a Bill?
Rachel Maclean
This Government are determined to stand behind victims of crime. That is why, as the hon. Lady knows, the Justice Committee has carried out detailed pre-legislative scrutiny. We are reviewing that very carefully and we will bring forward the victims Bill as soon as parliamentary time allows.
Nadia Whittome (Nottingham East) (Lab)
The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Brandon Lewis)
My immediate priority on becoming Justice Secretary was to end the disruptive strike action that was delaying justice in our criminal courts. I am pleased that the Criminal Bar Association voted to agree a new legal aid deal and its members returned to work last week.
The Government have reset a constructive relationship with barristers and we have agreed to work together to bring down court backlogs, so that victims can get the timely justice they deserve. We have also announced more plans for more prison leavers to be fitted with GPS tags, so that we can keep a close eye on them to help deter reoffending, reduce crime and, importantly, keep our citizens and communities safe.
Nadia Whittome
Ten years since the abolition of the sentence of imprisonment for public protection, nearly 3,000 people are still in prison serving indeterminate sentences. Last month, the Justice Committee released a report calling the sentence “irredeemably flawed”, highlighting the severe psychological harm it causes and its adverse impact on rehabilitation. Will the Secretary of State act on the report’s recommendation to bring in legislation to resentence prisoners subject to IPP sentences?
Brandon Lewis
As the hon. Lady rightly says, that report has been published. We are considering it and we will respond in due course.
Stephen Metcalfe (South Basildon and East Thurrock) (Con)
Brandon Lewis
Yes, absolutely. I am looking forward to being able to roll out up to 8,000 new tags as part of the scheme we have announced. The scheme is funded and will be happening. It is important to stress that it is on top of current prison leavers, and it will give extra protection and confidence to communities because we will know what the people who are tagged are doing and where they are. It adds to community safety and gives a sense of safety to everyone.
Chris Law (Dundee West) (SNP)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Gareth Johnson)
The court backlog is an important issue. As part of the deal done with the Criminal Bar Association, we are looking at giving better funding for cross-examination under section 28 of the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 for victims of serious sexual violence, but the hon. Gentleman will know that the Government have put in place a catalogue of measures to tackle the backlog in the Crown court. We want to get on top of the backlog; we were getting on top of it until the Bar strike took place, and thanks to the deal that has been struck, we are now optimistic that it will start to come down.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
Gareth Johnson
We believe that our proposals to process people in Rwanda are compliant with not only the UN convention on refugees, but the European convention on human rights. We believe that our proposals are within not just international law but national law. There is nothing in those laws that prevent us from carrying out the policy we are proposing.
Ruth Jones (Newport West) (Lab)
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Rachel Maclean)
I will be happy to look into that case. More broadly, the hon. Lady highlights the vital importance of the police and the CPS working closely together when they develop case files to go forward to the courts. That is the work we are doing in Operation Soteria. It is already resulting in more charges and more convictions for rape and serious sexual assault.
Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Rob Butler)
I thank my hon. Friend for that question, to which the short answer is yes, it absolutely will. It is a priority for this Government to increase the proportion of prison leavers in sustainable employment. We work closely with DWP to do that via its network of prison work coaches. We are also committed to working with the Department to improve access to universal credit.
Martyn Day (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (SNP)
Brandon Lewis
We will always make sure that we are working within the rule of law, including internationally. That is vital to us. We are committed to bringing forward proposals that work, that protect freedom of speech, and that ensure we deal with some of the egregious attempts at prosecution and shutting down debate being made by ne’er do wells around the world.
Scott Benton (Blackpool South) (Con)
Gareth Johnson
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his question. It is the Government’s position that we can tackle that significant problem within the current law. He will be aware that two judicial reviews are pending, but we are committed to the European convention on human rights and to the UN refugee convention. We believe that our proposals are within the law and that no court has said otherwise.
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)
Brandon Lewis
As we said earlier, getting on top of that core backlog, which has obviously gone up as a result of pressures, is an absolutely key piece of work for us. People sometimes forget that we have lost almost a couple of years through covid and through the Bar strike this year. It is also about making sure that communities are safe through things such as the tagging scheme that we are rolling out, to ensure that people have confidence in their communities as well.
Jack Brereton (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Con)
Rachel Maclean
My hon. Friend is completely right to highlight the harm and the horrendous impacts of drug dealing in his constituency. There are already significant penalties for supplying that drug—as a class B drug, the maximum penalty is four years in prison—but the Government always keep such matters under review.
Dame Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)
It is not just the criminal courts that are seeing backlogs; the probate registry service and the divorce courts are also causing problems. One constituent came to my surgery last week. She is still living with her husband but her divorce case has been passed to Suffolk, where people cannot understand how she could still be living in the same house as him while trying to divorce—but that is the reality of the London housing situation. What action is the Minister taking to make sure that the pace of dealing with such cases increases?
Gareth Johnson
The Government have invested £324 million over the next three years to bring down the backlog in the family courts. The hon. Lady is right to mention the probate court as well. Obtaining grants of probate has a satisfaction rating of about 90%, but there are some serious delays with that other 10%. When people apply online and everything is order, probate is swiftly dealt with, but there are difficulties with some of the other 10% of cases. We are working on that at speed.
Dr Luke Evans (Bosworth) (Con)
Colin Pitchfork is a double child killer and rapist who came in front of the Parole Board. My predecessor referred the case back to the Parole Board to be reviewed, but Colin Pitchfork was then released and had his licence revoked again after worrying behaviour around young women. The Government committed to a root-and-branch review of the parole system in March. Will the Minister update the House on progress on that, so that such cases never happen again?
Rachel Maclean
The public rightly want to know how that was allowed to happen, which is the impetus for our root-and-branch reform of the Parole Board. It now falls to the Parole Board to review Pitchfork’s detention. I assure my hon. Friend that it is very much the Secretary of State’s intention to provide a view on suitability for release. As soon as parliamentary time allows—
Rachel Maclean
We will legislate to go further to allow Ministers to block release.
Mr Speaker
Order. When I say I am moving on, I am moving on; it is not for you to continue. It goes at my pace, not yours. I call Emma Lewell-Buck.
Mrs Emma Lewell-Buck (South Shields) (Lab)
I have repeatedly raised the anguish that my constituents, the parents of Chloe Rutherford and Liam Curry, are going through. Chloe and Liam were murdered in the Manchester Arena terror attack. Archaic law in relation to terror attacks prevents my constituents registering their precious children’s death. I first raised the issue in March—it was urgent then. Despite multiple promises from the Government Benches that legislative change was being considered, nothing at all has been forthcoming to me or my constituents. Why?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mike Freer)
I thank the hon. Lady for the work that I know she has being doing on the issue and I am very conscious that the matter is outstanding. I can only reassure her of the Government’s commitment to find a route through the current legal blockage that does not allow the families to take part in registration. I promise her that I will bring forward a solution as soon as I can.
Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con)
Yesterday, The Telegraph reported on some very worrying cases of babies who were born alive but sadly died soon after, but whose deaths have been recorded as stillbirths by the hospital, meaning a coroner could not investigate. Three and a half years ago, my Civil Partnerships, Marriages and Deaths (Registration etc) Act 2019 required the Secretary of State to prepare a report on how the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 could be amended to give coroners the power to investigate those stillbirths. Why has it still not happened?
Mike Freer
I can reassure my hon. Friend that the Government are still reviewing those recommendations and looking forward to bringing forward methods, with the Chief Coroner, on how we can address that backlog.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
Will the new team look at the way we handle miscarriages of justice in this country? Will they look at the report from the all-party group on miscarriages of justice, which is chaired by me and the Chair of the Justice Committee, the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill), and help us to reform the way in which we treat miscarriages of justice?
Brandon Lewis
I always make it a priority to ensure that I am working with Committees. I will very happily have a look at that report. I am happy to talk to the hon. Member and his co-chairman in due course as well.
James Daly (Bury North) (Con)
The Justice Committee —[Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. The hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Alicia Kearns) is going to have to take her seat. She cannot just stand there while we are in the middle of questions.
James Daly
The Justice Committee, of which I am a member, published our report on IPP—imprisonment for public protection—sentences on 28 September. There was a very clear recommendation that all IPP prisoners currently in custody should be resentenced, something which I wholeheartedly support. Could I ask my hon. Friend to confirm the timeframe for the Government’s response to the Justice Committee report? Further, what immediate steps are being put in place to support IPP prisoners currently struggling in a custodial environment?
Rob Butler
I thank my hon. Friend for his question. It is probably right that I point out that I was still a member of the Justice Committee when it took evidence for that inquiry, but I did not contribute to the drafting of the report. I absolutely acknowledge that we find ourselves in an extremely difficult position with IPP prisoners, and I am determined to resolve the problem as far as possible, but it has to be understood that there is not a simple one-size-fits-all solution that is appropriate for all people, so I am very carefully considering the recommendations. That is something we are doing very speedily, and as soon as we have come up with a conclusion, the Justice Committee will receive my response.
Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)
The Government rightly abandoned their Bill of Rights, describing it as a “complete mess”, principally because it sought to stay within the jurisdiction of the European Court of Human Rights while ignoring its judgments. Is that still the Government’s position and, if so, how will they stop their next attempt also being a complete mess?
Brandon Lewis
Rather like the answer earlier, I would refer the hon. Gentleman to answers I gave earlier. I have extensively outlined the position on the Bill of Rights.
Matt Warman (Boston and Skegness) (Con)
So-called open prisons in constituencies such as mine, such as North Sea Camp, play a vital role in our justice system, but the inmates in those prisons often cause concern to local residents. Would the Minister join me in encouraging both the Prison Service and the Parole Board to engage with local communities so that they can understand what they do to make sure local communities are kept as safe as they possibly can be?
Rob Butler
I am very happy to do so. Open prisons play a very important part in the rehabilitation of offenders, and I am more than happy to make sure that they have the understanding and the commitment of local communities, so we can rehabilitate prisoners, reduce reoffending and ensure we have fewer victims of crime.
Mr Speaker
That completes the questions. We now come to the urgent question. Those who wish to leave, please do so.
Chinese Consulate: Attack on Hong Kong Protesters
(1 year, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Alicia Kearns (Rutland and Melton) (Con)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs if he will make a statement on what representations he has made to the Chinese Communist party following the attack on Hong Kong protesters at the Chinese consulate in Manchester.
The Minister for the Americas and the Overseas Territories (Jesse Norman)
Top of the morning to you, Mr Speaker, and thank you very much indeed for allowing us to have this urgent question on a topic of enormous importance. May I start by recognising, thanking and welcoming my hon. Friend to her position as Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee?
As the House will know, His Majesty’s Government are extremely concerned at the apparent scenes of violence at the consulate of the People’s Republic of China in Manchester on Sunday afternoon. Greater Manchester police had been pre-notified of the demonstration and intervened to restore order; we are grateful to them for their action. I understand that Greater Manchester police have launched an investigation to establish the facts of the incident.
The Foreign Secretary has issued a summons to the Chinese chargé d’affaires at the Chinese embassy in London to express His Majesty’s Government’s deep concern at the incident and to demand an explanation for the actions of the consulate staff. It would be inappropriate to go into further detail until the investigation has concluded, but let me be clear that, as this House has always recognised, peaceful protest is a fundamental part of British society and our way of life. All those on our soil have the right to express their views peacefully without fear of violence. FCDO officials expressed that clearly to the Chinese embassy yesterday. We will continue to work with the Home Office and Greater Manchester police colleagues to decide on appropriate next steps.
Alicia Kearns
Thank you, Mr Speaker, for granting this UQ and for the personal interest you have taken in this over the last few days.
On Sunday, peaceful protesters gathered outside the Chinese consulate to campaign for human rights in Hong Kong. What we saw was the Chinese consul-general then ripping down posters during a peaceful protest. There soon followed grievous bodily harm against Hong Kongers, one of whom was hospitalised for taking part in that peaceful protest. Some were then dragged on to consulate territory for a further beating by officials who have been recognised to be members of the Chinese Communist party. We cannot allow the CCP to import its beating of protesters and silencing of free speech, and its utter failure time and again to allow protest on British soil.
This is a chilling escalation. We have seen continued persecution of the Uyghur, Tibetans, Hong Kongers and all those who come to our country to seek refuge. What took place on Sunday suggests they cannot seek refuge here and have their voices heard, and our job is to make sure their voices are not silenced.
I am grateful to the Minister for confirming that the ambassador has been summoned. I am surprised the meeting has not taken place so far. Will he please confirm when it will be taking place and that he will update the House thereafter? Will he also confirm that any Chinese official involved in the beatings will be prosecuted and that, if they cannot be prosecuted, they will be expelled from this country within the week, and what the Government are doing to protect protests? That is a fundamental right and we must uphold it at home if we are to have any chance of upholding it abroad.
Jesse Norman
I thank my hon. Friend for her question. On the point of the summons, my understanding is that the chargé d’affaires will meet with officials this afternoon, there having already been an informal exchange of concern between the two sides. My hon. Friend will know that, precisely because of the belief in this House in the rule of law, it is up to our independent police and Crown Prosecution Service to decide first on the facts of the matter and then on whether a prosecution should be brought. But, like her, I witnessed what took place in the video on Sunday and I am sure every Member of this House feels the same level of concern as she does.
Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab)
I am so pleased that there is consensus across this House that freedom of expression is an important principle which we hold dear in our democracy, and it is testament to our freedoms that on countless occasions in recent years protesters have been able to express their views, whether on China, Russia, Myanmar or countless other countries.
What we saw at the weekend in Manchester was, as the Mayor of Manchester has said, a sharp departure from this established pillar of our liberal democracy. The sight of suspected Chinese consular officials destroying posters, using violence and intimidation, and dragging a protester into the grounds of the consulate and assaulting him is deeply shocking. We all want to be clear that that behaviour is not and never will be acceptable and deserves condemnation in the strongest possible terms. We simply cannot tolerate the type of action we have seen. The principle of free expression is so important, as is the protection of Hong Kongers and others who have fled Beijing’s repression, although I note with irony that later today we will be debating a Government Bill that discusses some of the same themes.
Labour has been consistently warning about the need to protect newly arrived Hong Kong people. May I press the Minister on what exactly will happen to consular officials who have been properly identified as involved in this incident? Can this House expect that they will be expelled from the UK?
What discussions has the Minister had with the Home Office and Levelling Up Secretaries on a proper plan for robust and extensive support for Hong Kong people across the country to ensure that they are protected and supported in the face of ongoing surveillance and oppression? What steps will he take to ensure that the sanctity of our freedoms—specifically, the freedom of expression—is protected outside all foreign embassies and consulate grounds in the UK to avoid a repeat of this shocking behaviour? Mr Speaker, as you said yesterday, the Hong Kong community in the UK is watching, and actions must match words.
Jesse Norman
I thank the hon. Lady for her questions. She asked about the treatment of consular officials. Of course, I would wish to be able to give the House details of my personal views on these matters, but the fact of the matter is that we are in a process of law. I would expect that process to be diligently and effectively carried out, but, for reasons that she will understand, I cannot comment on it.
As regards the treatment of Hong Kong visitors and arrivals to this country under the new scheme, my colleagues in the Home Office and the Levelling Up Department have taken great measures to put in place a welcome set of arrangements for them and to manage the processing in an effective and timely way. I am pleased that we have done that because we need to support Hong Kong in all the ways that I am sure she would welcome.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)
First, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Alicia Kearns) on getting the urgent question. I also congratulate you, Mr Speaker, on pursuing it, quite rightly. I do not understand why the Government could not have put forward a statement today, even if that was to say what they have said today. I am afraid it really does show a little bit the Government dancing away from this in the hope that something else will turn up.
We have spoken to the individual who was hauled in, and I want to mention a couple of points from the statement that he is giving the police. He confirms categorically that the guards at the gate hauled him in, tore his hands and his hair, and beat him. He said that at least four people were kicking him and, for one minute at least, tearing his hair. He said:
“My head, face, arm, body and back are hurt—especially my back. It is very painful.”
He said that he struggles at the moment even to sit down. That is happening on British soil. The Government has now got to step up and answer this simple question, asked earlier by my hon. Friend: has the Secretary of State not just called on the chargé d’affaires but hauled in the ambassador directly to see him? Will the Secretary of State now be prepared to expel the consul-general and any of those found to have been part of that punishment beating and vandalism? All I want is a simple, “Yes. If there is evidence, we will expel them.”
Jesse Norman
I thank my right hon. Friend for his question. I do not think that there is any suggestion of dancing away. My hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton, in her position as the recently elected Chair, put the question. We respect that, and we worked with the Speaker’s Office and with her to answer it. That is exactly what we are doing now, and rightly so.
As to my right hon. Friend’s question, it is of course a question of law as to what offences were committed on British soil, and it is absolutely right to have a legal procedure that goes through that and examines the question in all its aspects. As to summoning the ambassador, I thank my right hon. Friend for his input. We have already outlined the process of raising the matter formally with the Chinese embassy, and we will see where the legal and prosecutorial procedures may lead. At that point, we will take further action.
Alyn Smith (Stirling) (SNP)
I commend the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee for bringing forward the urgent question and, you, Mr Speaker, for granting it. This is an important thing for us all to take stock of. I take at face value the Minister’s assurance of consequence once the independent investigation has completed. I invite him to come back to the House and make a statement once that investigation is concluded, because we need to maintain our interest in it.
There has been concern for many years about the networks of coercion and control that the Chinese state has over Chinese nationals in the UK. Will the Minister add to his efforts and bring Confucius Institutes into his thinking? There are networks that need a lot more scrutiny than they have had. If Manchester proves to be what we fear it was, it was a considerable escalation of the Chinese networks of coercion and control, and the Confucius Institutes need to be part of the investigation.
Jesse Norman
Of course, there is enormous interest in this topic, and not just on the specifics of particular events but on the wider geo-strategic question of the relationship between China and the rest of the world, and its respect for the rules-based order. Of course, I understand that. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Bill will apply to Confucius Institutes and has within it some important new measures to track foreign influence and to ensure that it is publicly held to account. As I wrote the original amendment as a Back Bencher on which they are based, I must say that I feel a certain degree of pride in that area. It was not aimed at any particular country, but it can absolutely be used in relation to the Confucius Institutes.
John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)
My constituents will be alarmed at what they saw happen in Manchester. I recognise that the Government will have to maintain a constructive dialogue amidst a complicated relationship with China, but let us be really clear that the Chinese regime have shifted in their behaviours in recent years. The behaviour on the streets of Manchester demonstrates that shift. I urge my right hon. Friend not to hold back in facing up to the reality of the new dynamics of the relationship with China. We must remain constructive, but we must also face up to the fact that we now have very different values from those in China.
Jesse Norman
I thank my hon. Friend very much for his intervention. He is absolutely right. The point of constructive engagement is to do what we can to retain China’s respect for the international rules-based order, while also noting and concerting with allies to exercise influence where we can on any breaches in that area. He is absolutely right to point that out. Let me say one other quick thing. The many overlapping areas in which we and our allies interact with China require a nuanced and constructive approach, but the point about doubling down is absolutely right. Let me remind him that although the integrated review is not about any specific country or region, it is going through a refresh at the moment, and it will take account of emerging, current and expected future threats.
Afzal Khan (Manchester, Gorton) (Lab)
I have joined peaceful protests outside the consulate countless times and I am sickened that such an event took place in my own constituency. The scenes, which are reminiscent of the aggressive intimidating tactics of the Chinese Communist party, have no place on the streets of my city or our country. The UK stands for freedom, the rule of law and democracy. The crushing of peaceful protest will never be tolerated on British soil. The Minister knows that the consul general has diplomatic immunity, so he cannot be prosecuted. Will the Minister take immediate action and declare the consul general as a persona non grata, and what steps will he take to protect pro-democracy activists here in the UK?
Jesse Norman
I thank the hon. Gentleman very much for his question. I completely understand the personal constituency interest he has in this set of events and in previous events and activities around the consulate. He is right, of course, to say that the UK stands for freedom, the rule of law and democracy. I could not have put it better myself and that is exactly right. He is also right to ask the question about persona non grata. We cannot anticipate the results of a legal process, but I have already told the House that we will take action once we have a full understanding of the facts and the prosecutorial decision—[Interruption]—allowing chuntering from all sides if necessary, from a sedentary position. Let me just say, finally—[Interruption.]—if I may, that he is also right to focus on the victim. That is a crucial aspect—my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) mentioned it—and it is something we expect local government, as well as central Government, to be supportive of, to the extent that we possibly can be.
Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con)
Yesterday, as patron of Hong Kong Watch, I had the privilege to meet about 50 admirable and mainly young people who have moved here from Hong Kong and are keen to engage in community life and, in some cases, political life in the UK. They deserve our support and encouragement, so will the Minister confirm what steps are being taken to address concerns of the Hong Kong community about potential intimidation and threats from the Chinese state apparatus on UK soil in respect of those who wish to engage in this way?
Jesse Norman
My hon. Friend will be aware that, in relation to Hong Kong, we have ended the extradition treaty and taken a number of other steps designed to recognise the seriousness of the issues. Of course, we have also, vitally, opened the British national overseas route to Hong Kong residents, and more than 100,000 people have applied for that; that is an incredible infusion of energy and genius into our polity and we should absolutely welcome it. We have extended that, in part in response to concerns in this House, via an amendment to be tabled today, to the adult children of BNO-eligible people, so that they, too, can feel that warm welcome we should be extending to those people.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
China has no respect for the rule of law and its attitude is aggressive; it thinks it can do whatever it wants and get away with it—this House needs to say that it cannot. Reports suggest that one of the consulate staff who assaulted the pro-democracy protestor was the consul general, Zheng Xiyuan. Does the Minister agree with me and others in this House that if the consul general is found to have led the attack, he should be declared persona non grata by His Majesty’s Government and sent, along with the others involved, back to China, where he belongs?
Jesse Norman
The hon. Gentleman asks whether action will follow “if” what he sets out is found to be the case. I am not going to comment on a hypothetical, but he is right to recognise that there has to be a process of determination before any action can follow. Let me say one other thing that relates to the point raised earlier about the rule of law, human rights, freedom and democracy. There is an ideological clash here and we should be aware of it. We should not be shy in recognising it and we should do what we can to insist on the importance of the rules-based order that we have always stood for as a nation. We should encourage allies to be talking in those terms, rather than to be ceding ideological ground, whoever may be on the other side of the argument—there are various parts of the world in which different arguments are being made against this. That is ultimately the core of what this institution of Parliament is about.
Matt Warman (Boston and Skegness) (Con)
The concern is ultimately that China is taking the same attitude to human rights in this country as it is taking at home. Many of us have raised that concern and it is not my understanding that we need to follow through a legal process prior to expelling people who are involved in this. Will the Minister say why he believes we need to follow that process?
Jesse Norman
I think my hon. Friend has misunderstood me, as I have not said that there needs to be a legal process; I have said that there has to be a process of determining what the facts are. That has already been conceded by Members from across this House, and it is important that we have not only our private views as to what may or may not have been on video, however well founded they may be, but an official view based on proper scrutiny.
Sarah Owen (Luton North) (Lab)
As the Minister is hiding behind process on a number of these issues, I will try a different tack. What steps is he taking to work with colleagues in the Home Office to ensure that police officers are adequately trained and aware of the cultural and political sensitivities when protecting the thousands of Hongkongers who are seeking safety in our country, especially when people have been attacked by Chinese communist party agents or suspected CCP agents? We know that what we saw outside the consulate is not an isolated incident.
Jesse Norman
As you will be aware, Mr Speaker, there is no question of hiding behind process; we have a rule of law in this country and we allow legal processes to go through. We allow processes of fact and determination before action is taken. That is entirely appropriate, and it is what one would expect from a country that professes to be the home of the rule of law, as has been rightly said. However, it is important to say that police forces are extremely concerned about and sensitive to the kinds of issues that the hon. Lady raises. Indeed, I do not need to tell the House that the Greater Manchester police deal with a very wide range of ethnicities and concerns, and have specific training in order to manage those issues in a sensitive and engaged way.
Mr Robin Walker (Worcester) (Con)
I welcome the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Alicia Kearns) and the fact that a proper investigation into this will be held. But even before these incredibly worrying scenes that we have all seen, concerns were being raised in both the British and Irish press about an informal network of Chinese overseas police service stations. Constituents of mine who are deeply worried about that have contacted me and asked me to seek ministerial action on it. Will the Minister confirm that there is no legal standing for such organisations? If we are summoning Chinese diplomats and officials, may we ask them for an explanation of these stories about such networks?
Jesse Norman
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that important point. My understanding is that such organisations have no formal status of any kind in this country. The concerns of this House are understood and very much reflected in the concerns that my officials and those in the respective parts of the Home Office and the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities have.
Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)
I refer to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I congratulate the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Alicia Kearns) on securing this urgent question and I thank you, Mr Speaker, for granting it. Had these incidents happened on the streets of Hong Kong, there would rightly have been outrage from the British Government. They happened on the streets of Manchester, in this United Kingdom, yet the Minister is basically sending a memo to the Chinese embassy and an offer of a cup of tea and a chat with the ambassador. We want the ambassador to be brought to the Foreign Office and told in no uncertain terms that these actions are against the rule of law and against human rights in this country. Any Chinese agent found responsible for the disgraceful actions in Manchester should be on the first plane back to Beijing.
Jesse Norman
There is a massive difference between this country and the situation in Hong Kong: in Hong Kong there are genuine, proper concerns about whether there is anything approximating the rule of law, in the sense that we would understand it. So when we express anger as individuals, as parliamentarians and as concerned citizens about this, that is, in part, what we have a concern about. I do not think, however things may appear in the short term, that this is a question in this country. We will pursue this situation and these people according to the rule of law, and we will follow up on that basis.
Mr Richard Holden (North West Durham) (Con)
I welcome my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Alicia Kearns) to her new position; it is great to see a member of the ’29 intake taking on that role. I also welcome the Government’s statement so far, although I just hope they can go a bit further and faster. Does the Minister agree that this might be the most visible and violent manifestation of the long arm of the CCP? Will he also ensure that more underground and less visible bullying and intimidation by CCP agents, such as on university campuses in this country, will also be exposed and challenged at every opportunity?
Jesse Norman
Young, youthful and vigorous as the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee is, the intake of ’29 might not be quite the right one for her. Of course I take the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for North West Durham (Mr Holden) and it is wonderful to see that 2019 generation coming into positions of great authority in the House. My hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr Walker) raised the point about covert activity and he is right to double down on that and discuss it in the context of universities. He will also understand that we have rules now on foreign influence coming into play, in terms of registration, that are, in part, precisely designed to identify those people and institutions and bring them within a more explicit and transparent framework.
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)
I thank the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Alicia Kearns) for securing the urgent question on this shocking incident. It was a flagrant breach of human rights on British soil, but we should not allow ourselves to think that it was an isolated one, because we know that it is not. My constituency houses the Chinese consulate in Scotland, and I am regularly contacted by young Hongkongers in Edinburgh who are concerned about the level of surveillance and intimidation. I have experienced it myself when speaking at a Hong Kong protest in Edinburgh, where we were filmed by a drone operated be a gentleman sitting nearby. It is not acceptable that this is happening on UK soil. For young Hongkongers who were born after 1997 and do not hold BNO passports, having to travel to consulates to have their special passports renewed is a particular fear for many of them. So will the Minister find a way of issuing travel documents so that they do not have to go on to the grounds of the consulate, where they now, rightly, might fear that their safety is jeopardised?
Jesse Norman
The hon. Lady raises two interesting points. There are aspects of our open democratic society—such as the use of drones—that can be used in a very intimidating way. She is absolutely right to point to that, and it raises a longer-term issue for our security and wellbeing. On the consulates, I thank her for her suggestion, which needs to be taken very seriously; I am grateful for it.
Graham Stringer (Blackley and Broughton) (Lab)
At a time when relationships with China were improving, I was a guest at the consulate in Manchester on a number of occasions. It struck me then that the consulate is huge—by far the biggest consulate of the many in Manchester. At a time when détente has finished and relationships with China are getting worse, because it is not respecting international law or the laws of this country, the size of that consulate indicates to me that it is being used to control and police members of the Chinese community in Manchester. When the Minister has had the results of the investigations—whatever they turn out to be—will he consider reducing the size of that consulate and any other consulates that the Chinese have, because they are being used not for the normal business of consulates, but as an extension of the Beijing Government in this country?
Jesse Norman
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. I do not think that I should comment on the activities of the consulate, with which I am not personally familiar, but he is right that the fundamental consular activity is extremely straightforward, in terms of the support of one’s own people in a foreign country. One would not think that an enormous infrastructure is needed to do that. His point could be applied not just to consulates, but to other potential institutions around the country and around the world, and I thank him for that.
Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)
Trafford has been pleased to welcome many Hong Kong BNO families and we are very proud in my constituency to be the new home of the Manchester Taiwanese Association. Those communities will need considerable reassurance from the Government that they will be safe and secure in our country. Will the Minister give an assurance that if, as reports suggest, some of the activity—the abuse and violence—was conducted on consular premises, that will not preclude full investigation and full consequences being waged against those who conducted such activity?
Jesse Norman
The hon. Lady is absolutely right to raise that question. We would expect the independent police and other authorities to make as thorough an investigation as they can, given the circumstances, and we would expect to be sensitive to areas where they have not been permitted to undertake the level of scrutiny that we would expect under such circumstances.
Claire Hanna (Belfast South) (SDLP)
The footage from Manchester was chilling to all of us who value human rights and non-violence, but it resonated particularly with many of my constituents in south Belfast—which is where the Northern Ireland Chinese consulate is located—who have seen up front the approach that the CCP take not just to international law, but respecting local law. In our case, that relates to developing its premises and enforcing security at them. South Belfast is also very proudly home to many people from Hong Kong who are creating a new life away from risk and repression. Will the Minister advise the House what guidance he will give to local authorities that are dealing with consulates and what his Government will do to protect the right to peaceful protest?
Jesse Norman
I am not sure that I fully caught the final sentence of the hon. Lady’s question, but it is of course an aspect of a UK-wide support network that we should be able to provide a welcome for visitors from Hong Kong. We have 12 virtual welcome hubs across the UK and funding for organisations to deliver UK-wide and regional projects, as well as other forms of welcome and support. I can encourage colleagues from the Home Office and the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities to come forward if further things need to be put in place to address the issues that she raises.
Mike Kane (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab)
It was only in 2015 that we were welcoming his excellency, Xi Jinping, to Manchester, where he spoke of our city’s historical links with Wuhan and investments in Manchester airport, Manchester City, the University of Manchester and the Manchester international festival, but much has changed. Having met local Hong Kong residents in Trafford, which my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green) mentioned, and having been personally at the rough end of Chinese state tactics—having met Cardinal Zen who is under house arrest in Hong Kong—I think that this country, to use the Mancunian vernacular, needs to grow a pair and say to China, “Be a force for good in the world and stop being state-sponsored thugs.”
Jesse Norman
It is absolutely right to highlight the change in the position that China has taken over the past seven years. I do not think there is any doubt that it has changed, and we have had to evolve and change our response to that. The hon. Member is also right to talk about the importance of resolute action. However, this is in the context of the kind of constructive, multi-layered relationship that my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (John Glen) mentioned. We therefore have to try all the measures in our power to retain a respect for the rules-based order, not just in this country, but around the world with our allies, and we are doing that.
Jeff Smith (Manchester, Withington) (Lab)
My constituents in south Manchester were really shocked by the scenes that we saw on the video. With the greatest respect to the Minister, who I like a lot, we need not an explanation, but condemnation of that behaviour. I understand that he has to couch things in diplomatic terms, but as a matter of principle, if it was the case that senior officials of a foreign consulate were involved in an attack on peaceful protesters on the streets of Manchester, surely the only way to deal with that is to expel them.
Jesse Norman
The hon. Member may have missed the point in my statement where I said—and let me go further—that His Majesty’s Government are not only deeply concerned, but actively condemn the apparent scenes of violence that we saw at the consulate. I do not think there is any doubt about that. More widely, the position, as I have described it, is that we will await a factual determination and then take a decision based on that.
Stephen Kinnock (Aberavon) (Lab)
The export of China’s brutal, authoritarian, democracy-crushing behaviours is what we saw in Manchester. It is completely and utterly unacceptable. It is clear not just that there is the intimidation of Hongkongers and others, but that, in so many other areas, there is covert influence and attempts to subvert our democracy and education system. It is clear that we need an in-depth, comprehensive, strategic audit of every aspect of the relationship between the UK and China, from the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy to defence and education—right across Whitehall.
However, may I press the Minister on the specific point about the behaviour of the consul general? Will he make it absolutely clear from the Government Dispatch Box that there is no connection between a police decision and a decision to expel? The decision to expel is a political decision. It is plain as the nose on our face that the consul general was involved in those violent scenes. He should be expelled immediately. Will the Minister confirm that there is no connection to a police investigation? It is a political decision to expel.
Jesse Norman
I have already made that clear to the House, but let me do so again. I am not suggesting—as I said earlier—that there is a direct connection, or indeed, any connection, between that decision and a police investigation, but we need to establish the facts in a way that is official and not just, as it were, the presentation of a personal view. That process is continuing and when we have the answer to that, we will take action. That is entirely appropriate. One should, in these contexts, seek an absolutely objective basis on which to act, which takes in all the information that may be available. That is what I think the police and the prosecuting authorities, to the extent that they take an interest, will do.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
I welcome the Minister back to the Front Bench. I know he has always had a laid-back style, but I really think he should get a little angrier about the disgraceful thing that happened in Manchester.
I have many friends from and in Hong Kong, who tell me that when they come to this country now, they feel intimidated. The Chinese influence is in our universities, in our major companies and everywhere. That has not just happened; it is part of a serious effort by China to infiltrate this country at every level. As I have said before in the House, the electricity supply to all of London and the south of England is owned by a Chinese company. Has this not gone too far?
Jesse Norman
The hon. Gentleman will know that there are plenty of ways in which this country has economic relationships with Chinese companies. In the normal course of trade, that has been to mutual benefit, but he is right that there is a need for concern about where there may be infiltration, coercion and the rest of it. That is a very live matter for the Government, which we have talked about it in the context of Confucius institutes and covert policing operations—as they may be—and I have drawn the House’s attention, and do so again, to the foreign influence registration scheme that is being introduced under the National Security Bill. That scheme has been created specifically to tackle covert influence in the UK.
Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Ind)
What discussions has the Minister had with his counterparts in the USA, Canada, Australia and the EU about co-ordinated sanctions against the individuals responsible for the ongoing crackdown in Hong Kong?
Jesse Norman
The hon. Lady will be aware that the sanctions regime in question relates to the UN, which is a very effective international co-ordinating body. As I have touched on, we have taken lots of action short of that in responding to the coercion of Hongkongers in Hong Kong. I can also confirm that my officials remain in very close contact with similarly high-ranking staff of our allies around the world.
Richard Foord (Tiverton and Honiton) (LD)
Reflecting on what we saw over the weekend, the Chinese consulate general justified it by saying that the activists had
“hung an insulting portrait of the Chinese president at the main entrance”.
A spokesperson for the consulate general claimed:
“This would be intolerable and unacceptable for any diplomatic and consular missions of any country.”
I have looked at an image of the portrait and, although I accept that it would be regarded as offensive, I disagree with the Chinese consulate’s spokesperson. Does the Minister agree that if there had been such a demonstration outside the British consulate in Shanghai, we might not have liked the protest—we might even have found the portrait a little insulting—but we would have tolerated it? Is that difference in values being communicated to the Chinese ambassador?
Jesse Norman
I think it fair to say that the Chinese ambassador is fully aware of the spectrum of our concerns in relation to Chinese behaviour, whether that is in relation to victims of internationally condemned crimes in Xinjiang, whether it is in Hong Kong or whether it is in this country.
Points of Order
(1 year, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
Richard Foord (Tiverton and Honiton) (LD)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. As we are all aware, the Prime Minister was absent during yesterday’s urgent question. We were assured at the time by the Leader of the House that there was “a very good reason” why the Prime Minister was unable to attend.
We were told that
“the Prime Minister is detained on urgent business”.—[Official Report, 17 October 2022; Vol. 720, c. 377.]
Naturally, Members across the House wondered whether that might mean a matter of national security or perhaps a meeting with an international ally, but it has now been reported that in fact the Prime Minister was holding a meeting with the chairman of the 1922 committee—not crisis talks, but a planned meeting. In the light of that information, it is hard to see how the picture painted by the Leader of the House yesterday holds up. Will she come and correct the record?
Mr Speaker
I am grateful to the hon. Member for notice of his point of order. He will know—if he did not, he will now—that I am not responsible for ministerial answers. If the Leader of the House feels that she has to correct the record, I am sure that she will do so. Also, we should not always look at or listen to what is in the press.
Marsha De Cordova (Battersea) (Lab)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. The ministerial code is very clear that if a Minister is visiting a Member’s constituency, he or she should inform that Member in good time. Indeed, all hon. Members who are visiting another Member’s constituency should inform that Member.
On Wednesday 12 October, the Minister for London, the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Scully), attended my constituency, as did the hon. Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham). Disappointingly, neither of their offices sought to inform mine. I seek your guidance, Mr Speaker, as to how we can ensure that all hon. Members adhere to the conventions and inform other Members when they wish to attend their constituencies.
Mr Speaker
I thank the hon. Lady for notice of her point of order and am grateful, as ever, for the way in which she puts it. She is absolutely correct. Not only do the House’s rules of behaviour and courtesies make it clear to all colleagues that they should give notice whenever they
“visit a colleague’s constituency (except on purely private visits)”,
but the ministerial code states:
“Ministers intending to make an official visit within the United Kingdom must inform in advance, and in good time, the MPs whose constituencies are to be included within the itinerary.”
It is about courtesy to colleagues. Ministers in particular must follow their own rules. I look to those on the Government Benches to ensure that this exchange is shared with ministerial colleagues so that it is not a recurring problem.
I add that the general election will be a frantic time, so I remind Members in all political parties that when they go into constituencies—I recognise that some might be more marginal than others—they must give due notice to ensure that the relevant Member is aware.
Bill Presented
Energy Equity Commission Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Clive Lewis, supported by Caroline Lucas, Nadia Whittome, Claire Hanna, Stephen Farry, Liz Saville Roberts, Olivia Blake and Rachael Maskell, presented a Bill to establish an Energy Equity Commission to prepare a strategy for the UK Government to help manage energy costs for households, businesses, non-profit organisations and public services by ending fossil fuel dependence; to require the Commission to set equalities and environmental objectives to be met by the UK Government in implementing the strategy; to require the Commission to make recommendations on replacing the price cap system with a free Universal Basic Energy Allowance and an associated social tariff for retail energy, on an energy allowance in Universal Credit and legacy benefits, on writing off household energy debt, on the remit and objectives of Ofgem, and on how the UK Government should meet the costs of the measures recommended by the Commission; to require the Commission to prepare a Retrofitting Strategy for the Nations, including proposals for a street-by-street retrofit programme led by devolved administrations and local authorities, for financial support for improving energy efficiency, for how to target households, businesses, not-for-profit organisations and public services most in need of support, for any changes required to Minimum Energy Efficiency Standards and Future Buildings Standards, for addressing workforce and training needs, and proposals on how the UK Government should meet the costs of these measures; to require the UK Government to implement the strategy and recommendations of the Energy Equity Commission within a specified timeframe; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 24 March 2023, and to be printed (Bill 163).
Working Time Regulations (Amendment)
Tuesday 18th October 2022
(1 year, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Working Time Regulations (Amendment) Bill 2022-23 View all Working Time Regulations (Amendment) Bill 2022-23 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
A Ten Minute Rule Bill is a First Reading of a Private Members Bill, but with the sponsor permitted to make a ten minute speech outlining the reasons for the proposed legislation.
There is little chance of the Bill proceeding further unless there is unanimous consent for the Bill or the Government elects to support the Bill directly.
For more information see: Ten Minute Bills
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Peter Dowd (Bootle) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the Working Time Regulations 1998 to reduce the maximum working week from 48 hours per week to 32 hours per week and to provide for overtime pay; and for connected purposes.
It was almost exactly a century ago that British workers switched from a six-day week to a five-day week. Saturday used to be included in a standard working week, but between the 1920s and the 1940s, a five-day working week and a weekend became the normal way of working across most of the western world.
One of the early pioneers was Ford Motor Company in the United States. On 1 May 1926, Ford became the first major company in America to adopt a five-day, 40-hour week for workers in its automotive factories. Edsel Ford, who was Henry Ford’s son and the company’s president, said:
“Every man needs more than one day a week for rest and recreation…We believe that in order to live properly every man should have more time to spend with his family.”
Although working time was reduced, productivity went up.
Manufacturers all over the country soon followed Ford’s lead. Closer to home, John Boot, chairman of the Boots cosmetics company, initiated the same experiment. He, too, found that having two days off each week had a positive effect on productivity and reduced absenteeism. The weekend was made official Boots policy in 1934. Those who argued at the time against such a move said that the country would suffer economically, that businesses would not be able to afford it and that workers would not be able to adapt. They were proved wrong.
It should be put on record that without the sustained campaigns by the trade union movement that began towards the end of the 19th century and lasted for many decades, the weekend that we all enjoy today would never have been won. In that historical context, right hon. and hon. Members should reflect on the surge today in the popularity of a four-day working week.
The nine-to-five, five-day working week still remains the dominant model of work in much of the western world, but it is important to remember that it was designed for the industrial and agricultural economy we had at the time. I am sure Members would agree that 100 years later, the world of work has been completely transformed. However, working hours have not adapted to the changing nature of work. Campaigners for a four-day week say:
“The nine to five, five day working week is outdated and no longer fit for purpose.”
A look back at our more recent history suggests that they have a point. Since the 1980s, working hours in the UK have barely reduced at all. Despite the productivity gains of the last few decades, none of that has been passed on to workers through more free leisure time.
We are long overdue an update, and the covid pandemic has given us that opportunity. The UK is currently taking part in the biggest ever experiment of a four-day week, with no loss of pay for workers. Seventy companies and more than 3,300 workers are taking part in a pilot run by 4 Day Week Global, the think-tank Autonomy and the 4 Day Week Campaign, and a survey of the companies taking part at the halfway point suggests that the trial is going extremely well. The companies taking part are from a diverse range of sectors: hospitality, manufacturing, healthcare, housing, telecommunications, construction and financial services.
It may seem counterintuitive that working fewer hours results in greater productivity, but there is already mounting evidence that proves the hypothesis. Wherever in the world a four-day week with no loss of pay has been trialled, it has been a win-win for both workers and employers. Productivity has improved, and so has the wellbeing of workers. When Microsoft in Japan trialled the four-day week, it found that productivity increased by 40%. In Iceland—the country, not the company—the largest ever public sector shorter working week trial was an “overwhelming success”, and resulted in 86% of the working population gaining the right to shorten their hours.
Between 2015 and 2019, Iceland ran two large-scale trials of a reduced working week of 35 to 36 hours with no reduction in pay. The analysis of the results, which included 2,500 workers, demonstrates the transformative effects of a shorter working week for both employees and businesses. Productivity and service provision remained the same or improved across the majority of trial workplaces, and worker wellbeing dramatically increased across a range of indicators, from perceived stress and burnout to health and work-life balance. The trials also remained revenue-neutral for both the city council and the Government.
I was therefore pleased to learn that last month South Cambridgeshire District Council became the first UK council ever to proceed with plans for a four-day week. A three-month trial of a four-day week with no loss of pay will begin in January for all desk-based staff, and if it is successful, a trial of the council’s blue-collar workers—such as bin collection crews—will follow next year.
There are other major benefits for businesses that are worth noting, including a reduction in the number of sick days and the ability to retain staff and attract new talent , which is increasingly important in a tight labour market. When Atom Bank, the largest UK four-day-week employer, made the switch, it found that job applications increased by an astonishing 500% in just three months. The four-day, 32-hour working week is a multi-dividend policy which, ultimately, is about giving everyone the time in which to lead a happier and more fulfilled life.
Long working hours are an acute problem in this country. According to the TUC, British workers put in some of the longest full-time hours in Europe, while having one of the least productive economies in comparison and the fewest bank holidays. According to the Health and Safety Executive, 18 million working days were lost in 2019-20 as a result of work-related stress, depression or anxiety. Furthermore, the World Health Organisation has shown that long working hours are killing hundreds of thousands of people globally every year.
It is time for change. The arguments made against the four-day week today are exactly the same arguments that were made against the five-day week 100 years ago, and I am afraid that the evidence just does not back them up: all the evidence shows that a four-day week with no loss of pay would be good for the economy, good for workers and, indeed, good for the environment. We should not forget the impact that such a move could have in bringing down carbon emissions. One study has suggested that simply working one day less could cause carbon emissions to fall by up to 127 million tonnes per year, which is the equivalent of taking all private cars off the road.
The pandemic has undoubtedly shaken up the world of work. We have already seen a huge rise in remote working, flexible working, part-time work, and yes, four-day working weeks. Change is coming, and the Government and my own party should grasp it. We could be leading the world in moving to a four-day week, and my Bill would enable us to do just that.
The same old arguments about the economy suffering that were made against the introduction of the weekend, holiday pay, maternity pay, the living wage and equal pay are being made again today against a four-day working week. Those arguments were wrong then and they are wrong now, and the growing number of businesses adopting a four-day week successfully in this country are proving them wrong. Long working hours and low wages are no way to live. My Bill includes a clause that will ensure that anyone working beyond a 32-hour working week is paid extra in overtime, in recognition of the falling wages and falling living standards that this country has experienced over the last decade or so.
The movement for a shorter working week is growing in strength and momentum. I am proud to support that movement, and I urge colleagues to support the Bill.
Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)
I thank the hon. Member for Bootle (Peter Dowd) for presenting a measure that should single-handedly unite all on these Benches in their belief that there is a real, continuing threat from the prospect of a Labour Government who will be intent on destroying our economy. The hon. Gentleman has articulated one way in which that would happen, and I am delighted to see that he has the right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) here to support him this afternoon. The hon. Member for Bootle himself, of course, is a former shadow Chief Secretary to the Treasury.
In his speech, the hon. Gentleman suggested that there were virtues, or could be virtues, in a four-day working week. I do not think anyone disputes that, and there is already a freedom—which the hon. Gentleman recognised—for employers, or other individuals, to work four days a week to limit their working time to 32 hours. Unfortunately, however, that is not what his Bill says. It is described as a
“Bill to amend the Working Time Regulations 1998 to reduce the maximum working week from 48 hours…to 32 hours per week”
—in other words, to prevent people from being able to work for more than 32 hours a week—
“and to provide for overtime pay; and for connected purposes.”
Effectively, what the hon. Gentleman is saying is that everyone who is currently working more than 32 hours a week will be prevented from so doing in the future under the provisions of his Bill. If ever one could think of a hand grenade being thrown into the economy, preventing people from being able to work longer hours and forcing them to reduce their hours at a time when we have very high levels of employment and very low levels of unemployment is probably a good example. When someone is forced to be able to work only four days a week, who is going to fill the gap? Who is going to work during the time in which that person is not working? We are told that there is a crisis in the health service relating to the number of people working in it. If the Bill were passed, the junior doctors to whom the working time regulations were applied in, I think, 2004 would not be allowed to work for more than 32 hours a week. How will that help the national health service? It will not help it at all; in fact, it will undermine its effectiveness.
However, the hon. Gentleman has done us a great service because he has reminded us that the working time directive upon which the 1998 regulations were based emanated from the European Union and that it was implemented in this country under duress because the EU interpreted the working time directive as being a health and safety measure for which there was no veto and it could therefore be proceeded with under qualified majority voting. The present Government are quite rightly committed to supply-side reforms and removing unnecessary regulations upon our workforce, and this is a timely reminder that they could, and in my view should, get to grips with the issue of the working time directive and the working time regulations.
My basis for saying this is that in the period between 1993 and 1997, when the working time directive and the implications flowing from it were being discussed in this country, I was a member of the Health and Safety Commission. The commission produced a series of papers in which it was made quite clear that the working time directive had nothing whatsoever to do with health and safety and that it was all to do with employment protection on the continent of Europe. It was a specious justification of the introduction of these regulations to label them as health and safety regulations merely so that they could be imposed on this country under the qualified majority voting that applied at the time.
So the working time directive has nothing whatsoever to do with health and safety. It is a legitimate issue in relation to employers and employees, and it is certainly an important issue in relation to productivity. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right in saying that some of the organisations that have reduced the length of time that their workers work have benefited from more productivity from the workforce, but there is no evidence that making this compulsory would result in higher productivity. All it would do is result in much higher and unbearable costs for employers in the private sector and, significantly, in the public sector.
Once again I say that this is a timely intervention by the hon. Gentleman and his allies on the Labour Benches. I am sure that if his Bill were to be put to a vote today, he would receive overwhelming support from his parliamentary colleagues, but it would not receive any support at all from our side. I am not going to divide the House on this because I am a believer that everybody should have the right to bring in whatever Bill they want to, and I have exercised that right on many occasions. However, it is important to put on record that, were such a Bill to be drafted and brought forward for debate by the hon. Gentleman, it would be hotly opposed by everybody on this side, although we would enjoy the spectacle of seeing many on his own side having to eat their words. They talk the talk on high growth but obviously a compulsory measure such as this applying to all employers up and down the country would be damaging to growth. It would undermine the right of people to be able to work hard to look after their families and to spend their money as they wish. It would be an impoverishing exercise for so much of our economy and so many of the people engaged in it.
It is also important in a debate such as this that we remind colleagues on our own Front Bench that there is a lot more to be done to deregulate the labour market. The working time directive is now completely surplus to our requirements, and I would like to see a Bill brought forward to repeal the working time regulations and all that flows from them. They have been developed insidiously over the years since 1998. Originally it was said that the directive should deal only with matters such as drivers’ hours, for example, and with the mobile people employed in the transport industry. It was then extended to cover almost everybody with a sedentary occupation in any of those industries and in the early 2000s it was extended to cover doctors as well. The working time directive is in itself responsible for an enormous lack of productivity and potential among our workforce in this country, and I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving me the opportunity to try to goad our Government into action on this point. In the meantime I put on record my strong opposition to everything contained in the Bill.
Question put (Standing Order No. 23) and agreed to.
Ordered,
That Peter Dowd, Kim Johnson, Yasmin Qureshi, Ms Marie Rimmer, Judith Cummins, Mike Amesbury, Tony Lloyd, Ian Byrne, Dan Carden, Sir George Howarth and Mick Whitley present the Bill.
Peter Dowd accordingly presented the Bill.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 9 December, and to be printed (Bill 164).
Public Order Bill (Programme) (No.2)
Public Order Bill
Tuesday 18th October 2022
(1 year, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Public Order Act 2023 View all Public Order Act 2023 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Consideration of Bill Amendments as at 18 October 2022 - large print - (18 Oct 2022)
16:31 - The House divided: - Ayes: 188 / Noes: 313 - Question accordingly negatived.
16:47 - The House divided: - Ayes: 186 / Noes: 311 - Question accordingly negatived.
17:01 - The House divided: - Ayes: 297 / Noes: 110 - Question accordingly agreed to.
17:14 - The House divided: - Ayes: 235 / Noes: 302 - Question accordingly negatived.
17:37 - The House divided: - Ayes: 283 / Noes: 234 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Minister for Crime, Policing and Fire (Jeremy Quin)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Government new clause 8—Injunctions in Secretary of State proceedings: power of arrest and remand.
New clause 1—Guidance on locking on—
“The Secretary of State must by regulations issue guidance to police forces about the protest technique of locking on, which includes—
(a) examples of best practice, and
(b) detailed guidance on addressing new and developing forms of locking on.”
New clause 2—Consolidated protest guidance—
“(1) Within three months of Royal Assent to this Act, the Secretary of State must by regulations issue guidance which consolidates into a single source—
(a) the College of Policing’s authorised professional practice for public order guidance,
(b) the National Police Chiefs’ Council’s operational advice for protest policing, and
(c) the National Police Chiefs’ Council’s protest aide memoire.
(2) The Secretary of State must regularly review the guidance and, if appropriate, must by regulations issue revised consolidated guidance.
(3) The consolidated guidance must include specific updated guidance about the protest technique of locking on.”
New clause 3—National monitoring tool—
“(1) The Secretary of State must develop a consistent national monitoring tool, accessible by all police forces, to monitor the use of or requests for specialist protest officers across England and Wales.
(2) Data collected under this section may be used to evaluate capacity and demand for specialist protest officers across England and Wales.
(3) The monitoring tool must be accessible on a national, regional and local basis.
(4) The monitoring tool must include—
(a) examples of best practice from policing protests across the United Kingdom, and
(b) data on how many trained officers have been required for any protests during the period in which monitoring took place.”
New clause 4—Injunction to prevent serious disruption to effective movement of essential goods or services—
“(1) Upon an application by a person under subsection (4), an injunction may be ordered by a Judge of the High Court against ‘persons unknown’ in order to prevent a serious disruption to the effective movement of any essential goods or any essential services occasioned by a public procession or public assembly.
(2) The “persons unknown” may be—
(a) anonymous persons taking part in a public process or public assembly who are identifiable at the time of the proceedings; and/or
(b) persons not presently taking part in a public procession or public assembly protest but who will in future join such a public procession or public assembly.
(3) The conditions under which such an injunction may be granted are as follows—
(a) there must be a real and imminent risk of a tort being committed which would result in a serious disruption to the effective movement of any essential goods or any essential services;
(b) a method of service must be set out in the order which may reasonably be expected to bring the proceedings to the attention of the “persons unknown”;
(c) the “persons unknown” must be defined in the order by reference to their conduct which is alleged to be unlawful;
(d) the acts prohibited by the order must correspond with the threatened tort;
(e) the order may only prohibit lawful conduct if there is no other proportionate means of protecting the effective movement of essential goods or essential services;
(f) the terms of the order must set out what act(s) the persons potentially affected by the order must not do;
(g) the terms of the order must set out a defined geographical area to which the order relates; and
(h) the terms of the order must set out a temporal period to which the order relates, following which the order will lapse unless a further order is made upon a further application by the applicant.
(4) An applicant for an injunction to prevent serious disruption to effective movement of essential goods or services may be—
(a) a local authority with responsibility for all or part of the geographical area to which the proposed order relates;
(b) a chief constable with responsibility for all or part of the geographical area to which the proposed order relates; or
(c) a person resident in, or carrying on a business within, the geographical area to which the proposed order relates.
(5) A “serious disruption to effective movement of essential goods or services” includes a prolonged disruption to—
(a) the effective movement of the supply of money, food, water, energy or fuel;
(b) a system of communication;
(c) access to a place of worship;
(d) access to a transport facility;
(e) access to an educational institution; and
(f) access to a service relating to health.”
New clause 5—Definition of “serious disruption”—
“(1) For the purposes of this Act, ‘serious disruption’ means—
(a) significant delay to the delivery of a time-sensitive product to consumers
of that product, or
(b) prolonged disruption of access to any essential goods or any essential service, including, in particular, access to—
(i) the supply of money, food, water, energy or fuel,
(ii) a system of communication,
(iii) a place of worship,
(iv) a place of worship,
(v) an educational institution, or
(vi) a service relating to health.
(2) In subsection (1)(a) a ‘time-sensitive product’ means a product whose value or use to its consumers may be significantly reduced by a delay in the supply of the product to them.”
New clause 6—Offences impeding emergency workers—
“(1) This section applies where—
(a) the court is considering for the purposes of sentencing the seriousness of an offence under sections 1 (Offence of locking on) or 3 (Obstruction etc of major transport works) of this Act, and
(b) the commission of the offence had the effect of impeding an emergency worker in exercising their functions, subject to the exception in subsection (2).
(2) The exception is that the emergency worker was exercising their functions in connection with the offence for which the person is being sentenced or in connection with any action which the court considers to be related to that offence.
(3) The court—
(a) must treat the fact mentioned in subsection (1)(b) as an aggravating factor (that is to say, a factor that increases the seriousness of the offence), and
(b) must state in open court that the offence is so aggravated.
(4) In this section, ‘emergency worker’ means—
(a) a constable;
(b) a person (other than a constable) who has the powers of a constable or is otherwise employed for police purposes or is engaged to provide services for police purposes;
(c) a National Crime Agency officer;
(d) a prison officer;
(e) a person (other than a prison officer) employed or engaged to carry out functions in a custodial institution of a corresponding kind to those carried out by a prison officer;
(f) a prisoner custody officer, so far as relating to the exercise of escort functions;
(g) a custody officer, so far as relating to the exercise of escort functions;
(h) a person employed for the purposes of providing, or engaged to provide, fire services or fire and rescue services;
(i) a person employed for the purposes of providing, or engaged to provide, search services or rescue services (or both);
(j) a person employed for the purposes of providing, or engaged to provide—
(i) NHS health services, or
(ii) services in the support of the provision of NHS health services, and whose general activities in doing so involve face to face interaction with individuals receiving the services or with other members of the public.
(5) It is immaterial for the purposes of subsection (4) whether the employment or engagement is paid or unpaid.
(6) In this section—
‘custodial institution’ means any of the following—
(a) a prison;
(b) a young offender institution, secure training centre, secure college or remand centre;
(c) services custody premises, as defined by section 300(7) of the Armed Forces Act 2006; “custody officer” has the meaning given by section 12(3) of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994;
‘escort functions’—
(a) in the case of a prisoner custody officer, means the functions specified in section 80(1) of the Criminal Justice Act 1991;
(b) in the case of a custody officer, means the functions specified in paragraph 1 of Schedule 1 to the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994;
‘NHS health services’ means any kind of health services provided as part of the health service continued under section 1(1) of the National Health Service Act 2006 and under section 1(1) of the National Health Service (Wales) Act 2006;
‘prisoner custody officer’ has the meaning given by section 89(1) of the Criminal Justice Act 1991.”
New clause 9—Publication of data about use of stop and search powers—
“(1) The Secretary of State must publish data about the use of the stop and search powers under sections 9 and 10 within three years of—
(a) if sections 9 and 10 come into force on the same date, the date on which they come into force, or
(b) if sections 9 and 10 come into force on different dates, the later of those two dates.
(2) The data published under this section must include—
(a) the total number of uses of stop and search powers by each police force in England and Wales, including whether the powers were used on suspicion or without suspicion,
(b) disaggregated data by age, disability, ethnicity/race, sex/gender and sexual orientation of the people who have been stopped and searched, and
(c) data relating to the outcomes of the use of stop and search powers.”
New clause 10—Review of the use of stop and search powers—
“(1) The Secretary of State must appoint an independent reviewer to assess and report annually on the use of the stop and search powers under sections 9 and 10.
(2) In carrying out their review, the person appointed under subsection (1) must—
(a) consider the impact of the use of stop and search powers on groups with protected characteristics under the Equality Act 2010, and
(b) consult such civil society organisations as appear to the person appointed under subsection (1) to be relevant.
(3) The person appointed under subsection (1) must ensure that a report on the outcome of the review is sent to the Secretary of State as soon as reasonably practicable after the completion of the review.
(4) On receiving a report under this section, the Secretary of State must lay before Parliament—
(a) a copy of the report, and
(b) the Government’s response to the findings.
(5) The first report under this section must be completed no later than one year after the date provided for under section [publication of data about use of stop and search powers](1).”
New clause 11—Offence of interference with access to or provision of abortion services—
“(1) A person who is within a buffer zone and who interferes with any person’s decision to access, provide, or facilitate the provision of abortion services in that buffer zone is guilty of an offence.
(2) A “buffer zone” means an area which is within a boundary which is 150 metres from any part of an abortion clinic or any access point to any building or site that contains an abortion clinic and is—
(a) on or adjacent to a public highway or public right of way,
(b) in an open space to which the public has access,
(c) within the curtilage of an abortion clinic, or
(d) in any location that is visible from a public highway, public right of way, open space to which the public have access, or the curtilage of an abortion clinic.
(3) For the purposes of subsection (1), ‘interferes with’ means—
(a) seeks to influence,
(b) persistently, continuously or repeatedly occupies,
(c) impedes or threatens,
(d) intimidates or harasses,
(e) advises or persuades, attempts to advise or persuade, or otherwise expresses opinion,
(f) informs or attempts to inform about abortion services by any means, including, without limitation, graphic, physical, verbal or written means, or
(g) sketches, photographs, records, stores, broadcasts, or transmits images, audio, likenesses or personal data of any person without express consent.
(4) A person guilty of an offence under subsection (1) is liable—
(a) in the first instance—
(i) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months,
(ii) to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale, or
(iii) to both; and
(b) on further instances—
(i) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 2 years, or to a fine, or to both, or
(ii) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months, or to a fine, or to both.
(5) Nothing in this section applies to—
(a) anything done in the course of providing, or facilitating the provision of, abortion services in an abortion clinic,
(b) anything done in the course of providing medical care within a GP practice, hospital or other healthcare facility,
(c) the operation of a camera if its coverage of persons accessing or attempting to access an abortion clinic is incidental and the camera or footage is not used for any of the purposes listed in subsection (3), and
(d) a police officer acting properly in the course of their duties.”
New clause 12—Justice impact assessments for Wales—
“(1) Within six months of the passage of this Act, the Secretary of State must issue a justice impact assessment for any provision of this Act, or any regulations which have been made under this Act, which impact on matters which are devolved to Senedd Cymru.
(2) Within one month of the date on which they are made, the Secretary of State must issue a justice impact assessment for any regulations made under this Act which are not included in the assessment required under subsection (1) which impact on matters which are devolved to Senedd Cymru.
(3) The Secretary of State and the Welsh Ministers must jointly prepare and publish guidance on the implementation of the provisions on which justice impact assessments have been issued under subsections (1) and (2).”
New clause 13—Intentional harassment, alarm or distress on account of sex—
“(1) A person (P) commits an offence under this section if—
(a) P commits an offence under section 4A of the Public Order Act 1986 (intentional harassment, alarm or distress), and
(b) P carried out the conduct referred to in section 4A(1) of that Act because of the relevant person’s sex In this subsection ‘the relevant person’ means the person to whom P intended to cause, harassment, alarm or distress.
(2) For the purposes of subsection (1)(b) it does not matter whether or not P carried out the conduct referred to in section 4A(1) of the Public Order Act 1986 for the purposes of sexual gratification.
(3) For the purposes of subsection (1)(b) it does not matter whether or not P also carried out the conduct referred to in section 4A(1) of the Public Order Act 1986 because of any other factor not mentioned in subsection (1)(b).
(4) A person who commits an offence under subsection (1) is liable–
(a) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding the general limit in a magistrates’ court, to a fine or to both;
(b) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 2 years, to a fine, or to both.
(5) If, on the trial on indictment of a person charged with an offence under subsection (1), the jury find the person not guilty of the offence charged, they may find the person guilty of the basic offence mentioned in that provision.
(6) References in this section to P carrying out conduct because of another person’s (B’s) sex include references to P doing so because of B’s presumed sex.”
New clause 14—Harassment, alarm or distress on account of sex—
“(1) A person (P) commits an offence under this section if—
(a) P commits an offence under section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986 (harassment, alarm or distress), and
(b) P carried out the conduct referred to in section 5(1) of that Act because of the relevant person’s sex.
In this subsection ‘the relevant person’ means the person to whom P intended to cause, or caused, harassment, alarm or distress.
(2) For the purposes of subsection (1) it does not matter whether or not P carried out the conduct referred to in section 5(1) of the Public Order Act 1986 for the purposes of sexual gratification.
(3) For the purposes of subsection (1) it does not matter whether or not P also carried out the conduct referred to in section 5(1) of the Public Order Act 1986 because of any other factor not mentioned in subsection (1).
(4) A person who commits an offence under subsection (1) is liable—
(a) on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale;
(b) on conviction on indictment to imprisonment to a term not exceeding 6 months, or to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale, or to both.
(5) If, on the trial on indictment of a person charged with an offence under subsection (1), the jury find the person not guilty of the offence charged, they may find the person guilty of the basic offence mentioned in that provision.
(6) References in this section to P carrying out conduct because of another person’s (B’s) sex include references to P doing so because of B’s presumed sex.
(7) It is not a defence under this section for P to claim that they could not reasonably have foreseen that their behaviour may constitute an offence.”
New clause 15—Public inquiry into the impact of policing of public order on Black, Asian and minority ethnic people—
“Within six months of the date of Royal Assent to this Act, the Secretary of State must set up an inquiry under the Inquiries Act 2005 into the impact of the policing of public order on Black, Asian and minority ethnic people.”
New clause 16—Equality Impact Analyses of provisions of this Act—
“(1) The Secretary of State must review the equality impact of the provisions of this Act.
(2) A report of the review under this section must be laid before Parliament within 12 months of the date of Royal Assent to this Act.
(3) A review under this section must consider the impact of the provisions of this Act on—
(a) households at different levels of income,
(b) people with protected characteristics (within the meaning of the Equality Act 2010),
(c) the Government’s compliance with the public sector equality duty under section 149 of the Equality Act 2010, and
(d) equality in the different nations of the United Kingdom and different regions of England.
(4) A review under this section must include a separate analysis of each section of the Act, and must also consider the cumulative impact of the Act as a whole.”
New clause 17—Public inquiry into the policing of protests—
“Within six months of the date of Royal Assent to this Act, the Secretary of State must set up an inquiry under the Inquiries Act 2005 into the policing of public order and protests, including investigation of the use of—
(a) force,
(b) kettling,
(c) police horses,
(d) policing powers contained in the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022, and policing powers contained in this Act.”
Amendment 3, page 1, line 4, leave out clause 1.
Amendment 28, clause 1, page 1, line 6, after “they” insert
“, without reasonable excuse, and using a device or substance that impedes detachment”.
This amendment, together with Amendment 30, would give effect to a recommendation of the Joint Committee on Human Rights by taking the burden of proving “reasonable excuse” away from the Defendant and make it an element of the offence. It would also narrow the meaning of “attach” to focus on the use of devices or substances that make removing the protester difficult.
Amendment 29, clause 1, page 1, line 10, leave out paragraph (1)(b) and insert
“that act causes, or is likely to cause, serious disruption to the life of the community, and”.
This amendment would give effect to a recommendation of the Joint Committee on Human Rights by replacing the current threshold of serious disruption with a higher threshold based on serious disruption to the life of the community (defined in Amendment 32).
Amendment 30, clause 1, page 1, line 16, leave out subsection (2).
Amendment 31, clause 1, page 1, line 20, leave out
“the maximum term for summary offences”
and insert “three months”.
This amendment would give effect to a recommendation of the Joint Committee on Human Rights by reducing the maximum penalty for the offence of locking on.
Amendment 32, clause 1, page 2, line 1, leave out subsections (4) and (5) and insert—
“(4) For the purposes of subsection (1)(a), in determining whether a person has a reasonable excuse, particular regard must be had to the importance of the right of peaceful protest in a democracy by virtue of Article 10 and Article 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
(5) For the purposes of subsection 1(b), “serious disruption to the life of the community” means a prolonged disruption of access to any essential goods or any essential service, including, in particular, access to—
(i) the supply of money, food, water, energy or fuel,
(ii) a system of communication,
(iii) a place of worship,
(iv) a transport facility,
(v) an educational institution, or
(vi) a service relating to health.”
This amendment would give effect to a recommendation of the Joint Committee on Human Rights by inserting an express requirement to have particular regard to the right to peaceful protest when considering whether an individual has a “reasonable excuse” for their actions when locking on. It also provides detail on the meaning of serious disruption to the life of the community.
Amendment 4, page 2, line 11, leave out clause 2.
Amendment 33, clause 2, page 2, line 13, leave out
“may be used in the course of or in connection with”
and insert “will be used in”.
This amendment would give effect to a recommendation of the Joint Committee on Human Rights by narrowing the scope of this offence.
Amendment 5, page 2, line 20, leave out clause 3.
Amendment 6, page 3, line 23, leave out clause 4.
Amendment 7, page 4, line 19, leave out clause 5.
Amendment 8, page 4, line 35, leave out clause 6.
Amendment 34, clause 6, page 4, line 36, leave out subsection (1) and insert—
“(1) A person commits an offence if—
(a) the person obstructs the undertaker or a person acting under the authority of the undertaker—
(i) in setting out the lines of any major transport works,
(ii) in constructing or maintaining any major transport works, or
(iii) in taking any steps that are reasonably necessary for the purposes of facilitating the construction or maintenance of any major transport works, or
(b) the person interferes with, moves or removes any apparatus which—
(i) relates to the construction or maintenance of any major transport works, and
(ii) belongs to a person within subsection (5), and
(c) that act causes, or is likely to cause, significant disruption to setting out the lines of, the construction of or the maintenance of the major transport works affected, and
(d) the person intends their act—
(i) to obstruct the undertaker or person acting under the authority of the undertaker as mentioned in paragraph (a) or to interfere with or remove the apparatus as mentioned in paragraph (b), and
(ii) to have a consequence mentioned in paragraph (c) or are reckless as to whether it will have such a consequence.”
This amendment would give effect to a recommendation of the Joint Committee on Human Rights by narrowing the scope of this offence to ensure it criminalises only conduct that would cause or be likely to cause serious disruption to major transport works. It would also introduce a requirement of intention or recklessness.
Amendment 35, page 5, line 9, leave out
“It is a defence for a person charged with an offence under subsection (1) to prove that”
and insert
“A person does not commit an offence under subsection (1) if”.
This amendment would give effect to a recommendation of the Joint Committee on Human Rights by taking the burden of proving “reasonable excuse” or that the act was part of a trade dispute away from the Defendant and making it an element of the offence.
Amendment 36, page 5, line 14, at end insert—
“(2A) For the purposes of subsection (2)(a), in determining whether a person has a reasonable excuse, particular regard must be had to the importance of the right of peaceful protest by virtue of Article 10 and Article 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights.”
This amendment would give effect to a recommendation of the Joint Committee on Human Rights by inserting an explicit requirement to have particular regard to the right to peaceful protest when considering whether an individual has a “reasonable excuse” for their actions.
Amendment 9, page 6, line 42, leave out clause 7.
Amendment 37, clause 7, page 7, line 5, leave out
“It is a defence for a person charged with an offence under subsection (1) to prove that”
and insert
“A person does not commit an offence under subsection (1) if”.
This amendment would give effect to a recommendation of the Joint Committee on Human Rights by taking the burden of proving “reasonable excuse” or that the act was part of a trade dispute away from the Defendant and making it an element of the offence.
Amendment 38, page 7, line 10, at end insert—
“(2A) For the purposes of subsection (2)(a), in determining whether a person has a reasonable excuse, particular regard must be had to the importance of the right of peaceful protest by virtue of Article 10 and Article 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights.”
This amendment would give effect to a recommendation of the Joint Committee on Human Rights by inserting an explicit requirement to have particular regard to the right to peaceful protest when considering whether an individual has a “reasonable excuse” for their actions.
Amendment 39, page 7, line 18, leave out “to any extent” and insert “to a significant extent”.This amendment would give effect to a recommendation of the Joint Committee on Human Rights by narrowing the scope of the offence to prevent it sweeping up minor interference.
Amendment 40, page 7, line 22, after “means” insert “an essential element of”.This amendment would give effect to a recommendation of the Joint Committee on Human Rights by narrowing the meaning of “key national infrastructure” to exclude inessential elements of infrastructure.
Amendment 51, page 7, line 31, at end insert—
“(j) farms and food production infrastructure.”
Amendment 10, page 8, line 17, leave out clause 8.
Amendment 41, clause 8, page 8, line 24, leave out “or B”.
Amendment 42, page 8, line 27, after “Act)” insert
“, but excludes infrastructure that is not essential for the purposes of transporting goods or passengers by railway”.
This amendment would give effect to a recommendation of the Joint Committee on Human Rights to narrow the scope of the offence by narrowing the meaning of “rail infrastructure” so as to ensure the offence does not extend to interference with inessential elements.
Amendment 43, page 8, line 39, after “Act)” insert—
“(c) but excludes infrastructure that is not essential for the purposes of transporting goods or passengers by air”.
This amendment would give effect to a recommendation of the Joint Committee on Human Rights to narrow the scope of the offence by narrowing the meaning of “air transport infrastructure” so as to ensure the offence does not extend to interference with inessential elements.
Amendment 44, page 8, line 41, leave out “or in connection with”.
This amendment, together with Amendments 45 to 48, would give effect to a recommendation of the Joint Committee on Human Rights to narrow the scope of the offence, and reduce uncertainty, by narrowing what amounts to key national infrastructure.
Amendment 45, page 9, line 5, leave out “or in connection with”.See the explanatory statement for Amendment 44.
Amendment 46, page 9, line 20, leave out “or in connection with”.
See the explanatory statement for Amendment 44.
Amendment 47, page 9, line 35, leave out “or in connection with”.
See the explanatory statement for Amendment 44.
Amendment 48, page 10, line 1, , leave out “or in connection with”.
See the explanatory statement for Amendment 44.
Amendment 49, page 10, line 18, leave out
“‘newspaper’ includes a periodical or magazine.”
This amendment would give effect to a recommendation of the Joint Committee on Human Rights to narrow the scope of the offence by narrowing the meaning of “newspaper” so as to prevent it extending to any periodical or magazine.
Amendment 52, page 10, line 18, at end insert–—
“(16) “Farms and food production infrastructure” means—
(a) any infrastructure, used for the commercial growing of crops and horticultural produce or rearing of livestock for human consumption or as an ingredient in items for human consumption; or
(b) any premises on which items for human consumption are processed, produced, or manufactured for commercial purposes; or
(c) any abattoir.”
Amendment 11, page 10, line 20, leave out clause 9.
Amendment 12, page 11, line 1, leave out clause 10.
Amendment 13, page 12, line 29, leave out clause 11.
Amendment 14, page 13, line 9, leave out clause 12.
Amendment 15, page 13, line 33, leave out clause 13.
Amendment 16, page 14, line 6, leave out clause 14.
Amendment 17, page 14, line 15, leave out clause 15.
Amendment 1, page 18, line 7, leave out clause 16.
Amendment 2, page 20, line 15, leave out clause 17.
Amendment 20, page 22, line 11, leave out clause 18.
Amendment 21, page 23, line 12, leave out clause 19.
Amendment 22, page 24, line 12, leave out clause 20.
Amendment 23, page 25, line 20, leave out clause 21.
Amendment 24, page 26, line 9, leave out clause 22.
Amendment 25, page 27, line 1, leave out clause 23.
Amendment 26, page 27, line 8, leave out clause 24.
Amendment 27, page 27, line 26, leave out clause 25.
Amendment 53, page 29, line 33, leave out clause 26.
Amendment 54, page 30, line 28, leave out clause 27.
Amendment 55, page 31, line 8, leave out clause 28.
Amendment 56, page 31, line 23, leave out clause 29.
Amendment 57, page 31, line 30, leave out clause 30.
Amendment 58, page 32, line 10, leave out clause 31.
Government new schedule 1—Injunctions in Secretary of State proceedings: powers to remand.
Government amendment 50.
Jeremy Quin
I thank hon. Members who have joined us for this important debate today and I look forward to the lively discussion that we are bound to have over the course of the afternoon. Although there will inevitably be differences of opinion, which I will come on to, I hope we can all agree on the fundamental point that should be underpinning this discussion—namely, that it is completely unacceptable for a selfish minority to wreak havoc on the lives of people going about their daily business. I would like to open the debate by speaking to the amendments in the Government’s name, and I will respond to other amendments in my closing remarks.
I will also touch on new clause 11, which covers abortion clinic buffer zones. We totally endorse the sentiment behind the new clause, but I look forward to setting out in my summing up why measures in existing legislation combined with the growing use of public space protection orders—PSPOs—can be used and are effective.
Jeremy Quin
I think the hon. Lady will want to hear me out.
We recognise that this is a matter closely associated with issue of abortion, on which people have very strong views across the House. Therefore, as far as we are concerned, there will be a free vote on new clause 11. Members will hear the debate, and I will set out why the current legislation is proportionate and how PSPOs are increasingly being used and are increasingly effective, but this is a matter on which hon. Members will make their own judgment.
Before going further into the debate, it might be helpful if I briefly recap what the Bill does and does not do. This Bill does not criminalise the right to protest, as some hon. Members have said. The right to protest is a fundamental principle of our democracy, and that will never change. Any suggestion that we are intent on interfering with or watering down the right to protest peacefully is simply wrong.
What the Bill does is target acts that cause serious disruption, such as those that wreak havoc on our roads, disrupt thousands of journeys, cost the taxpayer millions and put lives in danger. It does this by giving the police the enhanced powers they need to respond to such disruption and better balance the rights of protesters with the right of the public to go about their daily lives.
I will now speak to Government new clauses 7 and 8, Government new schedule 1 and Government amendment 50. Some of the protest tactics we have seen in recent months have had significant consequences for the public. Protests such as those by Insulate Britain and Just Stop Oil have targeted fuel supply chains and created blockades. Indeed, hon. Members will be familiar with recent images of ambulances, fire services and cars carrying babies to hospital being blocked by the selfish actions of protesters in the name of Just Stop Oil. These tactics are not only seriously disruptive but dangerous.
We have heard the Opposition’s calls to ensure that injunctions are in place to prevent serious disruption, including through new clause 4 tabled by the hon. Member for Croydon Central (Sarah Jones). It is a pleasure to see her in her place, and I look forward to working with her across this Dispatch Box.
We have seen how effective injunctions can be, and we believe we can build on the current position in which only private persons and local authorities can pursue this legal remedy through the courts. That is why the Government tabled new clauses 7 and 8, new schedule 1 and amendment 50 to provide the Secretary of State with a specific mechanism to apply for an injunction where it is in the public interest to do so because the activity causes serious disruption to key national infrastructure, prevents access to essential goods or services, or has a serious adverse impact on the public. This will be accompanied by a power of arrest to support swifter enforcement action. This does not affect the right of local authorities or private landowners to apply for an injunction, but it gives the Secretary of State an additional way to act in the public interest where the potential impact is serious and widespread.
These measures will support better co-ordination between the Government, law enforcement, local authorities and private landowners in responding to serious disruptive behaviour. We know injunctions can play a major role in helping to constrain some of the tactics deployed and, as a result, can limit serious disruption. Although I understand the sentiment behind new clause 4, tabled by the hon. Member for Croydon Central, I do not think it achieves the change she seeks, as the law already enables private persons and local authorities to pursue an injunction where they can evidence harm to their rights or interests in civil law. The police already have a range of powers and avenues to manage protest and to act on criminal or antisocial behaviour.
I therefore encourage the hon. Lady not to press her new clause and to support Government new clauses 7 and 8, new schedule 1 and amendment 50.
Stella Creasy
I rise to support all the amendments in the name of the Labour Front Bench, and to speak to new clauses 11, 13 and 14.
I put on record my gratitude to the Minister for respecting the convention that issues around abortion are matters of conscience, and new clause 11 is about abortion because, let us be honest, nobody is praying outside the places where people go to have a hip operation. Nobody offers rosary beads or dead foetuses outside the places people go when they have an ankle injury. This is about women accessing a very specific form of healthcare.
This goes to the heart of the Bill. Whatever the Bill’s merits, it is about protest. At the point at which women are accessing an abortion, they have made a decision and they are not opening themselves up for a debate or further discussion. These women are often in a very vulnerable state, and they want to be able to access basic healthcare.
New clause 11 would not stop free speech on abortion, and it would not stop people protesting. I have regularly been subjected to protests, and new clause 11 would do nothing to stop the protests I have experienced from many of the people involved in this subject. New clause 11 simply says that people should not have a right to protest in another person’s face, and very often these protesters are right up in front of people, at a point when they have made a decision.
Huw Merriman (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)
I pay tribute to the hon. Lady for what she has done to bring us to this position. I am grateful that the Minister has confirmed that this will be a free vote, as it should be.
I support the Public Order Bill because it is about stopping people interfering with the right of others to go about their business. Does the hon. Lady agree that this is at the heart of new clause 11, which is about protecting women who want to go about their lawful business from being harassed? They are emotionally vulnerable, and the decision is hard enough as it is, let alone with what they have to go through outside the clinic. Does she agree that it is a Conservative principle of the Bill to ensure women have the right to go about their lawful business?
Stella Creasy
I would not deign to comment on or set out Conservative principles, although I have the free speech to do so, but I share the hon. Gentleman’s recognition that this is about balancing rights. This is an omission from the Bill because it is such a specific issue. Let me be clear: PSPOs are not working and new clause 11 is very tightly drawn about abortion clinics themselves. At 28 weeks pregnant. I was subject to sustained campaigns in my town centre. People put up pictures of my head next to dead babies. They told my constituents to stop me and they incited anger and intimidation. This would not be covered by the new clause. That is the free speech debate that we might want to have another day. Perhaps if those protesters had thrown a can of tomato soup at me, the police might not have seen it as a “both sides now” conversation. This is something different. These women have not put themselves up for debate and I understand that. As a public figure, I have put myself up for debate. Obviously, I had not put my unborn child up for debate, which is what those protesters felt that they could do.
This is about when a woman wants to access an abortion. The new clause specifies abortion clinics. It is no more broad than that, because this is a very specific problem. The challenge in this place is that we can dance on the head of a pin having theoretical debates, but it is our constituents who see the reality. They see the people shouting at these women. They see the women who are frightened, scared and vulnerable, who just want to make a decision in peace—who just want to go about their business.
That is why this amendment has such support from across the House, from among the royal colleges, and from among those who work with women and campaigners, particularly organisations such as the British Medical Association and the Fawcett Society. It is also why there have been so many emails pouring into our inbox. A person does not have to be a supporter of abortion to think that, at that point, we probably need to protect that person. A person does need to be a supporter of abortion to think that, if something is stopping women or is designed to deter them at a point when they have made a decision to have an abortion, we need to step in and not leave it to local authorities to find the money to cover the court costs, or even for that to be part of the decision they are making.
I understand that the Minister will talk against this measure. He needs to explain why, when 50 clinics have been targeted, only five have managed to get PSPOs. The current legislation is not satisfactory in dealing with that balance. It leaves it to chance and creates a postcode lottery of the protection that people recognise is required—whether or not they support abortion and whether or not they think about free speech.
I ask the Minister to listen to women. Women in their droves are asking for this protection for their sisters who are making this decision. They should not be shouted at when they are accessing it. Let them make that decision in privacy. If we consider abortion to be a human right, do not ask them to run a gauntlet to get one, which is what is happening now. I hope that colleagues across the House will recognise the thought, care and attention that has gone into this new clause, the widespread support across the House for acting and for not leaving it to local authorities to have to deal with these issues, and the fact that the abortion debate must continue, but that there is a time and a place for it.
Let me turn now to new clauses 13 and 14, which, again, I hope will have cross-party support. They reflect a concern that we need to tackle the experience of women on our streets, and, in particular, the fact that 24,000 women a day experience street harassment in this country. For too long that has become normalised. For too long, we have taught young girls ways to minimise their exposure rather than challenging those people who do it. For too long, we have asked the questions, “Did you have your headphones on?” “Were you wearing a short skirt?” What did you say when that person said that?” We do that rather than recognising this as a form of harassment.
I welcomed the words of the Prime Minister when she said that violence against women and girls does not have to be inevitable. She said:
“Women should be able to walk the streets without fear of harm, and perpetrators must expect to be punished.”
She also said:
“It is the responsibility of all political leaders, including us in Westminster and the Mayor of London, to do more.”
I know that the Mayor of London wants to do more because I have been working with him for many years on the campaign to learn from our police forces who treat misogyny as a form of hate crime and use that to identify the perpetrators of these crimes. I know, too, that there is support across the House for doing that. There is no other crime that happens on such a scale on a daily basis where we have not made progress. I welcome the fact that there is agreement in this place that we need to tackle street harassment. As ever, when it comes to upholding a woman’s rights and freedoms and basic ability to go about her daily business, the challenge today is that it goes on the backburner when something else turns up. It is something that we will get round to eventually. It is something that is terribly complicated, when shouting at statues is not.
I ask the Minister today to commit to joining all of us in saying, “Enough is enough, and we will legislate and legislate promptly.” We should not be at a point in 2022 going into 2023 where thousands of women are still experiencing street harassment. Over their lifetime, seven in 10 women will experience sexual harassment in public. It is clear that those who engage in these behaviours often escalate to further and more serious crimes. Recognising sexual harassment and tackling it, which is what the police forces who are treating misogyny as a form of hate crime have been able to do, offers us valuable lessons about how we can move forward.
I recognise what the Law Commission said, and I recognise that the debate has moved on, but having a standalone offence, which identifies where women are being targeted for street harassment, would help us to gather the data and send that very powerful message that no woman should have to look behind her or carry her keys in her hand just because she wants to go out and buy a pint of milk. That is a daily experience.
Fay Jones (Brecon and Radnorshire) (Con)
My concern about street harassment is that it could be too broad. I am particularly concerned about the rising prevalence of cyber flashing, and I very much urge the Government to pursue their intention to make that a criminal offence through the Online Safety Bill. Does the hon. Lady agree that we are at risk of going too broad and too shallow and not focusing on individual crimes such as cyber flashing?
Stella Creasy
I agree that cyber flashing is an issue that needs to be addressed, but I caution the hon. Lady to understand the importance of recognising where harassment is targeted at women; it does not have to be sexual to be harassment. There is a risk here that we deny the experience of women from minority communities of the multiple ways in which they are harassed. A couple of years ago, a gentleman was going around my community targeting Muslim women, pulling off their hijabs. That was both Islamophobic and misogynistic—he was not targeting Muslim men. Yet, under our current hate crime framework, we ask the victims to pick a particular box to tick to identify a crime. The evidence from the areas of the country where they are using this approach shows that where we have that understanding of how misogyny motivates crime, we see the victim as a whole and victims themselves have much more confidence to come forward. I recognise the hon. Lady’s concern about being specific in law, but there is a really important issue for all of us not to focus purely on sexual behaviour, but to recognise what is driving these crimes: it is power, entitlement and privilege that some men have—it is mainly men who do this—to target women for crimes.
New clause 13 looks at intentional harassment. New clause 14, which I hope the Minister will address in his comments, looks at foreseeable harassment. That is a really critical issue and why it is so important to get these new clauses accepted to help change the culture. If the harassment is foreseeable, it is recognising that there should be no defence, such as, “I thought she would enjoy being groped by me.” “I thought she would like it if I followed her down the road.” “I thought that she would find it flattering.” In 2022, we should not be breeding a generation of men who think that that is acceptable. I promise the Minister that I will stop campaigning on these issues when I go to a wedding and the bride gets up and says, “He tried to get me in the back of a van. I thought that it was the most fantastic thing ever and I immediately had to get to know this man.” That does not happen, but that is often an everyday experience for many women in this country—to be followed, to be targeted and to be hassled.
Finding ways to recognise that in law and not give someone the defence of saying, “I don’t know why she was upset by what I said” is what new clause 14 does. The Minister may tell me that he has better ideas. I know the right hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Greg Clark) has an important Bill coming up. What all of us are looking for is a commitment to act promptly and not to leave this for another five or 10 years—the Law Commission review dates back to the heady days of 2016—and also to not give people a defence that women themselves are being difficult by wanting simply to go about their freedoms and not be hassled.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
The right hon. Gentleman cannot intervene because he was not here at the beginning of the hon. Lady’s speech. He can intervene later, but he cannot intervene halfway through a speech when he was not here at the beginning of it. I appreciate that the hon. Lady is proposing amendments that everybody wants to hear about, but she has held the Floor for 15 minutes. We have three hours for this debate and I have more than 20 people who wish to speak, so I have to appeal for brevity. I would rather not put on a time limit, because that curtails debate. I hope the hon. Lady will appreciate the position of everybody else in the Chamber who also has to have an opportunity to speak.
Stella Creasy
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker; I promise I was just about to wind up. I hope the Minister will address the issue in new clause 14 about foreseeable harassment and that perhaps over the course of the debate he will rethink his opposition to new clause 11. I know many of us across the House would welcome that.
Caroline Nokes (Romsey and Southampton North) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy).
Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)
I apologise for not having been here earlier, Madam Deputy Speaker; I was dealing with other parliamentary business. I have a clinic on Station Road in my constituency where, after a lot of hard work, residents secured a public space protection order on 7 September. Because of the concern about the legal considerations and the consultation, it was drawn quite tightly, and its effect has been simply to push the protesters further down the road so that, ironically, they are now nearer to the local school. That makes it easier for gentlemen my age and sometimes older to approach 13 and 14-year-old girls and ask them if they know where babies come from and what God’s view of pregnancy might be. Normally, I would call anyone doing that a bit of a pervert, but apparently these people are speaking on behalf of some higher order. Does that not demonstrate that the need for communities to individually pursue PSPOs at local expense is not a satisfactory way to proceed, and that we need some national legislation that everyone can draw upon?
Caroline Nokes
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. We need national legislation; we do not want a piecemeal approach or to push the problem to a different area or from one clinic where a public space protection order has been put in place to a clinic where protest may still be legal. It is imperative that we have a coherent national approach and that we protect women from that sort of harassment.
I hope the Minister will confirm what further action the Home Office will take in the event that this new clause falls today. I hope it will be successful; I hope this House can come together and recognise the benefit that the new clause will provide, and that we can make some progress on the issue.
I will speak briefly about the finances. I referred to the cost to a local authority and the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Steve McCabe) indicated that in his constituency it will have been expensive for the council to bring a PSPO forward. Too often, councils face legal challenges from campaign groups with very deep pockets, which are potentially not even funded from this country.
I vividly remember going to a sixth form college just outside my constituency at the start of the summer and talking to the female students there, girls aged between 16 and 18. They talked to me specifically about abortion, because they were scared that they would see their right to access healthcare being eroded. They asked whether I thought the overturning of Roe v. Wade would travel across the Atlantic and impact us here.
At the time I said, “No, I don’t”, but since then I have watched the deep pockets of largely American-funded campaigns opposing our local councils when they seek to bring legal orders to protect women from harassment. How can I now look at those teenagers and say, “Of course the overturning of Roe v. Wade won’t come here. Of course the American influence will not impact your right to access healthcare in this country”? It is about time that this country and this Government were prepared to step up where the United States has stepped back. That is why I will be supporting new clause 11, tabled by the hon. Member for Walthamstow. It is imperative that we send a message to women—I was going to say young women, but it is actually to all women in this country—that we are on their side.
Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)
I rise to speak to the amendments in my name and the name of the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Florence Eshalomi), which arise from the legislative scrutiny of the Bill by the Joint Committee on Human Rights. They are amendments 28 to 31, 33, 34 to 36, 37 to 40 and 41 to 49, and also amendments 12 to 15, which appear first in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North East (Anne McLaughlin), and 1 and 2.
I remind hon. Members that the Joint Committee is a cross-party Committee with half its members from the House of Commons and half from the House of Lords, and we undertake scrutiny of the human rights implications of all Bills. I speak here in my capacity as the Chair of the Committee rather than in my personal capacity. I have great sympathy for new clause 11—similar measures are being taken in the Scottish jurisdiction—but, as my Committee did not have the chance to consider it, I will not be speaking about that new clause.
The Public Order Bill contains further significant changes to the law on public order in England and Wales, following on from those introduced in the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022. It is obvious from my accent that I am a Scottish MP. Despite the fact that this law only applies in England and Wales, it is of interest to a lot of Scots, because they come to London to protest—I see the Minister laughing, but it is the truth, and many of us have been doing it for years, since before we were elected to this House.
Jeremy Quin
I welcome that. I am a firm believer that we are stronger together and a firm believer in the Union. I always welcome hearing the views of Scots people in London, and indeed of English people who wish to protest in Edinburgh.
Joanna Cherry
I suspect the Minister will still hear our views after we become independent, so I would not get too upset about that.
During the passage of the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill, the Joint Committee looked very carefully at a large volume of responses and heard from two panels of witnesses about the issue of the public order provisions. The Minister has said the stated intention of the Bill is to strengthen police powers to tackle dangerous and highly disruptive protest, but we think the measures go beyond that, to the extent that we believe they pose an unacceptable threat to the fundamental right to engage in peaceful protest. That was the conclusion of the Committee’s report dated 17 June, in which we proposed the amendments that I am speaking to today.
Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)
I wanted to reflect on the point that it is not just about our constituents in Scotland being concerned about the provisions in the Bill. One of the fundamental parts of policing in the UK is mutual aid, so there will be considerations for Police Scotland in relation to the Bill, if it is passed, when we have police officers from Scotland attending protests in other parts of the UK.
Joanna Cherry
That is a very good point and I am grateful to the hon. Lady for making it.
It is a matter of regret that when the Government responded to our cross-party report they said:
“Any chilling effect on the right to protest, damage to the UK’s reputation, or encouragement of other nations seeking to crack down on peaceful protest is more likely to arise from the misleading commentary on the PCSC Act and this Bill”
than anything else. No, Minister. That is not the case. The Committee’s conclusions are not misleading commentary. They are the conclusions of a cross-party Committee of this House, informed by evidence from many different sources and advice from our own legal experts on the European convention on human rights, to which, thank God, the UK is still a signatory and which is still enforceable under the Human Rights Act 1998, which seems, thankfully, safe for the time being.
Before I turn to the amendments, I want to quickly make the point that the criminal law and the powers of the police already allow for action to be taken against violent protest and disruptive non-violent protest. That is addressed in detail in paragraph 18 of our report, where we list all the existing provisions under the criminal law of England and Wales that cover the situations about which the Minister says he is concerned. So not only do we think that the Bill is an attack on the fundamental rights of freedom of speech and freedom of assembly, but we believe that it is unnecessary and simply replicating existing law.
Our first tranche of amendments deal with the new offences set out in clauses 1 and 2—the proposed offences of “locking on” and
“being equipped to lock on”.
The purpose of those amendments is to try to water down what we consider to be far too stringent positions. We are particularly concerned about the reversal of the burden proof, putting it on the accused. The purpose of our amendments is to reverse that and put that burden on the prosecution, as is consistent with the presumption of innocence and therefore with article 6 of the ECHR. So amendments 28 to 33 would narrow the scope of clauses 1 and 2 and improve safeguards against violation of convention rights.
We believe that the offence of obstructing major transport works in clause 6 is so widely drafted that it could easily criminalise the peaceful exercise of rights under articles 10 and 11, so our amendments 34 to 36 would narrow its scope, including by introducing a requirement of intent and removing the unnecessary reversal of the burden of proof.
We think the proposed offence of interfering with “key national infrastructure” is too widely drawn and thus risks criminalising, without justification, behaviour that would fall within the provisions of articles 10 and 11 of the ECHR. Amendments 37 to 49 would narrow its scope and remove the unnecessary reversal of the burden of proof.
The proposal to extend stop-and-search powers to cover searches for articles connected with protest-related offences risks exposing peaceful protesters and other members of the public to intrusive encounters with the police without sufficient justification. We would like the utilisation of these new powers to be carefully monitored. In that respect, I note with approval the terms of new clauses 9 and 10 in the name of the hon. Member for Battersea (Marsha De Cordova).
Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)
I am grateful to have the opportunity to support new clause 11, which was tabled by the hon. Member for Ealing Central and Acton (Dr Huq). She has got into a bit of a scrape because she said something silly, but those of us who know her know that she is an extremely committed parliamentarian and very public spirited, and I hope that order will be restored in that department as soon as possible.
I also congratulate the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy) on new clause 11 and I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Southampton North (Caroline Nokes) for supporting it. I note that SNP Members support the new clause, although I am not sure whether they will vote on it—they might decide that it is an English measure—but it is interesting that similar measures are being considered in Scotland.
I am grateful to the Minister for Crime, Policing and Fire, my hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (Jeremy Quin), who kindly saw me at short notice yesterday about this matter. The Government may well oppose this new clause. I hope they do not, but I know they are seized of the issue and are giving it consideration. I will listen very carefully to what he has to say about it later.
“Clinic harassment” is the term used to describe the presence outside abortion clinics of groups who seek to dissuade and deter women from accessing healthcare that is their right under our law. Many people would call them protests, but mere protest is not the purpose of the activity and the groups who organise them do not call them protests. It is not about politics or campaigning; it is about stopping individual women from accessing their legal rights. New clause 11 would simply introduce a statutory buffer zone around any location where abortion services or advice are provided, making it illegal to carry out such activities as those eloquently described by the hon. Member for Walthamstow.
We are told that the scale of the problem is small and does not require a national response. That is false. Every year, around 100,000 women are treated by a clinic targeted by these groups. In the last three weeks alone, at least 15 clinics across the country have had people outside, including clinics based in hospitals, GP surgeries and in residential areas. That has impacted hundreds of women’s care and psychological wellbeing.
We are also told that the police and councils already have powers to restrict harmful protests. If that is true, why are they still happening? The fact is that abortion providers have proactively tried to use all the laws suggested by the Home Office to stem the problem, but even where individual protesters and groups have been dealt with by the courts and local authorities, the presence outside clinics has not stopped.
Let us be absolutely clear: we are not debating the principle of whether these so-called protests should be banned; they already are banned in certain places, and the principle of that has been supported by the House. We are just asking whether the existing statutory arrangements—the public spaces protection orders—used by councils to introduce buffer zones around individual clinics are effective. Only five out of 50 targeted clinics are protected.
There are three issues relating to PSPOs: they create a random patchwork of protections, which is inadequate; they are expensive to introduce and very difficult to uphold in the courts; and crucially, they can be introduced only with evidence that harassment is taking place. I made this point to my hon. Friend the Minister last night, and it is a painful thing for him to have to accept, but it is the Government’s policy that women should be harassed outside abortion clinics before a PSPO can be issued. Can the House think of any other policy that requires women to be harassed before the Government or the local authority do something that is perfectly justified? That is an immoral basis for PSPOs.
Jeremy Quin
My hon. Friend makes a powerful point, as indeed he did yesterday evening. I was concerned and looked into the matter. The antisocial behaviour statutory guidance states that a PSPO can be made by a council if it is satisfied on reasonable grounds that the activity or behaviour carried out, or likely to be carried out, in a public space has had, or is likely to have, a detrimental impact. I hope that gives him some reassurance that if activity is anticipated and people are concerned that it may take place, there is a means whereby a PSPO may be taken out. He might not consider that a perfect scenario, but where an activity is foreseeable, action can be taken in advance.
Sir Bernard Jenkin
I say rather wryly to my hon. Friend, “Good try.” But it is not really adequate, is it? All our local authorities are under huge spending pressure and do not want to spend money on drafting orders and so on, so what local authority will be preoccupied with this problem unless there is a problem? The strength of the case for implementing a PSPO is supported by evidence of likelihood, which will only be evident if the activity has already happened. I am afraid that my hon. Friend the Minister has not really addressed the point, although I commend him for making a good attempt.
We are also told that these groups are only quietly praying and that there is no harassment involved. Well, the hon. Member for Walthamstow told us about what happens, and sometimes people attend in very large numbers.
My final comment on this may answer points that my hon. Friend the Minister will make later. I have been involved for years in discussions with the Home Office, and here I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Louth and Horncastle (Victoria Atkins) for the assiduous attention she gave us as she wrestled with this problem, which I know has vexed her. Although she never persuaded the Government to accept a previous amendment, the sincerity of her engagement with us was wonderful, and I am grateful. So finally, we are also told that our amendment contravenes protesters’ human rights. Well, I note that the Chair of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry), does not think that is the case—albeit that the Committee has not actually considered this amendment.
We have to recognise that rights have to be balanced, and the exercise of one person’s rights are very often to another person’s detriment. We have to strike a balance, and my argument is that new clause 11 strikes the right balance. The amendment would not stop people sharing their opinions about the vexed issue of abortion. It balances the rights of people who oppose abortion with the rights of women to access healthcare confidentially and free from harassment and intimidation. It does not ban protest; it simply moves it down the road to preserve the space immediately outside the clinic for women seeking care, and for nurses and doctors providing that care. In Committee, when asked about this directly by the Minister, rights groups did not oppose new clause 11. Canada, Australia, Spain, Ireland, Northern Ireland and Scotland all have comparable laws in place or are in the process of introducing them.
I need not detain the House any longer. If the House does not support this amendment tonight, the argument will carry on until an acceptable means of protecting women exercising their legal rights is found. I am grateful to the Government for allowing a free vote on the matter, which is right and proper in the circumstances.
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)
It is a privilege to follow the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex (Sir Bernard Jenkin). I rise to support a range of amendments—amendments 1, 2, 11 and 12, new clauses 9, 11 and 13 to 16, and most of those that stand in the names of the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry) and the hon. Member for Glasgow North East (Anne McLaughlin). I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy) for her continuing campaign on this issue, and the right hon. Member for Romsey and Southampton North (Caroline Nokes) for the eloquence with which she spoke on it.
I believe that we should consider carefully the implications of any piece of legislation for our constituents. We must ask ourselves who will be affected, and how? I will discuss specifically how the Bill will have a dramatic effect on my constituents. In my constituency there has been a 40-year campaign against Heathrow expansion, particularly against the third runway. According to the airport itself, 4,000 homes will be either demolished or rendered unliveable as a result of air and noise pollution. Ten thousand people will lose their homes. There is a history of peaceful protest against this by my constituents. Their protests have involved demonstrating noisily, linking arms, marching, sitting down to block the roads into Heathrow and blocking the tunnel into Heathrow. They have involved camping in the local field with Climate Camp, and yes, they have involved training in locking on, to ensure that if someone’s home is threatened with demolition, they can lock themselves to the home.
Yes, the existing law has been used against my constituents, and people have taken it on the chin. The existing law has proved to be effective in many ways in ensuring that people understand the law and know when they cross the limit of the law. I remind the House that there are also specific laws relating to airports.
This campaign demonstrated to me how the democratic process, both inside and outside Parliament, works effectively, because it was successful. It persuaded the Conservative party to change its policy, and the party’s then leader, Mr Cameron, to say:
“No ifs, no buts, no third runway.”
We were disappointed when he later caveated that, saying that the commitment would last for only one Parliament. Nevertheless, it demonstrated that peaceful demonstration in support of the campaign actually did change Government policy, and I believe that it reinforced people’s appreciation of our democratic system.
The threat of a third runway has not gone away. The new discussions taking place on various Benches mean that people are now planning a new wave of protests to protect their homes. In fact, it has gone beyond a nimby campaign, because it is now also about tackling the climate change emergency that is happening now.
David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)
I entirely share the right hon. Gentleman’s commitment and his opposition to a third runway at Heathrow, but does he acknowledge that the reason the campaign has succeeded is the intelligent and appropriate use of the legal process, through a series of injunctions and challenges brought by the London Borough of Hillingdon, rather than the protests around Heathrow airport itself?
John McDonnell
I agree with the hon. Gentleman to a certain extent. I congratulate Hillingdon Council, which has worked on a cross-party basis, and commend it for the work it has done with other local authorities of all political parties. I do not think, however, that the legal process was sufficient. What changed the minds of politicians— of David Cameron and the Conservative party—was the mobilisation of mass demonstrations and mass public support. I had been campaigning on the issue for 30 years before we saw that shift in policy.
Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con)
I rise to oppose new clause 11 on the basis of its grave implications—indeed, threats—to freedom of thought, conscience, speech, belief and assembly. Let us be clear: new clause 11 flies directly in the face of those freedoms. It has far wider implications than on abortion alone; it potentially criminalises even those who simply stand peaceably near abortion clinics, and who do so mainly on the basis of their faith-based beliefs. I believe that the clause contravenes human rights. Notably, for example, article 18 of the universal declaration of human rights states:
“Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.”
The broad wording of new clause 11 is open to such wide interpretation, particularly the words “seeks to influence”, that it could well catch virtually any activity. The proposed criminalisation of influencing is imprecise, unclear and unpredictable in its effect and potential impact, which contravenes the basic principle of certainty of the rule of law. Certainty is vital so that citizens can tailor their behaviour and remain within the law’s boundaries. Could a social worker advising a confused teenager going to an abortion clinic be seen as influencing within the meaning of this clause and therefore be at risk of criminal liability? This new clause fails the test of certainty and should be rejected for that reason alone.
Sir Bernard Jenkin
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way and I am listening carefully to what she is saying, which I know reflects beliefs of great sincerity. Does that mean, however, that she is against the existing law that allows local authorities to ban those same activities around abortion clinics, for example, on a selective basis? It seems to me that the House has already accepted that principle. If she cannot accept that principle, we really are on a different page.
Fiona Bruce
I have spoken against that principle on a number of occasions in this place and I will come on to explain why.
The wording of new clause 11 could even catch those who are quietly praying, but when did it become against the law in this country to pray? Unfortunately, five councils have now defined protest as including the word “prayer”. During court proceedings, that has even been confirmed to include silent prayer. That is a grave development that we in this House, more than anyone, must stand against. Staggeringly, it would effectively mean criminalising the affairs going on within the privacy of an individual’s mind. Yet freedom of thought is an absolute, unqualified right. As the Minister for the Americas and the Overseas Territories said earlier today in response to the urgent question, peaceful protest is a “fundamental part” of UK society.
Whatever our individual views on abortion, we must stand against new clause 11. Otherwise, we risk opening the door to discrimination even more widely. Why not have buffer zones around political conferences? A young Hongkonger told me yesterday that when she attended the recent Conservative party conference, she was “scared” of accessing the conference centre because of the aggressive behaviour of political opponents around it, yet there is no suggestion of having buffer zones there, and nor should there be. As MPs, we would be aghast if we risked a fine and imprisonment simply for handing out a campaign leaflet containing our political views on the street and seeking to influence others at election time. No: new clause 11 is specifically targeted at those with faith-based views and we should be equally aghast at it.
Of course, harassment or intimidation around abortion clinics—or anywhere—has to be addressed, although in more than a quarter of a century of people quietly gathering around abortion clinics, there have been relatively few, if any, reports of that and there are already several pieces of legislation that could tackle it if needed. The Offences against the Person Act 1861, the Public Order Act 1986, the Protection from Harassment Act 1997, the Criminal Justice Act 1988 and the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014, and the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022, which was passed only this year, all provide sufficient powers to tackle harassment and intimidation. This addresses the point of my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex (Sir Bernard Jenkin): rather than creating new and unnecessary laws, the police’s and our efforts should be on ensuring that they and the prosecution use the powers that they already have.
This new clause goes further and potentially criminalises peaceable gatherings. Indeed, looking at the wording of the new clause, it is perfectly possible to see an argument being made that just one person standing alone quietly near a clinic could be guilty of the criminal offence proposed in it. Widely or poorly drafted legislation, as here, can have serious unintended consequences, as we have seen in recent years. During the pandemic, Rosa Lalor, a 76-year-old grandmother, was arrested, prosecuted and charged for nothing less than praying and walking outside an abortion centre. It took over a year before Merseyside police force dropped the charges, noting that her actions were completely within the law. For her, however, the punishment was the process, despite being completely innocent of any wrongdoing.
Too often, in recent years, the mere expression of unpopular viewpoints has been interpreted, or rather misinterpreted, as automatically being abusive or harassing under the Public Order Act 1986, due to the broad discretionary powers the police have. We must stand against this. We have seen numerous examples of street preachers and others arrested for nothing more than peacefully expressing traditional views in public. When arrested and prosecuted, it is very rare for this to lead to conviction, but by the time they are vindicated the damage is done to the individual subjected to a prolonged criminal process, to the public’s confidence in policing and, indeed, to freedom of speech. Such miscarriages of justice have an abiding chilling effect, leading many—indeed, many thousands of people—across our country today to self-censor deeply-held views, which is a problem far more widespread than is currently recognised and that will no doubt be exacerbated by new clause 11.
Fiona Bruce
I am just about to conclude.
One of the main reasons freedom of speech and thought are treasured and rightly protected in law is so that they can be used precisely for the purposes of influence. The free and frank exchange of viewpoints is the lifeblood of a genuinely democratic society. Rather than seeking to erode this most precious principle, we should be seeking instead to strengthen the law, to put it beyond doubt that freedom of speech—and, indeed, of belief—when peaceably expressed should never be a criminal offence. We must stand against this here today. Our cherished freedoms of thought, conscience, belief, speech and assembly have been hard fought for, and our democracy depends on their robust protection.
Sarah Jones (Croydon Central) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce), although I respectfully disagree with her position on this, and I will come to that shortly. I also welcome the Minister to his post.
I do not think anybody in this House was not deeply irritated by the sight of an ambulance having to turn around and go a different route because of protesters glued to the road, and I do not think there are many people in this House, when they saw protesters throwing soup at a van Gogh painting, who did not at least question whether that action had helped or hindered the cause of climate change. We all passionately believe in the right to protest, do we not? But we all understand that our fundamental freedoms are always balanced with the need to ensure business can carry on in its usual way.
That is why I thank the police for their response to the protesters who blocked the ambulance. They arrested 26 people for wilful obstruction of a highway and removed people glued to the road. Wilful obstruction is an offence that can carry a prison sentence. I also thank the police for the way in which they dealt with the incident in the National Gallery. Two people have been charged with criminal damage, which is an offence that can carry prison sentence.
Madam Deputy Speaker, you may ask yourself why, if the police were quick to respond, quick to arrest and quick to charge, we are debating a Public Order Bill to create a raft of new powers to tackle protest, after we have only just finished debating another Bill—the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022—which has introduced another raft of new provisions against protest.
Jeremy Quin
Is the hon. Lady therefore fully satisfied that the powers that exist are fully complete and fully perfect in all respects? Is she satisfied that police officers will be taken from her constituency to police central London to guard the public from protests? Should we not be taking stronger action?
Sarah Jones
I thank the Minister for his intervention, and I will shortly come on to speak about the powers that already exist and what I think we need to do to make sure that we have the best system we can have.
I think the reason we are here debating this legislation is that we are not currently governed by grown-ups who understand the serious and delicate balance between policing and protest. We are governed by people who seek to win through division, by pitting one group against another and by wilfully threatening the delicate balance of policing by consent that marks out our form of policing from French, Spanish or Italian paramilitary-style police forces.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
If new clause 11 is agreed to, will the Labour party vote against Third Reading?
Sarah Jones
I will come to new clause 11 shortly, and express my support and our support for that new clause. We have supported it many times in many different forms through many different debates.
The Labour party, last April, called for greater injunction powers following the disruption by Just Stop Oil, when millions of people could not access fuel. We argued that the raft of existing powers could be used more effectively. We suggested injunctions because they are more likely to prevent further disruption to, say, an oil terminal than more offences to criminalise conduct after it has taken place, with all the added costs and logistics of removal. Injunctions are more straightforward for the police, they have more safeguards as they are granted by a court, and they are future-proof when protesters change tactics.
Police officers have told us that some of the most effective measures they use in the face of potential serious disruption are injunctions. The National Police Chiefs’ Council protests lead, Chris Noble, said that
“they can be very useful in terms of what we are trying to control and how we are trying to shape…behaviour.”––[Official Report, Public Order Public Bill Committee, 9 June 2022; c. 8, Q7.]
In Kingsbury with Just Stop Oil and on the M25 with insulate Britain, people were arrested, removed and charged for breaching injunctions.
We introduced a new clause in Committee to bring what is known as the Canada Goose case into law. The Canada Goose case allowed injunctions to be taken out against persons unknown. This means that when groups of protesters form outside, the applicant does not have to know all their names or the names of people who may come in the future. Sadly, in Committee, the Government voted against our injunctions new clause. They said it would not create meaningful change.
The Government have since had a change of heart, however—another U-turn from the Government—but our suggestions for injunctions are still not being supported; they have introduced their own in new clauses 7 and 8. We believe these new clauses are flawed in several ways. First, there are some drafting problems, and lawyers we have spoken to are unclear on what the legal basis of an injunction would be. Secondly, we have concerns about placing the responsibility and power in the hands of the Home Secretary. Thirdly, we have concerns about where the burden of cost will fall; at a very difficult economic time, the Government can through this Bill shift financial responsibility from the private sector to the public sector, and that needs to be looked at.
In Committee, we heard evidence from HS2, who were in the process of applying for a route-wide injunction to protect their sites from serious disruption. This has now been granted by the High Court. The documents detailing the High Court decision show that the judge granted it partly on the basis that it satisfied the requirements of the Canada Goose case, the guidelines set by the Court of Appeal. Our new clause 4 puts on to the statue books the Canada Goose case law principles. Surely the Minister does not oppose principles set by the Court of Appeal; why does he not look again at Labour’s sensible amendment to tackle serious disruption?
Our new clause 5 seeks to make a simple but important change. The Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022 contains a definition of serious disruption—after we called on the Government to define it as they had not done so originally. That definition includes “noise generated by people”. We want that definition removed, so that when the police are deciding what constitutes serious disruption, they cannot do this on noise alone. We have all debated this many times in the House and I will not repeat the arguments we have made. Instead, I will quote the current Foreign Office Minister, the right hon. Member for Hereford and South Herefordshire (Jesse Norman), who said in a letter to the previous Prime Minister:
“No genuinely Conservative government should have supported the recent ban on noisy protest—least of all when basic human freedoms are facing the threat of extinction in Ukraine.”
We agree with him and tonight the Government have the chance to do so too and to right that wrong. Surely, the Prime Minister, fixated supposedly on freedom, would want to defend the right to chant and sing at a protest, just like she did as a child against the party she now leads.
Since we now have a new Home Secretary, perhaps these words from the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May) are worth her also bearing in mind:
“It is tempting when Home Secretary to think that giving powers to the Home Secretary is very reasonable, because we all think we are reasonable, but future Home Secretaries may not be so reasonable.”—[Official Report, 15 March 2021; Vol. 691, c. 78.]
That has never been more the case than now.
This Bill gives the police wide-ranging powers to stop and search anyone in the vicinity of a protest: for example, shoppers passing a protest against a library closure, tourists walking through Parliament Square, or civil servants walking to their desks in the Cabinet Office. But these far-reaching powers to stop and search without suspicion go too far. We know the police will not feel comfortable using them—we have spoken to several who have said the same—and in an area of policing already prone to disproportionality, they represent a disproportionate way of preventing what is in the vast majority of cases a minor public order offence at most.
In the same way, a serious disruption prevention order, also introduced in this Bill, treats a peaceful protestor, who in some instances will have committed no crime, as if they were a terrorist. Is that what the Home Secretary really thinks? Does she really want her Government to be responsible for treating peaceful, if admittedly annoying, protestors like serious criminals? The SDPO is draconian, preventing people from going to places and seeing people when they have not even committed a crime. And we must remember that to be eligible for an SDPO, serious disruption does not even need to have occurred; as the Bill states, I could be given an SDPO if I helped someone else do something which was
“likely to result in, serious disruption to two or more individuals”.
The phrase “likely to result in” amounts in real world terms to absolutely nothing, and just two people being required to experience, or being likely to experience but not actually experiencing, serious disruption is too low a bar.
On new clause 11, everyone has a right to access healthcare without fear of intimidation. The same principles applied when we had debates in this place about buffer zones—public space protection orders—outside vaccine centres when there were protests against people having their vaccine. Access to healthcare is a fundamental right and we must safeguard it. Many Members have been making this argument for many years in many different ways. The shadow Home Secretary has been calling for it since 2014. I have only been in Parliament since 2017 and we debated it in the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022 and we do it again now. The Minister has the opportunity to do some good here; I think there is agreement on that on both sides of the House.
We all agree that the disruption we have seen from the small groups of hard-line protesters is unacceptable, whether blocking ambulances or stopping people getting to work for long periods of time, but our job as legislators is to come up with proposals that will actually help. It is our jobs to be grown-ups. This Government have created a piece of legislation that is disproportionate and threatens our unique model of policing by consent. In the evidence sessions, Sir Peter Fahy, a very well-respected former chief constable, spoke to us about the British style of policing. He said that we do not live in France or any other country with a paramilitary aspect to their policing and that
“in our policing system…policing is by consent… There would need to be a huge shift in the public mood and I think British policing is not really set up and does not have the mentality to use the degree of force that you see in other countries.
People do not realise that we are pretty unique...that is the British style”.––[Official Report, Public Order Public Bill Committee, 9 June 2022; c. 62, Q122.]
The Government would do well to listen to Sir Peter’s warnings. They are undermining that style of policing and upsetting that careful balance between the police and the people, and the fine line between being popular and populist. We are not the French. At a time when the economy is crashing and inflation is soaring, Ministers are choosing to spend precious parliamentary time trying to create political and cultural dividing lines, to chase headlines instead of actually finding sensible and workable solutions. The Government should rethink this flawed legislation.
Sir Charles Walker (Broxbourne) (Con)
Over the past few days I have been accused of being tired, emotional, erratic, and, just to put the record straight, I am all of those things and more. I want to be clear: unlike some Members in this Chamber, I have no time for those people who block roads, throw soup, and make a general nuisance of themselves. They are agents against their own interests, as they repel normal ordinary people. Having said that, serious disruption prevention orders are not the answer. They leave me absolutely cold; in fact I would go so far as to say that they are absolutely appalling because there are plenty of existing laws that can be utilised to deal with people who specialise in making other people’s lives miserable.
I know there is a convention here that we do not read lists, but I hope, Madam Deputy Speaker, that I will be allowed to read a very short list just to set out the laws that already exist and have been covered by colleagues: obstructing a police officer, Police Act 1996; obstructing a highway, Highways Act 1980; obstruction of an engine, Malicious Damage Act 1861—we all remember that one —endangering road users, Road Traffic Act 1988; aggravated trespass, Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994; criminal damage, Criminal Damage Act 1971; and public nuisance, the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022. There are also other laws. There is the Public Order Act 1986 that allows police officers to ban or place conditions on protest.
So the Government’s attraction to SDPOs demonstrates our own impotence as legislators and the impotence of the police as law enforcers to get to grips with the laws already in place and to enforce them. This is what we do now in politics: we have these machismo laws where something must be done, so we go out and do it, and that makes a good headline in The Daily Telegraph and The Times, but we do it and then very little happens, or if it does happen it is way over the top.
Jeremy Quin
My hon. Friend rightly compliments the police for routinely arresting and charging those who are responsible for wrongdoing. Does he agree that it is not an acceptable circumstance where 460 individuals have been arrested a total of 910 times for Just Stop Oil protests and that there is a difficult point of cumulation that we must accept?
Sir Charles Walker
I thank the Minister for his intervention, because I am now warming to my task to nail a stake through the heart of this nonsense that we are debating. [Interruption.] It is absolute nonsense, Minister. For the benefit of Hansard, that is what the Minister said from a sedentary position. I would just say this. There is the idea that in this country we will ankle-tag someone who has not been convicted in a court of law. Those Chinese in their embassy will be watching that closely at the moment—they might actually be applying for some of this stuff once we have passed it in this place, as I suspect that we will.
Now I am getting tired and emotional. I say this to the Minister. During the covid lockdowns, when we banned protest, I warned that we would get to this point and that once the Government and politicians were emboldened by placing restrictions on a right and turning it into a freedom, they would not stop.
Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
The hon. Gentleman is making a fantastic speech that is being admired on both sides of the House. I wonder if he might be concerned that somebody could say that warnings on Radio 4 that the Conservative party might end up smaller than the SNP after the next election would be conducive to public disorder. Does he fear in any way being prosecuted himself as a result of that?
Sir Charles Walker
The Conservative party is the architect of its own misfortune, and we must deal with that and respond to it, so I will not be tempted down that track by the hon. Gentleman. All I will say is that this is as unconservative as our Budget a few weeks ago. This is not what the Conservative party does. We believe in proportionate laws, like we used to believe in sound money. I will therefore be joining hon. Members from across the House in voting against this piece of legislation.
As I said a moment ago, I warned, over a pint of milk—the metaphor that I used—that our right to protest was being eroded. Now, we are crying over spilt milk.
Bell Ribeiro-Addy (Streatham) (Lab)
I rise to speak to the new clauses tabled in my name and those of my hon. Friends the Members for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy), for Vauxhall (Florence Eshalomi) and for Battersea (Marsha De Cordova), the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry) and the hon. Member for Glasgow North East (Anne McLaughlin) as well as all those amendments that stand against this fundamentally flawed Bill.
One of my motivations for my new clauses was the fatal police shooting in my constituency of Chris Kaba, an unarmed black man, which sent shockwaves through a traumatised community. I offer my condolences to the Kaba family, his friends and his community. I will not say more for risk of sub judice, especially since an inquest is ongoing and the Independent office for Police Conduct is conducting a homicide investigation and considering whether race was a factor in his shooting. I am sure that everybody across the whole House will agree that a just society is one in which your race does not determine whether or not you are over-policed as a citizen and under-policed as a victim. But with a Government who seem hellbent on ramping up policing powers and presiding over worsening inequalities, it is clear that there will be an uphill struggle to realise that vision.
The Bill contains a significant expansion of police powers, including measures that the Government already attempted to put into the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022. Those measures were opposed in the other place, so I do not understand why they are trying to bring them back. That is one reason why new clause 15 states that there must be a public inquiry into the policing of black, Asian and minority ethnic people. New clause 16 would require an equality impact assessment of the Bill. Yet again, we are having to ask that the Government respect that equality is the law and do not propose legislation that clearly infringes on the rights of minoritised groups.
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
We hear figures from Wales that eight out of every 1,000 white people are stopped and searched. When we compare that with a rate of 56 per 1,000 black people, we see that there is something appalling in the state of stop and search across the United Kingdom—this legislation relates to England and Wales—and that there is something particular in Wales for which we need a Wales-specific justice impact assessment to understand and get to the root of why the figures are so extreme.
Bell Ribeiro-Addy
The right hon. Member is absolutely right. That is why I support new clauses 9 and 10 in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea on the use of stop-and-search powers. In them, she attempts to consult civil society organisations and consider the impact on groups with protected characteristics, as has been mentioned. That should clearly be done by the Government each and every single time they propose legislation, but they do not do it at all.
In this Black History Month, when we talk about some of the civil rights struggles of black people in this country, it is particularly offensive that, instead of reacting to them by bringing about change, the Government are attempting to provide police with even more unaccountable powers. Those are the same police who currently have extremely low trust and confidence among black communities, not least following the recent case of Ian Taylor, who died in police custody in the borough in which my constituency sits, the kidnap, rape and murder of Sarah Everard by a serving police officer, also in my constituency, the disproportionate levels of stop and search, and the treatment of Child Q and other children who have been strip-searched, as well as extensive evidence of institutionalised racism and misogyny in the police.
Just this week, Baroness Casey’s report found that many claims of sexual misconduct, misogyny, racism and homophobia were badly mishandled. These are
“patterns of unacceptable discrimination that clearly amount to systemic bias”,
and they cannot continue. Those are not my words but those of the new Metropolitan Police Commissioner, Sir Mark Rowley.
We know that our criminal justice system continues to be held back by institutional racism—well, at least Opposition Members know that. We have heard about institutional racism in the policing of black communities in every single review—from Macpherson to Lammy—except the Government’s recent Commission on Race and Ethnic Disparities report, which claimed that it did not exist at all.
Not only is the Bill a missed opportunity to remedy all of that profound injustice; it will only exacerbate the racial bias and the discrimination that continues to persist. That is part of the reason why I will speak in favour of a range of civil liberties amendments that seek to ensure human rights for all our citizens. I turn to new clause 11, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow. I am a person of faith, and I believe that our human rights should be universal, but when a person exercising their rights begins to infringe on somebody else’s rights, that is the point at which we know that that right is wrong. We legislate on these things in this House again and again. The idea that we could use the right to free speech to infringe on someone else’s right to get healthcare is absolutely wrong, so I am pleased to support that new clause.
The Bill continues to follow a pattern from a Government who voice support for protests all around the world but want to crack down on the right to speak up here at home. Protest is an important part of a democratic country because it is one of the driving factors that allows individuals to exercise their rights to free speech and speak up against an unfair and unjust Government—like this Government—and their laws. That is why I tabled new clause 17, which sets out that there must be a public inquiry into the policing of protest, which would address: the use of force; kettling; the deployment of horses; and the new policing powers contained in the Bill and the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act. I have also signed a range of amendments and new clauses that would seek to protect our civil liberties and trade union rights, including addressing those recommendations from the Joint Committee on Human Rights and those supported by Liberty, Amnesty and others.
I draw colleagues’ attention to amendment 36, tabled by the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West, the Chair of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, about the burden of proving “reasonable excuse” or that an act was part of a trade dispute away from the defendant and making it an element of the offence. The Government are not even attempting to sugar-coat the aim of that measure, which is trade unions. I see trade unions as our last line of defence against the relentless and accelerating attack that we see on the living standards of the working-class. The Government know that their economic policies are unpopular and cause suffering, so they want to remove everybody’s right to resist and fight back.
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)
I thank my hon. Friend for giving way. She is making a very powerful speech in support of her amendments. I was with her at the demonstration outside New Scotland Yard following the death of Chris Kaba. It was an emotional and passionate occasion. Everyone there was looking for justice and looking for knowledge and an inquiry. Does she support more pressure on the Home Office to hurry it up, so that we can get some closure on that terrible loss of life and the pain that goes with it? The beautiful way in which his cousin spoke at that demonstration will stay with me for ever.
Bell Ribeiro-Addy
I thank my right hon. Friend, and he is absolutely right. Far too often, families like the Kaba family have to spend months, even years, seeking answers and justice for their loved ones. I hope that in the years to come, the Independent Office for Police Conduct quickly begins to look at measures to speed up the investigations that give family members answers about why they have died. We have to remember that around the time Chris Kaba died, not to mention him too much, he was one of two men who had been killed following contact with police, and one of over 1,000 who have died in police custody or following contact with police since 1990. Since that time, only one police officer has ever been prosecuted. That absolutely needs to change.
In conclusion, the Public Order Bill is a continuation of the Government’s assault on the right to protest, further criminalising people who call for the change we need and ramping up police powers to restrict demonstrations. It could also have a very negative impact on black, Asian and minority ethnic communities. It is authoritarian and disadvantages the poorest and most marginalised communities. Unless it is fundamentally amended, I believe it must be opposed.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
I am surprised we are debating this again. It was only in 2018 when the Home Office concluded there was no need to introduce so-called buffer zones. I am referring here to new clause 11. Buffer zones are disproportionate in the restrictions they impose on freedom of expression, and unnecessary in that there remains a lack of evidence that they are needed. The Government have recently affirmed this position, and rightly so given that existing laws enable the police and local authorities to deal with protests that are harmful. Before we rush to create new laws, it is only right that the Government expect the police and local authorities to use their current powers appropriately and where necessary.
The 2018 review showed that
“it would not be proportionate to introduce a blanket ban”
as the evidence found that protests occurred at less than 10% of abortion clinics. That is a very small number. Of course—we emphasise this point—any kind of harassment is absolutely wrong. It should be dealt with by the law and can be dealt with by existing laws. We have heard much in the debate about how we should turn to existing laws, rather than create new ones. Any remedy must be proportionate to the problem. The review—not my review, but an objective Government review—concluded that most of the activities during these protests were passive in nature. My hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce), in a very powerful speech, described just how passive they can be. They can be standing there and praying silently, not even holding up a banner of any nature or saying anything. It could include praying or handing out leaflets. The review found that disruptive or aggressive behaviour was the exception, not the norm. Crucially, it also confirmed that the police have the necessary powers already to take action and protect the public when protests become harmful or disruptive. A blanket ban of the kind proposed in new clause 11 would be disproportionate in the face of those facts. The law must be proportionate.
To be clear, the people this amendment targets are peaceful protestors, often elderly grandmothers, frankly, who are entirely peaceful. They politely pray and hand out leaflets. The contrast could not be greater between those protestors and those of the likes of Just Stop Oil, who glue themselves to roads and create human blockades that are disruptive and obstructionist. If any so-called protesters at abortion clinics did anything like that, they would be immediately arrested. While the police have the powers to take action so that ordinary people can go about their daily lives, they will not stop Just Stop Oil protests.
Are we in this House really going to criminalise people who are peacefully trying to raise awareness about support available? This is the point.
Sir Edward Leigh
No, I have been told not to speak for long and I want to get on with it.
Olivia Blake (Sheffield, Hallam) (Lab)
It is pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh), although I do not agree with much of what he said. We must remember in this place that we do not know the reasons why women present themselves at abortion clinics. I have been campaigning and advocating for women who have experienced miscarriage, and I want the House to know that that is a primary reason why someone may present at an abortion clinic. For someone to be presented with a picture of a foetus when they consider themselves to be a mother is beyond the line, so I support buffer zones.
Dame Maria Miller (Basingstoke) (Con)
This may be the intervention that another Member was about to make. The protests around buffer zones affect about 10% of clinics, but it is estimated that they affect up to 50% of women, because they tend to target the larger clinics. Does the hon. Lady agree that it is important that that is put on the record?
Olivia Blake
I thank the right hon. Lady for that intervention, and I absolutely agree. We know that women sometimes have to travel very far to get access to this sort of healthcare, so of course this will impact more women at certain clinics.
Before getting into the subject of the Bill, I wish to highlight the economic context in which this is being played out, because it is directly related to why the Bill is being proposed in the first place. For more than a decade, the austerity agenda has led to stagnating wages and declining conditions at work, and it has weakened the fundamentals of our economy. Researchers at the University of Glasgow recently found that the Government’s scorched earth economic policy contributed to 330,000 excess deaths between 2010 and 2019. After the massive transfer of incomes, resources and wealth from the poorest to the richest in our society, we were left in no condition to weather a pandemic and the subsequent soaring cost of living.
In September’s financial statement, although it has been massively U-turned on, the Government succeeded in turning the cost of living crisis into a run on the pound. Now it is as though we have turned the clock back to 2010, with the new Chancellor telling us that he will have to make eye-watering decisions about spending. The cycle continues: we are facing austerity all over again. The services our communities rely on will be hit hard.
The problems at the core of the stagnation and crises are underinvestment, profiteering and the chasms of inequality and divide in our society. But rather than fixing those, Government Front Benchers seem intent on making them worse, which is exactly why they need this Bill. If wages keep being cut and the services that people rely on are dismantled, they will express their opposition to that through protests, strikes and direct action.
The recent spy cops Act, the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022, and now this Bill are all about reducing the rights of people to come together to give a collective voice to their dissent—and that is without mentioning the attacks on the right to organise in our workplaces and to take industrial action to defend pay and conditions. Like any paranoid authoritarian measure to curb dissent, some of the proposals in the Bill are completely ridiculous. I have a staff member who rides a bike to work and carries a bike lock. Is she “equipped to lock-on”? How will police gauge whether she intends to use it to commit an offence? Some of the wording in the Bill is so loose it could apply to everything and anything. What does “locking-on” actually mean? Could linking arms be locking-on? What does it mean to cause “serious disruption”?
I am concerned that the real reason for the loose wording is to create a chilling effect on any kind of dissent at all. That is reflected in the serious disruption prevention orders. The right to protest is a human right. The idea of banning individuals from attending a demonstration regardless of whether they have committed a crime is draconian. Just think about who that would have applied to in our history. Think of Millicent Fawcett, whose statue stands in that square outside, looking up at this building. Would I be standing here today if women such as her had not had the right to protest? The Government do not seem particularly keen on elections right now. Perhaps the Home Secretary would be dishing out these SDPOs to the Chartists or the Pankhursts, or other uppity troublemakers.
I think this Bill is rotten to the core, but I will be supporting all the amendments that seek to curb its excesses and to prevent it from cracking down on our right to voice opposition. I will be opposing the proposals to extend stop-and-search powers—powers that have already done so much damage to communities, as my hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Bell Ribeiro-Addy) mentioned. We do not need this legislation. What we need is a Government who address the real causes of peoples’ concerns: the cost of living crisis, the climate crisis and the lack of trust in our democratic institutions. The draconian proposals we are debating today are about equipping this Government to do the exact opposite.
David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)
I wish to start by expressing my strong support for the provisions that the Bill brings forward. In my life before Parliament, as a local councillor and as a magistrate, I had cause to engage with many of the issues the Bill seeks to address. It seems to me that on the whole it is a sensible and proportionate way of bringing forward new police powers and new laws to ensure that our constituents lives’ are not unduly and unfairly disrupted.
In particular, I wish to place on the record my thanks to constituents, such as the late Roy Parsons, who over the years have contributed a huge amount to law and order in the community. Their efforts have helped to illuminate my thinking as a Member of Parliament about how some of these challenges need to be addressed.
My constituency is very much a place of commuters, with people travelling to work by road, rail and bus. I am conscious that especially for those who are part of the lifeblood of the economy of our capital the disruption that has been caused to their lives by protests that seek to test existing laws to the very limits is considerable. There is a cost to people’s businesses and people’s jobs, and it creates a great deal of nuisance for those seeking to attend hospital appointments and, in some cases, to respond to emergencies. It is therefore absolutely right that the Government listen to the voice of the law-abiding people who are part of the lifeblood of our capital city and seek to address the changing tactics that we have seen from protesters over the years.
I was struck by the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Sir Charles Walker), who was absolutely right to refer to the plethora—the patchwork—of existing laws. The challenge I have heard about—not least from those responsible for leading policing in the capital and in my local area—is that there is often not the required specific power available as protest groups seek to change and update their tactics. I listened to the right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), and I am sure that he recalls the moves by a particular organisation to sell single square feet of space in a field adjacent to Heathrow airport, with a view to using the due process of law to frustrate the legal processes that were being gone through at the time in the context of Heathrow expansion. Although I agree entirely with the purpose, it is absolutely right that that should have been frustrated. We have seen those tactics beginning to create disruption in what should be a legal and democratic decision-making process, so introducing proposals that update the law in the light of those changes, in my view, is absolutely spot on.
Let me address new clause 11, which I intend to support in the House today. My experience has been of issues relating to the existing legislation, particularly the ability of local authorities to obtain public space protection orders or to use other provisions that are out there. It is extremely costly and often very complex and fraught with legal difficulty to follow those processes. That is why, following occasions in the House when we debate creating provisions that we expect to be used, for example, by local authorities, they are often little used in practice. We need to ensure, if we are taking seriously the issue of an unacceptable degree of harassment, that we put in place provisions that will deal with that properly and effectively.
I am very sympathetic to many of the points that have been made on the pro-life side of the argument, but I take the view that, whatever we think about the detail of the abortion debate, it is absolutely right that we ensure that all our citizens are properly protected from the harassment that may take place. There are some issues with the drafting of what has been proposed, in that we want to ensure that appropriate, lawful interventions that are helpful to people can take place. I will support the new clause, however, and I hope that the Government will perhaps in due course consider the weight of opinion that appears to be being expressed in the House and ensure that that finds its ultimate expression in a way that works to provide appropriate, lawful and proportionate protection to women in that context.
Marco Longhi (Dudley North) (Con)
Following on from my hon. Friend’s argument, for which I have some sympathy, does he agree that perhaps there should be a buffer zone around this place? Many of us in this place are often—on a daily basis—harassed by people out there.
David Simmonds
My hon. Friend knows of what he speaks. There are many Members who have been subject to the very strong expression of political opinions, but what differentiates this point is that we are talking about people who go to undertake a legal, lawful medical procedure. They go to access a form of healthcare that the laws of this land, established by this Parliament, determine that they should be able to access. Although it is absolutely right that people should be able to engage in peaceful protest to make points to those of us who are engaged in the democratic process of the land—sometimes including noisy, disruptive protests—that should clearly never cross the line that existing laws establish, which would cover such things as assault and appropriate protection. However, it is absolutely clear, in my view, that we need to ensure that those who are accessing healthcare can do so without having that lawful access unduly interfered with.
Let me finish by referring to the amendments and points that have been raised on behalf of the Joint Committee on Human Rights. I am a member of that Committee, which spent time looking at not just this Bill, but a wide range of legislation, setting that against expectations that might be found in relation to the UK’s membership of the European convention on human rights. There is always debate in the legal profession about how provisions apply, but the points that have been raised seem legitimate. I hope that in his reply the Minister will address how due process and the right to lawful protest will be appropriately balanced under the Bill.
My view as a Back-Bench Member in the governing party, having considered the Government’s arguments, is that they are proportionate and balanced. However, it is clear that many people are asking questions and want them answered. It would be helpful if some of the legal thinking behind the drafting were illuminated, particularly with respect to balancing the need to prevent undue disruption to people’s normal working and private lives with the rights of others to enjoy free speech and lawful protest.
Wendy Chamberlain
I rise to speak in support of several amendments, including new clauses 1 to 5, tabled by the official Opposition, and new clauses 9 to 14. I agree that there should be a free vote on new clause 11, to which I am sympathetic and which I will support. The speeches on it so far have been very powerful. I also wish to speak to new clauses 15 to 17—the hon. Member for Streatham (Bell Ribeiro-Addy), who is no longer in her place, spoke powerfully about them—and to the amendments tabled by the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry) on behalf of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, by the hon. Member for Glasgow North East (Anne McLaughlin) on behalf of the SNP, and by the hon. Member for Broxbourne (Sir Charles Walker).
I speak on behalf of my constituents who are concerned about what the Bill means for the right to protest. It might be argued that the Bill will not affect them directly, but like the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West, I have constituents who will travel to England and Wales to protest. As I highlighted in my intervention about mutual aid policing arrangements, the Bill is likely to mean additional training requirements for Scottish officers deployed elsewhere, as at last year’s G7 meeting.
We have heard from many Members of this House with a legal background and training, but I believe I am the only former police officer in this debate; I do not see the other two hon. Members who I know were police officers. I am also the wife and daughter of former police officers—indeed, my husband was a senior public order commander—and I am the stepmother of serving police officers. I have policed demonstrations. It might have been some time ago, but I speak with some knowledge and direct experience.
Laws should be necessary, but as we heard in our Bill Committee evidence, the police already have the power to respond to protests; I am grateful to the hon. Member for Broxbourne for raising that point. Ideally, laws should not break our already stretched systems—that was an area of focus for me in Committee—but this law risks our police’s very ability to tackle day-to-day crime, which the Home Secretary says is a priority for the Government.
Regardless of rank, length of service or extent of training, the first officer to attend any incident—protest or otherwise—is the officer in charge until they are relieved of that duty. I say that not to denigrate, but to illustrate. That officer will have to determine whether there is a risk of serious disruption and, if so, whether an offence under the Bill or any other law is being committed. I am concerned that there is a risk of inconsistent application of the criminal law and a breach of the rule of law. I therefore support the official Opposition’s new clauses 1 to 5, which would ensure that the Bill’s provisions are applied appropriately.
It is not just me. The National Police Chiefs’ Council’s evidence to the Bill Committee suggested similar concerns, which would be at least partially addressed by some of the amendments, particularly those tabled by the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West to implement the recommendations of the Joint Committee on Human Rights. I remain concerned that the police, particularly those in junior roles, may end up ill-equipped to make the judgment calls that the Bill requires.
Let us be clear: the police do not need this Bill to respond when protests cross the line. Where there is criminal damage or trespass, they already have the power to respond. However, if the Bill is passed with no amendments but the Government’s, all protest will effectively be frozen for fear of being caught by the legislation. Importantly, the Bill is also likely—I refer to the comments that the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Croydon Central (Sarah Jones), made about policing in France and elsewhere—to freeze the police’s relationships with a wide range of activist groups, which involve constant dialogue to balance the facilitation of protests with the rights of others to go about their daily business. That dialogue happens all the time in all our communities and is something to be celebrated.
Jeremy Quin
I deeply respect the hon. Lady’s policing experience and that of her family, but she has implied that the Bill will allow the freezing of protests and an inability to protest, which is not the case. I think that, as a former police officer, she would recognise serious disruption. We are absolutely clear about this: a protest constitutes something that is really interfering with people’s way of life, preventing them from getting to work and engaging in their normal business.
Wendy Chamberlain
What I am trying to say is that the existing legislation already deals with those circumstances, and that, given that some of the Bill’s provisions mean that people need not even have done anything to be subject to them, there is a fear that it will prevent them from doing anything at all. I believe that the fact that our police service is grounded in policing by consent—unlike those in other countries whose police forces have evolved from more militaristic origins—is something to be celebrated.
If the police do not need the powers, if all that the Bill does is make it harder for legitimate protest to take place and if it restricts the right of citizens, I would argue that we do not need it at all. We should reflect on the fact that the Minister, in his opening remarks, claimed that the existing legislation was a reason for rejecting new clause 11.
Let me now raise another point, which I have touched on already. It is not about protecting the democratic rights of our citizens, but in many ways it is just as important, because it concerns the real impact on the capacity of the police service. In Committee I tabled a number of amendments, and although I have not tabled them again on Report, this is a key consideration.
When we pass poor legislation, we sometimes see the results in our constituency surgeries, but when it comes to legislation such as this, we will not be dealing with the outcomes directly. I believe that if the Government are confident that the Bill, in its current form, will do what it is intended to do, they should be comfortable with receiving reports from the College of Policing and from police forces about the capability and capacity of those forces to deliver the legislation—and that is before we even think about the huge backlogs in the criminal justice system. It will take some time for people to come before the courts in the context of this Bill.
The proposed new powers will require additional officer training. Sir Peter Fahy, the former chief constable of Greater Manchester Police, gave evidence to the Bill Committee. The simple fact is this:
“If there are not enough police officers trained to properly respond to protests and apply these new laws, that means that more people must be trained—training that costs thousands of pounds and means that officers are potentially in classrooms, not out on the street.”––[Official Report, Public Order Public Bill Committee, 16 June 2022; c. 191]
Chris Noble, the chief constable of Staffordshire Police, estimated that, under the current legislation, it takes an officer two or three weeks per year to keep up with necessary additional public order skills. The offences specified in the Bill will require significantly more training at the outset, at the least, and will mean even more days of actual policing lost at significant cost, with simply abstracts from core policing duties. Once the officers are trained, it is likely that deployment to protests will increase as a result of the Bill’s restrictions. Simply put, people cannot be in two places at once, and resources are limited. According to evidence given to the Committee, the arrest of a protester usually involves six officers. We will run out of police officers before we run out of protesters.
I know where I would rather the police were. I would rather see an officer making sure that the streets were safe for women and girls walking home at night, going after gangs and those working across county lines, stopping the scammers who target our elderly and vulnerable, working on counter-terrorism, and preventing organised crime. I ask colleagues to reflect on what they and their constituents really want when faced with the reality of these choices, which were made even more stark by the Chancellor when he stood at the Dispatch Box yesterday.
Policing by consent is one of the greatest attributes of our country, and it is something that I am passionate about. The Bill undermines that. Although we will support amendments that curb its worst excesses, I will continue to argue that the decision in the other place to remove these clauses when they were part of the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022 was correct. I cannot support the Bill in its current form.
Victoria Atkins (Louth and Horncastle) (Con)
I rise to speak in favour of new clause 11.
In a perfect world, no woman or girl would be raped; no foetus would have life-shortening, agonising conditions or endanger the life of the mother; and every baby born would be yearned for and cherished. But we do not live in a perfect world, and that is why Parliament has settled laws for the regulation of the provision of abortion services. This is what new clause 11 concerns. It is not about the form of those laws, or their details; it is about the provision of those services in day-to-day life.
I had the responsibility for looking after abortion clinic buffer zones from 2017 until I was promoted from the Home Office last year. It was, as my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex (Sir Bernard Jenkin) says, an issue with which I grappled, because there is a real balancing skill involved in weighing up not only the concerns of those women seeking medical services and those who support them, but the sincerely held beliefs of those who do not agree with abortion. My right hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh), who is no longer in his place, has set out some of the history of this, and I was an active part of it, so I really am trying to help the Minister when I try to explain some of the shifting of that balancing operation.
In 2017 Amber Rudd was Home Secretary, and in response to concerns voiced by parliamentarians she commissioned a review into demonstrations and protests outside abortion clinics. We announced the results of that review in, I think, 2018, when my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Sajid Javid) was Home Secretary. At that point I stood at the Dispatch Box and I signed letters to say that we had looked at the number of clinics and weighed up the power of PSPOs. At that point, from memory, one council—maybe two—had applied for a PSPO, and we felt that the balance was in favour of PSPOs being using on a targeted basis for those clinics affected.
The review continued—I genuinely kept this under constant review—thanks to the efforts of my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex and my right hon. Friends the Members for Romsey and Southampton North (Caroline Nokes) and for Basingstoke (Dame Maria Miller), among many others on this side, as well as the hon. Members for Ealing Central and Acton (Dr Huq) and for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy). It is a pleasure to see the hon. Member for Walthamstow in her place today. Indeed, only last summer we looked at this again in the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill. At that point, although the number of clinics affected by demonstrations had increased since the initial review, we felt that in the interest of balancing both sets of interests, PSPOs were the right way to go.
Today, however, five councils have applied for these orders, and happily the imposition of those orders has been upheld by the Court of Appeal as being lawful. We have heard in the course of this debate the concern that the five PSPOs cover five clinics out of some 50 that have been the subject of protests and demonstrations. My right hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke made the important point that this is not just about the number of clinics; it is about the number of women who go to the clinics for these services. I think I am right in remembering that she cited the statistic that around half of women who seek these services had attended clinics where there had been protests and demonstrations.
So I find myself in the position of agreeing with new clause 11, not because I like banning things or because I am against the legitimate and sincerely held beliefs of those who cannot support the provision of abortion services, but because I come back to the point about the provision of services to women who need them and the circumstances in which they find themselves as they walk that long and lonely path to the doors of the clinic, hospital or surgery providing those services. I know from speaking to women who have been through these protests that they have made a difficult decision. There may be many factors surrounding the decision, involving their home lives, the circumstances in which the pregnancy came about and the concerns for what might happen if their friends, families or the wider society found out that they had had these operations. These are fundamental healthcare services that we provide, rightly and lawfully, in the 21st century. We must surely enable women to access these services as and when they need them so that they get the right help and advice.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
I advise the House that I will be calling Anne McLaughlin to start the wind-ups no later than 4.12 pm, but she can be called earlier. The debate on Report must finish at 4.37 pm.
Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)
Frankly, there is so much wrong with the Bill that it is difficult to know where to start. It basically needs a line striking through the vast majority of it, and I am therefore pleased to support the amendments tabled by the hon. Members for Glasgow North East (Anne McLaughlin) and for Broxbourne (Sir Charles Walker) seeking to do exactly that.
Peaceful protest is a fundamental right protected in international law, and this Bill is just the latest in a concerted attack on our rights by this dangerous and populist Government. It is a draconian rehash of measures resoundingly voted down just months ago. As I have said previously in this House, the Government are pursuing policies and legislation that are deeply dangerous in the threat they pose to our fundamental and universally acknowledged human rights. People who vote in favour of this Bill tonight need to be fully aware and honest about what they are endorsing and what is occurring on our watch.
Defending the right to peaceful protest matters, especially to me, because it is one of the time-honoured ways in which people from all walks of life have sought to protect our natural world, and it is particularly critical right now. The hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Olivia Blake) spoke eloquently about the wider context of austerity and economic suffering that so many of our constituents are facing. I want to widen that context and talk about the attack, frankly, that Ministers are unleashing on policies to protect nature, from issuing new oil and gas licences and lifting the moratorium on fracking to scrapping 570 laws that make up the bedrock of environmental regulation in the UK, covering water quality, wildlife havens, clean air and much else.
Ministers may hide behind endless repetitions of their promise to halt the decline of nature by 2030, but their actions are taking us in precisely the opposite direction. Those who oppose this direction of travel must have the right to take action themselves, and they must have the right to protest. Rather than plunging more and more people into the criminal justice system, the Home Office could be doing all manner of much more useful things, including properly supporting and resourcing community policing.
We should not be giving the Government the ability to create new public order offences as and when they choose, yet that is precisely the combined effect of new clauses 7 and 8. As colleagues will know, injunctions may usually be applied for only by affected parties. New clause 7, however, allows the Secretary of State to apply for a so-called precautionary injunction against people who might go on a protest or who might carry out protest-related activities. This might occur if there is reasonable belief that particular activities are likely to cause serious disruption to key national infrastructure or access to essential goods and services.
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
In all honesty, it is worth wondering whether Welsh language rights would exist at all today if measures proposed by the Government had existed in 1963 when Cymdeithas yr Iaith protesters closed Trefechan bridge—Pont Trefechan—in Aberystwyth. Their act of peaceful civil disobedience led to no arrests, but was broadcast across Wales. Indeed, the King’s Welsh language tutor, Tedi Millward, was among the protesters. Does the hon. Member agree that, almost 60 years later, the Secretary of State and the Welsh Government should be considering the specific impact on Wales of these justice changes and how that in turn could have had a very bad result in terms of the Welsh language had it been enacted 60 years ago?
Caroline Lucas
I thank the right hon. Member for her powerful contribution with which I entirely agree.
I was just explaining about the combined effect of new clauses 7 and 8. New clause 7, crucially, allows the Government to propose that the Secretary of State be allowed themselves to apply for an injunction despite not being affected or being a party in the normal sense. Added to that is the effect of new clause 8, which gives the Secretary of State another new power, namely to apply to the court to attach a power of arrest and of remand to injunctions granted under new clause 7.
Let us imagine what that could look like in practice. Let us suppose that the Government set their sights on a group of countryside ramblers planning a walk headed in the direction of a nature reserve that is home to a protected species and about to be dug up by investment zone bulldozers. The Secretary of State might decide that there is a risk that the ramblers will link hands to try to close down a major bridge that is required for vehicle access to the nature reserve. The Government might then apply for an injunction to stop the walk and for the power to arrest anyone who breaches that injunction and goes rambling in the countryside—regardless of their intentions. If successful, a new public order offence will have effectively been created on the basis of potential disruption of key national infrastructure, and the ramblers concerned will be at risk of being fined or even imprisoned. I do not think that it is an over-exaggeration to call such powers Orwellian. They are anti-freedom, anti-human rights and anti-democratic.
Jeremy Corbyn
My hon. Friend is making an absolutely excellent speech. The right to roam would not have happened without the mass trespass at Kinder Scout in the 1930s. We owe our liberties to those who took risks by demonstrating in the first place. Every Member of this House has benefited from those liberties that came about as a result of the risks that others took.
Caroline Lucas
Do I agree? Yes, I do. The right hon. Gentleman makes a very important point. As someone who took part in some recreations of that trespass on Kinder Scout earlier this year, I could not agree with him more about the importance of people taking that action.
It is also important to note that while existing and expansive civil injunctions are being used with growing and alarming frequency to clamp down on direct action tactics, with a wider, chilling effect on the right to protest, the majority of civil injunctions do not give the police powers of arrest. I have repeatedly warned that the Government’s approach overall amounts to a dangerous politicising of policing, and these two new clauses are cut from exactly the same cloth. Moreover, a seemingly ideological determination to stop people standing up for what they believe in is woven through every clause of this Bill.
In my remaining time, I want to speak specifically against serious disruption prevention orders and in favour of the amendments to remove them. On Second Reading, I set out my objection to these new civil orders and said that they might more accurately be called “sinister disproportionate political orders”. Nothing I have heard since then has persuaded me otherwise.
The Government want to be able to impose such orders on individuals who have participated in at least two protests within a five-year period, whether or not they have actually been convicted of any crime. That is a massive expansion of police powers. Furthermore, the range of activities that could result in someone being given an SDPO is extremely broad. It includes actions that would not themselves be criminal but for the creation of the new, widely-drawn offences in the Bill. The threshold is so low as to be laughable, were the consequences not so grave. The conditions for imposing an SDPO include activities related to a protest that might—might—cause serious disruption to two or more people. The Bill is a massive clampdown on our civil liberties and we have to oppose it.
Finally, I wish to put on record my support for the new clauses of the hon. Member for Streatham (Bell Ribeiro-Addy), and for new clause 11, which has been much discussed already this afternoon. I also want to say a few last words about new clauses 13 and 14, which I support because they are consistent with so much of the work that has been done over many years to make misogyny a hate crime and to end violence against women and girls. Sexual harassment is still at epidemic proportions. Women are disproportionately subjected to harassment, abuse and intimidation every day. Those offences are still not properly addressed by the police or the criminal justice system.
New clauses 13 and 14 would bring sentencing for harassment offences motivated by the sex of the victim in line with the approach already followed for offences motivated by race or religious identity. Crucially, they do not create any new public order offences or make anything illegal that is not already illegal; rather, they seek to ensure a serious response from the police and the courts. I hope that, in turn, harsher sentencing for those hate crimes would act as a deterrent and encourage women to report sex-based harassment, confident that they will be taken more seriously than at present.
Some 97% of women under the age of 25 have experienced sexual harassment in a public space—a huge number. There is no room for complacency. If we want to tackle hate crime against women, we must support the changes set out in new clauses 13 and 14.
Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)
In introducing new clause 11, the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy) is merely picking up the baton from amendments originally sponsored by the hon. Member for Ealing Central and Acton (Dr Huq), who has tried to bring these plans forward three times already since 2020. It will come as no surprise that I rise to speak against the new clause or that our party will vote against it. It is not needed now for the same reasons it was not needed on those occasions.
We already have laws on the statute book to prevent harassment and maintain public order, including laws in place to ensure that women are not harassed or intimidated outside abortion clinics. Therefore, the new clause is simply unnecessary. The law gives the police the powers they need to maintain public order, to intervene if demonstrations cause serious disruption and to tackle threatening or abusive behaviour that may intimidate women.
In the vast majority of cases, there is no evidence that hospitals and abortion clinics are affected by protesters, so a blanket ban is an unnecessary and disproportionate response, especially when the police can protect women through other lawful means. The police already have the tools they need to protect women. There is no evidence of the scale of harassment that the hon. Member for Walthamstow and others in this House have referred to. Therefore, I repeat, the new clause is not necessary. It would risk unintended consequences for freedom of speech and freedom of expression, and it would be bad for women.
Many women have been helped by volunteers outside abortion clinics. The right hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) referred to Alina Dulgheriu, who wrote last week about her experience and how a lady helped her outside an abortion clinic. I will not repeat the story, but she explained that her
“beautiful daughter would not be here today”
without support from a volunteer handing out a leaflet outside the clinic.
Another mother, who is happy for her testimony to be shared with parliamentarians but does not want her name shared because of fears of retaliation from pro-choice campaigners, explained that she was “under immense pressure” to go through with her abortion, but on her way into the abortion clinic a woman handed her a leaflet and simply said that she was there if she needed her. Her conversation with that woman gave her the support and confidence she needed to keep her baby.
That mother further recounted:
“The potential introduction of buffer zones is a really bad idea because women like me, what would they do then? You know, not every woman that walks into those clinics actually wants to go through with the termination. There’s immense pressure, maybe they don’t have financial means to support themselves or their baby, or they feel like there’s no alternatives. These people offer alternatives.”
She describes her daughter as
“an amazing, perfect little girl”
and the love of her life. She shared her testimony because she wants MPs advocating for buffer zones to realise that her daughter would not be alive today if they had had their way. Buffer zones would deprive many other women who do not want to abort their babies but perhaps feel they have no other choice of the same support that these two who have bravely shared their stories received.
Before I conclude, there are a number of other points I want to make. Under this new clause, as drafted, it would be a crime to offer help to those women who ideally would like to continue with the pregnancy but cannot, due to economic circumstances. That is just abhorrent. The new clause would criminalise anyone making such an offer regardless of how they went about it or their views on abortion. How is that pro-choice?
Anne McLaughlin (Glasgow North East) (SNP)
I am so disappointed that we are debating a piece of legislation that should have been resigned to the scrap heap, along with the previous Cabinet’s regressive legislative programme. We are firefighting an economic crisis on an unprecedented scale and valuable Government time in this place is being wasted on draconian legislation that nobody, with the exception of selected Government Members, actually wants. I include in that the people who will be sent out on the streets to try to enforce this nonsense. Representatives from police forces have said time and again, throughout the consultation and Committee stages of the Bill, that this is not required.
The powers already exist to police protests in an effective and proportionate manner, and that is what I will focus on—proportionality. After all, this is a balancing act between the fundamental rights that allow us to protest, for whatever cause and whatever reason, and the rights of those who might be inconvenienced or affected by a protest.
At what stage does the scale tip? Government Members will undoubtedly cite cases where protestors glued themselves to the M25 or threw tomato soup at a priceless artwork, albeit one that was behind protective glass, but at what point does their right to stand up and say, “Wake up! The world is on fire,” become less important than someone’s right to get to work on time or to gaze upon a painting? The right hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) said that people standing shouting at people outside abortion clinics were “just raising awareness”. Well, he cannot argue that such protestors are doing anything other than trying to raise awareness.
Throughout the stages of the Bill and repeatedly during the passage of the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022, it was made clear to the Government that the whole point of a protest is to make a noise and get noticed. I am sure that when Muriel Matters and Helen Fox chained themselves to the grille in the Ladies’ Gallery of this place in 1908, shouting,
“We have been behind this insulting grille too long!”,
they intended to be heard. Thanks to protests like that, not only can I now vote, but I can stand here and represent the voices of my constituents—as long as my own voice does not pack up soon.
Let us imagine this Bill had been in place in 1908. Muriel and Helen might have been stopped and searched on the way here, and a chain or lock may have been found on them. Maybe they would be serving 51 weeks in prison, or maybe the chilling effect of knowing this might happen would have stopped them altogether, so maybe women would not have got the vote. Do you see where I am going with this, Mr Deputy Speaker? I am not even delving into the vast number of ways a person could be snared by the Bill.
We have a new Home Secretary, who has taken the wheel and veered further into the realms of “Nineteen Eighty-Four” and “The Handmaid’s Tale” in a way that brings to mind that iconic lyric from one of my favourite bands, The Who:
“Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.”
Her scant regard for human rights, the European convention on human rights, and our obligations under international law are well documented, so any lip service to the claim that the Bill is somehow compliant with the ECHR is exactly that.
Like the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas), I will take some time to focus on part 2 and serious disruption prevention orders. I much prefer the colloquial name given to these orders by civil liberties groups including Liberty and Big Brother Watch: protest banning orders. That is what they are. I have talked to a lot of people about the Bill, and the conversation usually starts with locking on and tunnelling. They are headline grabbers, and rightly so, but when the discussion moves on to protest banning orders and just how far and wide the net spreads to catch people, jaws visibly drop. People just cannot believe that this could happen to them. I can hardly believe it, and I am a really cynical person.
We are talking about an order placed on a person—it could be you, Mr Deputy Speaker—that can restrict where they go, who they see, what they do and how they use the internet, and could result in them having to wear a GPS tag for an indefinite period. It can be slapped on someone who has not even attended a protest. I am hoping for an intervention from a Member trying to claim that I am oversimplifying this, but I doubt I will get one, because I am not. As others have said, all somebody has to do to be served with a protest banning order is to participate in at least two protests within a five-year period, whether or not they have been convicted of a crime. An order can be placed on a person who has carried out activities or contributed to the carrying out of activities by any other person related to a protest that resulted in, or was likely to result in, serious disruption on two or more occasions. Wow!
This provision could not be broader. It could apply to anyone. Take me for example. What if I let my partner borrow my mobile phone to tweet about a Black Lives Matter protest? Could it be claimed that I am inadvertently contributing to the carrying out of activities by another person related to a protest that is likely to result in serious disruption? What is serious disruption? Members should not bother flicking through the Bill, because the definition is not there. The closest definition we might be able to rely on is in the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022, under which—rather conveniently—the Home Secretary has discretion to redefine it any time she sees fit to do so.
We had hours of debate on this in Committee. The issue has been and always will be that “serious disruption” is wholly subjective, so it sets an incredibly low threshold for these draconian measures being placed on individuals who are simply exercising their human rights. I agree with the Labour amendment that states we must have a definition of serious disruption, but let me be clear: my position and that or my party is that we must get rid of these provisions all together.
When I get my SDPO, I have to fulfil a host of obligations, and if I do not, I cross the line into criminal behaviour for breach of a civil order, ending with a 51-week stay in prison, a fine, or both. Not that civil after all, it appears. I might not be able to attend future protests. I might be stopped from using the internet in ways that might encourage people to carry out activities that are related to a protest, or that are likely to result in serious disruption—again, there is no definition of the term. I do not even have to have been at a protest to be banned from any future protest—a point not lost on Lord Paddick when the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill was on Report in the other place.
Why do we find ourselves in the realm of preventive justice? On Second Reading, I referred to the movie “Minority Report”, where precogs could look into the future and predict a crime before it happened. That is a movie; it is not supposed to be a template to base actual laws on. The police have roundly rejected the concept of protest banning orders and have claimed that they
“would neither be compatible with human rights legislation nor create an effective deterrent,”
so why are we doing this?
We cannot electronically tag people who have committed no crime and claim that we are respecting their human rights, although shamefully the Government have no qualms about doing that to asylum seekers. A GPS tag’s data can carry the most personal and sensitive information, such as who someone’s GP is, where they shop and who they visit. It is a massive invasion of privacy that marks a new era of state surveillance.
We very much support of amendment 1, which removes SDPOs from the Bill. I thank the hon. Member for Broxbourne (Sir Charles Walker) for his work on the amendment, for his fantastic speech today—I never thought that I would hear myself say that about someone on the Conservative Benches, but it hit the mark—and for his collaborative approach to the amendment, which was in his name and is now in my name. I hope to press it to a vote tonight.
I have spent much of the time available to me discussing SDPOs, but I reiterate the SNP’s complete opposition to the Bill in its entirety, because it is draconian. As my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry) said, we need only to look at the JCHR report to find the list of powers that already exist and can be used—the hon. Member for Broxbourne listed them for us.
Our opposition to the Bill in its entirety is made clear by our amendments not to amend the Bill but to remove all but one little clause. That is a radical step, but it attracted much public and cross-party support. I thank the hon. Members who put their name to those amendments. Unfortunately, as SNP spokesperson, I cannot realistically press more than one of my amendments to a vote—if I could, I would press them all to a vote. In particular, in addition to amendment 1, I would press amendment 12, which would remove suspicion-less stop and search. I hope that Labour will move that amendment so that we can vote on it and, clearly, support it.
We support many amendments from other hon. Members, including all those in the name of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Edinburgh South West on behalf of the Joint Committee. We also agree with the hon. Member for Streatham (Bell Ribeiro-Addy) about the need for a public inquiry into the impact of the policing of public order on black, Asian and minority ethnic people.
I support new clause 11 on buffer zones in the name of the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy) but, in answer to the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex (Sir Bernard Jenkin), it will not surprise him or the hon. Lady that we will not vote on it if it is pressed to a vote, because it applies only to England and Wales. The Scottish Government are progressing work on it for Scotland. I agree with everything she said on it and I pay tribute to the work that she and the hon. Member for Ealing Central and Acton (Dr Huq) have been doing on it for some time.
In closing, we do not need this Bill—nobody needs this Bill. Our right to protest is fundamental. It is the only tool available to many people—most people—to effect real change. The Bill comes on the back of photographic voter ID, restrictions on judicial review, and the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022 that we are yet to feel the full force of. When will the Government stop? When will they put their hands up and say, “We’ve got this wrong”? They need to realise that, instead of slamming their hand down on people who are protesting because they are desperately worried, they should extend a hand of solidarity to them and fix the problems that people are protesting about in the first place.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Order. I am expecting four Divisions when the Minister resumes his seat.
Jeremy Quin
I hope that we will have fewer, Mr Deputy Speaker, and that hon. Members will be withdrawing their amendments during my remarks.
I start by thanking the hon. Member for Glasgow North East (Anne McLaughlin) and all hon. Members who have contributed to this lively debate. I know that all hon. Members treat this debate and these issues with the great seriousness and concern that they deserve. With the leave of the House, I will respond to some of the points made throughout the debate and to some of the key amendments.
I will start with the amendments in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Sir Charles Walker) and the hon. Member for Glasgow North East—appropriately—which seek to remove the serious disruption prevention orders from the Bill. My hon. Friend said that he was cold when he turned up today. I think he misheard me from a sedentary position; I merely said that he had certainly warmed up during his speech.
Our experience of some of the recent protests has shown that the police are encountering the same individuals who are determined to repeatedly inflict disruption on the public. For example, as of July this year, 460 individuals had been arrested a total of 910 times at Just Stop Oil protests, while during Insulate Britain’s campaign, 268 individuals were arrested a total of 977 times. It cannot be right that a small group of individuals can repeatedly commit criminal offences against our roads and railways, to name only a few places, and not face appropriate restrictions.
Jeremy Quin
I have lots of Members to cover, but I will of course give way.
Sir Charles Walker
The Minister is his usual charming self, but what we are talking about is putting ankle tags on people who have not been convicted of any crime. That just does seem way over the top.
Jeremy Quin
That would be a decision made by a court in very specific circumstances, and I do trust our courts to take appropriate action. They can only do so on the weight of evidence, and they are very used to taking these decisions. After all, there is a tried and tested process whereby injunctions can be sought and obtained to prevent a future harm. I do not think this is as radical as my hon. Friend is suggesting. However, I congratulate him on the points he made, even though I disagree with him, and also my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (David Simmonds) on his contribution to this point of the debate. I would love to prevail on my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne to withdraw his amendment, but I do not think that is going to happen, and I look forward to opposing it.
Turning to the hon. Member for Croydon Central (Sarah Jones), I spoke earlier in the debate about why we believe that injunctions are useful. We absolutely accept the point being made by the hon. Lady that they are appropriate when used properly, and that is why we have tabled our amendments. I think ours is a more competent and effective way of achieving our shared objectives.
On new clause 5, which seeks to define the meaning of “serious disruption” for the purposes of this Bill, I have to say that no two protests, nor the operational response required, are ever the same. Being too prescriptive risks the ability of the police to respond to fast-evolving protest tactics while also risking the exploitation of loopholes by those intent on causing as much disruption as possible. That is not to say that I dismiss the principle of this amendment. There is a balance to be struck between a definition that is broad and one that is prescriptive, so while I do not agree with the hon. Lady’s amendment, we will reflect further on its intent.
I turn now to perhaps the most vexed issue in today’s debate—namely, new clause 11, proposed by the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy). New clause 11 seeks to create 150-metre buffer zones outside abortion clinics in which all activity interfering with a person’s right to access abortion services would be prohibited. As the hon. Lady would accept, that is a blunt instrument. It is there to achieve an objective, but within those 150-metre buffer zones there could be houses and churches, and this would be a national decision covering the 150 metres around all clinics.
At the outset of the debate, I made it clear that, from the Government’s perspective, it is a free vote for members of our party. My good friend, my hon. Friend the Member for Louth and Horncastle (Victoria Atkins), said that this is a difficult issue to grapple with, and it is indeed difficult. However, I would like to make it clear that it is entirely possible to support totally a woman’s right to an abortion and to view protests outside abortion clinics as abhorrent while still believing that the current legislative framework provides an appropriate response.
Sir Bernard Jenkin
I think the Minister should now be persuaded, particularly as one of his predecessors, my hon. Friend the Member for Louth and Horncastle (Victoria Atkins), has now made it clear that she supports this amendment. It is time for the Government to say that we have to recognise that the present arrangements are not adequate, and we will be thinking about how to build on the arguments that have been presented in new clause 11. Just to rest on the status quo is not a sufficient response, however the Government vote today.
Jeremy Quin
I sympathise with the sentiment behind new clause 11. I hope we all agree that it is wholly unacceptable for women to feel harassed or intimidated when accessing abortion services. However, bearing in mind the size, scale and frequency of those protests, it is still our view that placing a nationwide blanket ban on protests outside all abortion clinics in England and Wales would be a blunt approach and disproportionate given the existing powers that can and should be used.
Stella Creasy
I know that the Minister is listening both to the testimony of previous colleagues and the sentiment across the House, but might the answer to this lie in the great institutions of this place, in that we should accept this amendment today and seek to further refine how it could work in the other place? We could today send a message to the other place that we will grapple with the issue and resolve it. The testimony from the hon. Member for Louth and Horncastle (Victoria Atkins), a former Home Office Minister, powerfully set out that this is a road to travel. The challenge in this place is that without those opportunities for scrutiny and further refinement, the status quo will remain, and what the Minister is hearing from across the House is that the status quo is not acceptable. Might that not be a way forward?
Jeremy Quin
My hon. Friend the Member for Louth and Horncastle mentioned the reviews that have been done: the review conducted in 2018 went into this in great depth and there has been further work since, and the hon. Lady referred to further work being done in relation to the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022. That maintained the Government position that the current arrangements are still proportionate. There is legislation; the Public Order Act 1986 and the PSPOs provide those routes, and we continue to believe that is proportionate, but this is ongoing work and we need to continue to ensure that it is still proportionate. I will be reviewing and making certain that I understand fully the pattern of protests and the effectiveness and indeed the cost of PSPOs, and I will certainly make sure that that work is constantly refreshed if the House agrees we should maintain the current legislative environment.
There are existing laws to protect people from harassment and intimidation outside abortion clinics. The police have robust powers to deal with protests that obstruct access to clinics, and cause alarm, harassment or distress, and where protests cause harm, we expect the police and local authorities to work together at the local level to respond in a way that takes into consideration the local facts, issues and circumstances. In addition, local authorities already have powers to implement PSPOs; these can be introduced when a local authority is satisfied that protests are having, or are likely to have, a detrimental effect. We have seen increased use of these in recent weeks, with five local authorities imposing an order outside abortion clinics.
Fiona Bruce
Because some of our colleagues will not have been able to follow the whole debate, will the Minister confirm what I believe he is saying, which is that he personally will vote against new clause 11 this afternoon?
Jeremy Quin
It is a free vote and I will be voting against the amendment. I believe the powers and legislative environment we have are appropriate at the current juncture, and that is the position the Government have taken in the past. It is also the case that we continue to do work on this; I will continue to ensure that we are reviewing the scale of protests, the adequacy of the current legislative framework, and the effectiveness and cost of PSPOs. We need to maintain that work although I will be voting against the amendment this afternoon.
My hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex (Sir Bernard Jenkin) said that, if the new clause falls, he will not give up. I would have been surprised had he said anything else, and I would be surprised if the hon. Member for Walthamstow gave up if she lost the vote. As I said, we will continue to review and assess this area, but it is important to get it right. There are powerful arguments on both sides of the debate, as enunciated by my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce), the hon. Member for Upper Bann (Carla Lockhart) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh), and, on the other side, the hon. Member for Walthamstow, my hon. Friend the Member for Louth and Horncastle and my right hon. Friends the Members for Romsey and Southampton North (Caroline Nokes) and for Harwich and North Essex. I have set out how, through the current legislation and PSPOs, a lot can be done. The House will determine whether it believes that to be insufficient.
I turn to new clauses 13 and 14 tabled, again, by the hon. Member for Walthamstow, who is a passionate campaigner on these issues. In last year’s “Tackling violence against women and girls strategy”, we confirmed that we are looking carefully at where there may be gaps in existing law and how a specific offence of public sexual harassment could address them. In the light of that work, just before summer recess, we launched a targeted consultation on whether there should be a specific offence of public sexual harassment and, if so, what it should look like. The hon. Lady knows that. The consultation closed in September, and we are grateful to her for sending us her comments. We are working at pace to analyse the responses and to determine the best way forward. I reassure her that, for example, her comments on foreseeability of intent are absolutely part of that consultation. What I cannot do—I am sorry to disappoint her—is give a commitment today on our next steps. That would not be appropriate until we fully analyse the consultation. I look forward to sharing our views with the House as soon as possible.
I turn to the several amendments tabled on the recommendations of the Joint Committee on Human Rights. Again, I thank the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry) and the Committee for the vital work that they do in supporting parliamentary scrutiny, as was referred to by the hon. Member for North East Fife (Wendy Chamberlain) and my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner. Amendments 28, 30, 35 and 37 aim to move the burden of proof for a reasonable excuse from the defendant to the prosecution for the relevant offences. As we made clear in our formal response to the Committee’s report, whether or not someone has a reasonable excuse for their actions is specific to each incident, and we see it as entirely appropriate that the defendant who committed the offence in the first place and has personal knowledge of those facts is required to prove them. Beyond that, our courts are experts in assessing whether an individual has a reasonable excuse for a multitude of criminal offences. I do not see the value in placing that burden on the prosecution.
Amendments 32, 36 and 38 seek to require the courts to have particular regard to articles 10 and 11 of the European convention on human rights when assessing whether someone has a reasonable excuse for offences. Courts and other public bodies are already obliged to act compatibly with ECHR, and we do not believe that it is necessary to repeat that obligation.
Finally, several amendments seek to narrow the Bill’s scope. I will not address each individual amendment. The Government believe that the scope of the offences is not only appropriate but proportionate to the serious disruption inflicted.
I turn to a couple of other amendments.
Jeremy Quin
I was about to turn to my hon. Friend. She tabled amendments 51 and 52, which would add farms and food production infrastructure to the list of key national infrastructure. That would significantly increase the scope of the Bill. As she is aware, there are some 216,000 farm holdings and 13,560 food and drink manufacturers—it goes on. However, I understand and am sympathetic to the point she made about the importance of food and food manufacture. I will take up with my colleagues in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs whether we need to look further at that area in the Bill, and I will share with her the results of that at pace.
Alicia Kearns
I thank my hon. Friend for recognising that the actions of vegan militias over the summer in disrupting milk supply chains were unacceptable. They hurt our farmers and our food security. When he tasks his officials and those of DEFRA to look at that, will he commit to meeting me in December and consider secondary legislation to protect our food producers and our food security?
Jeremy Quin
I am delighted to confirm that I will meet my hon. Friend in December and talk through our view with her, having discussed it. I am sympathetic to how food is an important aspect of our national resilience.
On stop and search, I am grateful to the hon. Member for Battersea (Marsha De Cordova) for tabling new clauses 9 and 10, and to the hon. Member for Streatham (Bell Ribeiro-Addy) for speaking to them so capably. The Home Office continues to publish extensive data on the use of stop and search to drive transparency. That will continue with the introduction of these new powers. As my predecessor did in Committee, I can assure the hon. Lady that data on the use of these powers will be collected and published. It will be broken down by age, gender and ethnicity and include the outcome of the search, as for existing stop-and-search powers. On the creation of an independent reviewer of the powers, I point the hon. Lady to the existing independent bodies, to which she referred, the IOPC and His Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary and fire and rescue services, which will ensure that proper oversight of the powers is embedded in its inspections.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
As I said earlier, I am anticipating four Divisions. The first one will, I believe, be on new clause 4. If somebody from the SNP could inform the Chair who their Tellers might be, should they decide to have a vote on their amendment, I would be extremely grateful.
Question put and agreed to.
New clause 7 accordingly read a Second time, and added to the Bill.
New Clause 8
Injunctions in Secretary of State proceedings: power of arrest and remand
(1) This section applies to proceedings brought by the Secretary of State under section (Power of Secretary of State to bring proceedings) (power of Secretary of State to bring proceedings).
(2) If the court grants an injunction which prohibits conduct which—
(a) is capable of causing nuisance or annoyance to a person, or
(b) is capable of having a serious adverse effect on public safety,
it may, if subsection (3) applies, attach a power of arrest to any provision of the injunction.
(3) This subsection applies if the Secretary of State applies to the court to attach the power of arrest and the court thinks that—
(a) the conduct mentioned in subsection (2) consists of or includes the use or threatened use of violence, or
(b) there is a significant risk of harm to—
(i) in the case of conduct mentioned in subsection (2)(a), the person mentioned in that provision, and
(ii) in the case of conduct mentioned in subsection (2)(b), the public or a section of the public.
(4) Where a power of arrest is attached to any provision of an injunction under subsection (2), a constable may arrest without warrant a person whom the constable has reasonable cause for suspecting to be in breach of that provision.
(5) After making an arrest under subsection (4) the constable must as soon as is reasonably practicable inform the Secretary of State.
(6) Where a person is arrested under subsection (4)—
(a) the person must appear before the court within the period of 24 hours beginning at the time of arrest, and
(b) if the matter is not then disposed of forthwith, the court may remand the person.
(7) For the purposes of subsection (6), when calculating the period of 24 hours referred to in paragraph (a) of that subsection, no account is to be taken of Christmas Day, Good Friday or any Sunday.
(8) Schedule (Injunctions in Secretary of State proceedings: powers to remand) applies in relation to the power to remand under subsection (6).
(9) If the court has reason to consider that a medical report will be required, the power to remand a person under subsection (6) may be exercised for the purpose of enabling a medical examination and report to be made.
(10) If such a power is so exercised the adjournment is not to be in force—
(a) for more than three weeks at a time in a case where the court remands the accused person in custody, or
(b) for more than four weeks at a time in any other case.
(11) If there is reason to suspect that a person who has been arrested under subsection (4) is suffering from mental disorder within the meaning of the Mental Health Act 1983 the court is to have the same power to make an order under section 35 of that Act (remand for report on accused's mental condition) as the Crown Court has under that section in the case of an accused person within the meaning of that section.
(12) In this section—
“harm” includes serious ill-treatment or abuse (whether physical or not);
“the court” means the High Court or the county court and includes—
(a) in relation to the High Court, a judge of that court, and
(b) in relation to the county court, a judge of that court.”—(Jeremy Quin.)
This new clause contains provision for the court to attach powers of arrest to an injunction granted in proceedings brought in the name of the Secretary of State in accordance with NC7. This new clause also contains related provisions in connection with the remand of arrested persons .
Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.
New Clause 4
Injunction to prevent serious disruption to effective movement of essential goods or services
“(1) Upon an application by a person under subsection (4), an injunction may be ordered by a Judge of the High Court against ‘persons unknown’ in order to prevent a serious disruption to the effective movement of any essential goods or any essential services occasioned by a public procession or public assembly.
(2) The “persons unknown” may be—
(a) anonymous persons taking part in a public process or public assembly who are identifiable at the time of the proceedings; and/or
(b) persons not presently taking part in a public procession or public assembly protest but who will in future join such a public procession or public assembly.
(3) The conditions under which such an injunction may be granted are as follows—
(a) there must be a real and imminent risk of a tort being committed which would result in a serious disruption to the effective movement of any essential goods or any essential services;
(b) a method of service must be set out in the order which may reasonably be expected to bring the proceedings to the attention of the “persons unknown”;
(c) the “persons unknown” must be defined in the order by reference to their conduct which is alleged to be unlawful;
(d) the acts prohibited by the order must correspond with the threatened tort;
(e) the order may only prohibit lawful conduct if there is no other proportionate means of protecting the effective movement of essential goods or essential services;
(f) the terms of the order must set out what act(s) the persons potentially affected by the order must not do;
(g) the terms of the order must set out a defined geographical area to which the order relates; and
(h) the terms of the order must set out a temporal period to which the order relates, following which the order will lapse unless a further order is made upon a further application by the applicant.
(4) An applicant for an injunction to prevent serious disruption to effective movement of essential goods or services may be—
(a) a local authority with responsibility for all or part of the geographical area to which the proposed order relates;
(b) a chief constable with responsibility for all or part of the geographical area to which the proposed order relates; or
(c) a person resident in, or carrying on a business within, the geographical area to which the proposed order relates.
(5) A “serious disruption to effective movement of essential goods or services” includes a prolonged disruption to—
(a) the effective movement of the supply of money, food, water, energy or fuel;
(b) a system of communication;
(c) access to a place of worship;
(d) access to a transport facility;
(e) access to an educational institution; and
(f) access to a service relating to health.”—(Sarah Jones.)
Brought up, and read the First time.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Suella Braverman)
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
The Public Order Bill reflects the Government’s duty to put the safety and interests of the law-abiding majority first. We are on their side, not the side of extremists who stick themselves to trains, glue themselves to roads, interfere with newspaper distribution, vandalise properties, disrupt the fuel supply, disrupt this Chamber, or block ambulances. The growing tendency of those with strong opinions to mix their expression with acts of violence cannot and will not be tolerated.
The most generous interpretation of the kind of characters who glue themselves to roads is that they are dangerously deluded, but in fact—much worse—many of them have the deranged notion that their ends justify any means whatever. In the eyes of the militant protesters, the everyday priorities of the hard-working, law-abiding, patriotic majority can always be disregarded in pursuit of their warped schemes.
These extremists stop people from earning a living, gaining an education or caring for a loved one in need. Ordinary people who are working, learning or caring are never deemed by the extremists as important enough to stand in the way of their plots and plans. No Government should fail in their duty to protect their citizens from such abuse, and this Government will always put the law-abiding majority first and foremost.
Marco Longhi
Does the Home Secretary agree that the police should consider the wider, cumulative impacts of protests on a local community, rather than a narrow, notional assessment, in isolation, of whether a serious disruption threshold has been reached? In other words, can we get the police to start locking them up, please?
Suella Braverman
My hon. Friend makes a very important point. Fundamentally, police and key partners should view the impacts of disruption cumulatively. The clock should not be reset every day and in each location; they need to look at the tactics in the round.
We need the police to act proactively, decidedly and diligently, so there are various factors that they need to include in their assessment of serious disruption. They need to consider the overall length and the time and impact on communities. They need to look at the disruption to a general area. They need to look at the police resources that have been drained by the action. They need to look holistically and actively at how they take action.
Gareth Bacon (Orpington) (Con)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that, given the strict limitation of police resources, the police should perhaps deploy those resources on dealing with the guerrilla tactics that are putting the people of London at risk of harm and less time policing pronouns on Twitter?
Suella Braverman
My hon. Friend raises an issue that is close to my heart, which is that we need our police officers—our brave men and women, the majority of whom are heroes, frankly, in this nation’s law enforcement and security—to be focusing on our priorities and the priorities of the law-abiding majority. Common sense policing means focusing on targeting and fighting the bad guys, fighting the criminals and stopping crime, not policing pronouns and not pandering to politically correct campaigns.
Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Will the Home Secretary give way?
Suella Braverman
I will make progress, I am afraid.
No Government should fail in their duty to protect their citizens from such abuse, and this Government will always put the law-abiding majority first. In a democracy, we make policy through civilised debate and at the ballot box, not through mob rule and not by visiting chaos and misery on our fellow citizens.
Suella Braverman
I am afraid I do not have much time.
When I was the Attorney General, I went to court to establish that it is not a human right to commit criminal damage. The Court of Appeal agreed with me in the Colston statue case that serious and violent disorder crosses a line when it comes to freedom of expression. That is common sense to the law-abiding majority.
Since 1 October alone, the Metropolitan police have made over 450 arrests linked to Just Stop Oil, and I welcome this, but more must be done. That is why I welcome the fact that, today, Transport for London has succeeded in securing an injunction to protect key parts of the London roads network. That is an important step forward in the fight against extremists. However, these resources are vital and precious, and this has drained approximately 2,000 officer days at the Met already. Those are resources that are not dealing with knife crime and are not dealing with violence against women and girls.
I am afraid to say—and I will come to a close soon—that that is why it was a central purpose of the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill, now an Act, to properly empower the police in face of the protests, yet Opposition Members voted against it. Had Opposition Members in the other place not blocked these measures when they were in the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill, the police would have already had many of the powers in this Bill and the British people would not have been put through this grief. Yes, I am afraid that it is the Labour party, the Lib Dems, the coalition of chaos, the Guardian-reading, tofu-eating wokerati and, dare I say, the anti-growth coalition that we have to thank for the disruption we are seeing on our roads today. I urge Opposition MPs and Members of the other place to take this second chance, do the right thing, respect the rights of the law-abiding majority and support this Bill.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
There is very little time left. I call the shadow Home Secretary.
Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)
I just think it is astonishing: the Home Secretary actually talked about a “coalition of chaos”, and we can see it in front of us as I speak. I understand that the Government do have concerns in that they face issues with a selfish majority wreaking havoc, and someone who is resisting all the attempts of the powers that be to remove them—causing serious disruption, disorder and chaos, with serious consequences for the public, businesses, politics and financial markets—but they had glued themselves under the desk. We wish Conservative Members luck with their attempts to extricate another failing Tory Prime Minister from No. 10, but I suggest that that is not a reason to change the law for everyone else.
This is the second Public Order Bill in the space of six months. The Government could have got through a victims Bill by now; they chose not to. They could have put more time into action on violence against women and girls; they chose not to. Instead, they are repeating the same debates we have had already. The Home Secretary referred to acts of violence and blocking roads. These are, rightly, already crimes. These are all, rightly, already offences. In fact, this Conservative Government have put fewer thugs and criminals behind bars because prosecutions for violent crime have plummeted on their watch. Antisocial behaviour action in many areas has totally collapsed.
We have seen certain things recently that have angered all of us. Defacing works of art is a total disgrace. Blocking roads and preventing ambulances from getting through is appalling. Both those are rightly against the law already, and we have seen people rightly arrested and charged for criminal damage and for blocking highways. We support the action of Transport for London in taking out injunctions. That is why we have argued from the start for making taking injunction action smoother for organisations, but today Members from all parts of this House have also stood up for the principles of peaceful protest in the face of the truly appalling images we have seen from outside the Chinese consulate in Manchester, including a serious assault that put one protestor in hospital.
Parliament must stand up for peaceful rights; as the Minister for the Americas and the Overseas Territories, the right hon. Member for Hereford and South Herefordshire (Jesse Norman) rightly said earlier today, peaceful protest is a fundamental part of British society, and in our country everyone has the right to express their views peacefully. That is why we have to make sure that when we legislate in these areas we do so with care, because in a democracy people need the freedom to speak out against authority and make their views heard, and we should also have protections and safeguards against serious disruption to essential services.
That is why we put forward measures; that is why we have supported buffer zones around abortion clinics, and that is why we have put forward measures in previous Bills on vaccine clinics and making sure people could not be targeted by harassment and intimidation. Hon. Friends have talked about the legislation that is already in place, but the measures in the Bill will not tackle this issue. Instead they mean a police inspector will have the power to stop and search anyone in the vicinity of a protest regardless of whether they suspect them of being involved in committing a criminal offence. It could mean people being stopped and searched in Parliament Square pretty much any day of the week when protests are taking place.
The Home Secretary says that she sees herself as a champion of freedom of speech and expression. She has said that freedom of speech must be protected, but, it turns out, not if it is too noisy. Speaking is fine, but speaking too loudly could be a criminal offence. She says that being offended goes hand in hand with free speech, but she has made it an offence to be seriously annoying. Defend offence but not annoyance—it is totally illogical.
Four hours having elapsed since the commencement of proceedings on the programme motion, the debate was interrupted (Programme Order, this day).
The Deputy Speaker put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair (Standing Order No. 83E), That the Bill be now read the Third time.
Standards
(1 year, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I must inform the House that amendments (a) and (b) to motion 6 have been selected, and I will call Wendy Chamberlain to move them at the end of the debate.
The Leader of the House of Commons (Penny Mordaunt)
I beg to move,
That—
(1) this House notes the First Report from the Committee on Standards, on New Code of Conduct and Guide to the Rules: promoting appropriate values, attitudes and behaviours in Parliament (HC 227), and approves the recommendations relating to appeals and the Procedural Protocol in paragraphs 141–143, 151, 153, 155–157, 166 and 169 of that Report.
(2) this House approves the Second Report from the Committee on Standards on the Code of Conduct: Procedural Protocol (HC 378), and the Procedural Protocol in respect of the Code of Conduct annexed to that Report, with immediate effect, subject to the following amendments to the Protocol:
(a) In paragraph 6, leave out from “under the Code” to end;
(b) In paragraph 7, leave out “and the rules relating to upholding the Code (the numbered paragraphs in the Code of Conduct)”;
(c) In paragraph 16, leave out “, under rule 10 of the Code”;
(d) In paragraph 18, leave out “rule 11” and insert “paragraph 17”;
(e) In paragraph 22, leave out “rules 1 or 16 in the Code” and insert “paragraph 18 of the Code, or the provision in paragraph 21 of the Code that ‘Failure to comply with a sanction imposed by a subpanel of the Independent Expert Panel shall be treated as a breach of the Code’”;
(f) Leave out paragraph 32 and insert, “Paragraph 20 of the Code provides that ‘The Commissioner may investigate a specific matter relating to a Member’s adherence to the rules of conduct under the Code. Members shall cooperate, at all stages, with any such investigation by or under the authority of the House, and with the Committee on Standards and the Independent Expert Panel in any subsequent consideration of a case. Members must not lobby members of the Committee on Standards or the Independent Expert Panel; the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards; or the staff of those bodies in a manner calculated or intended to influence their consideration of a breach or a sanction in an individual case.’”
(g) Leave out paragraph 62;
(h) In paragraph 83, leave out “rule 11” and insert “paragraph 17”;
(i) In paragraph 118, after “legal or medical adviser”, insert “; and/or d) a Member’s own staff”.
(j) Leave out paragraph 126 and insert, “Paragraph 20 of the Code provides that ‘The Commissioner may investigate a specific matter relating to a Member’s adherence to the rules of conduct under the Code. Members shall cooperate, at all stages, with any such investigation by or under the authority of the House, and with the Committee on Standards and the Independent Expert Panel in any subsequent consideration of a case. Members must not lobby members of the Committee on Standards or the Independent Expert Panel; the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards; or the staff of those bodies in a manner calculated or intended to influence their consideration of a breach or a sanction in an individual case.’”
(3) Paragraph 20 of the Code of Conduct for Members (HC (2017-19) 1882) be amended to read as follows: “The Commissioner may investigate a specific matter relating to a Member’s adherence to the rules of conduct under the Code. Members shall cooperate, at all stages, with any such investigation by or under the authority of the House, and with the Committee on Standards and the Independent Expert Panel in any subsequent consideration of a case. Members must not lobby members of the Committee on Standards or the Independent Expert Panel; the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards; or the staff of those bodies in a manner calculated or intended to influence their consideration of a breach or a sanction in an individual case.”
(4) the Committee on Standards shall have power to make any minor or purely administrative changes to the Procedural Protocol in respect of the Code of Conduct, including those necessary to reflect any future decisions of the House relating to the Code of Conduct and the Guide to the Rules relating to the Conduct of Members.
(5) Chapter 4 of the Guide to the Rules relating to the Conduct of Members (HC (2017-19) 1882) shall no longer have effect
(6) previous Resolutions of this House in relation to the conduct of Members shall be read and given effect in a way which is compatible with the Procedural Protocol in respect of the Code of Conduct.
Madam Deputy Speaker
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Motion 6 on Standing Orders etc. (Committee on Standards, Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards, Independent Expert Panel).
Amendment (a).
Amendment (b).
Penny Mordaunt
The House is being asked to consider the creation of an appeals process for non-Independent Complaints and Grievance Scheme cases to be heard by the Independent Expert Panel. The motion would introduce the formal appeals process that Sir Ernest Ryder recommended and proposes that the panel would hear appeals against the decisions and sanctions of the Committee on Standards. The motion also puts to the House the new procedural protocol, which would sit alongside the new appeals process.
I am grateful to the Committee on Standards for its work reviewing the code of conduct for Members and the overall operation of the standards system in the House of Commons. Since becoming Leader of the House, I have had some discussions with the Chair of the Committee, the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant), who I look forward to hearing from today. I assure him and the House that the Government have carefully considered his Committee’s recommendations, alongside the procedural protocol and covering report.
I am sure that the whole House agrees that Members of Parliament must uphold the highest standards in public life and that the procedures we have in place must be fair, robust and command the respect and confidence both of Members and the wider public. I believe that today’s motion takes a positive step in the right direction.
There are other issues that are not covered in the motions today, and I plan to seek consensus on a wider package and to come back to the House in due course, but it is good to make progress on the issues as we can.
Before coming to the substance of today’s motion, I wish to briefly cover some areas in relation to the wider proposed package of changes from the Committee on Standards that we are not debating today. Let me be clear: I am very conscious that there is further progress to be made and the House should have the opportunity to consider the additional recommendations proposed by the Committee. I reassure the House and the Committee that we are seeking to identify solutions that can command cross-party support on those outstanding issues.
Specifically, the Committee made recommendations on measures to improve the transparency and timeliness of ministerial declarations. The Government are clear in their views that the rules regulating Members’ interests and ministerial interests are necessarily distinct, reflecting the underlying constitutional principle of the separation of powers. There are differences between the role of an MP and that of a Minister and, reflecting that, the rules differ on what interests are permitted and how potential conflicts of interest are managed. There are clear rules regarding the registration of interests and the receipt of gifts in the ministerial code and Ministers should, and do, take their responsibilities very seriously. Nevertheless, I recognise the concerns of the Committee. Since being appointed Leader of the House, I have raised those concerns and have instructed officials to bring forward proposals for an improved system.
I can confirm to the House that revised guidance on ministerial transparency data will be published in the coming weeks. We will also publish it on gov.uk for the first time. The guidance has been updated to more closely reflect modern working practices and Ministers’ obligations under the ministerial code.
It is important that the Government conduct ourselves openly. I will continue to work with the Cabinet Office and across Government to ensure that we are fulfilling our obligations. In doing so, I keep very much in mind the challenge set for me by the Chair of the Committee on Standards: that a Member who attends an event such as the BAFTAs should report in a particular way, so a Minister who attends the same event should report in a similar way and their interests should be transparent to the public. I hope that the House and the Committee will support these changes; I will happily engage with the Committee should they not have the desired effect. [Interruption.] For the benefit of Hansard, the Chair of the Committee chuckled knowingly.
The House will be aware that an appeals process is already in place within some aspects of the parliamentary standards system. Those who are subject to investigation under the Independent Complaints and Grievance Scheme have the right of appeal to the Independent Expert Panel, which is chaired by the former High Court judge Sir Stephen Irwin. The ICGS and the IEP have been an essential part of achieving positive culture change in the House and demonstrating its rigorous judicial process, its transparency of operation and the right to appeal.
The Government have therefore welcomed Sir Ernest Ryder’s report and his timely review of the Commons standards system and its compatibility with the principles of fairness and natural justice. As we set out in a letter to the Committee on Standards, the Government supported the majority of the proposals, including the introduction of a formal appeals process. We note that the Committee has accepted all the recommendations, with a few minor modifications. I welcome the proposal that appeals be heard by an independent body with judicial expertise. We also welcome Sir Ernest’s consideration of the grounds for appeal and the acceptance that the Independent Expert Panel is the appropriate body to hear appeals.
We propose two main amendments to the procedural protocol. First, we propose to amend paragraph 118 to allow MPs to inform their own staff in the event that they are subject to investigation by the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards. Secondly, we propose to leave out paragraph 62 on Members recusing themselves if not present for all but a “small proportion” of evidence sessions. These amendments reflect the Government’s position, as set out in our response to the Committee; I hope that the House and the Committee will support them. The other proposed amendments are purely technical changes to ensure that the protocol works with the current version of the rules and guide.
I wish to speak briefly about amendments (a) and (b) in the name of the hon. Member for North East Fife (Wendy Chamberlain) and others. The amendments stipulate that
“no Member shall be eligible to participate in any division on such a motion where it relates to their own conduct.”
That stipulation would apply both to conduct motions related to breaches of the code of conduct and to motions related to the ICGS. This is, of course, a matter for the House to consider. I note that the Committee on Standards chose not to pursue the issue in detail as part of the inquiry.
I am aware that the Chair of the Procedure Committee, my right hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire Moorlands (Karen Bradley), has raised the issue of Members being permitted to vote on their own suspension. My predecessor wrote in response to her that there would be benefit in the Committee’s looking into whether such changes are needed. If necessary, they could be put to the House for consideration. Hon. Members will be aware that there is a convention that Members should not participate in such votes. In our parliamentary democracy, conventions guide how we work in this place, and codification of these norms should be carefully considered; I would therefore welcome it if the matter were considered by the appropriate Committee. Subject to its approval, the Government would be happy to bring the matter back to the Floor of the House for approval in due course.
If there is no objection from the Chair of the Committee on Standards or from other hon. Members present, I would certainly be content to support these amendments.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
I see no reason why we should not simply put what is already a convention into, as it were, the statutes of the House—the Standing Orders. I support the motion and, looking around the Chamber and seeing other members of the Committee who are present, I think that they will as well. I think it would save us all a bit of time if we just got on with it and agreed to the amendments.
Penny Mordaunt
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that helpful intervention.
Karen Bradley (Staffordshire Moorlands) (Con)
May I add my view, as Chair of the Procedure Committee? I feel that the amendments are absolutely fine, and we should be happy to see them passed tonight.
Penny Mordaunt
I thank my right hon. Friend for her support for the amendments. We are hopefully saving ourselves some time, and efficiency is always great to see. It is important to point out, however, that if Members did object and wanted the Committee to look at this, they could oppose the amendments, which are obviously subject, potentially, to a vote tonight.
We support the work being undertaken to introduce measures to empower the standards system in Parliament, and I am committed to continuing conversations both within Government and with parliamentary colleagues to continue to introduce improvements proposed by the Committee on a cross-party basis. I assure the House that my door is always open and I am always willing to discuss these matters with all Members. I hope that the House will approve the proposed changes, and I commend them to the House.
Thangam Debbonaire (Bristol West) (Lab)
I thank the Leader of the House for tabling the motions. I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) and his Committee for all the hard work that they have put into their inquiries and reports on standards over many months. I really would have liked to see all that work recognised in the motion today. After months of calling on the Leader of the House and her predecessors to implement the Standards Committee’s full recommendations, I am sure that the right hon. Lady will have imagined my initial excitement when I heard the words “Members’ code of conduct” during her recent business statement, but sadly that turned to some disappointment when I found that it did not include all the Committee’s work to strengthen standards in Parliament. I understand what the right hon. Lady has said, but I will come back to that shortly.
Let me now turn to the substance of our debate: the appeals process. Let me first place on the record my thanks and welcome for the work that Sir Ernest Ryder has done on the House’s current system for the Standards Committee. It has been helpful to have a well-respected external figure investigating whether or not our existing standards needed to be improved or strengthened. I know that the Committee made good use of Sir Ernest’s extensive experience when considering the important issues of fairness, natural justice and the right of appeal, and I note that he gave thoughtful and considered support to our standards system overall. I picked out the issues of fairness, natural justice and the right of appeal because I seem to remember those words being used in a debate on 3 or 4 November 2021 which, I am afraid, did not show the House in a good light. That is partly why we are here today.
Sir Ernest proposed that there should be a right of appeal against both the findings of the Standards Committee and any sanctions that it imposed or recommended. It seems wholly sensible that such an appeal should be to an independent body with judicial expertise, and that leads us inevitably to the Independent Expert Panel. I am assured that its chair, the right hon. Sir Stephen Irwin, has said that the panel should be able to take on this role, and that it should be able to manage the workload without expanding the current panel size of eight. I am grateful to him for that confirmation. I assure the Leader of the House that she has my support on the motions, and that they will be supported by the Opposition.
However, let me turn to the slightly wider but related issue of standards in general and, in particular, standards and ethics in parliamentary and governmental life. It was the well-respected former Cabinet Secretary Lord O’Donnell who said recently, “It’s always best to look at reasons why your predecessor fell and fix that.” Unfortunately, however—and I say this with disappointment and sadness, because it affects all of us in this place—everything we have heard from the current Prime Minister, not just during her leadership campaign but in the context of her lack of action since taking office, suggests so far that we are in for more of the same when it comes to trashing standards. I wanted to believe that that was not so, but the Prime Minister even refused to say that she would appoint an independent ethics adviser after the previous two had resigned—admittedly, under the previous Prime Minister—in despair.
I am glad that the Leader of the House has said that the Government are committed to appointing one, but I want to see some urgency. It would be reassuring for the House and for the country if the Prime Minister could commit to appointing that much-needed ethics advisor.
On parliamentary standards specifically, there should have been a lot more in the motion—namely, the rest of the recommendations, in my view. I thank the Leader of the House for her update, and she has been extremely co-operative with me and my office on this, but again we need some urgency to repair the damage that has been done by some—not all—on the Government side to the public’s view of how we conduct ourselves in this place and the surrounding neighbourhood.
In response to my questioning on this at business questions last Thursday, the Leader of the House said:
“It is not that we are not doing them”.—[Official Report, 13 October 2022; Vol. 720, c. 260.]
I absolutely believe her, but does this mean that the Government will bring forward a motion to cover all the Standards Committee’s recommendations? I get that sense from what she has said, and I would like to know that that is the general direction of travel, but if not, why not? Can she tell us which ones the Government like and which ones they do not? I would be grateful if she could give us a much more specific timeframe for when they will be brought forward.
I welcome the assurances that the Leader of the House has given, but when it comes to parliamentary standards and the Tories, I think she probably understands why the public are feeling a lack of trust. Unfortunately, it is the party that refused to fix a loophole that let one Member off the hook for a particular misdemeanour. It is the party that was prepared to change the rules retrospectively seemingly to support cash for access but not to stop sexual harassment.
I do not kid myself that there was ever a golden age when the public saw us all as completely trustworthy and the holders of the highest standards, even though I believe that most of us in this House absolutely are. However, the public need to—and at times have been able to—trust the system of standards enforcement and sanctions around our general principles. As my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda once told me, there have been rules on how MPs should behave honourably since 1695. Since that time, the rules have only ever gone in one direction, which is to be strengthened—that is, until some Conservative Members unfortunately sought to drag them backwards during the Owen Patterson affair, which showed all too clearly that we have, in Conservative Members, some people who seem to be willing to change the rules retrospectively if they or their mates get caught.
Until we see a motion on the Order Paper covering all the Standards Committee’s recommendations—or some form of them—we can only assume or guess that the Government have apprehensions about bringing them forward. Banning MPs from doing paid consultancy work and increasing the transparency of Members’ interests are measures that Labour has long been calling for, and I believe that there is cross-party support for them. I have referred to the Owen Paterson affair with good reason, because that was the place where some of those concerns grew really strong.
We will of course support the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for North East Fife (Wendy Chamberlain). It seems a great pity that they needed to be put into writing, but evidently they did—
Thangam Debbonaire
I see that the hon. Member is nodding. I support the amendment and the motions, but I want to put on the record that if we were in government and I were at the other Dispatch Box, I would want to enact the Standards Committee’s recommendations as soon as possible.
In that vein, can I urge the Leader of the House to bring forward a further motion to do the work that she has referred to? She will find that she has support from this side for any co-operative and collaborative work that she wishes to do, and even for any critical or difficult work. We stand ready to work with her. This is not a matter that should be party political, although I have made some party political points because unfortunately it has been shown to be so in the past year. I will support the motions and the amendments, and I commend the report and the inquiries of the Standards Committee to all right hon. and hon. Members.
Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)
I rise today to speak in favour of the two amendments on the Order Paper in my name. I will confine my comments to those amendment, but first I want to echo the expressions of thanks to the Standards Committee and its Chair, the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant), for their work. I also offer my thanks to the right hon. Member for Staffordshire Moorlands (Karen Bradley), the Chair of the Procedure Committee, who met me earlier this year in relation to this issue. I am grateful to her and her Clerks for giving me their time.
As has been highlighted by both the Leader of the House and the shadow Leader of the House, my amendments make a straightforward change to what happens when the House votes on a motion to sanction a Member for their conduct. At the moment, a Member in that situation can vote on their own censure. Some of us might think that would never actually happen after an independent investigation has found a Member not only responsible for breaking the code of conduct but responsible for such an egregious breach that their privileges as a Member of this place should be curtailed as a result. We would like to think that there would be a sober reflection and making of amends in that situation but, sadly, we know that is not always the case.
It is less than a year since the censure of the former Member for North Shropshire. In those two votes, the former Member voted against his own suspension. As a result, I secured a Standing Order No. 24 emergency debate on standards, as an opportunity for the House to begin repairing the potential damage that affects us all in this place when such things happen.
It might be the former police officer in me—I have mentioned being a former police officer a few times today, as I spoke in the debate on the Public Order Bill—but it infuriates me that a Member can vote on their own suspension. It puzzles me, too. Surely, with the million rules and conventions in this place about what we can and cannot do, it should not have been allowed.
I had a look and spoke to the Clerks, who are much appreciated by all of us as a fount of knowledge. I found that, yes, there is a convention that, although Members can speak at the start of a debate on their conduct, the expectation is that they should subsequently withdraw, with the implication being that they should not return for the vote. There is a further convention that a Member can lodge a motion objecting to another Member’s participation in a vote in which they have a financial interest in the outcome, but I think you would agree, Madam Deputy Speaker, that this is cumbersome and basically impossible with the rate of business and the number of MPs that we now have in this House.
Importantly, they are both currently conventions, not rules. Simply put, conventions last only as long as people choose to adhere to them. When people do not, it reflects on all of us. The Conservative party potentially had the most mud stuck to them as a result of what happened last year, but this is House business and it reflects on all of us to ensure that we uphold standards in this place.
My two amendments amend the Standing Orders to make these two conventions a rule. Members will not be able to vote on sanctions relating to proven breaches of the code of conduct by themselves. It is worth noting that the vast majority of cases considered by the Standards Commissioner are either not upheld or are rectified without further action, but there are always MPs under investigation, and I suspect there always will be. Although it has nothing to do with those individuals, it is important that we as a House are seen to be acting accordingly.
Where cases are more serious and there is a report to the Standards Committee, and where all the appropriate procedures, including those set down in the motion itself, have been followed and the recommendations reach the Floor of the House, we must ensure that due process is done and, most importantly, seen to be done.
Ironically, it was during Parliament Week last year that we saw the situation that the shadow Leader of the House mentioned, and it is almost Parliament Week again. When I talk to my constituents, they ask me about working here, fairness and transparency, and I genuinely think this is the best job I have ever had. It is an enormous privilege, and I think the vast majority of Members agree and want to act accordingly.
I want to be able to tell my constituents, and I feel very encouraged that I will be able to do so, that we have taken a long, good look at ourselves and that the vast majority of us who want to maintain those high standards and hold the respect of the people we serve did something to make things better.
I am keen that this is not seen to be a party political issue, and the hon. Members for Batley and Spen (Kim Leadbeater), for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas), for Rutland and Melton (Alicia Kearns) and for Lancaster and Fleetwood (Cat Smith), and the right hon. Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale (David Mundell), all put their names to the amendments. For that reason, I hope very much that I will not need to press them to a vote. If there is an objection, I intend to do so this evening.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I call the Chair of the Committee on Standards, Chris Bryant.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
I start by being slightly pernickety, which is to say that I am not a right hon. Gentleman. I do not know whether the Lord President of the Council can do anything about that, but I note that she referred to me as such, for which I am grateful.
On a serious point, historically, we will probably be considered the standards Parliament, because standards have been such a prominent part of the politics of this whole Parliament. As a colleague of 649 of my closest friends, I feel quite painfully the fact that, in this Parliament, 16 Members have already been suspended for a day or more, or have withdrawn from the House before any investigation was completed. That puts this Parliament as having suspended more people than any Parliament in many decades. That, I suspect, is partly because we have put in place the ICGS, which is dealing with work that would previously have been swept under the carpet. Even in my own time in the House, these issues would have simply been dealt with by the Whips and somebody would have been either quietly paid off or told not to complain. I am really glad that that culture is changing, that people feel able to complain when they feel bullied or sexually harassed and that behaviours that were thought to be acceptable 15 or 20 years ago are no longer considered so in the House. We may have more of this before the end of this Parliament, and we just need to bear cognisance of that. Even if we look only at the code of conduct cases, we have ended up suspending more in this Parliament than for a very long time.
I had some very wealthy relatives. When I was young, they taught me that if a person ever inherited money, it was because it had been held in trust. As Members of Parliament, we inherit our seats—not normally hereditary seats, but in some cases they are—and we inherit the reputation of the House that came from previous generations. It is important for us to hold that in trust and pass it on to the next generation of Members of Parliament burnished rather than tarnished. We will have to do a job of work throughout the rest of this Parliament to be able to do that effectively.
The system, I believe, also has to be fair to Members of Parliament. It is phenomenally complex and sometimes, in addition, complicated. An individual Member will be subject to rules of their own party, the ICGS rules, the code of conduct, the Electoral Commission, and the law of the land, and sometimes it is difficult for them to have all those things in their mind. That is why it is so important that the system for Members of Parliament is completely fair, embodies natural justice, and makes sure that the individual complainant—if there is a complainant—and the Member themselves are given an opportunity to put their case and for it to be heard fully. The court of public opinion is not often a fair place. It often jumps to conclusions and decides things far too rapidly. My worry is that, sometimes, our processes happen far too slowly, and that is not justice for either the complainant or the Member, especially as politics has a shelf life—we have elections, for example—and sometimes cases keep going for years, which is not fair on anybody’s mental health either.
Ever since I joined the Committee, I have always wanted us to have some formal process of appeal. I have argued that the system that we have had heretofore provides a sort of form of appeal: if the Commissioner finds against the Member, the Member is allowed a very full opportunity to make their case to the Committee in oral or written evidence. To be honest, it is better that we have a much clearer definition of the roles of the Commissioner and the Committee. That is what Sir Ernest Ryder has provided us with. He gave us a clean bill of health on how we have been operating in the past. He was quite clear in saying that there is not only one way of having a fair trial or hearing; there are many different ways. It might be an inquisitorial system such as we have, but it might be a confrontational system, or an adversarial system, as we have in a court of law. Of course, Committees of the House of Commons are not a court of law; they are fundamentally different. If we went down an adversarial route, the costs would increase dramatically and the length of proceedings would be very different. We have also always had a fundamental principle in the House that a Member speaks for themselves; if they cannot, then I would argue they have slightly lost the plot.
Andy Carter (Warrington South) (Con)
I want to put on record my thanks to the lay members on the Committee. It is a unique Select Committee in Parliament and lay members—members of the public who are selected—play an important part. I am sure the hon. Gentleman will agree with me that the Committee is much stronger for having lay members sitting there alongside parliamentarians.
Chris Bryant
Indeed; that was the next point I was going to make. The hon. Gentleman is very good at doing that in Committee, incidentally, and persuading me of the view that I already hold, but that may just mean that we proceed very much on a consensual basis in the Committee and there is no partisan divide at all. Nor is there a divide between the lay members and the Member members.
There was a point at which people were arguing that MPs should not be involved at all in any of these processes, but I think that is wrong in relation to code of conduct cases. We often end up having a discussion about what casework really involves, or what an all-party parliamentary group does, and I think we make better decisions thereby. However, I do not think we could do that without the lay members and without their having a vote. The balance between the two, the seven lay members and the seven Members, is a good one, and it is sometimes a genuinely fascinating debate, with people offering different perspectives.
On the motions before the House, first, I hope that introducing a procedural protocol that lays out all the processes and what a Member can expect if they have to go through an investigation that ends up going all the way to the Committee will be helpful to all Members. We have laid all that out.
There has been some criticism in the past about whether the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards, who is an adviser to the Committee, should be present when the Committee is considering a memorandum and producing a report on an individual Member. We have decided that from now on—and we are already operating this—the Commissioner will not be present. If we have questions for the Commissioner, we will send them in writing and receive answers in writing, and that will also be available to the Member under consideration.
Secondly, as the Leader of the House has already said, we are introducing an appeal through the Independent Expert Panel. That is a formalised process, and some people may find that that process is stricter than the previous system, because Members cannot appeal just to have a regurgitation of the facts or the argument; there are clear reasons why someone might be able to proceed to appeal, and the appellate body, the IEP, might decide, “I’m sorry, that doesn’t really count. You just want to rehearse the arguments all over again.” Members may find that this is a stricter process, but it closely parallels the situation in many tribunal systems and Sir Ernest Ryder, who had responsibility for the tribunals system in England and Wales, has helped us to get to that position.
There is one other thing that the Leader of the House did not mention, but which I am grateful that the Government have included in the motions. Let us say that the Commissioner recommends that a Member has breached the rules and the Committee decides that there has been a breach of the rules and wants to impose a sanction. We will publish our report, in the way we have done, with the Member concerned getting an embargoed copy an hour before it is published. They will then have a period of time in which to decide whether to appeal. If they do, that goes to the Independent Expert Panel. However, at the end of that process, if the IEP upholds the Committee’s decision and the sanction, the motion should be put to the House forthwith—that is to say, without debate and without amendment, exactly like any other recommendation from the Independent Expert Panel in relation to independent complaints and grievance scheme issues. That makes for perfect clarity and simplicity.
I am grateful, in a way, that the Government have corrected our homework in two regards. The first is in relation to Members’ being allowed to inform their own staff. I think the Government have made that perfectly sensible amendment, which was a sin of omission of ours rather than a sin of commission. The Leader of the House referred to the issue of members of the Committee recusing themselves, which is mentioned in the report and has been raised by some Members. If a member of the Committee has attended only one of the sessions at which an individual case is considered, should they be able to take part in the final decisions? There is nothing in Standing Orders that allows a Committee to prevent a member from taking part; in the end, it is a matter for the member’s own conscience. Broadly speaking, in most of our minds, someone who had not attended the individual Member’s oral evidence would not be able to give them a fair hearing. It is not in the motion—we are relaxed about that—but I wanted to give the House an indication of where we are going on that issue.
I thank both Sir Ernest Ryder and Sir Stephen Irwin. I feel a bit surrounded by knights of the realm sometimes, but it is good to have a new knight of the realm on the Committee—the hon. Member for Broxbourne (Sir Charles Walker), who joined us today. I am grateful to the hon. Member for North East Fife (Wendy Chamberlain); her measure is perfectly sensible. The trouble with conventions and gentlemen’s agreements is that if there is no longer a gentleman on the other side of the agreement, it is no longer an agreement, so it makes perfect sense to put that on the face of the Bill.
The Leader of the House referred to some other issues. Obviously, I would have preferred it if we were dealing with the whole of our report. She referred to how she wants to achieve consensus. We on the Committee think that we have done so, we are open to discussion, but there are some issues I want to raise.
First, we want to ban the provision of paid parliamentary advice, including providing or agreeing to
“provide services as a Parliamentary strategist, adviser or consultant”.
That is self-evident. I think everybody supports it and I would like to make that the rule—it is not yet the rule.
We also think that Members who have second jobs, especially if they are ongoing, should have a contract saying what they and cannot do, because sometimes people will put in a contract, “You will provide contacts with Government on our behalf.” Well, Members cannot do that as that is, expressly, paid lobbying. We think they should be able to provide a contract; the Government disagree.
We want to clarify the serious wrong exemption, which Owen Paterson tried very aggressively and assertively to use as his excuse last year. It just did not wash, but it needs to be clearer for Members.
We want to clarify the paid lobbying rules, which would help out hon. Members a bit, because they are not clear in some areas. At the moment we draw a distinction between a Member “initiating” or “participating” in an approach to or a meeting with a Minister or an official. That is a completely false distinction and we need to get rid of it.
The one big difference I have with the Leader of the House is in relation to the registration of ministerial interests. I know the previous Leader of the House used the line about the constitutional principle of the separation of powers a lot. That is complete and utter baloney. It is nonsense. That phrase has carried on from the previous Leader of the House but one, now I think about it. We do not have a separation of powers. By definition, Ministers are Members of this House. My anxiety is that ministerial offices quite often get the rules about the House wrong, and sometimes Ministers or Members leave staff to do the registration when it is the responsibility of Members. I hope we can get to a better place on that.
It is a fundamental principle that a member of public should be able to look online for a Member—whether they are Minister now, were a Minister a month or six months ago, or have not been a Minister at all this year—and see all the facts about their registrable financial interests, so as to be able to judge whether that Member was acting “without fear or favour”, or was acting with some other consideration in mind. It is, in a sense, even more important for a Minister than it is for others. If two Members, one an ordinary Member of Parliament and one a Minister, go to an air show, with the hospitality, the accommodation and so on paid for by an arms company—it might come to £3,500—it is probably more important for us to know that the Minister was given that hospitality, because it is the Minister who might be making decisions on procurement from that company. Transparency and equality between all Members is really important, and all the information needs to be searchable and findable. We need to do more work on that.
The Government need an adviser on the ministerial code, and I hope that that will come as soon possible. I am very fond of Lord Geidt, who is a magnificent man. I think he felt crushed by the events of the last of years. If we are to hold in trust the reputation of Parliament and of the whole of politics, we must get someone in place as soon as possible.
Like the hon. Member for Warrington South (Andy Carter), I thank the lay members of the Committee. I shall mention only two fully by name, because they have just left: Jane Burgess and Arun Midha have served out their time, and we are recruiting new lay members at the moment. We are one down, and we will need another three next year. Paul, Rita, Mehmuda, Vicky, Michael and Tammy do a magnificent job, and I am enormously grateful to all of them.
Allan Dorans (Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock) (SNP)
Good evening, Madam Deputy Speaker. I declare an interest in this matter as a member of both the Committee on Standards and the Committee on Privileges, appointed by this House in May 2021. I regard it as a privilege to serve on those Committees.
I start by agreeing with my friend the hon. Member for Warrington South (Andy Carter) about the lay members. The Committee on Standards consists of 14 members, seven of whom are MPs and seven of whom are lay members appointed by the House of Commons Commission following an extensive and comprehensive open recruitment process. All seven lay members have extensive knowledge and experience of public life at a senior level and bring a fresh non-political and unbiased perspective to the work of the Committee. I commend and thank them for their commitment and contribution not only to the report we are debating tonight but to the other work undertaken by the Committee on Standards. The lay members are invaluable in enabling the Committee to reach decisions that more accurately reflect the mood, consideration, interpretation and judgment of the country as a whole, rather than the narrow conclusions that might be reached by elected Members, with conflicting pressures and interests of their own in their Westminster role and in this echo chamber in which we operate.
The Committee’s recommendations followed our code of conduct review that started in 2020. The Committee took an extensive range of written and oral evidence and commissioned a survey of Members to draw up balanced and informed recommendations, and we were greatly assisted by independent advice from Sir Ernest Ryder, former Lord Justice of Appeal and Senior President of Tribunals for the United Kingdom. Sir Ernest carried out a review of fairness and natural justice in the House’s standards system, and the Committee published his review in March 2022.
Sir Ernest concluded that the inquisitorial process for code of conduct cases is fair and compliant with article 6 of the European convention on human rights—the right to a fair trial. Two of Sir Ernest’s principal recommendations were to create a single code of procedure, to be approved by the House, and to introduce a formal appeal system. The motions before the House today would implement those two central recommendations.
The Committee recommended that the Independent Expert Panel, which was established by the House in June 2020 to hear appeals and determine serious sanctions in bullying, harassment or sexual misconduct cases, should be the appeal body. If today’s motions are agreed, there will be an additional step in the process of investigating and adjudicating on breaches. The independent Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards will continue to investigate allegations of breaches of the code. If the commissioner’s opinion is that the MP has breached the code and it cannot be rectified using her own powers, she will refer the case to the Committee for a decision; this is what already happens.
Once the Committee has published its report, the MP will then have 10 working days to lodge an appeal, if they wish to do so. The grounds are in line with the appeals grounds in Independent Complaints and Grievance Scheme cases. The Independent Expert Panel would then publish the final outcome unless, in the case of a successful appeal, a case is remitted back to the Committee or Commissioner for fresh investigation or decision.
The Committee published its proposed procedural protocol in July 2022, which brings together material from the Commissioner’s information note, the current chapter 4 of the guide to the rules, and parts of the Committee’s own internal guidance into a single document that we hope is accessible and easy to understand. The protocol also sets out the new process for appeals.
I welcome the Government bringing forward today’s motions and I hope that the new protocol and appeals process will give hon. Members and the public confidence in the integrity and fairness of our standards system. I also sincerely hope that the Government will bring forward motions before too long to allow the House to debate and decide on the proposed new code of conduct and guide to the rules, and the important changes that the Committee is suggesting.
The SNP and I support the reform of practices to ensure that hon. Members of this Parliament have a fair process when allegations have been made against them. We also welcome the motion and proposals to ensure that standards in this House are strengthened, and we look forward to engaging on the proposed reforms. We also welcome the Government bringing forward the motions to implement the Committee’s recommendations on appeals and to approve the proposed new procedural protocol.
In addition, we recommend that consideration be given to training and awareness among hon. Members to provide them with information on the proposed changes. An incredible amount of work has been undertaken by the Committee on Standards regarding the motions being brought before the House today. I also lend my support and that of the SNP to the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for North East Fife (Wendy Chamberlain).
Penny Mordaunt
Once again, I thank the Committee on Standards and its pernickety Chair, the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant)—we are very grateful to him for being so. As I set out when I opened the debate, we are here to endorse these grounds for appeal. It is the Government’s view that the change will bring welcome consistency to our procedures. I am grateful to all hon. Members for the many thoughtful contributions to today’s debate and for the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for North East Fife (Wendy Chamberlain).
I am keen to make progress on all these issues. This particular issue was something that we could do straightaway, and I thought it important to do so, but we will be looking at what more we can do. I mentioned the issue of ministerial declarations: whichever system, whether it is the one advocated by the Chair or the one that I am advocating, requires Whitehall to get its act together—bluntly. That is what I have been focused on and we have acted on that very swiftly.
Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
Further to the point made by the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant), it might be helpful for all hon. Members to look at the way that the Scottish Parliament does things. Everything is out in the open. For the amusement of right hon. and hon. Members present, if they look back at my declaration of interests, they will see that it is down in black and white on paper that Mr Mohamed Al-Fayed gave me a side of smoked salmon valued at £30 and a book valued at £20—it is all still there to be seen today. I point out that no questions were asked on his behalf by me in the Scottish Parliament.
Penny Mordaunt
I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has clarified that there is nothing fishy about his declarations—[Interruption.] It is late.
Chris Bryant
I am not an unreasonable man when it comes to these issues. The key thing is getting transparency. I am more anxious about getting the rest of the Committee on Standards’ changes to the code of conduct in place; I would love us to be able to say that we will start the new code of conduct on 1 January next year. We will need to do some training and preparation for hon. Members so that they fully understand the new rules, but I hope that the Leader of the House will help us to get to that place.
Penny Mordaunt
I shall certainly do so. There will be other issues that the House will wish to debate and discuss, and there will be areas on which we disagree—for example, we disagree on the issue of descriptors—but we must proceed on a consensus basis.
I would like to add that I think a lot of the issues we have grappled with in this place—whether about security and the integrity of our democracy, the wellbeing of Members of this House or Ministers, or safeguarding and behavioural issues—are not solely owned by the House, but cross over into political parties, as was mentioned, and the Government. Even the chairman of the party in government does not have access to security information in his own Department, the Cabinet Office, about a permissible donor, for example. In my tenure as Leader of the House, I am keen to find a forum in which we can bring together those constituent parts—party, Government and the House of Commons—to really tackle some of these issues, which are very difficult, even if we are doing really well, to grip in isolation. If we are striving for excellence, I think that is a requirement.
I again thank all Members for their contribution. The Government look forward to further debate on this matter to ensure that our standards system commands the confidence of both the public and Members of this House.
Question put and agreed to.
Standing Orders Etc. (Committee on Standards, Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards, Independent Export Panel)
Motion made, and Question proposed (Order, this day),
That—
(1) Standing Order No. 149 (Committee on Standards) be amended as follows:
At end, insert new paragraphs as follows:
“() The committee and any sub-committee shall have power to communicate its evidence and any other information in its possession to a sub-panel of the Independent Expert Panel in respect of a Code of Conduct case that has been appealed to the Panel.
() The Speaker shall put the questions necessary to dispose of proceedings on a motion to implement a sanction recommended by the Committee (or a sub-panel of the Independent Expert Panel where it recommends a sanction following an appeal) in respect of a Code of Conduct case forthwith; such a motion may be proceeded with until any hour, though opposed.”
(2) Standing Order No. 150 (Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards) be amended as follows:
(a) In sub-paragraph (4)(a), delete “, and the Member concerned has taken such action by way of rectification as the Commissioner may have required within any procedure approved by the Committee for this purpose”;
(b) In sub-paragraph (4)(b), delete “, if the Commissioner has with the agreement of the Member concerned referred the matter to the relevant Officer of the House for the purpose of securing appropriate financial reimbursement, and the Member has made such reimbursement within such period of time as the Commissioner considers reasonable.” and insert “;”;
(c) At end of paragraph (4), insert “(c) in any case relating to the rules for All-Party Parliamentary Groups if it is the Commissioner’s opinion that the breach involved is minor, or the failure was inadvertent—
where the Member concerned has, by agreement, taken such action by way of rectification as the Commissioner may have required.”; and
(d) Delete paragraphs (6)–(11).
(3) Standing Order No. 150A (Independent Expert Panel) be amended to read as follows:
(1) There shall be a Panel, to be known as the Independent Expert Panel, whose members shall be appointed by the House in accordance with Standing Order No. 150C (Appointment of Independent Expert Panel Members).
(2) The Panel shall consist of eight members, of whom a quorum shall be four.
(3) The functions of the Panel shall be—
(a) to determine the appropriate sanction in Independent Complainants and Grievance Scheme (ICGS) cases referred to it by the Parliamentary Commissioner on Standards;
(b) to hear appeals against the decisions of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards in respect of ICGS cases involving Members of this House;
(c) to hear appeals against a sanction imposed under paragraph (a);
(d) to report from time to time, through the Clerk of the House, on the operation of the ICGS as it relates to Members of this House;
(e) To hear appeals against the decisions of the Committee on Standards under Standing Order No. 149(1)(b) in relation to individual cases under the Code of Conduct;
(f) To consider any case of non-compliance by a Member of this House with a sanction imposed under sub-paragraph (a) or any other recommendation made in a report by a sub-panel in relation to an ICGS case; and to determine the appropriate sanction.
(4) The Panel may elect its own Chair.
(5) The responsibilities of the Chair shall include—
(a) ensuring that the Panel and its sub-panels comply with the provisions of the relevant resolutions and standing orders of this House, and with the Procedural Protocol for Code of Conduct cases;
(b) the appointment of sub-panels to consider individual cases;
(c) co-ordinating the work of the Panel with that of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards in relation to ICGS cases and the Committee on Standards in relation to Code of Conduct cases;
(d) referring any report from a sub-panel which determines, or confirms on appeal, a sanction that can only be imposed by the House, and any other report from a sub-panel that the Chair considers should be published, to the Clerk of the House who shall lay it upon the Table of the House;
(e) informing the parties concerned of the outcome of any other ICGS case reported to the Chair by a sub-panel, and ensuring compliance as appropriate with sanctions determined or recommendations made by a sub-panel;
(f) establishing the procedure for an appeal against the findings or determination of a sub-panel in cases referred under (3)(a) above;
(g) ensuring publication of an Annual Report on the functioning of the Panel and its sub-panels by referring the report to the Clerk of the House for laying on the Table.
(6) The Panel and any sub-panel shall have power—
(a) to sit notwithstanding any adjournment of the House;
(b) to order the attendance of any Member before it and to require that specific documents or records in the possession of a Member relating to its inquiries, or to the inquiries of the Commissioner, be laid before it;
(c) to appoint legal advisers, and to appoint specialist advisers either to supply information which is not readily available or to elucidate matters of complexity within the Panel’s order of reference.
(4) Standing Order No. 150B (Independent Expert Panel: Sub-panels) be amended to read as follows:
(1) Cases referred to the Independent Expert Panel under Standing Order No. 150A (Independent Expert Panel) shall be considered by a sub-panel appointed under paragraph (5)(b) of that order.
(2) A sub-panel shall consist of three members of the Panel and shall have a quorum of three.
(3) Sub-panels shall sit in private.
(4) A sub-panel may request the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards to conduct further investigations in respect of an ICGS case referred to it and may specify the matters to be covered in that investigation.
(5) In respect of a Code of Conduct case a sub-panel may request that the Committee on Standards or the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards share specific documents or records in their possession relating to the sub-panel’s inquiries.
(6) In respect of each case referred to it, a sub-panel shall make a report of its findings to the Chair of the Panel.
(7) Where an appeal is made against a finding or determination of a sanction by a sub-panel in an ICGS case, a new sub-panel shall be established to hear that appeal. No member shall be eligible to hear an appeal against the decision of a sub-panel on which they have served.
(5) Standing Order No. 150E (IEP recommendations for sanctions and the Recall of MPs Act 2015) be amended as follows:
In paragraph (2), after “Order” insert, “in relation to an ICGS case, or where a sub-panel has determined a sanction different to that recommended by the Committee on Standards in a Code of Conduct case,”.—(Penny Mordaunt.)
Amendments made: (a), at the end of paragraph (1) relating to Standing Order No 149, insert:
“; and no Member shall be eligible to participate in any division on such a motion where it relates to their own conduct.”—(Wendy Chamberlain.)
Amendment (b), at the end of paragraph (4) relating to Standing Order 150B, insert new paragraph
“(4A) Standing Order No. 150D (Motions consequent on the ICGS) be amended as follows:
At end, add ‘(5) No Member shall be eligible to participate in any division on such a motion where it relates to their own conduct.’”—(Wendy Chamberlain.)
Main Question, as amended, put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That—
(1) Standing Order No. 149 (Committee on Standards) be amended as follows:
At end, insert new paragraphs as follows:
“() The committee and any sub-committee shall have power to communicate its evidence and any other information in its possession to a sub-panel of the Independent Expert Panel in respect of a Code of Conduct case that has been appealed to the Panel.
() The Speaker shall put the questions necessary to dispose of proceedings on a motion to implement a sanction recommended by the Committee (or a sub-panel of the Independent Expert Panel where it recommends a sanction following an appeal) in respect of a Code of Conduct case forthwith; such a motion may be proceeded with until any hour, though opposed; and no Member shall be eligible to participate in any division on such a motion where it relates to their own conduct.”
(2) Standing Order No. 150 (Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards) be amended as follows:
(a) In sub-paragraph (4)(a), delete “, and the Member concerned has taken such action by way of rectification as the Commissioner may have required within any procedure approved by the Committee for this purpose”;
(b) In sub-paragraph (4)(b), delete “, if the Commissioner has with the agreement of the Member concerned referred the matter to the relevant Officer of the House for the purpose of securing appropriate financial reimbursement, and the Member has made such reimbursement within such period of time as the Commissioner considers reasonable.” and insert “;”;
(c) At end of paragraph (4), insert “(c) in any case relating to the rules for All-Party Parliamentary Groups if it is the Commissioner’s opinion that the breach involved is minor, or the failure was inadvertent—
where the Member concerned has, by agreement, taken such action by way of rectification as the Commissioner may have required.”; and
(d) Delete paragraphs (6)–(11).
(3) Standing Order No. 150A (Independent Expert Panel) be amended to read as follows:
(1) There shall be a Panel, to be known as the Independent Expert Panel, whose members shall be appointed by the House in accordance with Standing Order No. 150C (Appointment of Independent Expert Panel Members).
(2) The Panel shall consist of eight members, of whom a quorum shall be four.
(3) The functions of the Panel shall be—
(a) to determine the appropriate sanction in Independent Complainants and Grievance Scheme (ICGS) cases referred to it by the Parliamentary Commissioner on Standards;
(b) to hear appeals against the decisions of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards in respect of ICGS cases involving Members of this House;
(c) to hear appeals against a sanction imposed under paragraph (a);
(d) to report from time to time, through the Clerk of the House, on the operation of the ICGS as it relates to Members of this House;
(e) To hear appeals against the decisions of the Committee on Standards under Standing Order No. 149(1)(b) in relation to individual cases under the Code of Conduct;
(f) To consider any case of non-compliance by a Member of this House with a sanction imposed under sub-paragraph (a) or any other recommendation made in a report by a sub-panel in relation to an ICGS case; and to determine the appropriate sanction.
(4) The Panel may elect its own Chair.
(5) The responsibilities of the Chair shall include—
(a) ensuring that the Panel and its sub-panels comply with the provisions of the relevant resolutions and standing orders of this House, and with the Procedural Protocol for Code of Conduct cases;
(b) the appointment of sub-panels to consider individual cases;
(c) co-ordinating the work of the Panel with that of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards in relation to ICGS cases and the Committee on Standards in relation to Code of Conduct cases;
(d) referring any report from a sub-panel which determines, or confirms on appeal, a sanction that can only be imposed by the House, and any other report from a sub-panel that the Chair considers should be published, to the Clerk of the House who shall lay it upon the Table of the House;
(e) informing the parties concerned of the outcome of any other ICGS case reported to the Chair by a sub-panel, and ensuring compliance as appropriate with sanctions determined or recommendations made by a sub-panel;
(f) establishing the procedure for an appeal against the findings or determination of a sub-panel in cases referred under (3)(a) above;
(g) ensuring publication of an Annual Report on the functioning of the Panel and its sub-panels by referring the report to the Clerk of the House for laying on the Table.
(6) The Panel and any sub-panel shall have power—
(a) to sit notwithstanding any adjournment of the House;
(b) to order the attendance of any Member before it and to require that specific documents or records in the possession of a Member relating to its inquiries, or to the inquiries of the Commissioner, be laid before it;
(c) to appoint legal advisers, and to appoint specialist advisers either to supply information which is not readily available or to elucidate matters of complexity within the Panel’s order of reference.
(4) Standing Order No. 150B (Independent Expert Panel: Sub-panels) be amended to read as follows:
(1) Cases referred to the Independent Expert Panel under Standing Order No. 150A (Independent Expert Panel) shall be considered by a sub-panel appointed under paragraph (5)(b) of that order.
(2) A sub-panel shall consist of three members of the Panel and shall have a quorum of three.
(3) Sub-panels shall sit in private.
(4) A sub-panel may request the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards to conduct further investigations in respect of an ICGS case referred to it and may specify the matters to be covered in that investigation.
(5) Standing Order No. 150D (Motions consequent on the ICGS) be amended as follows:
At end, add ‘(5) No Member shall be eligible to participate in any division on such a motion where it relates to their own conduct.’
(6) In respect of a Code of Conduct case a sub-panel may request that the Committee on Standards or the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards share specific documents or records in their possession relating to the sub-panel’s inquiries.
(7) In respect of each case referred to it, a sub-panel shall make a report of its findings to the Chair of the Panel.
(8) Where an appeal is made against a finding or determination of a sanction by a sub-panel in an ICGS case, a new sub-panel shall be established to hear that appeal. No member shall be eligible to hear an appeal against the decision of a sub-panel on which they have served.
(5) Standing Order No. 150E (IEP recommendations for sanctions and the Recall of MPs Act 2015) be amended as follows:
In paragraph (2), after “Order” insert, “in relation to an ICGS case, or where a sub-panel has determined a sanction different to that recommended by the Committee on Standards in a Code of Conduct case,”.
Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards (Appointment)
(1 year, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sir Charles Walker (Broxbourne) (Con)
I beg to move,
That Daniel Greenberg be appointed Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards on the terms of the Report of the House of Commons Commission, HC 694, dated 6 September 2022.
I will try to be brief. On 20 July, the House of Commons Commission nominated Daniel Greenberg as the new Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards, and the motion is in my name as the spokesperson for the Commission.
I will just provide a little bit of history, if that is all right. In 2003, the House decided that the office of Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards should be held for a non-renewable term of five years. The duties of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards are set out in Standing Orders. For the benefit of those interested, and I know many are, they include: maintaining the Register of Members’ Financial Interests and other registers established by the House; advising the Committee on Standards and individual MPs on the interpretation of the rules; monitoring the operation of the code and registers, and making recommendations to the Committee on Standards; independently investigating complaints against MPs, or matters where they have evidence there may have been a breach of the code of conduct—a theatrical pause because this is a long list—and overseeing investigations into complaints against MPs under the Independent Complaints and Grievance Scheme if the case goes to a full investigation, acting as the decision-making body on them, and either determining the appropriate sanction or referring more serious cases to the Independent Expert Panel to determine sanction.
The appointment of the current commissioner ends on 31 December and the House needs to appoint a new commissioner on the basis that it is a single five-year term with no option for renewal. Kathryn Stone, the retiring commissioner, has held her post for nearly five years and was the sixth office holder. On behalf of the House of Commons and the Commission, I thank her for her service to this House. It has not been easy all the time; in fact, it is a very difficult job. She has absolutely done it diligently and to the very best of her abilities.
The Commission, which I am on, has been responsible for running the recruitment campaign, as it has in the past—this is something the Commission always does. It engaged recruitment consultants to support the search and that included a national advertising campaign. I have to say that finding willing volunteers was difficult. This is not a hugely attractive job, for obvious reasons. Talented people still put their names forward but not in the same number as have in the past.
Following the shortlisting, there was a two-stage recruitment process. The first included two external panel members and both myself and the Chair of the Standards Committee, the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant), who is sitting opposite. A second panel afterwards was drawn from the Commission, including the Speaker, the former Leader of the House and the current shadow Leader. Full details are in the Commission’s report, for anyone who would like to read that.
Daniel Greenberg is a lawyer. He currently serves as counsel for domestic legislation. He was parliamentary counsel for 20 years and counsel, Office of Speaker’s Counsel, House of Commons from 2010 to 2016. The Commission is confident that he has the necessary experience and skills for the role, and that he will bring to it the authority, independence, discretion and strength of character required.
I have known Daniel at a distance since I have been a Member of Parliament; he has appeared before a couple of Select Committees that I have chaired, notably the Procedure Committee. He is a man of formidable intelligence and we are very, very lucky to have him. All that remains to be said is that the new post will commence on 1 January, a bank holiday, so I expect he will be getting down to business shortly after that date.
Allan Dorans (Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock) (SNP)
I again declare an interest in this matter as a member of the Commons Standards Committee.
The Scottish National party welcomes this appointment. Elected Members of this Parliament are rightly expected to meet the high standards in public life as defined by the Nolan principles and expected to adhere to the House of Commons code of conduct and related rules of the House. The role of the independent Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards is an absolutely crucial appointment in maintaining public trust that Members of Parliament adhere to these principles, and to ensure that all MPs have confidence that any allegations of breaches of the MPs’ code of conduct are investigated fairly, impartially and free of political bias.
I understand that Mr Greenberg has been through a rigorous and open recruitment and selection process and is recommended for appointment by the House of Commons Commission. From what I know of Mr Greenberg’s previous experience, I am confident that he will make an excellent independent Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards, and I support the motion.
May I pay tribute to the outgoing Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards, Kathryn Stone, who leaves this position at the end of her five-year tenure in December? The role of commissioner is a difficult and challenging position which Ms Stone has carried out with utmost fairness, professionalism and integrity. Both Parliament and the public are indebted to her for her service and wish her well in her new role as the chair of the Bar Standards Board.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
Me again. It would be fair to say that the search company found it quite difficult to get lots of good candidates to apply. In fact, significantly fewer applied than five years ago. I asked it why that was and it said, “Well, you’ve only got to read the newspapers to see why.” Kathryn Stone has faced pretty ferocious, sustained attacks in the media, including from quite a number of colleagues in the House. There have been times when I have felt such admiration for her because she has managed not to soldier on—that is not quite the kind of person she is—but to keep going with clarity and without any sense of bearing a grudge or anything like that. However, it must have been tough for her. That has made it difficult for us to find candidates.
When we went through the process, I felt that only one person was really appointable. Although the Commission had asked us to take forward two names, the second name dropped out. All that being said, we have an absolute corker to take on the job.
Chris Bryant
Daniel Greenberg is quite phenomenal; my hon. Friend the Member for Newport East (Jessica Morden) knows him from his advice to the Joint Committee on Human Rights. He has advised the Standards Committee several times, and done so with considerable wit, rapier intelligence and sometimes rather frighteningly.
More importantly—I do not think that I am breaking a confidence—we were advised by those who did the initial interviews that he might be a little shy about providing his opinions. I do not think that is the issue at all. He was absolutely magnificent at interview; I was giving him 10 out of 10 on every single one of the key criteria on experiences and abilities needed to fulfil the role. I am certain that he will do a splendid job for the House.
I do, however, want the House to embrace the appointment. Part of what I said earlier about upholding the standards of the House and maintaining its reputation for future generations involves not attacking those whom we have entrusted with managing that job. Sometimes, he may need additional financial and staffing resources to be able to do the job properly.
I pay tribute to Kathryn Stone for the magnificent way in which she has done her job—I hope that we will have an opportunity to do that properly before she departs later in the year—and the phenomenal members of her team. In particular, I have worked closely with Helen Reid, who is clear, concise and fair. Kathryn has managed to create a team that I think she will hand on in very good nick to Daniel Greenberg when he starts on 1 January.
There is just one area where I hope that Daniel will be able to work clearly. I have some sneaking concerns about the operation of the ICGS. Sometimes, the quality of people who have been employed to do the early investigations has not been up to scratch. Because the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards has a sideline to that role, it is important that Daniel can work closely with whoever will be running the ICGS in future. Having said all of that, Daniel is a magnificent appointment and I am glad that the Commission has agreed with the hon. Member for Broxbourne (Sir Charles Walker) and myself.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I call the shadow Deputy Leader of the House.
Jessica Morden (Newport East) (Lab)
May I agree with what everyone else has said? Like other hon. Members, I pay tribute to the outgoing commissioner, Kathryn Stone. We thank her very much for her work and extend our best wishes to her for whatever roles she continues in the future. As my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) said, it has been a difficult role at a difficult time—that was alluded to earlier in the debate—but she has done it really well. Standards are vital to us. They exist to hold us all to account. Everybody who works in Parliament, but particularly hon. Members, should be held to the highest standards and we thank her for all she has done in that role.
I welcome the new commissioner, Daniel Greenberg. My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol West (Thangam Debbonaire), the shadow Leader of the House, was involved in the interview process. She told me that he was an absolutely exceptional candidate and that his application was of the highest standard. As a member for many years of the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, I know that Daniel served the Committee with distinction for over 12 years, including six years advising the Committee as counsel for domestic legislation. On behalf of our small but dedicated Committee, I thank him for all the work he has done on our Committee.
The work of the JCSI perhaps does not have the highest profile in Parliament, but it is an important Committee that does the job of considering statutory instruments. That work is of the utmost importance. Daniel’s role as leading counsel advising the Committee, working with the excellent team we have, has been much appreciated, as has his vigorous attention to detail, fair-mindedness and, as the hon. Member for Broxbourne (Sir Charles Walker) said, formidable intellect, as well as his humour and lightness of touch. That thoroughness will be an asset to us in Parliament in his new role. Those of us who listened to his excellent contributions on “Thought for the Day” on Radio 4—essential listening for those of us on the JCSI—are also well aware of his thoughtfulness and empathy, qualities he will undoubtedly bring to his work as commissioner, so we welcome him.
The Leader of the House of Commons (Penny Mordaunt)
I would like to begin by endorsing the thanks and appreciation that hon. Members have given for the work undertaken by Kathryn Stone since her appointment in 2017. It has been a tough shift for her, but she has helped to develop the standards system. She played a key role in the implementation of the ICGS and helped the Independent Expert Panel in establishing its working practices and procedures following its establishment in 2020. I have not personally been involved in the recruitment process for her successor. My right hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood (Mark Spencer) sat on the final selection panel with three other members of the Commission. I would like to express my gratitude to all those who were involved in the selection panels and assessing the candidates. The whole House owes them gratitude.
It is vital that we all have confidence in the standards system and the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards has a key role to play in that. The comments by my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Sir Charles Walker) and the information contained in the Commission report have certainly reassured me that Daniel Greenberg possesses the necessary skills and experience to carry out the role extremely effectively and build confidence in the system. It is therefore my hope that the House will approve this nomination and that we can welcome him and wish him well in his new role.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
Thank you. I certainly recall that, when I was a Minister, there was always a huge sigh of relief when Daniel came in to give us advice. I am sure he will do a magnificent job.
Question put and agreed to.
Business without Debate
Madam Deputy Speaker
With the leave of the House, we shall take motions 8 and 9 together.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),
Armorial Bearings, Ensigns and Flags
That the draft Flags (Northern Ireland) (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2022, which were laid before this House on 15 June, be approved.
Health Services
That the draft Health and Social Care Act (Northern Ireland) 2022 (Consequential Amendments) Order 2022, which was laid before this House on 23 June, be approved.—(Darren Henry.)
Question agreed to.
Unfinished Housing Developments: Consumer Protection
(1 year, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Helen Morgan (North Shropshire) (LD)
I thank the Minister for his attendance and response this evening. I secured this debate following a number of instances in my constituency in which the buyers of new homes have been left to pick up the pieces when critical infrastructure is not completed by the developer.
Let me tell the House first about The Brambles in Whitchurch. That is a development of 14 houses, built by developer Sherwood Homes Ltd in 2016 on land that had already been granted planning permission for development by Shropshire Council. It was a condition of the planning permission that the road, footpath and drainage should all be complete before the occupation of any houses occurred. However, despite those things never happening, building completion certificates were issued for all the properties and they were subsequently sold and inhabited. Unfortunately for the residents, the drainage system failed, leading on some days to raw sewage backing up in their gardens. Sherwood Homes Ltd had not taken out the section 104 agreement required in the planning permission, and not only was the arrangement dysfunctional, but the connection to the Welsh Water sewerage network was illegal, and neither were the road, lighting and footpath completed to an acceptable standard.
In October 2019, a creditor of Sherwood Homes Ltd, which appears to have shared some of the same directors, petitioned for it to be wound up and an order for insolvency was made by the court in December 2019. As a result, Shropshire Council could not take planning enforcement action against Sherwood Homes Ltd, and the residents of The Brambles, who are the successors in title to the private company established to manage the development, have been the subject of the enforcement process. They have been required to accept five-figure charges on their properties in order to rectify the issue of connecting the drainage to Welsh Water’s network. Indeed, the saga has also cost the rest of Shropshire’s taxpayers a considerable amount of time, as council officers have expended time and effort to attempt to rectify the situation.
Shropshire Council believes that the developer’s failure to complete the necessary works before the first house was occupied should have been established by conveyancing solicitors, and the lessons to be learned from this episode are, “buyer beware.” It may be right, but few residents have been able to establish that principle with their solicitors and would not have the resources to begin legal proceedings against them. I believe that some of the home buyers took up the offer of conveyancing services facilitated by the very developer who left them high and dry, raising serious concerns over a potential conflict of interest.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I commend the hon. Lady for securing the debate. Back home in Northern Ireland—I say this to inform the Minister as well—we have a very clear system whereby each developer must put a bond on the property. Therefore, should there be any difficulty in relation to the footpaths and roads not being finished, or if the streetlights are not done and the sewerage fails, that bond can be used for those repairs. Does the hon. Lady feel that the methodology used in Northern Ireland may settle the problems that she refers to, and that the Government and the Minister should look at that option?
Helen Morgan
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that sensible intervention; I will make a very similar suggestion in my speech.
The leader of the council declined my request to undertake a case review of the sequence of events that led to the situation at The Brambles to understand whether the council could have prevented the situation at any point as it evolved. As the law stands, it would appear that she is right. The Building Safety Act 2022 does not cover issues relating beyond the house itself, and the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman declined to consider the case, arguing that:
“Caselaw has established that where a council issues a completion certificate and the work is later found to be substandard, liability for any defects rests with those who commissioned the work and those who carried it out. We cannot therefore hold the Council responsible for substandard work by the developer and we could not achieve any worthwhile outcome for”—
my constituent by investigating the complaint.
This is a very serious case—the most serious case I have seen in North Shropshire—but there are numerous instances in which roads have not been completed to a standard suitable for adoption, streetlights are not installed, shared areas are not landscaped as per planning permission and, in some cases, even the plot sizes vary from the original plan.
I can provide further examples. A development at Isherwoods Way in Wem has been without streetlights and a surfaced road for 10 years; although the situation is about to be resolved, it is not quite there yet. On the west side of my constituency, a site that I cannot name because legal proceedings are under way features an unadopted sewerage system that has not been completed to the required standard. A development in Ellesmere was left without an adopted road and open space when the developing company collapsed. The situation is only being resolved now that the development has been purchased by a major national house builder. The developer of another site in Wem has applied for insolvency despite the road being unadopted, the open spaces not having been landscaped and concerns having been expressed by residents about the water drainage system.
The cost to residents of these sites is not only financial. Untold distress and emotional strain have been caused and an enormous amount of precious time has been spent on resolving the situation. At a recent constituency surgery, one resident told me, “I’m a truck driver. I don’t have time to become an expert on planning control.” His neighbour, a construction worker, described the strain of worrying about everything that could go wrong with the drainage system, and about the cost involved in digging up the road to rectify the faults.
John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)
I have a similar problem in Cranford Street in Smethwick. I find it utterly deplorable that Severn Trent, which is making hundreds of millions and whose chief executive is paid millions, will not take over any responsibility for the sewage that is backing up into people’s homes. People have bought the home of their dreams and are now finding that it has turned into a nightmare.
Helen Morgan
I thank the right hon. Member for his intervention. I have had some productive discussions with Severn Trent on the issue and am about to propose a solution that I hope will help to rectify the situation.
It has become apparent that residents are tied into an impossible situation. They no longer want to live in their homes, but realistically they cannot sell them until the defects are rectified. There are also wider financial ramifications because if any resident defaults on their mortgage, a bank will not be able to sell the property to recover its investment.
The other common theme emerging from all these developments is that homebuyers will be expected to contribute to the costs of maintaining shared areas via a management company to which the title for the shared areas has passed. These companies typically pass on the management cost to the residents at zero profit. However, the ones that I have investigated then subcontract the work to a profit-making company. I am sure that the House will not be surprised to learn that in many such arrangements the subcontractor is related in some way to the original developer.
The companies can charge uncapped amounts indefinitely to the homebuyer, in what is known as a fleecehold—I am aware that several hon. Members have raised the plight of fleeceholders on previous occasions. The management company can be used not only to pass on to the homebuyer the financial responsibility for completing the development, but to extort money for years to come, often for substandard management services. I am aware that the Government have indicated that they will legislate to control such management charges. I urge the Minister not only to commit to a date for such legislation, but to ensure that protections are included to cover previously unfinished developments.
To tackle the issue up front, however, I propose a different course of action. I believe that it is possible for a water company or a local council to obtain a financial bond when a section 104 or section 106 agreement is put in place, such that when critical infrastructure is not completed, funds are still available to complete the work. In addition, there are mechanisms such as section 38 agreements incorporating financial bonds that can be used to ensure that roads are of an adoptable standard. Having spoken to colleagues, I believe that some councils, such as Oxfordshire County Council, use financial bonds for that purpose and to avoid the distressing situations that I have described. I have not been able to establish why that is not standard practice for all councils.
I urge the Minister to consider using the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill to require councils to take a step involving a financial bond before planning conditions are discharged, so that unsuspecting homebuyers are not left with unmanageable costs if their developer goes bust before the site is completed. The principle has already been established in the Government: National Highways requires a bond from local authorities if they propose works affecting the strategic road network, so that significant disruption is avoided if the works are not completed. I am concerned to learn that the changes proposed to the Bill would reduce councils’ ability to use section 106 agreements for smaller developments and would remove current powers to protect homeowners.
The rationale for planning deregulation is that it will enable house building targets to be met by removing barriers to completion, but I would argue that, certainly in the case of North Shropshire, it is not necessary. The evidence does not show that planning regulations are behind slow rates of house building. Shropshire’s local plan contains a target of 30,500 new homes by 2038, but there are already 18,000 planning applications on which consideration has not yet commenced. The current build rate of just under 1,900 houses a year does not suggest that planning permission is the issue holding things up.
I appreciate that requiring a financial bond from new house builders might deter smaller companies from entering the market, but first I question whether homebuyers and council tax payers should be taking on the risk posed by a financially unviable housebuilder; and secondly, it should be possible to find an alternative, such as an investment bond, to combat that risk.
I am extremely concerned about the fact that councils lack the tools they need to ensure that the buyers of new-build homes do not fall victim to rogue developers, and the fact that the effectiveness of the tools they do have may be reduced by the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill. I hope that the Minister will agree to consider making the use of financial bonds as part of section 106 or similar agreements a required practice for councils and water companies, to protect both homebuyers and councils’ own taxpayers from high-risk housing developers.
If the Minister rejects such a solution, however, will he agree to meet me and other stakeholders, such as the Local Government Association, to formulate a practical mechanism to prevent the distress and financial hardship caused by unfinished housing developments? Homebuyers, councils and the wider community need to be confident that they will not be left to the pick up the pieces when a developer fails to deliver. The owners of The Brambles are victims of a rogue developer, and we should act to ensure that their experience is not repeated elsewhere.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (Lee Rowley)
I congratulate the hon. Member for North Shropshire (Helen Morgan) on securing the debate, on making her case so cogently and, in particular, on talking about the constituents on whose individual circumstances, as she outlined, this issue has had such an impact.
I thank the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) for his contribution, as ever, to an Adjournment debate, and for highlighting the elements of the Northern Ireland approach, which is something for us all to consider. I also thank the right hon. Member for Warley (John Spellar) for the information that he provided. He has written to the Department as well; I am looking at that correspondence and will get back to him as soon as I am able to do so.
As has been clear tonight, the hon. Lady speaks for many Members on both sides of the House in arguing for better protection for people in unfinished housing developments. I cannot comment on individual cases because I do not have all the details in front of me, and obviously there are two sides to every story and different circumstances in each case. However, I would say to people who have been adversely affected by inappropriate practices, whether in North Shropshire or elsewhere, that that is not acceptable; I am sorry they have had that experience, and I hope they can seek redress and correction in any way that is available to them.
I think everyone in the House would agree that we need more homes, but we need them in the right places and we need them when they are constructed. That is often a controversial and difficult process, but when they are constructed, we need them to be of a standard that enables people to live in them. They have to work, and they have to work within the local community that those people are seeking to join. The debate is timely in enabling us to highlight the latter point, because in a minority of instances that might not be the case.
For too many people, at least initially, the dream of home ownership does not live up to their hopes, because they are forced into resolving faults in their new build homes that are not of their making. The delays in getting those issues resolved often leave homeowners out of pocket, in financial stress or, as the hon. Lady suggested, having to engage in lengthy battles with developers to put things right—if the developer concerned is still in place. As a constituency MP, I have had some experience of that in North East Derbyshire, albeit with a developer who did in the end put things right—but it took a while for that to be done, which caused many residents in a number of villages, but one in particular, a significant amount of stress. So on a personal level, from a constituency perspective, I understand the point that the hon. Lady has made.
The Government are unequivocal in stating that all new housing developments should be finished on time and to a standard that buyers expect. If things go wrong, as they sometimes do—we all know that processes are not perfect; the developer sometimes has problems and challenges and we should be reasonable in expecting that—the buyer should be treated fairly and promptly. I would like to say a little bit about the action we are taking to make sure that this is the norm in all new housing developments, wherever they are in the country. This breaks roughly into three different elements. The first is the length of time that it can often take for houses to be developed in the first place. The second involves the infrastructure commitments that the hon. Lady has highlighted, and the third relates to the quality of work in the developments when they are concluded and people begin to live in them. There are often concerns about the quality at that point.
Jim Shannon
I thank the Minister for his helpful response, and again I want to use it to be constructive. Back home there are many developers who sign up to the Master Builders Association agreement. As members of that organisation, they are accountable for the finish of the houses. If at the end the houses are not finished to the standard they should be, the owner has the right to take a complaint to the Master Builders Association, which will ensure that the work is completed to standard. I ask in a constructive way: is that something that could be done here?
Lee Rowley
The hon. Gentleman makes an important point, and I would be interested in hearing more. He will appreciate that I am seven weeks into post and I am still learning, but I would be genuinely interested in understanding the Northern Irish approach, given the information that he has highlighted this evening. Where there are things that are done well, we should be willing as a Government to look at those to see where we can take best practice and apply it on a broader level. I want to understand in more detail what is happening in Northern Ireland, and I will be happy to do that separately with him and his colleagues, if that would be helpful. I would be keen to understand the particular difference that he thinks comes from the Northern Irish approach, and I am always happy to find out more about particular instances and whether they would work on a broader scale, should that be helpful.
Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
Could I perhaps look at the issue the other way round? As in Northern Ireland, housing and planning are entirely devolved to the Scottish Parliament, yet as a Member of this place, I get stuff about housing all the time. Looking at it the other way around, as and when His Majesty’s Government develop clever ways of doing things with housing, taking on board the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire, I would be grateful if those new methods could at least be offered to the Scottish Government in case they could glean something that might improve the housing issues north of the border.
Lee Rowley
The United Kingdom Government are always keen to indicate to the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Government where we might be able to work together and where we think that elements of policy might work for Scotland as well as they work elsewhere in the Union. Occasionally, the Scottish Government are not that keen to listen to His Majesty’s Government, but perhaps, given the hopeful outbreak of consensus on the desire to make progress, that will not occur on this particular subject. I am happy to consider the point that the hon. Gentleman rightly and properly makes.
John Spellar
I think we need to look at two separate, although related, problems. One is about the individual build quality of the houses. The other is about the infrastructure of the estate, which is certainly a problem that I and neighbouring Members of Parliament in the west midlands conurbation are finding. We have to find a way through that. In addition, if a developer goes bankrupt, the titles revert to the Crown Estate, so does not the Crown Estate have an opportunity to play a proactive role here? At the moment it seems to be playing a fairly passive role.
Lee Rowley
I will come to those two points, because I agree there are different elements that we need to consider and unpack. I would be happy to discuss the second point with the right hon. Gentleman in more detail, should he wish.
On completing new housing developments—I accept the hon. Member for North Shropshire made a broader point about further down the chain—the Government are clear that developments should be built out as soon as possible once planning permission is granted. The frustration of local communities where that does not occur is completely understandable. We expect developers and local authorities to work closely together to make this happen.
The Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill, which is in Committee today, will increase transparency on build-out, helping councils and residents to better understand what they can expect from development proposals and putting in place sanctions should the homebuilder fall short. Of course, there are examples where developers will need to vary their approach to building and constructing properties, and of course timeframes will both elongate and reduce as part of that process, but in general we are keen to see that when development is granted permission, often through difficult and sometimes controversial processes, and the clock starts ticking, the development should get moving and conclude as soon as possible.
The hon. Member for North Shropshire rightly highlighted infrastructure. Taking roads as an example—she mentioned a number of examples—when a new development is granted planning permission, councils can currently use section 106 planning obligations, as she indicated, to secure a commitment from developers to construct roads to a standard capable of being adopted by the local highway authority. It is up to developers and local planning authorities to agree on specifics such as timescales and funding, which may include the provision of a bond. This is currently a local decision and, notwithstanding the difficulty she rightly highlighted—she made a constructive suggestion on potential compulsion in this area—there are going to be different circumstances in different instances.
I encourage councils to use bonds where they think it is appropriate. Equally, I do not know whether we want to be so prescriptive as to mandate that from the centre, as there may be instances where it is neither appropriate nor necessary. Hundreds of thousands of houses are built each year in very different parts of the country, so we have to have regard to the fact there are different circumstances. None the less, I accept the premise of what the hon. Lady indicates and, where good practice exists—she indicated the good practice in Oxfordshire, and it also happens in Derbyshire—I encourage councils to use it, where appropriate and reasonable.
Helen Morgan
If compulsion is not appropriate, what about disseminating best practice to all councils in England to encourage them to use this mechanism, where appropriate, to avoid the situation that my hon. Friend the Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone) and I have described? That would be a positive way forward to prevent this happening in future.
Lee Rowley
Within the bounds of localism, and without an individual Minister directing councils to do so, I think it is reasonable to indicate that, where possible, reasonable and proportionate, and where councils think it is appropriate, they should consider using bonds, which are a helpful lever and tool to be used where possible, while accepting that individual local authorities may have different reasons and different views on either using them or not using them. Ultimately, I will leave it to the discretion of individual local authorities to determine the appropriateness of that utility.
Returning to the point about roads, the Government believe it should be made clear to potential purchasers what the arrangements are for the maintenance of roads. Section 38 agreements facilitate the adoption of such roads as highways maintained by the public purse. It is certainly possible for local authorities to adopt streets and roads. Ultimately, though, that is a decision that is taken in relation to how these estates are created and how local authorities want to approach ensuring that they have highways that are at a standard that they can then maintain.
Although I recognise, as has been indicated, that this does not work in a number of instances, if we can balance the appropriateness of localism—of making sure that local areas have the ability to vary how they approach this—while also ensuring that there is a general usage of the tools that are available, I hope that will be reasonable and proportionate.
The other element of the discussion is effectively around the quality of what is delivered at the end of the process when people move in—or by the time they move in. The Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities has also provided local planning authorities with tools to enforce requirements with strong penalties for non-compliance. Again, we encourage councils to use them where possible, and, again, through the Levelling Up and Regeneration Bill we are seeking to strengthen those measures.
I should add that when residents have a complaint about the local planning and highways authority that has not been adequately resolved, they may be able to complain to the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman. I know that, in at least one incident, as the hon. Lady said, the residents of North Shropshire tried to do that. Obviously, the ombudsman is independent, but it is worth reiterating that it is there to redress issues, and I hope that anybody watching this debate who has a similar concern will consider its usage should that be appropriate.
On the matter of delays to completion, warranties and the actual quality of new homes themselves, I know of the problems that new home buyers face regularly and we do not underestimate the detrimental impact that this has. Most new-build home contracts typically have a “short-stop” date, which is an estimated completion date, and a “long-stop” date, which is the date by which a home must be completed in the contract. The rights and responsibilities of the homebuyer and developer should be set out in that contract, including the circumstances in which a deposit and other money is returned.
There are other routes to redress, which we are strengthening, and I will come to those in a moment, because they offer alternatives that the hon. Lady may wish to consider. The status quo currently is that most new-build homes are issued with a 10-year new-build warranty. Home buyers may also be able to complain to the Financial Ombudsman Service about their insurance cover.
Within the first two years of most warranties home buyers may be able to seek to resolve issues with their new homes through that warranty provider. If the new home is covered by one of the consumer codes, they may also be able to help resolve the issues that residents unfortunately face.
Even with those options available to home buyers, we recognise that the system is not in a perfect place. That is why the Government have committed to taking further steps to improve consumer redress. Through the Building Safety Act 2022, we have included a provision that contains a statutory new homes ombudsman scheme, which will place greater accountability on developers and make it easier and simpler for new home buyers to seek redress when things go wrong, which perhaps will move us closer to the Northern Ireland model in terms of outcomes.
In the meantime, and as we consider the next steps for the statutory scheme, the independent New Homes Quality Board has progressed work to set up the voluntary New Homes Ombudsman Service, which will launch shortly. My second visit was to see the launch of a New Homes Quality Board and to see the first developers to be brought onto that scheme. I went to Solihull a couple of weeks ago, and I am grateful to the chief executive for meeting me. It is an important step forward. The scheme is voluntary at the moment, but, equally, that voluntarism gives the opportunity for home buyers to see the different ways in which developers are engaging with that system, and I hope that most developers will in the end engage with that system.
The hon. Lady talked about leasehold at the end of her speech and I just want to dwell on that for a few seconds. We acknowledge that there are practices that are not where they need to be within the leasehold sector, and the Government and previous Ministers have given commitments that we will reform leasehold. We remain of the view that that is what should be done. Although I cannot give the hon. Lady the date she seeks, I am personally committed to trying to take the matter forward and I hope I will be able, with my colleagues, to give further information in fairly short order on the process for that.
In conclusion, this is an important area of policy, and I am grateful to the hon. Lady and all those who have contributed to the debate tonight for the opportunity to talk about it. It is important to note that there are processes already in place that homeowners should use if they are in the unfortunate place described by some people in North Shropshire, which I know is also the case elsewhere. They should seek to use those and seek to—
Draft Sanctions (Damages Cap) Regulations 2022
(1 year, 6 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Jesse Norman)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Sanctions (Damages Cap) Regulations 2022.
What a delight it is to see you in the Chair, Mr Stringer; a sagacious and calming presence on a late autumn morning.
The instrument, which is subject to the affirmative procedure, was laid before Parliament in draft on 20 July 2022 under section 55(5) of the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act 2018, otherwise known as the Sanctions Act. It will be made once it is approved by both Houses.
The instrument represents further action to strengthen the UK’s sanctions regime in response to President Putin’s illegal and abhorrent war against the people of Ukraine. Since the invasion, the UK has worked with international partners to deliver an unprecedented package of sanctions against Putin’s regime and his allies who are complicit in its brutality.
As the Committee will be aware, the Economic Crime (Transparency and Enforcement) Act 2022 proceeded quickly through Parliament following Russia’s invasion and received Royal Assent on 15 March. That Act amended the Sanctions Act to reform how sanctions are imposed and reviewed, and how challenges to them are dealt with. Those amendments received cross-party support, including across the Benches in the House. The Act created a power for the Government to set a limit on the amount of damages a court can award for designations made in bad faith. In exercise of that power, the instrument before us now introduces a cap of £10,000. That cap will apply to any proceedings challenging the Government’s use of designation powers under the Sanctions Act, issued on or after 4 March 2022.
The instrument is designed to minimise the risks to His Majesty’s Government of spurious or vexatious litigation from deep-pocketed oligarchs and others, in particular as the UK continues to rachet up the pressure on President Putin. It is right and proper that the Government protect public funds in that way. To be clear, it will not affect the right of a designated person to challenge their designation in a court, nor, if appropriate, to have that designation lifted. Furthermore, the courts will have the power to disapply the damages cap to avoid any potential breaches of human rights where necessary in individual cases. But the cap is designed to send a strong signal that Putin’s oligarchs and kleptocrats cannot draw on the public purse in this country to boost their coffers, that the UK will not be distracted from the task in hand by endless litigation and that this Government will not be knocked off course by the risk of damages claims.
Let there be no mistake: this is not about protecting the Government from acting in bad faith; it is about sending a clear message to friends of Putin who are tempted to bring claims without merit.
The Government will not hesitate in bringing forward further sanctions to target those who participate in or facilitate Putin’s illegal war of choice. On 26 September, the UK announced further sanctions targeting those responsible for Putin’s sham referenda. They included four Russian Government officials, four further oligarchs, 55 state oil executives and 29 individuals and organisations working for illegitimate proxy groups in Donetsk, Luhansk and Zaporizhzia. On 30 September, the Foreign Secretary announced a new set of sanctions that further limited Russia’s access to the foreign services on which it depends. Taken alongside previous action, the UK is now preventing Russian access to UK advertising, architectural, auditing, engineering and IT consultancy services, as well as to various commercial legal services. The announcement included a new ban on the export of nearly 700 goods deemed to be crucial to Russia’s industrial and technological capabilities. It also included new sanctions on Elvira Nabiullina, the Governor of the Central Bank of the Russian Federation, who has been instrumental in managing the Russian economy throughout the war and instrumental in the rouble being imposed on Ukrainian territories that have been seized by Russia.
I trust the Committee will support the instrument. It strengthens the UK’s ability to sanction those responsible for this illegal and brutal war. I commend the regulations to the Committee.
Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer, and to hear from the Minister on these important matters.
As has been the case with the other sanctions and measures that we have debated over many weeks and months, the official Opposition will not oppose the measure. We welcome the steps taken to expand our sanctions regime, to make it more robust and to remedy any cracks in it. The focus today is obviously on Russia, but I assume that the regulations will apply to the range of UK sanctions, because individuals who seek protracted legal means to disrupt attempts to sanction them come from a number of countries. I hope that that is the case. I am sure that the Committee would agree that the evidence against Putin and his regime, and his supporters, remains incontrovertible. We have seen the recent actions with unmanned drones, allegedly from Iran, wreaking further destruction in Kyiv, where a young family expecting their first child in a matter of months were among those killed in the senseless barbarity of Putin’s war. We must do everything possible to take action against the Russian regime, all those who facilitate and support it, and indeed, put in place measures in our own legal, financial and regulatory systems to ensure that those supporters cannot continue to support Putin as they have done.
Before I consider the specifics of the measure, I thank the Minister for his letter on crypto currencies following our previous debate. I asked whether certain entities would be sanctioned, and although I know that the Government do not like to comment on such matters, I re-emphasise the importance of cracking down on how oligarchs hide their money and attempt to frustrate Government efforts against them. Some of those efforts are through legal means, for example the measure before us, or through the use of untransparent financial mechanisms. I hope that the two mechanisms I mentioned, Tornado and Blender, are under active consideration by the Government. I hope to hear from the Minister about that in due course, and about a wider review of the use of crypto currencies and evasion.
On the regulations before us, it is absolutely right that we should be able to designate and act against all persons and entities, irrespective of their financial power or the extent of their influence. It is right to disincentivise oligarchs and other designated persons from maliciously pursuing the Government through the courts by capping the damages they could receive. It is a prudent and welcome step. We know that many oligarchs have attempted to use not only the UK legal system but others across Europe to frustrate attempts to constrain their activities. Last month, according to findings at the European Court of Justice, it was revealed that 21 Russian business people were engaged in legal proceedings across the EU in attempts to overturn sanctions on them. Even when designated, those oligarchs hold awesome financial power to take matters into their hands and to continue to act as though the law does not apply to them. To specify the damages cap, as the Government have done, is a welcome step in constraining their ability to tie up designations in legal showdowns. What has been done today is absolutely right.
I hope that the Minister will also look at the wider ways in which oligarchs attempt to use our legal systems to evade measures against them, or to intimidate those who challenge them. We have all seen the rise in strategic lawsuits against public participation—the so-called SLAPP suits—which put huge pressure on those who seek to expose the activities of those individuals. The UK remains the most frequent country of origin for SLAPPs, with 31% of cases originating in the UK, according to the UK Anti-SLAPP Coalition. I hope that not only secondary legislation such as the regulations before us, but the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Bill, which is going through the House at the moment, and other legislation will look at ways in which we can limit the ability of those engaged in nefarious activities or in attempting to support the Putin regime or other regimes around the world using our legal system either to tie up the Government and frustrate the sanctions that are being implemented or to intimidate others who would seek to take proceedings against them.
That hugely important matter reflects broader concerns that have been expressed over many years, well before this phase of the invasion of Ukraine by Russia. Indeed, the issue has been raised previously by the Foreign Affairs Committee and in the Russia report from the Intelligence and Security Committee. We have frequently said that we must look at how our legal architecture, company formation agents, accountancy firms and other agents in particular are used by oligarchs to hide their wealth and their activities. We must ask about how those services are used to facilitate, support and encourage oligarchs to continue to attempt to evade Government sanctions and individuals seeking to expose them. We must question how those UK services are used to frustrate designations and regulation that might prevent those oligarchs from undertaking their activities. I hope that the Minister can comment on the use of the UK’s wider legal architecture and the Government’s plans to address that.
I also hope that the Minister can add to what he wrote to me about, namely the seizure, sequestering and repurposing of the assets of those sanctioned towards supporting Ukraine’s reconstruction and defence efforts. I understand the complex legal framework involved and why that has not yet happened, but, if I read between the lines in those letters, I have had encouraging words from the Government. I hope they come forward with the necessary measures sooner rather than later, because the needs of Ukraine are huge and we need to ensure that those responsible for this war and for the horrific atrocities of recent days pay the price and that those assets are repurposed towards Ukraine.
We welcome the regulations, and I hope to hear from the Minister about the other issues I have raised.
Brendan O'Hara (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
Like the Opposition, we, too, welcome the measures with a feeling of “not before time”. This should have happened a long time ago and it is unfortunate that it took Putin’s appalling war in Ukraine to get the Government finally to act on the vast Russian finances that have been flooding into London over decades. I agree with the hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth that the scope of the measures need to be extended much further than Russia to include all aggressors and human rights abusers, both individuals and regimes. There is so much more that we have to do and must do.
We could start by looking at Companies House. It has been in a mess for years, which has allowed London to become a haven for criminal money. So-called respectable people across this city have grown fabulously wealthy by facilitating that kleptocracy. The Panama papers and others have shown the scale of the problem and I encourage the Government to go much further in closing the loopholes that encourage such widescale criminality. The current system, with the anonymity of shell companies, is an invitation to commit fraud and I urge the Government to look again urgently at the financial system and the regulations that surround it.
We welcome the regulations before the Committee, and will support the Government, but only as a first step to tackling the issues seriously.
Jesse Norman
I am very grateful to both hon. Gentlemen who have spoken. Let us be clear that there has been a very broad sense of unanimity across the House on the issue. We very much welcome that support and the scrutiny offered by the Opposition parties, which can only make the legislation better and keep Government properly on our toes.
Let me start by thanking the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute who pointed out the importance of closing loopholes—he is absolutely right about that. As the hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth said on behalf of the official Opposition, there has been a constant process of introducing measures and then infilling, in response to a dynamic and evolving situation, precisely to address those loopholes. The regulations we are talking about in relation to Russia and Belarus apply to conduct by UK persons including not just anyone in the UK but UK nationals outside the UK and businesses incorporated or constituted under the law of any part of the UK. Of course, it is Government policy for those measures also to be given effect in overseas territories and Crown dependencies. As the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute will he aware, a lot of work has been done in relation to Companies House to track asset movements and give the enforcement authorities extra powers and speed to crack down on some of the loopholes he mentioned.
The hon. Gentleman said that the regulations are not before time, but if I may say so, I think that is incorrect. The Government brought forward this legislation before the summer recess, and the present cap that we are discussing will apply to all proceedings brought from 4 March. There has been a staggering level of sanctions introduction over the past few months, and I could show him four or five pages of specific measures that we have introduced. Those are targeted at a large number of individuals.
The hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth was absolutely right to ask about the question whether this was just about Russia. Of course not; he is absolutely right—it applies across the board. But even in relation to Russia we are talking about sanctioning more than 1,200 individuals and more than 120 entities. As my remarks about Elvira Nabiullina made clear, we are continuing to push down on designations in order to pick up people who have emerged as significant actors, or who are otherwise culpable and complicit in this dreadful invasion.
I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his comments on behalf of the official Opposition. He is absolutely right that the recent use of unmanned drones is abhorrent and he will know that the Government and their allies are doing everything they can to support Ukraine militarily and in the field. I thank him for the questions he raised to which I responded in respect of the previous debate conducted by my colleague, the Minister for Europe. Of course, as the hon. Gentleman understands, I cannot comment, however one would like to, on specific entities, but the points he raised are absolutely well taken. His energy in pressing them is a constant source of active encouragement and support for the work we are doing and that which we have in hand.
The hon. Gentleman asked whether the Government will look at wider measures in relation to SLAPP suits. He is absolutely right to target that question, and of course we are reviewing the matter very closely. He also asked about the question of legal architecture. He will understand that the measures we have brought in are moving towards quite a calibrated restraint on the use of legal services for commercial purposes by oligarchs and other designated persons. But it is important to preserve access to rights legal advice, because however individuals might dislike the fact, it has always been our way in this country for hundreds of years that people are allowed to have, subject to law, their day in court, and proper representation. The cap seeks to limit the effects of that, but the principle is clear.
Stephen Doughty
I spoke about the scope of individuals to take legal action across the EU against their designation. Can he tell me, or write to me, about the numbers involved who have attempted to take action against the UK Government for being sanctioned? That would give us an idea of the scale of attempts to undermine the sanctions regime.
Jesse Norman
If I may, I will discuss and consider with officials whether we can properly respond, or whether, for reasons he will understand, that information has to be retained for present purposes. I can assure him that we are not seeing a large amount of litigation at the moment, but there obviously is the potential, and that is why it is prudent to introduce a cap. As I have said, that cap is backdated. I take the point that he has raised, and let me consider it with my officials.
Unless there are any other questions, I commend the regulations to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Petition
Waverley Junior Academy
Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill (Twenty Fourth sitting)
Tuesday 18th October 2022
(1 year, 6 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023 View all Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 18 October 2022 - (18 Oct 2022)
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 5 / Noes: 8 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Chair
I have a few preliminary reminders that Mr Speaker has asked me to read out for the Committee. Please switch electronic devices to silent. No food or drinks are permitted during sittings of this Committee, except for the water provided. Hansard colleagues would be grateful if Members could email their speaking notes to hansardnotes@parliament.uk.
Clause 184
Pavement licences
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (Dehenna Davison)
It is a pleasure, as ever, to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. The temporary streamlined route for pavement licences implemented in 2020 has been successful in supporting the expansion of outdoor dining during the covid-19 pandemic and the economic recovery. To continue supporting the hospitality sector, and to encourage better use of our high streets for our communities, we are making that measure permanent.
Clause 184 inserts a new schedule that amends the Business and Planning Act 2020, making the measure permanent subject to the amendments set out within the schedule. The clause is necessary to ensure that businesses, communities and local authorities have a sustainable process going forward, which balances the interests of all and enables better use of outdoor spaces. I commend the clause to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 184 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 17
Pavement licences
Alex Norris (Nottingham North) (Lab/Co-op)
I beg to move amendment 199, in schedule 17, page 321, line 27, at end insert—
“(A1) In section 1 of the 2020 Act (Pavement licences), in subsection (5)(b) at end insert ‘but includes any part of a vehicular highway which is adjacent to a highway to which part 7A applies.’.”
This amendment would enable the pavement licence to include part of the carriageway, where the carriageway were adjacent to, for example, an eligible pavement. This would enable a licensing authority to grant licences which occupy part of the highway shared between space for pedestrians and vehicles.
It is a pleasure to resume debate with you in the Chair, Mr Hollobone. We support the principle of pavement licences, along the lines of the Minister’s introduction, but we have tabled a few amendments that would enhance them. We are interested in getting some views on the amendments, to ensure that the scheme works as well as it can, taking into consideration concerns about its implementation, whether of road users, walkers, businesses or disabled people. We need to ensure that all voices are heard, and the Bill provides a good moment to do so. As the Minister said, this was a very challenging time for business, but having gone through a dreadful couple of years of collective sacrifice we should seek to grab whatever good we can get from it.
One of the issues, with the benefit of hindsight, with the Business and Planning Act 2020, which legislated for pavement licences, is that a licensed area may take up part of the pavement but not part of the carriageway unless vehicles are already restricted or excluded from it. The existing provisions therefore protect vehicular space but reduce pedestrian space, which is contrary to the aims of “Gear Change”, the vision of the Department for Transport to make England a great walking and cycling nation. If it is right to license extra space for use for commerce, I do not think that we should put a blanket limitation on the nature of the space available, and not include highways when local space could sensibly accommodate it. Again, it would be a matter for local discretion whether it was reasonable to encroach on the space used primarily by motor vehicles, not just by pedestrians.
The amendment would allow a pavement licence to use part of the carriageway adjacent to a pavement. Local authorities would then be able to decide where it was appropriate to allow use of the carriageway. We would expect them to refuse the use of busy roads, but perhaps to license space in other roads and to use road furniture creatively, just as a build-out can accommodate a bus stop, to ensure that the space is still available in its usage. The amendment would empower local authorities, which know best in this regard, to make the decision, thereby giving a bit of flexibility. I am interested in the Minister’s thoughts.
Dehenna Davison
The Government are incredibly supportive of provisions making it as easy as possible for businesses and authorities to facilitate outdoor eating and drinking through the use of the streamlined pavement licence process. I am grateful for the shadow Minister’s broad support for this measure.
There are already a number of ways in which a local authority can consider the pedestrianisation of a street—for example, through traffic regulation orders under the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 and through a pedestrian planning order under section 249 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. That includes facilitating the placement of furniture on the highway for al fresco dining. The regimes already in place to consider pedestrianisation include important processes to allow the consideration of any issues, including whether vehicular access is required at any time of the day. Pavement licences can then be granted for highways that have been considered under those processes. We have seen the success of that in practice across the country, including in Soho in London and in the Northern Quarter in Manchester, so I kindly ask the shadow Minister to withdraw his amendment.
Alex Norris
I am grateful for the Minister’s answer. I felt that there was a contradiction, however, because she started by talking about a desire to streamline the process, but it was explained essentially as a double process. Not only will there be a pavement licence process, but the local authority will then have to do the other process that she detailed in order to change the use of the space. I am not sure that that is streamlined. Nevertheless, the facility is there to do it and I think that I have made my point, so I will not labour the argument any further. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Alex Norris
I beg to move amendment 204, in schedule 17, page 322, line 7, at end insert
“, together with any profit share, the maintenance fee and the cleansing fee”
This amendment and Amendment 205 would enable the local authority to share in the additional profit accruing from a licence enabling the licensed business to trade on the highway, and to recharge to the licensee the cost of maintaining and cleansing the licensed part of the highway.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 205, in schedule 17, page 322, line 10, at end insert—
“(1C) In subsection (1A)—
(a) ‘the profit share’ is such sum as the person who applies for a pavement licence, as part of an entity employing more than 250 people, and the local authority may agree represents one half of the additional profits arising from the grant of the licence during its term, or such sum as the local authority may reasonably determine to represent that amount in default of agreement;
(b) ‘the maintenance fee’ is such sum as the person who applies for a pavement licence and the local authority may agree represents the cost of maintaining that part of the highway comprised in the licence during its term, or such sum as the local authority may reasonably determine to represent that amount in default of agreement;
(c) ‘the cleansing fee’ is such sum as the person who applies for a pavement licence and the local authority may agree represents the cost of sweeping and cleansing that part of the highway comprised in the licence during its term, or such sum as the local authority may reasonably determine to represent that amount in default of agreement.”
See explanatory statement to Amendment 204.
Alex Norris
A highway is part of the public realm. Every publicly maintainable highway is, under section 263 of the Highways Act 1980, vested in the highway authority. Pavement licences and the granting of public space to be used by private business must therefore strike the balance between commerce and the community.
Let us consider a very foreseeable example. Let us suppose that a large, national chain of pubs with an extensive frontage on a street—perhaps a pedestrianised street—seeks a licence for the use of that street for seats and tables. That, in and of itself, is a good thing. I love a decent pub garden. My hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich always complains that I make him stand outside. I hate being inside in a pub; I like being outside, and I suspect that there are a significant number of like-minded people who may wish to vote with their feet, so it is good that we are offering this facility. However, we should understand that it may well be a highly lucrative endeavour for the business. The business increases its capacity to trade, particularly in summer. We know that some of the very big chains can increase turnover by significant sums in this way.
At the moment, the local authority can charge a fee for the pavement licence. This Bill amends the fee from £100 per application under the 2020 Act to £500 for a new application and £350 thereafter for repeat applications. We say that this is a step in the right direction, but it is not likely to do much more than meet some of the administrative, monitoring and enforcement costs. Of course the public, under this process, lose their right of access to the area and, unless they are customers of the licensee, they do not gain any benefit from it, but, as I said, the licensee can derive significant benefit, so we have to try to find a balance, which is what I am seeking to do in amendments 204 and 205.
We know that things are tough enough, particularly for small and medium-sized businesses—often the local independents that populate much of our high streets—so I have removed them from this proposal by using the 250-staff threshold that the Government used with regard to calories on menus. I think that that is where I divined that they draw the line for small and medium-sized businesses. I would be interested to hear from the Minister whether she felt that that was not the case, because I am seeking to target the proposal particularly on larger companies, which perhaps can afford to pay a bit more.
It is incumbent on us to drive a hard bargain for our constituents and for a fair deal for this use of space, because the local authority will retain its obligation to cleanse, drain and maintain the street. Indeed, with more outside activity, the need for that could grow. It is important that those costs are reflected. Even when the licence is granted, the authority does not just offload its duties and obligations in this respect. Therefore these amendments would secure for the local authority a share in profits arising.
It is probably important to say at this point that these are probing amendments. There might be a different mechanism by which we could secure this outcome. If the Minister is minded that way, I certainly would be too, so I am interested in her views. I think that, in this process, a balance has to be found between private enterprise and the public interest and I do not think that we have quite found it yet, although what is in the Bill is a welcome move in that direction. I just wonder whether we can go a little further.
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
It is a continuing pleasure to serve under your guidance this morning, Mr Hollobone.
The amendment moved by the official Opposition gives us something to consider. For someone who represents an area such as Cumbria, where it is always sunny and al fresco dining can therefore happen at any time throughout the year, it is hugely significant. One of the learnings in the development of the pandemic that could have a positive ongoing legacy is the move towards dining and drinking outside, and making better use of the public realm. That is a positive thing.
Let us remember that pubs in particular have never been under more pressure than they are now. We lose many every week, with people losing their livelihood and communities the thing that holds them together. It is deeply troubling to see that happen. We should allow smaller pubs especially to gain the full benefit of anything that they can from the provisions allowing use of the pavement and parts of the highway to expand capacity and therefore increase profit.
I agree, however, that with larger employers and businesses we absolutely need to ensure shared benefit from the development for two reasons. First, we are giving local authorities more responsibilities. Planning departments—we have discussed this throughout the Bill—have an enormous role to play in ensuring that communities have genuine power. If we are devolving power to communities, we have to allow planning departments that work on behalf of those communities the resources—the scope—to be able to enforce their rules. This is an additional responsibility, so we should enable additional finance to go to the planning authorities to make sure that they can uphold the rules, protect the community and ensure that the costs to the local authority, the community and the council tax payer for highways, refuse collection and other things are borne jointly.
Secondly, many people will observe that throughout there has been a disconnect between the interests of the local authority and the business community. The proposed measure would integrate them—the fact that there is joint benefit shows that it is in the interests of the council tax payer and the business rate payer to do the same thing. Organised synergy is almost a consequence of the two amendments, which is why they are important. I hope that the Government will take them seriously.
Dehenna Davison
The thing that is most wonderful about today is that only seven minutes into the Committee’s sitting, we have found some cross-party agreement, which is on the quality and value of a good pub garden. I hope that at some point we can share a pint in one, when the Bill Committee is over.
Clearly, in my last few trips, I have been in Cumbria on those incredibly rare rainy days, but the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale made a good point that pub and hospitality businesses are under pressure. According to our most recent stats, 73% of hospitality firms have outstanding debt as a result of the pandemic, so at this point we really do not want to put additional undue pressure on businesses.
In developing the proposals to make the streamlined pavement licensing process permanent, we have worked closely with local authorities, business, leaders of the hospitality sector and the community. That is why we are increasing the fee cap from £100. We will take detailed analysis of the actual cost to create a sustainable process, which will cover the cost to local authorities of processing, monitoring and enforcing the powers, while remaining affordable and consistent for businesses around the country. Businesses have seen inflated fees reaching thousands of pounds per application under the previous process.
Local authorities maintain flexibility to set fees at any level under the fee cap, to respond to local circumstances. For example, we have seen some areas make licences completely free in order to support their local high street. At a time of rising costs, we are not seeking to impose additional charges on business, in particular given that the hospitality industry was one of the hardest hit by the pandemic. On that basis, I ask the hon. Member for Nottingham North to withdraw his amendment.
Alex Norris
I am grateful for the contribution of the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale. His point about joint benefit is a good way to characterise this—we do not envisage a situation in which business and local authorities scrap it out, but take a sharing approach, with the benefit going to local rate payers as well.
I am also grateful for the Minister’s response. She addressed well the point on cost, and we would not want local authorities and therefore rate payers to be out of pocket for the processes, so there should be cost recovery. However, I do not think she has addressed the point on the enhanced value through use of a public asset. As drafted, the amendment is not quite ready for inclusion in the Bill, but I hope that the Minister will reflect further on the point that it makes. We will certainly return to it in due course, but for the moment I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Alex Norris
I beg to move amendment 200, in schedule 17, page 322, line 19, at end insert
‘(2B) In subsection (7), for “it is sent to” substitute “a receipt for the application is sent to the person who applies for a pavement licence by”.’
This amendment would cause the public consultation period to begin from the date on which the local authority sends a receipt to the applicant.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 201, in schedule 17, page 322, line 30, leave out ‘14’ and insert ‘28’.
This amendment would amend section 2 of the 2020 Act so that the consultation period for licence applications would be 28 days, rather than 14.
Alex Norris
Under the current provisions of the 2020 Act, the application and consultation process for a pavement licence do not adequately protect the public interest, particularly with regard to having suitable time to engage in a consultation. As it stands, the process is such that the applicant for the licence must immediately display a notice on their premises. The date of the application is the date on which it is sent to the local authority and that display is made. The local authority must then publicise the application for public comment. The public consultation period lasts seven days, starting the day after the application has been made. The Bill amends that to 14 days—that is welcome—but that is the sole change to the process. We think the process could be further improved and my amendments seek to do that.
Amendment 200 delays the date on which the application is deemed to have been made until the local authority issues a receipt. That delays the start of the clock on the public consultation period until the local authority has been able to act and do something about it. Amendment 201 builds on the increase to 14 days and instead increases the period to 28 days, therefore protecting the public with such a period of engagement. As the 2020 Act currently applies, if the local authority fails to publicise the application until a week after receipt, the public have no time to respond. That is assuming that they have not seen the site notice, and we know there is a challenge there. That cannot be right or fair for the public, and is probably reflected in the decision to move to 14 days. However, we still think that is not enough time, especially if we consider that we are often talking about the summertime. We know local authorities already have limited resources. If the appropriate officer is away or unavailable, there might be a delay to that process, when the clock is running down and the public do not know that.
That is worthy of consideration in and of itself, to ensure that the right balance is struck regarding the public interest. I am also interested in the Minister’s views on the following matter. In the 2020 Act, section 3(6) says that there may be circumstances in which the granting of a licence would have unacceptable effects on the use of a highway. That makes sense because, otherwise, why have a process? There are circumstances where the answer might be no. However, at the moment, if the local authority does not act quickly enough, the licence is granted notwithstanding those effects. There is a contradiction there. Can the Minister say whether the Government wish to draw the line at 14 days? Is it clear that there could not be a situation where what ought to be a rejected grant could, through delay, be granted anyway?
Dehenna Davison
I thank the shadow Minister for his clarity on the purpose of his amendments. The pavement licence process that we are seeking to make permanent has been successful over the past few years because it provides a simpler and more streamlined process to gain the licence. We feel that the amendments would place unnecessary new administrative processes on local authorities by requiring a receipt to be sent to all applicants. They also have the potential to create a delay in the process, meaning that licences could take longer to be determined should receipts not be processed within reasonable timescales. We are, however, seeking to double the consultation and determination periods, compared with the temporary process, to ensure that communities have sufficient opportunities to comment on applications.
We have worked closely with stakeholders, including groups representing disabled people, local community groups, businesses and local authorities, in considering the consultation period when making the streamlined pavement licence process permanent. In working with those groups, we have sought to achieve a balance between a quick and streamlined process and ensuring that process is sustainable for the long term and gives communities an opportunity to comment on applications. That is why we are setting the consultation period at 14 days—double that of the temporary process. We feel that the amendments would create a slower process than that which it replaces, adding unnecessary administrative burdens for local authorities.
The shadow Minister is correct that if the local authority does not decide within the 28 days, the licence will be deemed granted, but local authorities still hold control, as they are able to publish conditions in advance that will automatically apply to any deemed licence. That provides an additional layer of protection, so I kindly ask him to withdraw the amendment.
Alex Norris
I am grateful for that last point on protection, which addresses the issue. Where there is a difference is that the Minister characterises this as a possible delay in the process. I would say that that is the whole purpose. Our interest is in ensuring that the public get the full time to have their say. It is welcome that there has been consultation with groups who take an interest in this matter. I would be slightly surprised if the consensus among them was that less time is better, or that the weird period where the application has started and they just do not know about it is a desirable use of the first two or three days of the 14, but I might have to test that with them outside the Committee. However, that is probably a point to return to in due course, so I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Alex Norris
I beg to move amendment 203, in schedule 17, page 322, line 31, leave out paragraph 7 and insert—
“7 (1) Section 3 of the 2020 Act (determination) is amended as follows.
(2) After subsection (8) insert—
‘(8A) A local authority, in deciding whether to grant a pavement licence under subsection (3), shall have regard to the desirability of maintaining the free flow of pedestrians and other road users along the highway, and the avoidance of inconvenience to such persons.’.”
This amendment would confer discretion on a local authority to have regard to the needs of road users in deciding whether to grant a pavement licence.
As I said in the previous debate, under the 2020 Act the local authority can refuse to grant licences that prevent traffic from passing along the highway or that inhibit the passage of, say, mobility scooters. However, the Act is not clear—I want to test the Minister’s views on this—about whether a local authority can refuse a licence that inhibits or unduly influences the free flow of people or their enjoyment of the public amenity. For example, what if an authority believed that the use of the licence would substantially interfere with the free flow of pedestrians or cycles at a peak time or deprive people of the use of street facilities such as benches? If residents living nearby, or in flats above shops, would be disturbed by the use of the licence above and beyond what we would normally expect under the alcohol licensing process, would an authority be able to refuse the licence on that ground alone? The Government’s guidance states that
“1500mm clear space should be regarded as the minimum acceptable distance between the obstacle and the edge of the footway”,
but 1.5 metres is not a particularly generous allowance in a shopping street. Would the Minister be comfortable with a local authority seeking more than that?
The amendment proposes a solution to the examples I have listed. It proposes that an authority should be able to refuse a licence if the use of it would interfere with pedestrian flow—for example, if it would leave the pavement so narrow that pedestrians might feel they had to step into the carriageway to pass each other, which obviously is not very desirable. I am keen to test the Minister’s views on that, and to get on record the level of flexibility that local authorities have to balance the enjoyment of the amenity across various, possibly competing, interests.
Dehenna Davison
I thank the shadow Minister for raising an important issue that local authorities must consider when determining applications, which is the continuing flow of pedestrians and other road users on the highway. The Business and Planning Act 2020 already requires that local authorities take that into consideration when determining applications through section 3(6), and it prevents licences from being granted where they would prevent pedestrians or other non-vehicular traffic from entering or passing along the highway or having normal access to premises adjoining the highway.
Ensuring that pavements remain accessible to everyone, including disabled people, is a condition of the temporary pavement licences issued by councils. Where that condition is not met, licences can be revoked. To provide some reassurance, we have worked with the Royal National Institute of Blind People and the Guide Dogs for the Blind Association to refine the guidance to ensure that local authorities consider the needs of people who are blind when setting conditions and making these decisions.
We have carefully considered the issue of minimum distances, which the shadow Minister raised, and we judge that we should leave some room for reasonable local discretion, given the different physical environments involved. However, we have made it clear that 1.5 metres will be the minimum acceptable width in most circumstances. We therefore resist the amendment on the basis that the existing legislative framework already requires local authorities to consider these issues, and they cannot grant a licence if pedestrians are prevented from using the highway as they usually would. I therefore kindly urge the shadow Minister to withdraw his amendment.
Alex Norris
I am grateful for that answer. On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Alex Norris
I beg to move amendment 202, in schedule 17, page 322, line 32, leave out “14” and insert “28”.
This amendment would allow a local authority 28 days to determine the application, instead of 14.
If this feels a bit like a replay of the debate on amendments 200 and 201, I assure colleagues that it is slightly different—they might just have to squint to see that.
At the moment, the Bill retains the stringent regime whereby a local authority must determine an application for a pavement licence within a fixed period. Formerly, that period was seven days; it will now be 14 days. If the local authority fails to do so, the application is deemed to have been granted. Labour wanted to extend the period for consultation purposes, but we have not succeeded. I want to test the point of potentially amending it to give the local authority
“28 days to determine…instead of 14”,
as it says in amendment 202.
We remember well the quick passage of legislation during the early knockings of the pandemic. As the Minister said, the industry was struggling and we needed to support it, and quick action was integral to that. The times for consultation and determination in the 2020 Act reflected that, but now that we do not have such time pressures, it is reasonable to expect a little more time for determination, not least because local authorities are hard-pressed. They will probably have only a single person, not teams of people, working on these applications.
The two-week period would not align with most applications people might make to their local authorities. For example, it would certainly not align with an alcohol licence—ordinarily, that would not be determined in 14 days, and it definitely would not be deemed to be granted if the clock had run out. Labour feels that having a little more time—28 days, rather than that two-week period—would give space for creative solutions in line with those the Minister set out in the previous debate and would ensure a fair balance between the business, the public and the local authority.
Dehenna Davison
We have worked closely with stakeholders, including groups representing disabled people, local community groups, businesses and local authorities, in considering the determination period when making the streamlined pavement licence process permanent. In working with those groups, we have sought to achieve a balance between a quick and streamlined process and ensuring that the process is sustainable for the long term and gives local authorities sufficient time to consider any issues and determine the application. That is why we are setting the determination period at 14 days—double that of the temporary process.
I refer the shadow Minister to comments I made on the previous amendment. Local authorities can publish conditions in advance, which will automatically apply to any deemed licence. However, even if a licence is granted, local communities will still be able to contact local authorities about any concerns they have, and authorities will have enforcement powers to tackle any issues raised. We deem that the period is lengthy enough, but local authorities will of course continue to have those enforcement powers should any issues arise. We fear that the amendment would create a slower process than that which it replaces. I therefore urge the shadow Minister to withdraw it.
Alex Norris
It absolutely would create a slower process, but that was the intention. I will not press it to a Division, but I hope the Minister will reflect on the fact that it seems considerably out of kilter with other decisions of this nature that are made for licences and permits. I cannot think of another that would be as quick as 14 days, with a deemed acceptance if the clock runs out. In those others cases—say, for a parking permit or an alcohol licence—there is good reason to have a little time for reflection, and I think those reasons probably apply here.
This is perhaps not a point to labour any further today, but I hope the Minister will keep thinking about it. We could be in danger of being just a little too streamlined. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Alex Norris
I beg to move amendment 206, in schedule 17, page 323, line 5, at end insert—
“(8A) (1) Section 5 of the 2020 Act (conditions), is amended as follows.
(2) After subsection (7) insert—
‘(7A) The conditions to which a licence granted by a local authority may be subject include—
(a) a condition that any furniture which may be placed on the highway under the licence must be removed from the highway at times when the premises are not open to the public;
(b) a condition that, where the furniture to be put on the relevant highway consists of seating for use by persons for the purpose of consuming food or drink, the licence-holder must ensure that smoking or vaping does not affect others.’.
(3) After subsection (8) insert—
‘(9) But regulations under subsection (8) must not prevent a local authority imposing a condition, nor affect a condition imposed by a local authority for the purposes of subsection (7A)(b).’”
This amendment would allow a local authority to require that furniture is removed from the highway when it is not in use, as well as imposing a condition to require the licensee to prevent smoke-drift affecting those in the vicinity.
Me again. Sections 5(4) to (6) of the 2020 Act cover the imposition in a licence of a “no-obstruction condition” and a “smoke-free seating condition”. These conditions require the licensee to avoid the effects specified in section 3(6), including
“preventing traffic, other than vehicular traffic, from…passing along the relevant highway”
and to make reasonable provision for seating where no smoking is permitted. The Bill does not affect these requirements, which the Opposition support. However, we might want to tighten up these provisions to ensure they have the desired effect.
Local authorities are already required to impose a smoke-free seating condition to ensure that reasonable provision is made to accommodate non-smokers. A smoke-free seating condition, however, does not give the public, people using the highway or neighbouring premises, or people living above the premises explicit protection to ensure that their enjoyment of the amenity is not affected by people smoking. Smokers are more likely to go to outdoor tables because they cannot smoke inside, and that can throw down a gauntlet, in that the public have to run through a cloud of smoke.
Amendment 206 would expressly enable local authorities not just to lay down conditions about smoke-free seating, but to require in those conditions that the licensed area should not affect passers-by, neighbouring shops or homes. If, for example, there are flats above a café, a condition could require steps to avoid the occupiers being affected by smoke drift. We are seeking a balance, so that people using a highway can do so peacefully and with the full enjoyment of the amenity. I hope the Minister will say that local authorities can already do that, but if that is not the case and if this amendment is not the right answer—though I think the principle is likely one that is shared—how do local authorities ensure that balance for people?
Dehenna Davison
I thank the shadow Minister for his dedication on this point. Pavement licences may be granted subject to any condition that the local authority considers reasonable, as set out in section 5(1) of the Business and Planning Act 2020. We are aware anecdotally of conditions that would, for instance, require licensed furniture to be removed when not in use and that go further than our national smoke-free condition.
We are all about empowering local areas and relying on local leadership. That is why we consider that local authorities have the local knowledge and appropriate powers to impose such conditions, should they consider that necessary. A number of local authorities have already implemented local smoking ban conditions for outdoor seating, including the City of Manchester, Newcastle and North Tyneside, so it is clear that local conditions can be implemented where it is appropriate and desired. On that basis, we do not think it is necessary or appropriate to create national conditions, and there are circumstances where it may not be necessary or appropriate on a local level. I would therefore ask the shadow Minister to withdraw his amendment.
Alex Norris
I am grateful for that very clear answer. There are areas where this is still a point of debate. I think the Minister’s answer alone will resolve that. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Alex Norris
I beg to move amendment 207, in schedule 17, page 324, line 19, at end insert—
“(4A) If the person leaves or puts removable furniture on the relevant highway in contravention of the notice, the local authority may issue a fixed penalty notice of £500 to the person in accordance with guidance issued by the Secretary of State.
(4B) Subsection (4A) applies whether or not the local authority has taken the action specified in subsection (4).”
This amendment would enable local authorities to issue £500 fixed penalty notices to persons who leave or put removable furniture on a street in contravention of a notice.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 208, in schedule 17, page 324, line 19, at end insert—
“(4A) It is an offence to leave or put removable furniture on the highway in contravention of a notice issued under subsection (3).
(4B) A person guilty of an offence under subsection (4A) is liable on summary conviction to a fine.
(4C) A person may be prosecuted for an offence under subsection (4A) notwithstanding whether or not the local authority has taken action against the person under subsection (4).”
This amendment would make it an offence to contravene a local authority notice requiring a person to remove furniture or to refrain from putting it on the highway.
Alex Norris
This is my final amendment to schedule 17. This is a really important point, and I hope to find the Minister in listening mode. The provisions in part 10 of the Bill have addressed many of the problems with the temporary regime for pavement licences and have given local authorities a bit more say and strength in this matter. That is very welcome.
However, under the temporary regime we are seeking to replace, many licensing authorities highlighted the challenge of not being able to adequately enforce the regime they are overseeing, with district councils issuing licences under the temporary regime, while enforcement powers remain with county councils under the Highways Act. A couple of the answers the Minister has given have relied on enforcement, so the enforcement point is important. For example, if a premises puts tables and chairs outside its business without a licence, the licensing authority is not the one that can take action; it needs the highways authority to do that, so it already gets a little complicated.
Dehenna Davison
The Government recognise the importance of having a system that can be properly enforced to deter and tackle the unauthorised placement of furniture. Powers introduced in the Bill enable local authorities to serve notice requiring that businesses remove furniture that has been placed on the pavement without a licence. If that notice is contravened, local authorities can remove furniture themselves or issue an instruction to have it removed, and can then recover the costs of that and go on to sell the furniture and retain the profits.
The Government’s position is that the introduction of the powers proposed will lead to appropriate protection of our communities by giving local authorities powers that work as a deterrent and to directly tackle issues where notices are ignored, ensuring that the licensing system operates appropriately. Ultimately, local authorities will still have the power to revoke a licence.
It is also important to note that highways authorities already have powers in the Highways Act 1980 to tackle obstructions on the highway. That includes section 148, which creates an offence of depositing, without lawful authority or excuse, things that cause interruption to users of the highway.
The shadow Minister mentioned some of the groups that he has worked with, and I would be delighted to sit down with him to discuss their response. However, at this stage, I ask him to withdraw the amendment.
Alex Norris
I am grateful for that. It is of note that those who know of what they speak in this area, particularly on a day-to-day basis, feel the way they do. However, the Minister’s offer is a good one and I will take her up on it. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 17 agreed to.
Clause 185
Historic environment records
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
I beg to move amendment 130, in clause 185, page 190, line 2, leave out “an historic environment record” and insert
“or have access to an historic environment record and adequate specialist advisory capacity”
This amendment is intended to ensure that all current models for service provision of HERs are covered by the provisions of Clause 185 and that HERs have access to specialist archaeologists and conservation officers.
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Hollobone. We are making good progress. Although the provision in the legislation on historic environment records is good in itself, it simply does not go far enough. My amendment calls for specialist archaeologists and conservation officers to be engaged in the planning process to a greater degree.
Historic environment records extensively map the physically accessible historic environment and archaeological areas. However, they do not come with a voice, a brain or context. The amendment, which is supported by those who work in the field, recognises the unique importance of specialist archaeologists and conservation officers in the process and the need to draw on their skills and expertise to advance the understanding of a site, which often is missed when just looking at historic records.
Although HERs are an important starting point, it is about the interpretation of the relevance of a site and using that specialist knowledge combined with the records that makes a significant impact on the site and makes it significant. Eighty areas in England are covered by HERs; two thirds of records are held online and are accessible via local authorities. An archaeologist can interpret the HER data, bringing it to life, placing it into context and giving the site relevance, weighing the possibilities and asking the challenging questions about that site: why is it there? What is it about? How does it impact on us, past and present?
I use York as an example of the discoveries made, because there have been so many incredibly significant finds in the city that have led to further exploration and understanding of the context of our history. Ensuring that we engage specialist archaeologists and conservation officers extends the understanding of our past and the influences on us. In York there have been so many finds on the Coppergate site. People think about the Jorvik centre, but behind that is the understanding of our city as an international place of trade, and what that meant then and today for diversity in our country and where we all come from. Those issues are so important in the archaeological context, but we would not get that from an HER. That is why it is so important to extend the legislation to ensure that we have those minds and that knowledge applied to the records, to ensure that there is significance.
I think about the Richard III finding in Leicester. Had the minds not been there, that site could have so quickly been missed. Yet the discovery of Richard III has given a huge economic opportunity for that city, not least from tourism. It is important that the skills that we have educated people in, which they have applied in their science and their art, can be brought into the process. That will ensure that we have the specialist archaeological and conservation officers’ engagement with the historic environment records, which will give real value to this process and ensure that we are not just looking at a paper exercise, but using the science and arts of archaeology and conservation to ensure the value of that site and build it into the identity of the community.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (Lee Rowley)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. I am grateful to the hon. Member for York Central for introducing this amendment. We agree that historic environment records are an important source of information about the historic environment of any given area, especially its archaeology. I defer to the hon. Member for York Central in terms of her knowledge of the history, particularly in her area. HERs can help the public learn more about where they live and ensure that local plans and planning decisions are informed by an understanding of an area’s history. I am glad that the hon. Lady and others have broadly welcomed clause 185 and the fact that we are putting historic environment records on a statutory footing for the first time. I know that the heritage sector has warmly welcomed that as well.
I completely understand the sentiment behind the hon. Lady’s amendment. The first philosophical question we have to deal with is not whether this is a good thing in principle, but whether it is necessary to have it in primary legislation. My gentle challenge to the hon. Lady—and the reason that in a moment I will ask her to withdraw her amendment—is that I am not convinced this necessarily needs to be put forward in primary legislation in this instance, given what I am about to outline and the fact that there will be other opportunities for her to make her case and for the Government to consider what is possible.
Furthermore, though I understand the intent behind the amendment, we are concerned that the wording may potentially water down some of the statutory duties of local authorities, if it is looked at in certain ways. It may also be inconsistent with the current drafting of subsections (4) and (5), which provides for how the duty should be discharged by a local authority. I know that is not the intention of the hon. Lady, but it is something that has been raised by officials in discussion and appropriate assessment of this. Consequently, I will ask the hon. Lady if she would be minded to withdraw her amendment. She may be aware that we intend to publish accompanying guidance alongside the intention of putting HERs on a statutory footing. That will give some clearer views about how those records can be maintained. If she is willing, we will be happy to receive more detail about her concerns, and I will ask that officials give those concerns complete consideration when we are creating that guidance. I hope that some of the understandable concerns she has outlined today can be assuaged through that process. Therefore I will ask the hon. Member if she is content to withdraw her amendment.
Rachael Maskell
I welcome the Minister to his place. I take the challenge straight on. First, I reiterate the point that records themselves do not have application—they are presented in the way they are but they do not have a voice, they do not have context and understanding and they certainly do not have a brain, though they are written by those who do. Of course, archaeology is about a process and a journey; it is not static, but is moving the whole time. Therefore that context is really important to engage with.
I issue a challenge back to the Minster on the matter of watering down the role of local authorities. We all have a huge responsibility to preserve our heritage, understand our history and ensure that we are using the science of that. I know that archaeologists know more about science than we do, but we draw on the opportunities that that presents, which takes us into a stronger future as well as having commercial benefits. However, I am heartened to hear that there will be guidance that looks specifically at HERs and their application. I hope that when drafting the guidance the Minister ensures that specialist archaeologist resources are drawn on, as well as that of conservation officers, so that the maximum opportunity can be derived from looking at the historical context within the planning system. I will closely examine that guidance. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Lee Rowley
I will not detain the Committee for long. Historic environment records are, as we have just discussed, an information service that provides access to comprehensive and dynamic historic environment resources. They relate, as the hon. Member for York Central indicated, to a defined geographical area, for public benefit and use. They are important sources of information for plan makers and applicants, as well as for the public and other Government bodies. We seek to put them on a statutory basis in order to provide clarity for the sector and those who wish to use the records. The clause will make it a statutory requirement that all local authorities maintain a historic environment record, which must be kept up to date, be maintained to an agreed standard, contain specified information as a minimum, and be publicly accessible.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 185 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 186
Review of governance etc of RICS
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Lee Rowley
The clause enables the Secretary of State to commission, from time to time, reviews of the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors. RICS, as many hon. Members will know, is the leading professional body for surveyors. Its members work across the UK, and RICS plays a vital role in these sectors. The guidance RICS publishes is valued by surveyors, industry and members of the public. The clause will enable reviews into RICS’s governance and its effectiveness in meeting its objectives. The clause does not prescribe the frequency of reviews, but gives the Secretary of State the necessary power and flexibility to further specify the scope and timing of any review that is required.
The Government do not envisage enacting a review of RICS on a regular or specified basis, so long as RICS demonstrates its effectiveness and is reviewing its own performance to the satisfaction of Government and Parliament, but should a review be required the clause sets out that the person the Secretary of State appoints to carry out the review must be independent of both the Secretary of State and RICS. The reviewer must submit a written report setting out the results and any recommendations of the review to the Secretary of State, who will publish a copy of the report. The clause does not include powers for the Secretary of State to act on any such findings or recommendations; they would need the explicit approval of Parliament. That will ensure that the Government have the ability in law to review whether RICS is performing in the public interest, and I commend the clause to the Committee.
Matthew Pennycook (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Hollobone. I thank the Minister for that explanation of the purpose of the clause, but he will be aware that the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors has expressed deep concerns about its precise wording, not least in terms of the precedent that it would set in relation to Government interference in other royal chartered bodies.
The issue is not the need for RICS to undergo periodic reviews of its governance and performance. Following the September 2021 publication of the Levitt report into the events that took place within the institution in 2018 and 2019, and the subsequent independent review undertaken by Lord Bichard, which examined its purpose, governance and strategy, RICS’s governing council accepted that regular independent reviews should take place, with their findings laid before Parliament and the devolved nations. The case for periodic independent reviews is therefore uncontested.
From what the Minister said, I think what remains the point of contention is whether the Secretary of State should be given the power to commission reviews of RICS, the scope and frequency of which are not clearly defined in the Bill, or whether the clause should be revised to reflect the commitments made by the institution in the light of Lord Bichard’s independent review. Given the serious concerns expressed by RICS, I will probe the Minister further on the Government’s rationale for the clause’s wording. Can he set out more clearly why, given that RICS’s governing council has made it clear that it accepts recommendation 14 of Lord Bichard’s review in full and will implement it subject to Privy Council approval, the Government believe that they still need to legislate to ensure that the Secretary of State can initiate reviews of RICS whenever they choose, as well as determine their scope?
Can the Minister also outline how such periodic reviews initiated by the Secretary of State using the powers in the clause would differ, if at all, from the parameters of independent reviews as outlined in paragraph 3.22 of Lord Bichard’s review, and accepted in principle by RICS? Can he reassure the Committee that the Government have given serious consideration to the potential impact of approving this clause unamended on not only RICS’s independence and ability to act in the public interest but the status of royal chartered bodies more widely?
As I say, we have no issue with the clause in principle, and we do not suggest that it should be removed from the Bill entirely; there is clearly a need to act to ensure that RICS is subject to regular independent review. However, we want the Government to properly justify the inclusion of the clause as worded in the Bill, rather than amending it to reflect developments following the publication of Lord Bichard’s review. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.
Lee Rowley
I am grateful to the hon. Member for his questions, which are entirely reasonable and on which I hope to provide some assurance. First, he asked why the Government are asking for this power, given that the Bichard review has outlined a process to resolve the current situation. The view of the Government and of previous Ministers who instigated this was that a process was likely to be under way, but equally there is value in the Secretary of State having this power, should it ever be necessary in the future, which obviously we hope it would not, and we have indicated that it would be used extremely sparingly. The principle of having the ability to instigate a review is one that the Government believe is reasonable and proportionate.
Secondly, the hon. Gentleman asked how the terms of reference would differ from an independent review. That question would have to be asked in individual circumstances, so I hope he will accept that it is a difficult one to answer. However, I understand the sentiments behind the point he makes.
Finally, the hon. Gentleman asked whether the Government have given serious consideration to the impact of this approach on the ability of RICS and other bodies to operate. I am happy to confirm that the Government and I will engage in discussion with RICS about this in the coming weeks before further stages of the Bill, and I will be keen to discuss with RICS all elements of the Bill, to understand its concerns and to see what reassurances I can provide.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 186 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 187
Vagrancy and begging
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Dehenna Davison
We recognise that this is an issue on which there is a great deal of passion and heart. The Government agreed that the Vagrancy Act 1824 was antiquated and not fit for purpose. That is why we committed to repeal the Act once an appropriate and modern replacement was in place. I pay tribute to those who have campaigned so passionately on this issue, such as my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Nickie Aiken).
It is important that we balance our role in providing essential support for the most vulnerable with ensuring that the police and other agencies can protect communities, while embedding rehabilitation and support at the heart of our approach. We launched a public consultation to seek views and inform any replacement for the Vagrancy Act. This placeholder clause will allow Government to introduce appropriate legislation once the results of the public consultation have been analysed.
In the meantime, the Government have made the unprecedented commitment to end rough sleeping within this Parliament. We remain steadfastly committed to that goal. By autumn last year, rough sleeping levels were at an eight-year low, having reduced by 49% since 2017. In September we published a bold new rough sleeping strategy, backed by £2 billion of public money, which sets out how we will end rough sleeping for good. I commend the clause to the Committee.
Matthew Pennycook
We are extremely concerned about the implications of this clause, and the explanation just given by the Minister does not reassure me one bit. Clause 187 is a placeholder clause that allows for a substantive clause to be introduced via Government amendment at a later stage in the Bill’s passage. Its effect is to disregard the full repeal of the Vagrancy Act 1824 that the House approved via amendments to the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022.
There are two fundamental problems with the clause. First, in approving section 81 of the 2022 Act, the House made it clear that it wished the Vagrancy Act to be repealed in full, so that homelessness would no longer be criminalised. It did not seek to qualify the effect of that measure by stipulating that the repeal of the 1824 Act should be delayed until replacement legislation was brought forward, which appears to be the Government’s intention in inserting this placeholder clause in the Bill. The House voted purely and simply for repeal in full.
Secondly, precisely because clause 187 is a placeholder clause, we have absolutely no idea as we debate it today what the “suitable replacement legislation” will look like. It could include positive measures that featured in the consultation that the Minister mentioned, which was launched in April, such as multi-agency outreach, but there is a clear risk that any replacement regime introduced via the powers provided for by this clause could once again criminalise people who are begging or sleeping rough. We take the view that replacement legislation is not required at all. Existing legislation—including the Anti-social Behaviour Act 2003, the Modern Slavery Act 2015 and the Fraud Act 2006—already provides the police with sufficient powers to tackle harmful types of begging, harassment, antisocial behaviour and exploitative activity. By expressly allowing for the reintroduction of criminal offences or civil penalties for conduct that is the same or similar to that under sections 3 and 4 of the Vagrancy Act, clause 187 enables the effective re-criminalisation of homelessness and rough sleeping, with all the damaging and counterproductive implications that that entails.
As the Minister has recognised, the Vagrancy Act is an embarrassing remnant of Georgian England’s approach to the poor and destitute. It deserves to be consigned to the dustbin of history in its entirety, rather than being surreptitiously restored in a modern form to enable the criminalisation of rough sleeping or passive begging. As I said, the House made its views on this matter clear during the passage of the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act, but if the Minister is in any doubt about the strength of feeling on this issue, she need only look at the long list of names of Members from her own Benches who have signed amendment 1, in the name of the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Nickie Aiken).
We do not intend to oppose clause 187 today, but if the Government do not voluntarily withdraw it from the Bill, we will work with Members from across the House to ensure that it is removed on Report. I hope that the Minister can give some indication today that that will not be necessary, and that the Government will reconsider their position.
Tim Farron
Likewise, I am appalled and deeply troubled by this provision. Clause 187 feels gratuitous—unnecessary. As we have heard, plenty of provisions already exist to allow the police to deal with antisocial behaviour that could be associated with rough sleeping and people who are begging. This clause feels unnecessary and counterproductive. Above all, it feels like an act of bad faith, given what the Government have committed to doing—both from the Treasury Bench in the Commons and from the Dispatch Box in the other place.
Tomorrow, we will either celebrate or mourn the 100th anniversary of the last Liberal leaving No. 10 —notwithstanding the current sleeper agent, obviously. The legislation that is brought back to life by this clause was nearly 100 years old, and out of date, back then, but even saying that is not going far enough, because if something is morally wrong, it is morally wrong no matter how old it is—whether it is 200, 100 or new, and whether it is from Georgian England, Lloyd George, or the current era. It is morally wrong to criminalise people for being homeless. It is pointless as well.
I have spent a number of nights over the years raising money for our local homelessness charity, Manna House in Kendal. We do a night sleeping rough in January up at Kendal castle. Some of the people who work with Manna House have slept rough in reality—in many cases for years. As we went through the difficulties of one night out in the open, the casual way they would speak about their experience on the street I found more chilling than the night air. It was not just the poverty, the hardship, the hunger and the cold; it was the sense of shame, the sense of not being fully human. A Crisis poll of people who are street homeless found that 56% felt that laws that criminalise them added to that sense of shame.
People who are in desperate housing need, and are on the street, need more than just a roof over their head—though they need that. They need sustained help in rebuildibng their life. Often there are addiction and other mental health issues that partner their homelessness, and may even have fuelled it. The last thing that they need is to be criminalised. There is no value to society in doing so. All that happens is that they are displaced to somewhere else. Instead, our society should be compelled to do something to meet their needs.
Rachael Maskell
I, too, rise in disgust at the piece of legislation before us today, and I urge the Government to think again. It is an insult not only to Parliament, which strongly voted to abolish the Vagrancy Act 1824 just this year, but to those incredibly vulnerable people who find themselves on our streets, for whatever reason. It is not for us to judge them; we should provide support and pathways for people out of that situation.
Yesterday at the Dispatch Box, the new Chancellor announced a new era of compassionate Conservatism. Today, we have this legislation before us, which is anything but. It is about othering people—the most vulnerable people in our society. It is about calling them out, and using despicable language to describe them: “vagabonds” and “rogues”. These people are incredibly troubled. Today, language has moved on. We recognise that people who have serious mental health problems or addictions need support. We recognise people who simply do not have the money to survive in our society. That population is growing. There are three people officially registered as on the streets in York, yet when I went out the other morning, there were 23 people sleeping rough.
This is not just about people who are sleeping rough. Many people who are living in hostel accommodation, sofa surfing, and so on find themselves begging on the street. Many people I talk to—and this is where the Government must engage with the community—simply find applying for social security too complicated. They are fed up of being rejected by the complex process of getting access to the public money to which they are entitled. They therefore turn to begging as a mechanism by which to survive, feed themselves and get through the day or night. Many people have multiple challenges pressing down on them, including financial debt and other things that they owe.
To put into legislation once again, having just repealed them, measures that criminalise people who are trying to find their pathway through life—trying to survive—is an abomination. It is completely unacceptable to criminalise those individuals. This measure is not just about civil penalties; it is about the criminalisation of the most vulnerable people. Any compassionate Government would reach out and recognise their duty, and would recognise their blame and responsibility for allowing people to fall into that state. The language used is horrific. It is a horrific piece of legislation. I urge the Government to U-turn on it, and will praise them for it if they do. It is prejudicial and insulting, and it is certainly not beign done in my name, or in the name of my hon. Friends who are signed up to the amendment, which is significant.
Although the Conservative party is desperately trying to rebrand itself, deep down the roots of prejudice seem to continue to exist. If this Government spent time with those vulnerable people across our society, and understood their pathways and stories, they would not write such appalling pieces of legislation. It is not for any of us to judge those individuals, or to place our prejudices on them. It is for us to provide support and pathways out, so that they have the future that we have been afforded, and the opportunities we have had the privilege of having. We need to enable people to have that fresh start, however many attempts it takes. We need restitution and opportunity, not blame and criminalisation of the most vulnerable people in our communities. It is therefore disgraceful to see this measure before us, and I trust that the Minister will withdraw the clause.
Dehenna Davison
The hon. Lady made a very good point when she said that it is for us not to judge, but to provide support and pathways, and the Government are absolutely committed to that. I have already outlined the rough sleeping strategy, which was announced just a few weeks ago.
I want to reassure the Committee that the Government are absolutely committed—we have repeatedly been clear about this—to not criminalising anybody simply for having nowhere to live. The intent of any replacement legislation will not be to criminalise people for being homeless. I want to put that point very firmly on the record.
On our support for rough sleepers, we want to ensure that rough sleeping is ended in a way that is sustainable in the long term. That means preventing people from needing to sleep rough where possible and, where rough sleeping does occur, ensuring that those spells are rare, brief and non-recurring. We recently published our strategy, which is backed by more than £2 billion of funding over the next three years. As part of that, we announced the new £200 million single homelessness accommodation programme, which aims to provide up to 2,400 supported homes for rough sleepers by March 2025, and £500 million to provide 14,000 beds for rough sleepers and 3,000 staff to provide tailored support across England. That support is absolutely crucial in ensuring that those who are homeless can get back on their feet. The support includes helping individuals to find work, manage their finances and access mental and physical health services. We will fully enforce the landmark Homelessness Reduction Act 2017, which we believe is the most ambitious reform to homelessness legislation in decades.
Mrs Emma Lewell-Buck (South Shields) (Lab)
The Minister is asking us to have faith that the Government do not want to criminalise rough sleeping, but is asking us to approve a clause that will allow them to do just that. We are not debating what the Government are doing on rough sleeping; we are debating this legislation.
Dehenna Davison
That is why I made the point about the consultation we are running. We want to make sure that we get this right, which is why we sought views on this issue in a public consultation that closed in May. Analysis of those responses is ongoing and will form the backbone of our response to any new legislation. The measure is a placeholder until we can bring something forward. I recognise that it is not an ideal situation, but that is where we are.
Matthew Pennycook
I want to challenge the Minister on that point. If I heard her correctly, I think she said that the intention behind the clause is not to recriminalise homelessness.
Matthew Pennycook
Can she explain why subsection (2) allows regulations to include provision to create criminal offences, in similar ways to sections 3 and 4 of the Vagrancy Act 1824, which the House voted to repeal? It effectively will allow for the recriminalisation of homelessness. I think she is wrong on that point, but if she could provide further clarification, I would appreciate it.
Dehenna Davison
As I outlined, this is a placeholder, and we are analysing the consultation responses. The commitment I have given is that no criminalisation will result from the fact that someone is homeless. I want to put that point on the record incredibly strongly.
I cannot pre-empt the outcome of the consultation, but I have spoken to the Minister with responsibility for rough sleeping, who has committed to writing to Committee members to outline the next steps. As I say, this issue does not usually sit within my brief, but we are limited by the number of Ministers we can have in Committee today. Hopefully, that Minister will be able to provide additional reassurance.
Rachael Maskell
This measure was not brought forward in the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill, so we have had a period in which the Government have not had the opportunity to criminalise people for being homeless or begging on our streets. Nothing has changed since Parliament as a whole gave the Government a clear indication that it wanted to see off a 200-year-old piece of legislation, yet today, Government are trying to resurrect the opportunity to criminalise people.
The Minister says that there is no need for the measure, but it is hardwired into the legislation. It is the text of the statute, not what the Minister says, that decides what the Government have the capacity to do. The clause is completely unnecessary, yet the Government push it before us. Will the Minister explain the context of having such measures written into the Bill? We have not had them for the past six months; indeed, she says, while still analysing her consultation, that we will not need them moving forward. The measure is seen as a draconian move, and should be taken out of law.
Dehenna Davison
I genuinely thank the hon. Member for her passion on this issue, which is prevalent in the City of York, and she has campaigned on it well and strongly in recent years. The best thing that I can do is ask the Minister with responsibility for homelessness to write to her directly. Indeed, he has committed to writing to all Committee members to set out the next step. I hope that he can provide some reassurance. However, at this stage, I ask that the clause remain part of the Bill.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 187 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 188
Data protection
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Lee Rowley
The clause stipulates that any duty or power in the Bill, or provision made under the Bill, to disclose or use information must be in accordance with data protection legislation. This is subject to an exception, which I will come to, that provides for “data protection legislation” to be interpreted in line with the definition in section 3 of the Data Protection Act 2018. This is a standard provision to make it clear that relevant provisions in the Bill are subject to data protection legislation. As was discussed in the debate on the planning data clauses, the Government are clear that nothing in the Bill should jeopardise the proper protection of data.
Hon. Members will note the exception from the clause: they will immediately recall that clause 77, which is part of our digital powers, will enable the open publication of prescribed planning information to anyone for free. Clause 77(2) ensures that planning authorities cannot publish planning data that is otherwise restricted in law, including under the DPA. The exclusion in clause 188 preserves that position. There is therefore no intention to allow our digital powers to operate outside the framework of data protection legislation.
Clause 189 provides that the Bill will bind the Crown, except where it amends legislation that does not bind the Crown. There are two exceptions to that: part 8 does not apply to the Crown in relation to land that is Crown land for the purposes of part 13 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990; and part 9 does not apply in relation to land belonging to His Majesty in right of his private estates.
Clause 190 is a technical provision that sets out the abbreviations used throughout the Bill in order to ensure that the abbreviations used are clear and consistent. Finally, clause 191 provides a power to make consequential provision, which includes the power to amend primary legislation to ensure that the statute book remains coherent and legally operative as a result of the provisions made in or under the Bill through regulations. It confers no power to make policy changes.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 188 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 189 to 191 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 192
Regulations
Lee Rowley
I beg to move amendment 77, in clause 192, page 195, line 7, at end insert “(fa) under Part 8;”.
This amendment corrects a drafting omission by applying the negative procedure to regulations under Part 8 (unless they amend primary legislation, in which case the affirmative procedure will apply under the existing drafting of the clause).
The amendment relates to the high streets rental auctions measures in part 8 of the Bill and seeks to correct a drafting omission. Clause 192 prescribes the parliamentary process applicable to the regulation-making powers of the Secretary of State. Under the existing drafting, the affirmative procedure applies to regulations made under clause 176, or where they amend primary legislation, which is the case for regulations made under clauses 152 and 160.
Lee Rowley
This series of clauses covers a number of technical matters in the Bill. Hon. Members will have noted the number of delegated powers taken by the Bill. Clause 192 deals in particular with the parliamentary procedure to be followed in making certain of those regulations. It also allows those regulations, for example, to deal with incidental or transitional matters arising from them. It is a standard provision found in legislation, and allows us to protect against unintended disruption of the legal position.
The Committee has already debated specific delegated powers in the substantive clauses. My predecessors and colleagues have already committed to consulting on various regulations to be made under powers in the Bill. That will ensure that the public and sector stakeholders are brought into the detailed design of the new policies that the Bill will introduce. The delegated powers memorandum published alongside the Bill sets out the Government’s view on the necessity of the powers, and the approach to scrutiny as a result.
Clause 193 authorises the spending of money for the purposes of this Bill. It is a standard provision included in Bills that incur costs on the public purse. Hon. Members will note that clause 194 sets out the territorial extent of the provisions in the Bill and whether each part of the Bill extends to England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. The devolution position has been debated in relation to each part during the discussion of that part. As a consequence, I commend the clauses to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 192, as amended, accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 193 and 194 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 195
Commencement and transitional provision
Lee Rowley
I beg to move amendment 197, in clause 195, page 197, line 1, after “sections 107” insert
“, (Power to shorten deadline for examination of development consent order applications)”.
This amendment provides that the clause inserted by NC60 will come into force two months after the Bill is given Royal Assent.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss Government new clause 60—Power to shorten deadline for examination of development consent order applications.
Lee Rowley
The Government and the country need to ensure that world-class sustainable infrastructure can be consented to, vitally, in a manner that can support our ambitions for economic growth. To achieve that, we must have a robust planning system that is able to accelerate infrastructure delivery and to meet the forecast demands and complexity of projects coming forward in order to attract strong investment in infrastructure. Through these changes, the planning system can continue to lead in its approach to supporting the delivery of nationally significant infrastructure, which incentivises investment and makes it quicker to deliver that infrastructure.
The Government have an ambition in the national infrastructure strategy for some development consent applications entering the system from September next year to go through the process up to 50% faster from the start of pre-application to decision, but to achieve that a national infrastructure planning reform programme was established to refresh how the nationally significant infrastructure project works and to make it more effective and deliver better and faster outcomes. New clause 60, as a consequence, will amend the part of the existing NSIP process that concerns the examination of a development consent order application. Under existing legislation, the relevant Secretary of State can set an extended deadline for the examination of an application for development consent, but there is no corresponding legislative power to enable the same Secretary of State to set a shorter deadline for such an examination.
Our measure will rectify that, providing the means for the Secretary of State to set a shorter examination period for projects that meet quality standards as part of wider NSIP reform and the fast-track consenting route that we plan to put in place, as set out in the energy security strategy. The mechanisms and criteria that could trigger the exercise of that power by the Secretary of State will be set out in supporting guidance and we will commit to consulting on that in due course. I commend these measures to the Committee.
Matthew Pennycook
We have serious concerns about the potential implications of Government new clause 60, which, as the Minister has made clear, will provide the Secretary of State with the power to impose a shorter statutory timeframe for the examination stage of some NSIP applications.
In the policy note entitled “Improving performance of the NSIP planning process and supporting local authorities”, which was published in August to accompany the tabling of the Government new clause, the rationale cited for its introduction is specifically the need significantly to reduce the time it takes to gain consent for offshore wind projects in order to realise the commitment set out in the British energy security strategy. That objective is entirely laudable, but while we support efforts to improve the overall performance of the DCO system—a reform, after all, introduced by the last Labour Government to expedite decisions on large-scale infrastructure projects—the Government have not provided any convincing evidence that the length of the DCO examination stage is the reason why project consents can take too long to secure.
As the Minister will know, the DCO system already specifies a fixed timeframe of nine months for the planning inspectorate to make a final decision, with only six of those months being allocated to the examination stage. The Minister might have some convincing evidence that he can share with the Committee to explain why the six-month examination process is the reason why the Government believe that offshore wind projects are taking up to four years to gain consent, but we are not aware of any such evidence that has been published.
Allowing an appropriate time for a DCO examination is important not only because that enables inspectors to gather and analyse all the available evidence and the social and environmental impacts of projects properly to be interrogated, but because it is the part of the statutory process in which communities have a say over developments that are often likely to have a significant impact on their lives. If the Government want to hand themselves the power to curtail the timeframe in which that important part of the DCO process takes place, we feel strongly that they need to bring forward the evidence to justify such a measure, and they have not done so yet.
However, beyond that in-principle concern over reducing the time available for the public to engage with a detailed process, there is a further reason why we are concerned about the possible implications of the Government new clause, which is that its scope is not limited simply to offshore wind projects. Instead, the powers provided to the Secretary of State by the measure will seemingly apply to all DCO applications and any large-scale infrastructure project that meets as-yet-to-be-specified qualifying criteria.
To take a topical example, the powers could be applied to schemes for hydraulically fractured shale gas production, which I know is of deep concern to the new housing Minister and other Government Members. With the Government having abandoned their manifesto commitment by signalling the end of the fracking moratorium and with UK onshore oil and gas already gearing up to convince Ministers to designate fracking projects as nationally significant, the obvious concern about Government new clause 60 is that the Government will use it to facilitate fracking applications with only the most limited opportunity for local communities to have their say on them. That concern is made more acute by the fact that Ministers have so far failed to provide any detail on precisely how it will be determined that local consent for fracking schemes exists.
Given the serious nature of those concerns, I would be grateful if the Minister answered the following questions. First, what evidence do the Government have that the examination phase of the DCO process is unduly holding up consent for offshore wind and other large-scale renewable energy projects? Secondly, given that the new clause allows the Secretary of State to set an unspecified date for a deadline below the current six-month timeframe for DCO examinations, can the Minister give us a sense of how much shorter the Government believe the examination stage should be under the proposed fast-tracked DCO application process? Thirdly, when will the Government tell us what the qualifying criteria will be for large-scale infrastructure projects subject to shorter examination stage timeframes via this route? Lastly, do the Government intend to designate schemes for hydraulically fractured shale gas production as “nationally significant” and bring them within the purview of this new fast-tracked DCO process—yes or no? I look forward to hearing from the Minister and to returning no doubt to this matter as we consider the Bill further.
Lee Rowley
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his questions. Again, they are entirely reasonable and I will answer as many of them as I can. We recognise that this is a change to the approach, but it is a change that comes directly from a recognition, which I hope we all share, that where there is a desire to move quicker on important infrastructure for this country that we are able to do that. We have an in-principle ability to extend this process, which has been in place for a number of years, and—although I do not know the history—presumably ever since the Labour party started this process a number of years ago, as the hon. Gentleman indicated. Given that, it is not necessarily conceptually problematic that we have the ability to vary that in the other direction, while accepting the understandable challenge of ensuring that there are appropriate reassurances within the process that mean that it will be used in a reasonable and proportionate manner.
While I understand the hon. Gentleman’s point about the evidence base and working through all the detail and ensuring that it is reasonable and proportionate, we are trying to establish the principle that while there is already an ability to vary this timeline in one direction, we can also vary it in another direction. In that narrow sense of what we are trying to achieve, that is a reasonable thing to do. I will try to answer the hon. Gentleman’s questions as directly as I can. On evidence, I am happy to have a further discussion with him—either verbally or in writing, whatever his preference—going through why the Government think this is reasonable and proportionate. This is all part of a broader attempt to improve this in aggregate, and I hope that the Opposition will accept that pulling multiple levers to try to secure incremental improvements in all parts of the process is a laudable aim to pursue.
On the hon. Gentleman’s specific questions on the length of time the stage should take and the qualifying criteria, that can be dealt with in guidance. I will ensure that the officials have heard his concerns and I hope we can deal with them at the guidance stage. In addition, because we have given a commitment to consult, there will be an opportunity for that. We have an interest in providing that information in the detail that is sought, so that the Government can consider it in appropriate detail as well.
Finally, on fracking, I have strong views on hydraulic shale gas and hydraulic fracturing, which I have put on the record many times in this place, and I will continue to share those views. At the same time, and I hope the hon. Gentleman accepts that there are times and places to debate policies like this one, I am no longer a Minister in the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy. I am sure that there will be regular opportunities to develop this matter, but my own position is known and understood. On his specific question, hydraulic fracturing is not within the NSIP process. There was a consultation in 2018-19 in which the Government decided not to put it in the NSIP process at the time. Should that change, I would be happy to debate with him at the appropriate moment.
Amendment 197 agreed to.
Lee Rowley
I beg to move amendment 198, in clause 195, page 197, line 1, after “sections 107” insert—
“, (Additional powers in relation to non-material changes to development consent orders)”
This amendment provides that the clause in NC61 will come into force two months after the Bill is given Royal Assent.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss Government new clause 61—Additional powers in relation to non-material changes to development consent orders.
Lee Rowley
A key benefit of the NSIP regime in the Planning Act 2008 is that it puts forward statutory timeframes for consideration and determination of applications concerning NSIPs, thereby providing a degree of certainty to developers and others in order to ensure a timely outcome, as we discussed in the previous debate. The outcome of a successful application is the granting of a DCO. Subsequent changes to a scheme after a DCO is granted—regardless of whether they are material or non-material changes—require consent from the relevant Secretary of State. Although there are statutory timeframes in place for the consideration and determination of DCO applications for material change, there are none currently for non-material change.
Lee Rowley
This group contains the two final clauses in the Bill. Clause 195 governs the commencement or coming into force of the various provisions. It enables certain provisions to commence immediately on the Bill gaining Royal Assent—for example, some devolution measures, notably clause 42, which allows proposals to establish combined county authorities to be made. That will facilitate proposals coming into effect as rapidly as possible. Other provisions commence two months after Royal Assent—for example, the levelling-up missions in part 1. The remaining provisions will come into effect on a day appointed by regulations. In all cases, clause 195 provides additional powers to make such transitional, transitory or saving provision as appropriate in connection with the coming into force of any provision in the Bill. The final clause, clause 196, contains the short title for the Bill. I commend both clauses to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 195, as amended, accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 196 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
New Clause 60
Power to shorten deadline for examination of development consent order applications
“(1) Section 98 of the Planning Act 2008 (timetable for examining, and reporting on, application for development consent order) is amended as follows.
(2) After subsection (4) insert—
‘(4A) The Secretary of State may set a date for a deadline under subsection (1) that is earlier than the date for the time being set.’
(3) In subsection (6), after ‘subsection (4)’ insert ‘or (4A)’.”—(Lee Rowley.)
This new clause allows the Secretary of State to set a shorter deadline for the examination of applications for development consent orders and makes related provision. The new clause will be inserted after clause 110.
Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.
New Clause 61
Additional powers in relation to non-material changes to development consent orders
“In paragraph 2 of Schedule 6 to the Planning Act 2008 (non-material changes), after sub-paragraph (1) insert—
‘(1A) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision about—
(a) the decision-making process in relation to the exercise of the power conferred by sub-paragraph (1);
(b) the making of the decision as to whether to exercise that power;
(c) the effect of a decision to exercise that power.
This is subject to sub-paragraph (2).
(1B) The power to make regulations under sub-paragraph (1A) includes power to allow a person to exercise a discretion.’”—(Lee Rowley.)
This new clause gives the Secretary of State the power to make provision about the decision-making process for non-material changes to development consent orders (for example, by setting time limits for making decisions). The new clause will be inserted after clause 110.
Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.
New Clause 62
Prospects of planning permission for alternative development
“(1) The Land Compensation Act 1961 is amended as follows.
(2) In section 14 (taking account of actual or prospective planning permission in valuing land)—
(a) in subsection (2), for paragraph (b) substitute—
‘(b) of the prospect of planning permission being granted on or after that date for development, whether on the relevant land or other land, other than development for which planning permission is in force at the relevant valuation date.’;
(b) for subsections (3) and (4) substitute—
‘(2A) If a description of development is certified under section 17 as appropriate alternative development in relation to the relevant land (or any part of it), it is to be taken as certain for the purposes of subsection (2)(b) that—
(a) planning permission for development of that description would be (or would have been) granted on the relevant valuation date, and
(b) the permission would be (or would have been) granted in accordance with any indication given under section 17(5B).
(2B) In relation to any other development, the prospects of planning permission are to be assessed for the purposes of subsection (2)(b)—
(a) on the assumptions set out in subsection (5), and
(b) otherwise, in the circumstances known to the market at the relevant valuation date.’;
(c) in subsection (5), in the words before paragraph (a), for ‘subsections (2)(b) and (4)(b)’ substitute ‘subsection (2B)(a) (and in section 17(1B)(a))’;
(d) in subsection (9), in the words before paragraph (a), for the words from ‘to’ to ‘15(1)(b)’ substitute ‘in subsection (2) to planning permission that is in force’.
(3) In section 17 (certification of appropriate alternative development)—
(a) in subsection (1), for the words from ‘containing’ to the end substitute ‘stating that a certain description of development is appropriate alternative development in relation to the acquisition’;
(b) after subsection (1) insert—
‘(1A) Development is “appropriate alternative development” for this purpose if it is development—
(a) on the land in which the interest referred to in subsection (1) subsists (whether alone or together with other land),
(b) for which planning permission is not in force at the relevant planning date, and
(c) in respect of which the following test is met.
(1B) The test is whether, had an application for planning permission for the development been determined on the relevant planning date, the local planning authority would have been more likely than not to grant the permission—
(a) on the assumptions set out in section 14(5),
(b) on the assumption that it would act lawfully, and
(c) otherwise, in the circumstances known to the market at the relevant planning date.
(1C) For the purposes of subsections (1A) and (1B), the “relevant planning date” is—
(a) the relevant valuation date, or
(b) if earlier, the date on which the application under this section is determined.’;
(c) in subsection (3), for paragraphs (a) and (b) substitute—
‘(ba) must set out the applicant’s reasons for considering that the description of development given in the application is appropriate alternative development, and’;
(d) for subsections (5) to (8) substitute—
‘(5A) The local planning authority may issue a certificate under this section in respect of—
(a) the description of development given in the application for the certificate, or
(b) a description of development less extensive than, but otherwise falling within, the description given in the application.
(5B) A certificate under this section must give a general indication of—
(a) any conditions to which planning permission for the development would have been subject, and
(b) any pre-condition for granting the permission (for example, entry into an obligation) that would have had to be met.
(5C) The test to be applied for the purposes of subsection (5B) is whether the local planning authority would have been more likely than not to impose such conditions, or insist on such a pre-condition, on the assumptions, and otherwise in the circumstances, referred to in subsection (1B).’
(e) in subsection (10)—
(i) for ‘there must be taken into account any expenses reasonably’ substitute ‘no account is to be taken of any expenses’;
(ii) omit the words from ‘where’ to ‘favour’.
(4) In section 18 (appeals to Upper Tribunal)—
(a) in subsection (2)—
(i) after paragraph (a) (but before the ‘and’ at the end) insert—
‘(aa) must consider those matters as if, in subsections (1B) and (5C), the references to the local planning authority were references to a reasonable planning authority,’
(ii) in paragraph (b), after sub-paragraph (ii) insert—
‘(iia) cancel it, or’;
(b) after subsection (2) insert—
‘(2A) Where the local planning authority have rejected an application for a certificate under section 17, the person who applied for the certificate may appeal to the Upper Tribunal against the rejection.
(2B) On an appeal under subsection (2A)—
(a) paragraphs (a) and (aa) of subsection (2) apply as on an appeal under subsection (1), and,
(b) the Upper Tribunal must—
(i) confirm the rejection, or
(ii) issue a certificate,
as the Upper Tribunal may consider appropriate.’;
(c) in subsection (3), for the words from ‘the preceding’ to the end substitute ‘subsection (2A) applies as if the local planning authority have rejected the application’;
(d) after subsection (3) insert—
‘(4) The references in sections 14(2A) and 17(5A) and (5B) to a certificate under section 17 include a certificate issued, or as varied, by the Upper Tribunal under this section.’
(5) In section 19 (applications by surveyors)—
(a) in subsection (3), for ‘paragraphs (a) and (b)’ substitute ‘paragraph (ba)’;
(b) after that subsection insert—
‘(4) In the application of section 18 by virtue of subsection (1)—
(a) subsection (1)(a) of that section is to be read as if it included the surveyor, and
(b) subsection (2A) of that section is to be read as if the reference to the person who applied for the certificate included the person entitled to the interest.’
(6) In section 20(a) (power to prescribe time limit for issuing certificate under section 17), for the words from ‘time’ to the end substitute ‘period within which an application under that section is to be determined’.
(7) In section 22 (interpretation of Part 3), after subsection (2) insert—
‘(2A) The completion of the acquisition or purchase referred to in the applicable paragraph of subsection (2) does not affect the continued application of that subsection.’”—(Lee Rowley.)
This new clause (to be inserted after clause 149) changes how prospects of planning permission are taken into account when assessing land value for purposes of compulsory purchase compensation. Planning permission will be taken for granted only if the planning authority certifies that it would have granted it, and such certificates will be reduced in scope.
Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.
New Clause 1
Independent body to monitor levelling up missions
“(1) The Secretary of State must assign an independent body to assess the Government’s progress on levelling-up missions and make recommendations for improvements to delivery of them.
(2) The body must prepare parallel independent reports for each period to which a report under section 2 applies.
(3) Each parallel independent report must—
(a) assess the progress that has been made in the relevant period in delivering each of the levelling-up missions in the current statement levelling-up missions, as it has effect at the end of the period, and
(b) make recommendations for what the Government should do to deliver each levelling-up mission in the following period.
(4) The Secretary of State must lay each report under this section before Parliament on the same day as the report under section 2 which applies to the relevant period.”—(Alex Norris.)
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to establish an independent body that can provide reports on the Government’s progress on levelling-up missions and outline recommendations for their future delivery.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
National Security Bill (Thirteenth sitting)
Tuesday 18th October 2022
(1 year, 6 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate National Security Act 2023 View all National Security Act 2023 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 18 October 2022 - (18 Oct 2022)
The Chair
Welcome back to the consideration of the National Security Bill.
Ordered,
That the order of the Committee of 7 July be varied as follows—
1. In paragraph (1)(g), leave out “13 September” and insert “18 October”.
2. In paragraph (4), leave out “13 September” and insert “18 October”.—(Tom Tugendhat.)
Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)
On a point of order, Mr Gray. I welcome everyone back; it is very nice to see them. My point of order concerns the explanatory notes on foreign agent registration. It is customary that we have such notes at least before the Committee meets, but there do not appear to be any explanatory notes or a detailed impact assessment. I know some people think that Committees are just tick-box exercises, but they are not; we are allowed to scrutinise the Bill. Given that the foreign agent registration scheme has had a gestation period longer than that of an African elephant, there should have been time at least to make some explanatory notes.
The Chair
I am most grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving notice of his points of order—neither of those matters is a point of order. They are points of information, which the Minister will no doubt have heard, and will doubtless wish to act on during the course of the day. They are not matters for the Chair.
Mr Jones
Yes, it is definitely different. Mr Gray, you will remember that, when we were discussing clause 23, a commitment was given by this Minister or the last Minister—whoever it was. The Minister could not give the Committee details about why the agencies needed clause 23 because of the secret nature of that, and a commitment was given that the Intelligence and Security Committee would be given examples of why the clause was needed.
I am told that the examples were received late last week, yet a date has not been set for me to be briefed formally by the agencies. The reason being put around for that, I am told, is that the Chair of the ISC has made it difficult. I put on the record that that is not the case. We received them only last week, and I, and other members of this Committee who are not members of the ISC, have not yet been in a position to read those examples. If someone gives commitments, it is not good enough to have such delays.
The Chair
Although that is an important matter for the ISC and for this Committee, it is not a point of order. The Minister and others, however, will have heard the right hon. Gentleman’s point, and will no doubt take it into consideration in the future.
New Clause 8
Disclosure orders
“Schedule (Disclosure orders) makes provision for disclosure orders.”—(Tom Tugendhat.)
This new clause introduces the new Schedule inserted by NS1.
Brought up, and read the First time.
The Minister for Security (Tom Tugendhat)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss Government new schedule 1—Disclosure orders.
Tom Tugendhat
Thank you very much for chairing this sitting, Mr Gray. It is a pleasure to be here under your chairmanship, and a great pleasure to introduce new clause 8 and new schedule 1, which introduce a suite of measures to allow law enforcement officers to apply to the courts for orders to gather information that will assist investigations into foreign power threat activity. As with the other police powers in the Bill, the Government have carefully considered relevant existing legislation, and looked to emulate it where it has proven effective in investigating other serious crimes. I will first speak more broadly about the need for the measures as a whole, before turning specifically to disclosure orders.
Most modern investigations include lines of inquiry into finances and other property, sometimes as a starting point and sometimes to enhance other leads. Financial investigations are often critical in developing evidence that is used in criminal proceedings where there is a financial element, by identifying and tracing criminal assets and uncovering the extent of criminal networks. Financial investigation has become increasingly important in criminal investigations in recent years.
In his recent letter to the Committee, the national lead for counter-terrorism policing, Matt Jukes, stated that it can be difficult for his officers to conduct effective investigations into state threats with the current powers and tools available, and that police would greatly benefit from the inclusion of financial investigative measures. The police have stated that these lines of inquiry are particularly important in state threats cases, where actors may be motivated by financial gain but also where they deploy sophisticated forms of tradecraft, meaning that their criminal conduct is even more difficult to uncover, disrupt and evidence than for other crimes. In many cases, financial and property investigations form an important part of establishing the link between the activity and the foreign power, particularly regarding investigations into obtaining material benefits from a foreign intelligence service.
Investigations into property and finances can take place in relation to any form of criminality, but Parliament has already recognised, in both terrorism legislation and the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, that there are certain circumstances where it is appropriate for investigators to have access to broader investigatory powers. The Committee has also recognised, in particular during our debates on schedules 2 and 3, that state threats investigations are an area where it is appropriate for investigators to have access to enhanced powers. The addition of these new financial and property investigation powers in relation to foreign power threat activity will ensure that law enforcement has the tools it needs to effectively conduct state threats investigations, prevent and mitigate harmful activity and bring those responsible to justice.
The Committee will note that these new powers are available to National Crime Agency officers, reflecting the Government’s intention, as set out in the integrated review of defence and security, to ensure that the NCA has the capabilities that it needs and to pursue greater integration where there is an overlap between serious organised crime, terrorism and state threats.
I want to take this opportunity to inform the Committee that as we have finalised these provisions, we have identified other areas in the Bill where the drafting needs to be tailored to ensure that it is consistent regarding the availability of the powers to the NCA. These small amendments will be addressed on Report.
Turning to disclosure orders, as we have discussed in Committee, schedule 2 provides for a number of powers that law enforcement can use to obtain information in state threats investigations. Law enforcement investigators require disclosure orders for state threats investigations in order to access non-excluded material by compelling individuals or organisations to provide information to investigators. It is important to note that disclosure orders cannot compel someone to answer any question or provide information that is legally privileged, or to produce excluded material. Excluded material is defined under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 and includes personal records relating to physical or mental health obtained in the course of a trade or profession, human tissue held in confidence and taken for the purposes of diagnosis or medical treatment, and journalistic material held in confidence. If excluded material were required by investigators, a production order under schedule 2 would be required.
Much of the information that investigators seek under a disclosure order may be considered confidential in nature, such as payment details, but is not classed as excluded material. That may be required because the police have previously approached an organisation to ask for the non-excluded material to be provided, but the organisation has refused because it does not consider that it should disclose the information in the absence of a clear power of compulsion. It may be because the police are conducting a complex investigation involving several organisations that could require multiple requests for information over time. In such a scenario, which is likely to occur in state threats investigations, the police require a streamlined process whereby one order is available to cover separate requests for information from multiple organisations without creating an undue administrative burden on law enforcement, the courts or those who might receive such requests.
In the absence of a disclosure order, a schedule 2 production order, if applicable, would need to be made for every request for information, requiring a large amount of police resource as well as court time. Disclosure orders streamline this process and reduce the numbers of orders needed for requests for non-excluded material during an investigation. For example, if the police were conducting a state threats investigation into an individual and needed to access information from several airline companies regarding the suspect, the company may be willing to provide only basic customer information, such as the full name, without a formal court requirement. If the police required access to the suspect’s payment information used for a plane journey that is suspected of being related to state threat activity, the company may refuse to provide that information, even if investigators provided the company with reassurance that providing this information was in the interests of the prevention of crime. Executing a warrant on the company may be possible, but may not be an appropriate course of action by the police. In some cases, a production order under schedule 2 might be available, but that will not always be the case. Disclosure orders will provide a more proportionate and appropriate way of providing investigators with the information required.
In another example, the police may suspect that a person is purchasing a specialist piece of computer equipment to use in the commission of a state threats offence. The police suspect that the equipment has been purchased from one of a small number of possible companies. In that case, a single disclosure order could be sought, enabling the police to seek information from the companies in question, instead of the police needing to seek multiple production orders.
We recognise that these orders could enable the police to give a notice to a wide range of organisations. As such, senior authorisation is required within law enforcement before an application can be made to the courts. In addition to the requirement for senior authorisation, a disclosure can be made only in relation to an investigation into the identification of state threats property, which is defined as money or other property that could be used for the commission of foreign power threat activity, or the proceeds from such activity. This restriction to investigations into relevant property reflects the scope of the equivalent powers in terrorism and proceeds of crime legislation.
Furthermore, the judge must be satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing the information being sought would be of substantial value to the investigation, and for believing that it is in the public interest for the information to be provided, having regard to the benefit of the investigation. Disclosure orders provide for an effective and flexible means of obtaining information in a state threats investigation. Sitting alongside the powers of schedule 2, they would ensure that investigators have efficient and effective access to the information that they need to conduct their inquiries.
Holly Lynch (Halifax) (Lab)
It is always a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gray. I also welcome hon. Members back to the final day of the Committee. We welcome new schedules 1, 2 and 3, and hope that they will reflect the complex and evolving nature of state threats, and the significant technical and financial resources that provide the capability for sustained hostile activity.
For too long, our police and security services have had to use blunted tools in this regard, not designed to address adequately the challenges posed by modern day espionage. We are grateful to Counter Terrorism Policing for submitting written evidence to the Committee, and making its support for the new schedules 1, 2 and 3 very clear. Frankly, the Met provided far more in its written evidence on the rationale of these provisions than the explanatory notes accompanying the new schedules from the Government—a point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for North Durham.
The fairly non-existent explanatory notes are a constant challenge from this part of the Bill onwards, affecting later amendments, which is disappointing for all hon. Members trying to follow the detail closely. As the Minister said, Assistant Commissioner Matt Jukes said in his written evidence to the Committee:
“We have requested financial investigation powers to support our investigations in this space. To this end we have articulated a clear requirement to emulate various investigatory powers within the Terrorism Act which centre on financial investigations as well as examination of material which can be used for investigatory purposes. We are assured that these will be introduced by way of a forthcoming amendment. If so, this will further ensure that we have the tools required to successfully investigate and disrupt state threat activity.”
We welcome the new schedules, and now that the long overdue Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Bill has been published, no doubt the new schedules are intended to work alongside some of the part 5 provisions in that legislation. Currently, terrorism disclosure orders can be made under schedule 5A of the Terrorism Act 2000. Counter Terrorism Policing has called for an explicit disclosure order for state threats, stating that it will help investigators benefit from a streamlined process, whereby one order is available to cover separate requests for information from multiple organisations, without the need to return to court. I want to push the Minister on oversight. I have made the case for an independent reviewer of all the new measures in the Bill. As those will be investigatory powers, will the Minister confirm that the investigatory powers commissioner will have responsibility for overseeing their use?
Turning to paragraphs 7 and 17 of new schedule 1, paragraph 7 outlines offences in relation to disclosure orders. Sub-paragraph (3) states that a person commits an offence if
“in purported compliance with a requirement imposed under a disclosure order, the person—
(a) makes a statement which the person knows to be false or misleading in a material particular, or
(b) recklessly makes a statement which is false or misleading in a material particular.”
By comparison, paragraph 17(1) states that a
“statement made by a person in response to a requirement imposed under a disclosure order may not be used in evidence against that person in criminal proceedings.”
I cannot quite square that off. I am keen to better understand why the information provided by a person under a disclosure order could not be used as evidence in criminal proceedings.
Before concluding, as I have said before, I accept that it is standard to refer to a police officer as “constable” in legislation, despite the fact that in doing so we are referring to police officers of any rank, not the rank of constable, which seems problematic. New schedule 1 is a prime example of where it gets messy. Paragraph 1(5) says that an appropriate officer for the purposes of these powers is either a constable or a National Crime Agency officer. It is not until paragraph 2(10) that the provision states that an appropriate officer must be a senior officer or authorised by a senior officer. Not until paragraph 9(4) does it confirm that “senior officer” must be a superintendent or above. Would it not be clearer to be explicit about the stipulated rank required to exercise certain powers at the earliest opportunity, instead of allowing for the ambiguity of the word “constable”? The last thing any of us want is for any ambiguity to be exploited by defence lawyers in the courts.
Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gray. My apologies for missing the previous Committee sitting. I can now welcome the Minister to his place at this very interesting and challenging time. I do not doubt that we wish him well. We have a tricky job in Committee today. We are looking at fairly substantial new schedules and new clauses for the first time. It would be helpful to hear what the Minister has to say about them. On the whole, we are supportive of most of what we will be discussing today, but we will have to take away what the Minister says and consider it further. Ultimately, we reserve our position until the Bill reaches its final stages in the House of Commons.
The Minister has outlined a number of case studies and scenarios to illustrate how this new clause and new schedule would work. More of that information would be really helpful to understand what the Government are getting at. With that proviso in mind, we would say that new schedule 1 seems to provide the necessary powers to investigate foreign threat activity. The Minister referenced the fact that this was based on other provisions, which is interesting to know, but I two have two or three questions about precisely what statute and provisions these measures are modelled on. Some of them seem fairly unusual, so it would be useful to know where else they can be found in order to analyse how they work there.
The Minister provided some examples of how the new clause and schedule would work. The first question is how is it to be decided that property is
“likely to be used for the purposes of foreign power threat activity”
or proceeds of that? Is that essential analysis to be based on the nature of the property, or is more required, such as intelligence about who may have had ownership or possession or some other link to it? Again, the illustrations which the Minister gave during his introductory speech may answer that question. I will have to go away and have a think about that, but the more illustrations we can have, the better. Otherwise, his scheme seems pretty reasonable.
I have a couple of questions about some of the supplementary provisions. Is there not an issue with being able to ask questions that could lead to self-incriminating answers? I think the shadow Minister almost had the opposite concern from me. She asked why that would be protected from use in a criminal trial. My question is about whether the safeguard goes far enough. The Government are basically saying that someone can be asked a question that may lead to a self-incriminating answer. There are protections elsewhere in paragraphs 8 and 17 of the new schedule about the non-use of those statements, but is this formulation used in other legislation? It would be useful to have a specific reference to a provision in another Act of Parliament.
In a similar vein, what is the thinking around ensuring that disclosure orders have effect, despite restrictions in another enactment? That seems a very broad provision. Again, is that found elsewhere in another piece of legislation? What other Acts of Parliament are going to be impacted or undermined by this? Finally, part 2 includes the provisions in relation to Scotland and how these would be put into practice. I wanted to check that there has been consultation with the Scottish Government. The broad thrust of new schedule 1 seems fine, but there are one or two questions for the Minister.
Maria Eagle (Garston and Halewood) (Lab)
I have a minor point to raise with the Minister in respect of part of the supplementary provision in new schedule 2, which the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East has referred to, about disclosure orders—
The Chair
Order. I am sorry to interrupt you, but we are discussing new schedule 1 rather than new schedule 2.
Maria Eagle
Sorry; it is in new schedule 1. That was my mistake, Mr Gray, and I apologise. I am not seeking to confuse proceedings any more; it is confusing enough to have to scrutinise the provision without an explanatory memorandum. That makes this kind of provision very difficult to scrutinise with any real sense. The point I wanted to make is about paragraph 3(4) of schedule 1, which says,
“A disclosure order has effect despite any restriction on the disclosure of information imposed by an enactment or otherwise.”
The words “by an enactment” seem to make it pretty clear that unless it excludes material, the provision is designed to enable the investigating authority to look at anything. Can the Minister give an example of what that aims to remedy? What lacuna is it aimed at preventing? We are talking about waving through a provision that allows a disclosure order to ignore another enactment, and that seems to me to be a large power.
The provision goes on to say, “or otherwise”, which is an absolute catch-all phrase. Can the Minister can explain why the provision is drafted so widely, as well as what kind of “otherwise” arrangement it seeks to get around and why? It seems to me to be extraordinarily wide. We might have seen the rationale for that in an explanatory memorandum, had there been one, but we do not have one to hand. Perhaps the Minister can tell us whether we will have an explanatory memorandum before the completion of the Commons stages of the Bill. I think that waving through extraordinarily wide arrangements is cause for concern if we are trying to scrutinise what the Government seek to do and why.
Tom Tugendhat
I thank hon. Members for their comments so far. I will first touch on the point that has been raised about the explanatory notes. I am told that it is normal procedure for that to be published before the Bill is introduced to the Lords—
Tom Tugendhat
I will be taking that up with officials later, and I will find out why that has been said.
Tom Tugendhat
The right hon. Gentleman knows that I would never do such a thing. In response to the provision on oversight, we discussed in the last sitting that we are looking at different forms of oversight. While that has not yet been clarified, I will engage with the hon. Member for Halifax to ensure that we have a form of oversight that works, be that from one of the existing oversight bodies or from another body. There are various different arguments, so I will come back to the hon. Member on that.
The hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East asked what the measures were based on. The Bill is based on the Terrorism Act 2000, but we also looked at the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002. We sought consistency in the schedules by using the so-called TACT and the Proceeds of Crime Act as their basis. It is important to note that Police Scotland has been involved in this endeavour and is content. It has been a very important part of the conversation.
The hon. Member for Halifax asked where these orders could come from. Police need to compel individuals or organisations to answer questions. Because of the different natures of potential production orders, they may involve not just a single individual, but multiple sources; that is why I mentioned multiple companies. In this case, one may be following a particular individual but not be certain which airline they travelled on. Therefore, this could include either multiple companies that may have produced a good or a service, or multiple agencies that have supplied it. That is where it comes from.
Question put and agreed to.
New clause 8 accordingly read a Second time, and added to the Bill.
New Clause 9
Customer information orders
“Schedule (Customer information orders) makes provision for customer information orders.”—(Tom Tugendhat.)
This new clause introduces the new Schedule inserted by NS2.
Brought up, and read the First time.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to consider Government new schedule 2—Customer information orders.
Tom Tugendhat
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
New clause 9 and schedule 2 seek to insert customer information orders into the Bill as part of the suite of investigatory measures. Those who engage in state threats activity are highly trained individuals who have knowledge of tradecraft that can obfuscate their identity and real intentions.
For example, the tradecraft could be used to conceal transactions by creating secret bank accounts under false identities, or accounts registered to different addresses, in order to send or receive money for conducting activity. The operational objective of a customer information order is to enable an investigator to identify accounts and other account information in relation to state threats investigations. For example, this could be where a foreign agent is paying others to conduct state threats activity in the United Kingdom and police need to identify where the agent’s account is held, or it could be where a suspect is using a covert account under a false identity to receive funds to use for the purposes of state threats activity.
The customer information order is therefore intended for use as a tool of discovery during an investigation, often in the early stages. Once accounts have been identified through a customer information order, they could, where appropriate, be subject to further monitoring or investigation through a schedule 2 production order or an account monitoring order. Without customer information orders, accounts used by those conducting state threats activity may go unidentified, reducing investigative opportunities and, in turn, the ability for law enforcement to disrupt harmful activity and bring offenders to justice. We recognise that such orders could potentially require any financial institution to provide information about relevant customers. As such, senior authorisation is required within law enforcement before an application can be made to the courts.
We expect that, in practice, the powers will be used by police and NCA officers who have received relevant financial investigator training, and we are continuing to work with the police and NCA on creating the relevant guidance. Again, we have modelled the provisions on the terrorism equivalent and the measures used in the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, and the consistency of these processes will ensure that law enforcement officers can make the most effective use of the powers. As I have set out, the customer information orders are another important investigative tool, opening new lines of inquiry and ensuring that law enforcement can run effective state threats investigations.
Holly Lynch
New clause 9 and new schedule 2 establish customer information orders, which authorise the police and NCA officers to obtain customer information from financial institutions. In its written submission to the Committee, for which we are all grateful, Counter Terrorism Policing has welcomed the provision, stating that it will
“enable investigators to identify accounts in relation to state threat investigations, or where an individual is using a covert account under a false identity to receive funds to use for the purposes of state threats.”
As the Minister outlined, the tool has been available to law enforcement for terrorism investigations thanks to schedule 6 to the Terrorism Act 2000, and it has been available for criminal investigations through the Proceeds of Crime Act. However, according to Counter Terrorism Policing, it has not been possible to use either Act in relation to state threats investigations, so we welcome the provision. It prompts the question of why we have not addressed this issue sooner.
Subsection (2) states that the judge may grant the order if they are satisfied that
“the order is sought for the purposes of an investigation into foreign power activity”,
and that
“the order will enhance the effectiveness of the investigation.”
We have spoken a lot about the value of an independent reviewer, and I welcome the substance of the Minister’s comments. It is worth keeping under review the threshold of a judge being satisfied that the order is sought for the purposes of investigation into foreign power activity. We cannot use these orders without good cause, but if we need them to be able to find evidence of foreign power activity, will investigators be able to satisfy a judge prior to that? It will be interesting to see how many applications are granted and rejected once we start to work with the orders. Aside from those points, I am happy with new schedule 2.
Stuart C. McDonald
I will make a couple of brief points. The broad thrust of the new schedule and the intention behind it seem absolutely fine, but I am interested in the tests that must be satisfied before an order is made. Under the previous schedule on disclosure orders, the judge has to be satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for suspicion, that there is substantial value in the information gained under the order and that the order would be in the public interest.
In contrast, here in new schedule 2, the judge has to be satisfied only that the order is sought for the purposes of an investigation and that it will enhance the effectiveness of that investigation. That seems a pretty low bar to allowing this pretty invasive procedure to be gone through. Why that choice of language? I guess it is modelled on the provisions that have been mentioned. I have probably not been as diligent as the shadow Minister has in doing my homework and tracking through the previous bits of legislation, and I will now do that. The information gained under these orders could be pretty intrusive, so we need to ensure we are not giving carte blanche to all sorts of intrusive investigations. I am a little bit concerned about the low level of test, compared with the test for disclosure orders.
My second, brief point is that paragraph 4 of the new schedule suggests that the person whose records are about to be trawled through can seek to vary or discharge the order. It is not clear to me how they would go about doing that, given that I suspect most orders will be made without any notice, and they can even be made by a judge in chambers. What assurance can we have that people will be able to challenge this potentially intrusive investigation?
Tom Tugendhat
The question as to why we have not addressed this sooner is a fair one. The UK’s investigation legislation is complex, as the hon. Member for Halifax knows only too well from the homework she has obviously done for our sittings. For example, in the Proceeds of Crime Act there are more than seven investigatory orders used in criminal and civil investigations. The consideration that has gone into this has naturally been complex, and it has required a lot of time and input. This Bill, as she knows very well, has been some years—and, indeed, some Ministers—in the making.
Tom Tugendhat
Let us see. The fact that there are no recorded uses of the information orders in TACT demonstrates how sparing the use of these provisions will be.
Question put and agreed to.
New clause 9 accordingly read a Second time, and added to the Bill.
New Clause 10
Account monitoring orders
‘Schedule (Account monitoring orders) makes provision for account monitoring orders’.—(Tom Tugendhat.)
Brought up, and read the First time.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to consider Government new schedule 3—Account monitoring orders.
Tom Tugendhat
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
I turn to new clause 10 and schedule 3—
Tom Tugendhat
My apologies; I meant new schedule 3. New clause 10 and new schedule 3 provide for account monitoring orders for certain investigations into state threats. Police need to be able to obtain information relating to accounts held by a suspect in real time in order to identify and act on disruptive opportunities related to state threats activity. An account monitoring order will require a financial institution to provide specified information in relation to an account—for example, details of all transactions passing through the account—for a specified period not exceeding 90 days.
Holly Lynch
In our debates on new schedules 1 and 2, we have been through arguments similar to those that apply to new schedule 3. Once again, CT Policing states that these account monitoring orders will provide:
“investigators with real-time information that can be used to react quickly and intervene if necessary, potentially stopping the state threat activity from taking place.”
Of course, that is enormously welcome. I draw the Minister’s attention to one small matter, concerning the use of the word “constable”. For account monitoring orders, new schedule 3 stipulates that an appropriate officer is a constable or an officer of the NCA under paragraph 1(3). When we get to interpretation, paragraph 7(2) states:
“‘Appropriate officer’ has the meaning given by paragraph 1(3)”,
which refers us back to the word “constable” with no stipulation about rank whatsoever. That is very different from the requirements in new schedules 1 and 2, which stipulate that the officer needs to be a senior officer, meaning a superintendent or above. Is this an oversight? Should the officer be a senior officer, in line with new schedules 1 and 2, or can a police officer of any rank apply for an account monitoring order?
Mr Jones
These are sensible proposals to give our law enforcement agencies the powers they require, but I would like clarification about definitions. The Minister referred to a bank, and it is clear that this is about monitoring bank accounts. The explanatory statement, expansive as it is—I think it is one line—says:
“These orders may require financial institutions to provide specified information relating to accounts.”
I want to clarify the definition of financial institution. If we go back 20 or 30 years, it was quite clear: we had bank accounts and financial products. Today, though, there is a complex environment of organisations that work and deal with financial accounts. For example, Bitcoin is now traded between organisations, some of which are covered by the Financial Conduct Authority and others not. I am trying to get some understanding of how widely this will go.
The other issue is about bank accounts that are not in the UK. I am particularly thinking about bank accounts in the overseas territories, and what happens there. We need clarification about the remit. The measure might work very simply with banks and other financial institutions, but in an ever-changing world we have a lot of organisations that deal with people’s “accounts” where they are not regulated.
Tom Tugendhat
The hon. Member for Halifax asks again about the term “constable”. She is right to ask, but that is not an oversight; it is accurate. There are different levels at which different officers are allowed to warrant things. As she rightly identifies, “constable” is the generic term, and then at various points different ranks of officer are required for different levels of authority. That is in line with the TACT powers. This area of authorisation is considered less intrusive, and that is why a lower-ranking officer is allowed to ask for it.
On financial institutions, the right hon. Member for North Durham identified that banking has changed somewhat since he and I had post office accounts in the early—I will leave that there. Schedule 3 uses the same definition as that used in paragraph 6 of schedule 6 of the Terrorism Act 2000; it is designed to align. The definition of financial institution in the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 can be found in paragraph 1 of schedule 9. Account monitoring orders can be used as part of a broader set of purposes, such as civil recovery, and they are applicable to a broader range of financial institutions. Such breadth is unnecessary in respect of state threats, which is why that is slightly narrower, but the definition is there.
Obviously, these powers cannot be used to compel institutions overseas, so we are asking for co-operation from police forces.
Mr Jones
I appreciate that in terms of overseas bank accounts, but there has been a lot of controversy about individual using overseas territories. If the Minister does not know the answer, he can write to the Committee to clarify the point. I just want to see how far these orders could go in terms of their effect.
Tom Tugendhat
The right hon. Gentleman knows very well that overseas territories come under slightly different jurisdictions, whether they are Crown dependencies or overseas territories. It depends on the jurisdiction, but I will be happy to write to him.
Question put and agreed to.
New clause 10 accordingly read a Second time, and added to the Bill.
New Clause 11
Requirement to register foreign activity arrangements
‘(1) A person (“P”) who makes a foreign activity arrangement must register the arrangement with the Secretary of State before the end of the period of 10 days beginning with the day on which P makes the arrangement’
(2) A “foreign activity arrangement” is an arrangement with a specified person pursuant to which the specified person directs P—
(a) to carry out activities in the United Kingdom, or
(b) to arrange for activities to be carried out in the United Kingdom.
(3) “Specified person” means—
(a) a foreign power specified by the Secretary of State in regulations;
(b) a person, other than a foreign power, specified by the Secretary of State in regulations.
(4) The regulations may specify a person other than a foreign power only if—
(a) the person is not an individual, and
(b) the Secretary of State reasonably believes the person is controlled by a foreign power.
(5) A person is controlled by a foreign power if—
(a) the foreign power holds, directly or indirectly, more than 25% of the shares in the person,
(b) the foreign power holds, directly or indirectly, more than 25% of the voting rights in the person,
(c) the foreign power holds, directly or indirectly, the right to appoint or remove an officer of the person, or
(d) the foreign power has the right to direct or control the person’s activities (in whole or in part).
(6) In subsection (5) “officer”—
(a) in relation to a body corporate, means a director, member of the committee of management, chief executive, manager, secretary or other similar officer of the body, or a person purporting to act in any such capacity;
(b) in relation to a partnership, means a partner or person purporting to act as a partner;
(c) in relation to an unincorporated association other than a partnership, means a person who is concerned in the management or control of the association or purports to act in the capacity of a person so concerned.
(7) The Secretary of State may make regulations specifying a foreign power or a person other than a foreign power only if the Secretary of State considers it reasonably necessary to do so to protect the safety or interests of the United Kingdom.
(8) The requirement in subsection (1) does not apply to a foreign power.
(9) Regulations specifying a foreign power or a person other than a foreign power may provide for subsection (1) to apply, with modifications specified in the regulations, in relation to a foreign activity arrangement made with the specified person before the regulations come into force.
(10) A person who fails to comply with subsection (1) commits an offence if the person—
(a) knows, or
(b) ought reasonably to know,
that the arrangement in question is a foreign activity arrangement.’—(Tom Tugendhat.)
NC11 to NC28 require certain arrangements with, and activities of, foreign powers and foreign persons to be registered. They are intended to form a new Part 2A, referred to in explanatory statements as the registration scheme. This new clause requires registration of arrangements with specified persons to carry out activities in the UK.
Brought up, and read the First time.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Government new clause 12—Offence of carrying out activities under an unregistered foreign activity arrangement.
Government new clause 13—Requirement to register activities of specified persons.
Tom Tugendhat
New clauses 11, 12 and 13 are the first of a series of amendments relating to the foreign influence registration scheme announced by the Home Secretary on Second Reading. I will come to the new clauses shortly, but first I want to make some introductory remarks about the scheme itself.
In the 2020 Russia report of the Intelligence and Security Committee, it was recommended that future counter-state threats legislation should address the issue of those acting on behalf of a foreign power and seeking to obfuscate their links or relationship. The director general of MI5 strongly emphasised the importance of legislating to ensure that those acting covertly could be pursued through criminal means to make the operating environment harder for those who intend to disguise or obfuscate who they are acting for. The ISC’s report identified the need for stronger transparency legislation, akin to that in place in the United States—namely, the Foreign Agents Registration Act 1938, known as FARA.
FARA requires any person, regardless of nationality, to disclose to the Department of Justice where they represent the interests of foreign powers in a political or quasi-political capacity, as described by the report. It is a disclosure requirement that applies far beyond a situation in which a person acts for a foreign intelligence service, extending to activities undertaken for foreign powers as well as other entities and individuals.
Only four years ago, the Australian Parliament passed its contemporary equivalent to FARA, the Foreign Influence Transparency Scheme Act 2018. The Australian scheme requires the registration of political influence activities undertaken for, or on behalf of, a foreign power or other individuals or entities subject to foreign power control. Both schemes contain a range of exemptions, offences and enforcement powers to further shape and support enforcement of the scheme. Although not like-for-like schemes, they share the principle of tackling covert influence through greater transparency.
There is evidence of the value of these schemes. A submission from the Australian Attorney-General’s Department to an ongoing review of FITS, which commenced in August last year, describes the behavioural changes that it has seen as a result of the scheme’s implementation: some organisations and individuals have adopted better transparency practices, while others have seemingly ceased activities that would be registrable. Enforcement of the US’s FARA has increased in recent years. That has also resulted in behavioural change, as well as prosecutions for non-compliance, including of one very high-ranking former military officer.
I am delighted to be before the Committee today to talk through the proposed UK scheme. This is an important piece in our package of measures and is the area of legislation that calls on sectors to play their part in making it difficult for foreign powers to operate covertly in the United Kingdom. Similar to the position with the precedents that I have just described, its overarching aim is to deter foreign power use of covert arrangements, activities and proxies by requiring greater transparency around certain activities that they direct, as well as where those activities are directed or carried out by entities established overseas or subject to foreign power control.
Put simply, where a foreign state deploys its influence in the UK, either directly or through third parties, that will now be subject to registration and more transparent. I must stress that the scheme’s requirements are not identical to those of the United States and Australian schemes. Although we have worked with our US and Australian colleagues to understand the lessons learned from implementation of their schemes, our scheme’s requirements reflect our own experience and the threats that we face.
The overarching aim of the scheme is to be delivered through two separate objectives and requirements. The first is to strengthen the resilience of the United Kingdom’s political system against covert foreign influence. Openness and transparency are vital to the functioning of our democracy. Where covert influence is deployed by foreign powers, directly or through third parties, it undermines the integrity of our politics and institutions. The scheme will therefore require the registration of political influence activities where they are to be undertaken within the United Kingdom at the direction of any foreign power or foreign entity, or by a foreign entity itself. I will refer to these obligations as the “primary registration requirements”.
Certain registered information will be made available to the public via a scheme website, similar to the position with the schemes of our Australian and US partners. This requirement is deliberately state and sector agnostic, as the source of foreign influence should be transparent no matter where it originates or manifests. The only exceptions, which I will come to, are where exemptions are necessary to protect existing obligations.
The second objective is to provide greater assurance around the activities of specified foreign powers or entities. The scheme contains a power to specify a foreign power, part of a foreign power, or an entity—such as a company or organisation—subject to foreign power control, where the Secretary of State considers it necessary to protect the safety or interests of the United Kingdom. It would require a person acting within the United Kingdom at the direction of a specified power or entity to register with the scheme. It would also require a specified entity to register activities to be undertaken within the UK with the scheme. I will refer to this as the “enhanced registration requirement”. Its use will be limited and subject to parliamentary approval.
These requirements will apply to certain arrangements and activities, regardless of the nationality of those carrying out the activity, and will be enforced through a range of offences and penalties, as well as powers to request information.
I also want to tell the Committee about the scheme’s exemptions, which are as follows.
Stewart Hosie (Dundee East) (SNP)
Before the Minister tells us about the exemptions, it would be helpful to know how the enhanced registration—let us call it tier 2 —will actually work. So far, we are in the dark. The basic registration seems eminently sensible, but what will the procedure be to specify a country, entity or person to whom enhanced registration will apply? How will it work? We need to know that before we find out who might not be expected to register in that way.
Tom Tugendhat
The right hon. Gentleman will see that I have a number of pages of text that I will be coming to. If he will forgive me, I will explain all these elements as we get to them.
The scheme’s exemptions are as follows: individuals to whom privileges and immunities apply in international law, as provided by, for example, the Vienna convention on diplomatic and consular relations; legal services, as well as information subject to legal professional privilege; domestic and international news publishers, including confidential journalistic material and sources; and arrangements to which the UK Government are party.
The scheme has also been designed to uphold the letter and spirit of the Belfast/Good Friday agreement. To that end, any arrangement with Ireland, or with a body incorporated or associated under the laws of Ireland, will be exempt from registration, as are activities to be carried out by such entities. That will avoid interference with the rights of citizens of Northern Ireland who identify as Irish, as well as the activities of cross-border entities and institutions.
I want to close my opening remarks—that is right; we are just starting—by mentioning George Brandis, the former Attorney General for Australia who was responsible for passing the Australian scheme. He was recently reported as commenting on the announcement of the UK scheme:
“This ought not to be in the cockpit of political controversy in the U.K. It ought to be something, because it is necessary for the protection of the national interest, that commands bipartisan support.”
That is certainly the sentiment that I have taken from Second Reading and our deliberations in Committee so far, and I look forward to working with all sides to ensure the requirements are effective and proportionate.
With that, I turn to the group of new clauses relating to the enhanced registration requirement. Each of the new clauses is substantive and so, after setting out the benefits of the enhanced requirement, I will take each in turn. The enhanced registration requirement will provide greater scrutiny of the activities of specified foreign powers or entities while deterring the use of covert arrangements. I describe it as “enhanced” because it creates wider requirements to register than the primary registration requirement, which we will come to later. That is proportionate to the aim of this part of the scheme: to provide greater assurance around the activities of specified foreign powers or entities.
The enhanced registration requirement will provide three principal benefits. First, it will provide the Government and the public with a greater understanding of the scale and extent of activity being undertaken for specified foreign powers and entities within the United Kingdom. Secondly, the offences and penalties for non-compliance will increase the risks to those who seek to engage in covert activities for foreign powers, either directly or through specified entities. Finally, the requirement offers potential for earlier disruption of state threats activity, where there is evidence of a covert arrangement between a person and a specified foreign power or entity but it is not yet feasible to bring charges for a more serious state threats offence.
Tom Tugendhat
I will, very briefly, but the right hon. Gentleman may find that the point is covered—
Mr Jones
If the Minister wants to come here and just read his speech to us, that is fine, but that is not what scrutiny is. I am fully supportive of the proposals under tier 1, but I find it difficult to understand how tier 2 will work in practice. Putting countries or companies on the list will cause huge diplomatic incidents. Let us say we put Huawei on the list, for example; I am sure there would be fallout from that. As well-meaning as tier 2 is, practically, I do not think it will ever be used.
Tom Tugendhat
The right hon. Gentleman and I have had many debates on the nature of different foreign influence in the seven years that I have been here. We have discussed many different companies and countries in various ways. I know he shares my absolute passion for protecting the United Kingdom from foreign influence and knows the difficulty that that causes in diplomatic areas. He appreciates better than almost anyone how difficult it is sometimes to match the economic needs and requirements of the United Kingdom with the need to protect ourselves from foreign influence. He is right that this will cause difficulty. There is no getting around the fact that making a decision on the enhanced tier will have diplomatic repercussions. But the reality is that if we do not make those decisions, the implications for our economy and domestic security will be very high.
The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that there are companies that some of us have stood up to and made a point of identifying as actors for a foreign state—he mentions Huawei; there are others—and which are in many ways difficult examples. I am not going to say whether Huawei would or would not be subject to the enhanced tier, as we have not looked at any determinations on that, but it is quite clear that there are some countries—Russia is a good example today—that would absolutely require the enhanced tier. Different elements of Russian business would no doubt fall within it.
Mr Jones
Yes, but the Minister knows that there are many countries in the world that, although they are not comparable with Russia, would also cause economic harm but are not in the higher tier. Would it not be better to have a broader scheme that mirrored tier 1, with tight definitions of what needs to be registered, and apply it to all countries? We would then give ourselves protection and avoid the diplomatic pitfalls every time we wanted to follow this process.
Tom Tugendhat
People have to register under tier 1 anyway. That will be a public scheme that already identifies many areas. Tier 2 will make sure that there is an enhanced aspect that allows us to be clear what exactly is going on, rather than relying on a general identification. That is an important distinction.
Maria Eagle
Is my understanding correct that tier 1 is about capturing arrangements and activity undertaken for the purpose of influencing a political event or decision, but that the second tier will capture all other behaviour beyond political influencing, such as acting as a foreign intelligence officer? Is it correct that the scheme as set out at present is aimed at making everyone apply at the lowest level—the political influencing level—but that only more serious incidents will be dealt with by designating individual countries or companies? We are going to immediately run into the difficulty of upsetting diplomatically any person, company or country that is designated for more serious activity.
Tom Tugendhat
The hon. Lady is not noted for her shyness. I am surprised that she feels that the diplomatic repercussions of designating a company or country should dissuade the UK Government from defending themselves. I know she does not think that, and I know the right hon. Member for North Durham does not think that.
The different schedules identify the different natures of influence being used. As the hon. Lady rightly identifies, schedule 1 is about political influence. As I think we all appreciate in this House, that should be public. Those who seek to influence anyone in this House or anyone else by political means, whether through lobbying or in different ways, should identify on whose behalf they are doing so. I do not think that is a very contentious provision.
Tom Tugendhat
I am glad to see the hon. Lady nodding. The second point is the enhanced scheme. That is where influence may come in different ways, where co-operation and interaction with different businesses that pose a particular and distinct threat may be required. That is why—we will come to this later—the political register will be public and the second register will be private, but the identification of those who are required to be registered will of course have to be public and there will be a political and a diplomatic decision that will go with that.
Mr Jones
I sympathise with what the Government are trying to do, and I think my hon. Friend the Member for Garston and Halewood does too, but I am never in favour of putting things on the statute book that look tough but that, frankly, will never be used. There must be a more direct way of doing this—a broader measure that applies to all countries, which is then used against relevant countries. My fear is that the measure as it is written at the moment looks tough but will not be usable.
Tom Tugendhat
The right hon. Gentleman raises a fair point, but I simply do not believe that if he were in my position, he would not use the powers. I would use them, and I am sure he would use them in a situation where they were required. I know that he has never shrunk from a fight or diplomatic argument, but I think that this is important. The problem is that if the enhanced power were to be used for every nation, the volume of data produced would be enormous and the imposition on companies would be huge.
Mr Jones
I agree with the Minister, but he has a problem. He and I have dealt with the Foreign Office and other diplomatic entities over many years: he knows that the pressure that the power will come under, and the competing arguments against security, will make it unusable.
Tom Tugendhat
I do not accept that, so I think we will have to end this discussion with an agreement to disagree.
Tom Tugendhat
Indeed. But I entirely respect the right hon. Gentleman’s position, and I do understand the point he is making.
New clause 11 will require Ministers—specifically, the Secretary of State—to be willing to engage in a strong discussion with other Departments that rely on investment or, indeed, diplomatic leverage. Yes, I am afraid that is a balance that the Government have to make; the right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to identify it, but I simply do not accept that that means the power will not be used. It is true that the power will be constrained, but that does not mean that it will be unused—Ministers who see the threats before them will be willing to use the powers that they have. We will no doubt continue this discussion later.
New clause 11 will provide three principal benefits. The first is that it will provide the Government and public with a greater understanding of the scale and extent of activity being undertaken for specified foreign powers and entities within the United Kingdom.
Stewart Hosie
The Minister explained just a few moments ago that the tier 1 registrations would be public but the tier 2 enhanced registrations would be private. I am not sure how he can argue that the tier 2 enhanced registration would give the public much more confidence if it is a secret.
Tom Tugendhat
The nature of the registration will not be a secret, but who has had to register will be kept private at the moment. I am already keeping this matter under discussion, so I am glad that the hon. Gentleman sympathises with my concerns. He and I are fully aware that journalism is a very powerful force in many of these areas.
Mr Jones
This baffles me, as it does the hon. Member for Dundee East. Tier 2 registration will not be private, will it? The order will have to be moved to put them on the list in the first place. Everyone will know, so what is the problem with providing transparency? I do not think you can have two tiers with different levels of transparency.
Tom Tugendhat
Let me clarify. Whoever is identified as being on the enhanced tier will be identified publicly. It is those companies that may be co-operating; at the moment, there is a discussion as to whether that should be public or private. The reason for that discussion is that some companies will be co-operating and we may feel that we wish to see that co-operation continue, even though we wish to have the compliance and registration so that we know who is doing what. The argument is that the Government should have the ability to have that information.
Tom Tugendhat
Forgive me, but I think the right hon. Gentleman has got this slightly the wrong way round. By definition, the company that would be identified would be a foreign company, not a UK company.
Mr Jones
Yes, but if I headed a French company—I am not suggesting that we use this power against the French for one minute—and had shareholders, surely I would have to tell them, and report at board meetings, that I had been on the list. It will get out anyway, so what is the point of keeping it quiet?
Tom Tugendhat
We are clearly speaking at cross purposes. The state that is on the enhanced register would be public. The company would be public. Those UK companies that are registering may not be. The right hon. Gentleman has it the wrong way round.
Tom Tugendhat
Okay. I am going to carry on, but I am very happy to continue this discussion on a later occasion.
New clause 11 will provide three principal benefits. First, it will give the Government and the public greater understanding of the scale and extent of the activity. Secondly, the offences and penalties for non-compliance will increase the risk to those who seek to engage in covert activities for foreign powers, either directly or through specified entities. Finally, it offers potential for earlier disruption of state threat activity where there is evidence of a covert arrangement between a person and specified foreign power or entity but it is not yet feasible to bring charges for a more serious state threat offence.
I want to be clear that we expect use of the enhanced registration requirement to be limited. It is an additional tool of assurance to bolster the package of measures within the wider Bill. The power to specify a foreign power or entity will be available to the Secretary of State when the Secretary of State considers it reasonably necessary to do so to protect the safety or interests of the United Kingdom. It will be subject to the affirmative procedure.
It is also vital to stress that the use of this requirement should not be taken to imply that every national of a specified foreign power or person associated with a specified foreign entity is to be mistrusted. The message here is quite the opposite: any person who complies with the obligation to declare an arrangement with a specified foreign power or entity is contributing to the safety and security of the United Kingdom by being open and transparent about that arrangement.
Although I am sure that members of the Committee will be keen to understand which foreign powers will be in scope of the enhanced registration requirement, I am sure they appreciate that it would be premature—if not damaging—to make undertakings on that at this stage. The Government will decide when the scheme is ready to be brought into force. For now, I will cover each amendment.
New clause 11 is the requirement to register foreign activity arrangements. A foreign activity arrangement is where activity is to be carried out, or arranged to be carried out, within the United Kingdom at the direction of a specified foreign power, part of a foreign power or an entity subject to foreign power control. The requirements could apply to any activities, but subsection (9) provides for this to be modified through regulations where necessary.
I wish to bring four key points to Members’ attention. First, I want to reflect on what we mean by a person required to register in this context under subsection (1). A person can be an individual, regardless of their nationality, or an entity. However, if a company or organisation is being directed by a foreign power or entity, the company or organisation would be responsible for registering the arrangement, not its individual employees.
We will shortly discuss new clause 13, which includes a requirement for specified entities to register their own activities. That is important because it makes clear our intention that an employee of a specified entity cannot be considered as being in a registrable arrangement with that entity. The approach was taken in response to sector feedback during our public consultation as a means of reducing the potential registration burden on companies and other organisations that may have many employees all engaged in the same activities.
Importantly, subsection (8) clarifies that there is no requirement for a foreign power itself to register. The scheme intends to increase assurance and transparency of activities being carried out for a foreign power where the involvement of that power might otherwise not be apparent.
Stewart Hosie
In new clause 11(1), “A person (‘P’)” might, as the Minister said, be an individual, an entity or a business. This is not at all clear. Is this the UK individual, entity or business or is it the overseas individual, entity or business that is directing a UK citizen? Is it a combination of the two?
Tom Tugendhat
Let me be completely clear, because subsection (8) makes it completely clear: there is no requirement for a foreign power itself to register. We cannot compel foreign powers or entities to register; this is a compulsion on UK entities or individuals.
The scheme intends to increase assurance and transparency to activities being carried out for a foreign power, where the involvement of that foreign power might otherwise not be apparent. As such, we would not expect other Governments to register with the scheme in respect of activity that they themselves are undertaking. As the later “interpretation” clause will make clear, that includes any person acting in the capacity of an office holder, employee or other member of staff of the foreign power, or a person whom the Secretary of State reasonably considers to be exercising such functions.
This scheme has been designed to avoid interference with our obligations under international law regarding the diplomatic and consular relations between countries, as well as the need to protect routine Government-to-Government engagement—the official visits of officials, military and other agencies of a state, for example.
Secondly, subsection (2) sets out the definition of “arrangement”, which requires there to be direction from a specified foreign power or entity to a person. That element of direction is important because it envisages a power relationship between the specified foreign power or entity and the person. The specified foreign power or entity has told the person to carry out the activity, or arranged for it to be carried out. While in practice it is entirely likely for a direction to be delivered in the language of a request, the context of the relationship between the specified foreign power or entity and the person being directed will ultimately determine whether it falls within scope.
Stuart C. McDonald
What happens if an intermediary is involved? What if a designated state power says to someone locally, “You arrange for these activities”, rather than saying to someone in the United Kingdom, “I want you to undertake these activities”? That falls within the terms of the new clause. That intermediary then instructs people in the United Kingdom to undertake activities. Does that not mean there is a gap in the clause and that people in the UK undertaking those activities would not have to register anything? It would be almost impossible to enforce against that intermediary requirement to register. Is there not a potential problem there?
Tom Tugendhat
My understanding is that—in fact, I will come back to that when I sum up, because the hon. Gentleman has raised an interesting point.
We consider a power relationship to include, for example, where the specified foreign power or entity has formally contracted a person’s support for an activity, or where it is paying a person to deliver a service. It could also include a situation where a specified entity is making a request of its subsidiary—again, the direction might be in the language of a request, but the power relationship would make it a direction. Where such formal structures are not established, a direction should include where a person is requested to act, but through the promise of compensation or coercion—for example, future payment, benefit or favourable treatment.
To be clear, though, it would not be enough for a specified foreign power or entity to simply provide funding in support of an activity—through subsidy or donation, for example. Nor could a generic request from a specified foreign power or entity be considered a “direction”—a request made through a public communication to a large distribution or mailing list, for example.
A power relationship, whether formal or informal, is necessary to ensure that unilateral activity on the part of the person is not within scope and nor is activity that is part of a collaboration and absent a power relationship. We shall set out in guidance what we intend by a direction so that it is clear to the public and to the courts what arrangements are registrable.
An arrangement also captures where a person is to arrange for activity to be carried out at the direction of a specified foreign power or entity, as well as where the person is to carry out the activity themselves. That is to ensure that a person in a direct arrangement with a specified foreign power or entity cannot avoid registration by simply contracting out the activity to a third party, creating a degree of separation between the specified foreign power or entity and the ultimate person who will carry out the activity.
Thirdly, I turn to the definition of “control”, where a specified entity is said to be subject to foreign power control. It is important that we capture the commonly used practice of foreign powers channelling state threat activity through private entities. To capture this effectively we have defined “control” under subsection (5) as being where a foreign power holds, be it directly or indirectly, more than 25% of the shares or voting rights of the entity, or the foreign power can appoint or remove officers of the entity.
Control can also be demonstrated where the foreign power has the right to direct or control the entity’s activities, allowing the Secretary of State flexibility if foreign powers exercise other significant forms of control that fall below those thresholds. The more than 25% threshold is in line with existing legislation on substantial control over an entity.
Mr Jones
I appreciate that it is difficult to identify control, but how would we get around the situation of a Russian oligarch who is clearly under the influence of the Kremlin, but whose company is owned through myriad different offshore companies? Would it have to be proven that the ultimate beneficiary was that individual to fall under this legislation? Those people, and even states, are very clever and hide who ultimately controls that company.
Tom Tugendhat
The right hon. Gentleman is identifying a problem that we have had with foreign ownership of companies for a very long time. That is why the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Bill is very important, because the ownership of companies is something that has been a challenge and he is correct to identify it. This Bill addresses certain elements of that control, but he is right that it does not address the totality, although it provides an important brick in the wall that we are building. That is why the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Bill and the companies registration are important.
Mr Jones
So, really, what we are enacting in this legislation will have to be dovetailed with the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Bill. The issue around Scottish limited partnerships has been quite controversial. Is the Minister saying that when the two come together, they will form the toolkit to tackle these individuals?
Tom Tugendhat
The right hon. Gentleman knows that there is not a single tool to deal with every task. The Bill will certainly help with a lot of things that already exist; the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Bill will add to it, and no doubt, in future years, different Governments will add further tools.
May I finally come to my fourth point? [Interruption.] I hear the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley chuntering. I will briefly summarise the procedural element of the new clause. The requirement is to register a foreign activity arrangement within 10 days of its being made, or otherwise before the activity is carried out. That is important because it may not be obvious to the Government under whose direction the person is acting. The prior registration of arrangements offers some opportunity for the Government to be informed before an activity pursuant to a foreign activity arrangement takes place. It also offers an opportunity to enforce the requirements of the scheme prior to an attempt to carry out covert influence activity.
Subsection (10) makes clear that an offence is committed if a person fails to comply with the requirement to register, and knows—or ought reasonably to know—that the arrangement is a foreign activity arrangement We will discuss the proposed range of offences shortly.
The offences relating to the other part of the scheme—where the registration of political influence activities are concerned—come with a higher bar for the prosecution to meet. Given the likely attention that the measure will receive if a foreign power, part of a foreign power or an entity subject to foreign power control is specified through regulations under subsections (3) and (4), a person should not be capable of avoiding prosecution by claiming they were unaware of the requirement to register. That said, we are mindful that a person who is unwittingly acting for a specified foreign power or entity should not be criminalised. That is why the test is such: a person can be prosecuted only if they ought reasonably to know that they were acting for a specified foreign power or entity.
New clause 12 makes it an offence to carry out activities, or arrange for an activity to be carried out, in the UK pursuant to a foreign activity arrangement that has not been registered. The requirement to register a foreign activity arrangement, which is an arrangement with a specified foreign power, part of a foreign power or entity subject to foreign power, applies to the person who is party to that arrangement—in such a case, that is the person directed by the specified person.
In practice, many other people could be involved in the activity or activities pursuant to that arrangement. For example, if the person party to an arrangement with a specified foreign power is a company, multiple employees could be all engaged in registerable activities within the UK under the arrangement. While I have already explained that the responsibility for registration would rest with the company in this example, and that that is necessary to avoid the burden of each individual employee being required to register separately, the effect of the new clause is to make it an offence to carry out an activity, or arrange for the activity to be carried out, pursuant to a registerable arrangement that has not been registered.
There are two main justifications for the offence. First, it will reduce the likelihood that activities pursuant to an unregistered arrangement with a specified person will be carried out, supporting the overall aims of the scheme. It makes it clear that all individuals have a role to play in ensuring that the requirements of the scheme have been complied with. Where there is doubt that an organisation or company has registered its arrangement with a specified person, it is a good outcome if its employees take necessary steps to clarify that their registerable activities are covered by registration.
Mr Jones
How does the Minister define “foreign power control”? What would be the evidential test? I have heard him argue, for example, that all Chinese companies are ultimately under the control of the Chinese Communist party. Is that the evidential test? Or to take the Russian example, would the evidential test be a company being owned by an oligarch who is close to Putin? Clearly, if the Chinese Communist party wants to control a Chinese company, it can. Would that be the threshold at which a company would be caught by the measures?
Tom Tugendhat
The right hon. Gentleman is right to ask. Control over an entity means 25% of a shareholding—that is one thing that we have already identified—or it could also be formal mechanisms within the company, including voting power or other forms of control. Some foreign powers enact legislation to oblige entities to comply with their security services or intelligence agencies—the right hon. Gentleman knows what I am referring to—giving them a right to exercise an element of control over those entities outside formal governance structures.
Stewart Hosie
Further to the point made by the right hon. Member for North Durham, the control criteria could be indirect control of more than quarter of the stock, indirect control of more than a quarter of the voting rights, or an indirect ability to appoint or remove an officer of the entity. That is dreadfully subjective. Unless the criteria are really nailed down, people could absolutely fall foul of the measures without knowing that they are being controlled in any way.
Tom Tugendhat
I do not think that is the case. The hon. Gentleman should realise that foreign control of any kind is under the general provision of the so-called ordinary provision, while the enhanced provision would be specifically identified, so individuals required to register under the enhanced provision would be aware that they are contracting within an organisation or entity that falls under it. All those contracting with a foreign entity will know that they have to register under the ordinary provision, so the legislation covers both cases.
Mr Jones
That does not clear things up for me. I have mentioned China. I am sure if I googled long enough I would find a speech that the Minister has given where he suggests that all Chinese companies are controlled by the Chinese Government, if they wish to have foreign influence. There is clear, direct evidence about doing business in Russia—it is not the law, but there is coercion regarding the individuals around Putin. If we are saying that the Chinese Communist party can control most companies, is the Minister saying that all those companies will have to register?
Tom Tugendhat
The right hon. Gentleman knows very well that what we express in private and what we say from the Dispatch Box cannot always be absolutely aligned. I am not going to identify every single Chinese company in one go. He knows that there are different elements of control. The Companies Act 2006 sets out the nature of those different elements.
Mr Jones
I am sure the Minister will get some China hawks on the Back Benches of the Conservative party arguing that all Chinese companies should have to be registered under the scheme. I think the measure needs some clarification before it goes any further. There are also certain individuals that the Minister’s party has taken money off who very clearly have connections with the Kremlin and who control companies in this country through front people; the ownership is actually individuals who we would not want to be associated with.
Tom Tugendhat
The right hon. Gentleman knows very well my own views on foreign influence on political parties. Sadly, we have seen such influence in all political parties, where parties or members of political parties have unwisely, sometimes rashly and often extremely foolishly, taken money off Chinese, Russian or other individuals. That is completely wrong and I know he and I share complete revulsion at it. I am very glad that we are sorting some of that situation out. It is a problem that the whole of the United Kingdom and many other political parties around the world have to face. We need to deal with it, and that is what the Bill is doing.
New clause 13 is the second aspect of the enhanced registration requirement. It will require the registration of activities to be carried out within the United Kingdom by a specified person. The first aspect of the enhanced measure, which we dealt with earlier, was the registration of arrangements with a specified person. Although arrangements are important, we recognise that activities within the United Kingdom will be carried out by the specified person themselves and not just those they direct. I should be clear: “specified person” in the context of the requirement can only be a specified entity subject to the foreign power control. I have already explained that foreign powers themselves are not required to register under the foreign influence registration scheme. We are therefore proposing that the specified entity subject to foreign power control, for example a company or organisation, be required to register its activities within the United Kingdom before they are carried out. An offence would be committed where the specified entity had failed to register its activity and it knew or ought reasonably to know that the activity in question was not registered.
To ensure that the requirement is practical and proportionate, the requirement to register is to be fulfilled by the entity and not its individual employees. Although we recognise that an employee is also capable of being directed by its employer to engage in the same registerable activities, we considered it disproportionate to require each individual to register in such a scenario. There would also be practical difficulties, not just in administration but also in consistency. If each individual employee were required to register the same activity, that increases the likelihood that the information provided is materially different and possibly even contradictory.
Finally, hon. Members may wonder why, compared with the requirement to register an arrangement, there is no 10-day period within which the registration must be made. The requirement to register an arrangement within such a period is necessary, as it may not be immediately clear that a person is acting at the direction of a specified person, as the person receiving the direction is separate to the specified person directing the activity. Where the specified person—the entity subject to foreign power control—is acting itself, it should already be clear and it is therefore enough that the registration takes place before the activities are carried out.
I want to finish my remarks by reiterating that if we did not include that requirement there would be a clear gap. A person who is separate from the specified entity, for example a different organisation, would be required to register an arrangement that involves being directed to act in the United Kingdom, but there would be no requirement for the specified entity itself to register its own activities. Leaving such a gap would not make sense in the context of countering state threats. I also want to stress again that we intend the use of the enhanced measure to be limited. It is there as an additional tool of assurance and its use will be subject to parliamentary approval through affirmative procedure. I ask the Committee to support the clauses.
The Chair
Before we move on to the debate, may I raise a matter to the Committee that has been brought to my attention? The 1922 Committee elections for Select Committees happen at 2 o’clock this afternoon, which is an obvious clash with the meeting of this Committee. I understand that it would be possible for the Minister to move an amendment to the sitting time this afternoon to 2.15, if he wished to do so. Any objection from any member of the Committee would of course make that fall. Before we enter a discussion—although I would rather not discuss it too long—would the Minister be prepared to move that the Committee should sit at 2.15?
Tom Tugendhat
I would be prepared to move that, if the Committee were supportive.
Maria Eagle
Would it be possible to extend the sitting by 15 minutes, so that no time is lost? If we were to do that, I would have no objection.
The Chair
If the Minister so moves, it would be a question of starting 15 minutes later and ending 15 minutes later this evening.
Ordered, That the Committee shall meet at 2.15 pm until no later than 5.15 pm.—(Tom Tugendhat.)
Holly Lynch
I have listened very carefully to everything the Minister has said. I will speak to all of the new clauses in the group, which is the first of several additions to the Bill concerning the foreign influence registration scheme, as well as raising some more general issues which will need ironing out about the scheme as we move into this section of the Bill. First, I assure our Australian friends that beyond making sure that we have provided our scrutiny and ensured that the registration scheme does everything that we need it to do, we are very much in support of the introduction of it.
I appreciate that the Minister is not responsible for the publishing of the provisions after Committee stage has already started, but I am going to have to come back to the issue of explanatory notes. To assist the Minister, I suspect that the feedback he has had from his officials is that it would appear we only get a technical explanatory statement when an amendment is published on the amendment paper. The more complex explanations are in the explanatory notes published alongside the Bill. I expect that that is the way it has happened in the past, in anticipation of Governments not tabling substantial additions to pieces of legislation so late in the Commons scrutiny process. That may be the feedback he has had from his officials. However, so important are the types of explanations and examples that we are asking for, I do not think that there would be anything out of order if those examples were provided to Members of the Committee directly, or that anything prevents that.
Holly Lynch
My right hon. Friend is quite right. Let me turn to the explanatory notes provided with the Bill as examples, for instance. If person A is contacted by person B to organise activity X, those examples are on page 14, 16, 17, 18 and so on, to try to add some colour and operational understanding of part 1. We have then got nothing to accompany an outline in real-world terms of how so many of these provisions about the foreign influence registration scheme, which is complicated, for the reasons that hon. Members have already outlined, would work in effect. I just put it on the record that that has been a real frustration for Committee members and is disappointing. We understand from officials that efforts will be made to correct it by the time the Bill gets to the Lords, but that is of no use to us, so let me gently suggest that some of those examples be provided before we get to Report, which I know would be enormously welcome.
Stuart C. McDonald
We are now turning to some of the most important provisions in the Bill. I do not think anybody here would argue that we do not need some sort of foreign influence registration scheme. The question for us today is, is this the right scheme? This debate gives us a lot of food for thought, and we will have to go away and think about it further. We have had the benefit of some very useful meetings with officials, for which I am extremely grateful.
I understand the thinking behind the two-tier system, with a broad primary political tier followed by a narrower but all-encompassing enhanced one. Obviously, the Minister is right about political transparency being essential and something we all support. It is the enhanced tier and how it would operate that challenges Members slightly more. Designating states or organisations for the enhanced tier will clearly be an incredibly serious issue, with profound implications for everyone impacted, as well as the diplomatic challenges highlighted by Members.
Many of the questions raised are ones that I would have asked, so for the moment I want to focus on the question I posed in my intervention, which is about precisely how this would work in circumstances where there are various intermediaries. Again, the hon. Member for Halifax made a very valid point: this could be helped by real-world case studies and examples, otherwise we are just using our imagination to try to come up with examples of how this will apply in practice, and my imagination is probably not up to the task. However, I will try to give a fairly mundane example of where this legislation might have implications.
A specified Government or institution in country X decides that they want a sympathetic professor or tech boss in the UK to try to corral some experts in a particular industry into an association or team, with the purpose of providing regular updates on developments in said industry in the United Kingdom. They might have longer-term goals for how they could use that information and these people. That seems exactly the type of situation that the clause is aimed at. At the stage that the professor or tech boss is tasked with putting together this team on behalf of Government X, he is under an obligation to register that arrangement, as I understand it. That then enables people to keep an eye on that activity, if it is thought necessary, in an attempt to stop anything untoward happening before it is too late. If he does not register, that obviously raises a big red flag, perhaps if the security services are aware of some of his other activities.
That all seems pretty straightforward. The problem is what happens if that professor or tech boss is not situated in the United Kingdom but is in country X? There seems little prospect of enforcing these rules against him in country X if he does not register the arrangement. If I have interpreted it correctly, the new clause does not put any obligation on the people in the UK who are undertaking the activity to register the arrangement. That seems to be a potential gap, because that seems a far more likely scenario than a simple instruction straight from a specified Government or company to people in the United Kingdom saying, “You do this”. There will always be intermediaries involved, and that potentially sets up a problem.
I appreciate that there will be issues with what the state of knowledge of the persons in the UK who are doing this via the intermediary might be. Other parts of the Bill, including new clause 11 itself, refer to a person who
“knows, or ought reasonably to know”.
That formulation might be used to fill the gap—if I have interpreted the measures correctly and there is a gap. Basically, my point is that if persons further down the line know full well that they will be asked to do activities for Government X—albeit via an intermediary—perhaps that obligation should be placed on them.
It is not clear how the criteria specified in new clause 12 would amount to an offence. Clearly, the intermediary would be committing an offence for arranging various activities without having registered them, but they are away in country X, so there is no chance of our enforcing the law against him or her. Are industry experts in the UK who have been corralled into the organisation by that intermediary committing an offence by undertaking activities that the intermediary has not registered? That comes down to the question of whether they are acting
“pursuant to a foreign activity arrangement”,
but it is not clear that they are. A little more clarity on that would be useful. Would it depend, for example, on their state of knowledge?
The Minister suggested that new clause 13 could close a gap, but it does not apply to Governments for a start, so it does not fill the hole that we are talking about. If it is not a Government who have been specified but another company, there are questions about whether that company would bother to comply with the measures and about how the measures would be enforced anyway.
More profound concerns about the enhanced tier, including the diplomatic issues and what impacts the measures might have on research and collaboration, have been raised by organisations such as Universities UK. The Government may well say, “That’s something we have to weigh in the balance, and if it is required for the security of the United Kingdom, tough—so be it.” However, there is provision for regulations to tailor precisely the list of activities that could be exempted on a country-by-country basis, and I would be interested to know the Government’s thinking on that.
What will be the process leading up to a decision to take this very serious step of designating either a foreign Government or another institution? I guess that there would have to be significant consultation about that—or would there? Would the list of activities that have to be registered be tailored depending on the country, or will the list be for everything?
Mr Jones
The Minister said that he was delighted to bring the new clauses to the Committee. I think it is disappointing that we did not have sight of them on Second Reading. It is not as if the Government have not had time to come up with the scheme. In 2020, we on the Intelligence and Security Committee reported that the United States have had a system since 1939 and that the Australians brought in their legislation in 2018. I am delighted that we have it, but it has taken too long, and I am surprised that, even at this stage, we are still scrabbling around on the detail.
One thing that concerns me a little is that Committee stage has become a tick-box exercise. We should be able to scrutinise the proposals in detail. Most of the provision will be introduced as secondary legislation, so even when the Bill receives Royal Assent, we will not have the detail of how it will operate in practice. I say gently to the Minister that we should have more detail before the Bill reaches Report and the other place, where it will quite clearly be torn to shreds because of the outstanding issues.
The Minister referred to the former high commissioner of Australia, who said that he hoped the provisions had cross-party support. That is the problem with the way the Government have approached this entire Bill. I am not suggesting for a minute that the Minister would, but other people try to score political points by saying that one party is more concerned about national security. Certainly, my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax, my party and I have known for many years that we would not do anything that would weaken our national security. We want to enhance it. There have been missed opportunities throughout the Bill. I know that is not the Minister’s fault, because the succession of Ministers has not helped. I hope that with current things happening, we do not get another Minister before the Bill reaches its final stages.
Mr Jones
I am sorry; it is an odd quote. That will be the test for tier 1: to make sure that it is publicly available and people know it and can see. That has worked in both those systems.
I have real problems with the secondary tier. I understand what the Government are trying to do, but they are making it very complicated. I worry that we are putting in provisions that will not be helpful in practice. It goes beyond political influence, for which I think there is a need. One example is acting as a foreign intelligence officer. Those arrangements need inquiry, but we are left not really knowing, because a lot of that will be looked at in secondary legislation, and it does not apply to all countries. That will create some problems. I have already mentioned the diplomatic problems when a country is added to that list.
When I met officials yesterday I used the analogy of being put on the naughty step: there is no real understanding of what criteria would be used to do that. I have no problem with the Minister’s robustness in using this measure, but because it is getting into economics and other areas, there will be huge problems with pressures from the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and others. I would like to understand what a country would have to do to get on the naughty step.
On named countries, I am sure the Minister will not mention the exact countries today, but once the Bill secures Royal Assent, are there any countries that will automatically be added? I am sure no one will be surprised to see North Korea on it. The more problematic country is China, on which I know the Minister has strong views. That will create some problems. I am struggling to understand which countries will end up on this tier.
How will the list work in practice? If the Minister were to put a country that is hostile to us on this list, that is one thing, but what happens if the relationship with that country changes? The example I gave to officials was Iraq. During the Iran-Iraq war, it was our ally. When it invaded Kuwait, it was certainly not our ally. What would be threshold to take someone off that tier? What is the practical way in which that will be done?
Holly Lynch
My right hon. Friend is making a powerful case for doing things slightly differently. In the conversations we have had with officials, one of the issues we have worked through is, if our relationship changes with a country at quite a pace, how quickly could we make additions to that enhanced tier to reflect that? Some of the feedback was that it could take a number of weeks, if not months, to address that through the enhanced tier. Is that another area of consideration that we would like to get a grip on?
Mr Jones
My hon. Friend makes an interesting point. That is why I do not think the provision will be used in practice. That is the problem and, as I have said, I am never in favour of putting such provisions on the statute book. A more narrowly defined set of criteria applied to all countries would be better than the complicated system that we have here.
The other point is about transparency. Clearly, the public record for tier 1 will be there—it is published. Why the second tier should be done differently, I do not know. The information is going to get out anyway. It is not going to be a great surprise if a company is on this list. If I was running a company and was suddenly put on the register, I would not tell people that—I would not tell the investors and shareholders. I do not understand why the Government are treating the second tier differently from the first tier.
Tom Tugendhat
May I interrupt with a point of fact? Any company that is designated under the highest tier will be public by definition. That element will be public. It is the UK element that is having to register. The right hon. Gentleman gave an example of a completely spurious French company, which would of course never be on the enhanced list, as we are such good allies with the French. That company would be publicly declared. That is not the bit that is being kept out of the publication. It is the UK element registering it.
Mr Jones
Why not include the UK company? I do not understand why there are different levels in the two schemes.
I support the measure—when we did the Russia report, the right hon. Member for Dundee East and I were very clear that there was a gap, where international partners had provisions and we did not, so this is welcome. I just think that the Government are making it unnecessarily complicated.
I press a final point about secondary legislation. More information about how the measures are going to work in practice before the Bill gains Royal Assent would help the process.
Maria Eagle
I endorse what my right hon. Friend has just said about the complexity of the proposed scheme, which concerns me as well. I very much favour our having a scheme, and I think we should have had one sooner. It is a shame that we were not able to see on Second Reading what was being proposed, because we could have had some of these debates at an earlier stage, when there was still a chance to make changes.
I have a concern about the two tiers being different. It is confusing and complex—much more confusing and complex than it needs be. It might have been more effective to have one tier applying to all countries, and a broader range of covert activity specified as having to be registrable. That might have then meant we would have needed more exclusions, but it would have had the benefit of being simple, straightforward, transparent, all on a level and more obvious, both to those to whom it applies and to those who wish to see the benefit of being able to consult the publicly available information, from a transparency point of view.
It is hard to understand the need for this level of complexity, particularly when it comes to the second tier. Why is the registration of harmful activity outside political influencing, some of which is worse than political influencing, only registrable when a foreign power is set out in the secondary legislation? What we are doing is putting an additional burden on the Government. The Security Minister might always be up for registering the right companies and organisations and countries, but he has got to persuade the whole Government. Other Departments have their own interests and their own work to pursue, which could be made much more difficult by designating in this manner. We seem to be setting ourselves a barrier that might be quite hard to overcome. The eventual outcome of the discussions within Government might not be in accordance with the best security interests. I am not talking about this particular Minister or this particular Government, but there are always competing issues and concerns.
Ordered, That the debate be now adjourned.—(Miss Sarah Dines.)
Trade (Australia and New Zealand) Bill (Third sitting)
Tuesday 18th October 2022
(1 year, 6 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Trade (Australia and New Zealand) Act 2023 View all Trade (Australia and New Zealand) Act 2023 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 18 October 2022 - (18 Oct 2022)
The Chair
Before we begin, may I make a few announcements? Hansard colleagues would be grateful if Members could email their speaking notes to hansardnotes@parliament.uk. Please make sure your phones and other electronic devices are switched to silent mode.
We will now begin line-by-line consideration of the Bill. The selection list for today’s sitting is available in the room. It shows how the selected amendments have been grouped together for debate. Amendments grouped together are generally on the same or similar issues. Please note that decisions on amendments do not take place in the order they are debated, but in the order they appear on the amendment paper. The selection and grouping list shows the order of debates.
Decisions on each amendment are taken when we come to the clause to which the amendment relates. A Member who has put their name to the leading amendment in a group is called first. Other Members are then free to catch my eye to speak on all or any of the amendments within that group. A Member may speak more than once in a single debate.
At the end of a debate on a group of amendments, I shall call the Member who moved the leading amendment again. Before they sit down, they will need to indicate whether they wish to withdraw the amendment or to seek a decision on it. If a Member wishes to press any other amendment in a group to a vote, they need to let me know.
Clause 1
Power to implement government procurement Chapters
Gareth Thomas (Harrow West) (Lab/Co-op)
I beg to move amendment 19, in clause 1, page 1, leave out subsections (2) and (3).
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Pritchard. I congratulate the Minister on being knighted. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!”] It is a pleasure to see him and, indeed, his fellow members of the anti-growth coalition in their places this morning.
Labour Members had hoped that the Bill would provide an opportunity for a much bigger debate on the entirety of the trade agreements with New Zealand and Australia. Sadly, however, the way in which the Bill has been drafted means that it is only the procurement chapters of those agreements that we will be able to debate. I shall illustrate why this is a restrictive approach. There are more than 2,500 pages in the Australia deal—a member of my staff has counted them—but only 30-odd of them are on Government procurement. The New Zealand trade deal has fewer pages, but there are more than 500 of them, with only 30-odd pages on Government procurement. Our opportunities to scrutinise are, therefore, far more restrictive than the House would have liked. None the less, we will raise one or two of the concerns that have been put to us about the Government procurement chapters of both deals.
I should stress at the outset that we welcome increased trade with Australia and New Zealand. They are key allies led by strong, progressive, effective leaders in Anthony Albanese and the incomparable Jacinda Ardern. Their legal systems and value systems are similar to ours, and it makes enormous sense to deepen the economic ties between us.
Our concerns about the procurement chapters arise from the fact that the now Prime Minister appeared to be in a bit of a rush when negotiating both deals. Perhaps one or two mistakes were made and a deal of insufficiently high quality was secured. Members will remember the context in which the Australia deal in particular was negotiated. The flaws in the deal that the now Prime Minster had negotiated with Europe were becoming very obvious, and Ministers were clearly desperate to divert attention from them by negotiating a deal with Australia.
Amendment 19 seeks to delete subsections (2) and (3) from clause 1. Those subsections allow Ministers to extend specific provisions that are included in the UK-Australia and UK-New Zealand agreements, and which go beyond provisions of the Government procurement agreement to all covered procurement. They also bring procurement within the scope of the GPA and other UK trade treaties. These GPA-plus provisions of the UK-Australia free trade agreement could be made part of domestic law and would apply to all suppliers, not just those from Australia. On the GPA-plus elements of FTA clauses relating to estimating values of contracts without a fixed term, the UK-Australia FTA requires that all contracts with unknown value are deemed as covered procurement. Other examples of the so-called GPA-plus provisions that this clause makes available to all suppliers include the advertisement of procurement opportunities and the termination of awarded contracts.
Our amendment seeks to prevent Ministers from quietly slipping into law measures that they have negotiated as part of the trade agreements with Australia and New Zealand, in particular the procurement chapters, that they suddenly think should apply generally. The specific concern that has been brought to our attention relates to contracts of unknown value and length.
Let me go into more detail, to help the Minister and the Committee to understand those concerns. Under current UK rules, contracts of an unknown duration or without a fixed term are advertised only if their estimated cost over 48 months exceeds the relevant value threshold. Under the free trade agreement with Australia, those contracts always have to be advertised. To give effect to the FTA, our domestic UK law will have to be reformed as a result of this Bill.
That surely raises two issues. First, more contracts will have to be advertised, and that will benefit not only Australian tenderers but all tenderers in countries that are members of the Government procurement agreement. That is because the contract opportunity will be advertised online and will be in English. I will explain shortly why that raises concerns. Secondly, domestic legislation is being reformed as a result of free trade agreement, which gives rise to the question whether a trade discussion is the most appropriate way in which to address reforming UK contract law. It certainly gives rise to the question of how much consultation Ministers have had, not only across Government but with business, industry and others who might be affected.
Why does the Minister think it is a good idea to extend to very other member of the GPA the so-called GPA-plus provisions negotiated as part of the Australia trade deal? That gives rise to an obvious question: does it mean that every other member of the GPA will offer us the same arrangement?
I have been describing the concerns in technical detail, so let me give some specific examples to bring the concern to life. On contracts of unknown value, a contract for office printing—a pay-as-you-go service—would come under the scope of the concerns put to us. Let us imagine that a local authority did not want to buy or lease printers, but rather preferred an all-inclusive service comprising availability of equipment, maintenance, help-desk services and supply of paper and other consumables. The contractor would be remunerated on a per-printed-page basis—a pay-as-you-go price. Let us say that the contract was for five years and that the contracting authority—a council on its uppers, perhaps, one like Northamptonshire that had either gone bust or very nearly gone bust—had provided an estimate of the average number of pages printed over the last few years, so as to allow tenderers to price their offers up. However, the contracting authority would not know the total value of the contract at the time of advertising because future consumption could vary.
We have been given similar scenarios that could emerge from cloud computing services. In the cases that I have described, regulation 6(19)(b) of the Public Contracts Regulations 2015, which apply at the moment, requires the contracting authority to calculate a likely monthly value of the contract and multiply it by 48 months. If that estimate exceeded the relevant threshold, which is currently just over £213,000, the contract would have to be advertised. If the estimate was below that threshold, it would be possible that no advertisement was required. If the contract was estimated at below £25,000 in value for the next 48 months, there would be no obligation to advertise the contract opportunity at all. The contract could be directly awarded by the local contracting authority, perhaps following a request for tenders to two or three local small and medium-sized enterprises.
Conversely, under the requirements of the UK-Australia free trade agreement’s procurement chapter—paragraph 9 of article 16.2—given that the total value of the contract over its entire duration is not known in the example I gave, there would be an obligation to advertise the contract. Surely that would reduce the chances of local small and medium-sized businesses getting the contract. There seems to be a clear negative potential effect for SMEs that seems at odds with the Government’s declared policy of boosting SME access to public contracts. Paragraph 13 of the national procurement policy statement refers to that, and paragraph 10 notes as a strategic priority the need to improve
“supplier diversity, innovation and resilience”.
It explicitly refers to the goal of creating a more diverse supply chain to deliver the contracts that will better support start-ups and small and medium-sized businesses in doing business on public sector contracts.
The Minister will remember the clear evidence we heard last Wednesday from Lucy Monks, the Federation of Small Businesses representative, who said:
“Small businesses have problems accessing public procurement in the UK as it stands, because they find it technically difficult. They obviously do not have the ability to take the same kind of risks as larger businesses. They might not have the technical departments, lawyers or whoever might support them through that process.”
She went on to spell out, in even starker terms, that
“small and medium-sized enterprises are basically underserved in the UK procurement processes”.––[Official Report, Trade (Australia and New Zealand) Public Bill Committee, 12 October 2022; c. 5.]
SME representatives are already expressing serious concerns that the people they represent are struggling to win sufficient UK Government contracts. It appears that under clause 1(2) and (3), Ministers are about to make the situation even more difficult for SMEs. That is particularly the case because it is not just Australian and New Zealand businesses that might want to try to win these contracts in future; every other member of the Government procurement agreement could also bid for these contracts.
Although it might seem unlikely that GPA members such as firms based in Hong Kong would want to bid for contracts of unknown value, a business based in the Republic of Ireland, which is part of the GPA, could conceivably think, “Well, now we’ve got an opportunity to bid for a contract in Northern Ireland, Scotland or Wales. It is within the realms of possibility that we could win that contract and offer it for our purposes.” I gently emphasise to the Minister that he needs to explain not only to the Committee but to SMEs across the UK, which are at the moment able to secure contracts of unknown value and length, why he thinks it is in the interests of our country to make it more difficult for them to do so.
If the printing example has not helped the Committee enough, let me give another example from a different economic sector. The Minister will understand just how important procurement is as a means of supporting the UK’s food and agricultural industries. To be fair to the Prime Minister, even she understood that role very clearly when she was in a previous role as the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. She published a plan for public procurement, which was designed to help SMEs to win contracts, especially SMEs from the food and agricultural sector.
Public procurement in this type of situation could sometimes involve the direct delivery of agricultural products, perhaps bought in bulk by local government, but that is less likely than the outsourced provision of meal services for schools or the NHS. With that in mind, tenders for meal services can and increasingly tend to include supply chain considerations that can support local agricultural industries through criteria in the contracts that schools and local NHS hospitals set. That involves shortening the supply chains, perhaps as a way of reducing carbon footprint. Again, that is something that one would have thought we all wanted to continue supporting.
Contracts for meal services can be very difficult to price at a tender stage, especially if there is an element of price competition, which is the norm. It might be surprising that school meals are very difficult to price. However, my own offspring often change their minds over whether they want a school meal or a packed lunch, and I imagine that that scenario is mirrored in families across the country. That makes it difficult for those who are setting the tender terms for meal services to be able to guarantee a set amount of products.
The Minister of State, Department for International Trade (Sir James Duddridge)
I followed the hon. Gentleman’s printing example, in the main, but on school meals, is he just being illustrative? I cannot quite see how the meals that my children have at their school might be contracted out and delivered from Australia or New Zealand.
Gareth Thomas
Let me come on to the example. I am not saying that at all; absolutely, it is highly unlikely that an Australian firm will decide that it wants to rush over and provide schools in Southend or Harrow with meals. That is difficult to see. But it is not difficult to see that a business based in Ireland might think it could provide services in Northern Ireland. It is also not beyond the realms of possibility that it might think it could offer the same terms in Scotland and Wales, such is those countries’ relative proximity.
The Minister is saying that, under the agreement that the Government have negotiated, the opportunity to advertise contracts of unknown value will be extended not only to Australia and New Zealand but, effectively, to every GPA country. Businesses based in the Republic of Ireland will be made aware of contracts across the UK, and more easily able to bid for them as a result, making it that little bit more difficult for small and medium-sized enterprises based in Northern Ireland, or in Scotland or Wales, to win those contracts.
The other concern that has been put to me in relation to these examples is that the activation of the FTA could generate significant legal uncertainty about the compatibility of supply chain considerations that prefer UK produce over Australian produce, especially where the Australian produce has been given extensive market access under other chapters of the FTA. The practical impact of the duty to advertise would be a risk of a reduction in the likelihood of UK-based SMEs, offering UK-grown produce, winning the contract. The Minister might think that is a good thing, but given the difficulties that SMEs have in winning contracts for Government procurement, why has he made the judgment that all contracts of unknown value should be advertised online and in English, and therefore available to all members of the Government procurement agreement to bid for? Why are we making it that little bit more difficult for British SMEs to win contracts?
I want to ask the Minister some other questions related to the clause, and in particular to the issue of contracts of unknown value and length having to be advertised online and in English. What consultation did his Department have with SMEs about the clause? Is it the case that we were rule takers, and the Australians insisted on its inclusion in the FTA? Given that the benefits will extend to every other GPA country, has he had any discussions with those countries about whether they might now offer the same terms to the UK? What assessment have the Government made of the impact of contracts of unknown value and length being advertised online and in English to all GPA members? What impact does he think that will have on the desire of all of us to see more buying of British produce, goods and services? We on the Labour Benches are strong enthusiasts for “buy British” campaigns, so it would be good to hear the Minister’s assessment of the damage to that aspiration.
I briefly flagged the issue of legal uncertainty. The Minister will know about, and may be directly involved in, the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership accession talks. Does the CPTPP procurement chapter include similar provisions? If we accede to the CPTPP, that will trump the Australia and New Zealand FTAs; businesses that have got used to operating in this new context might suddenly find there is a whole series of new rules they have to adjust to very quickly, and may not realise that the Australia and New Zealand FTA provisions that were negotiated under the procurement chapter have been jumped as a result of our accession to the CPTPP.
I am interested to hear the Minister’s responses to the concerns that have been put to us about the extension beyond Australia and New Zealand of this series of provisions. No doubt they were negotiated with the best of intentions, to improve opportunities for Australian and New Zealand businesses here, and for UK businesses in Australia and New Zealand, but they might—inadvertently or otherwise—have a series of other consequences that could damage the ability of British SMEs to win procurement contracts here.
The Chair
If colleagues would like to remove their jackets, they can—it is rather warm in here. I remind colleagues to put their electronic devices on silent. I call Bill Esterson.
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)
It is always a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Pritchard. I was struck by a number of points that my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow West made about the fact that the Bill is about procurement alone, and about the way that it has been drawn up. He said at the start of his speech, in talking about the then Trade Secretary, who is now the Prime Minister, that a few mistakes were made in negotiating the trade agreements—that things were done in a rush. In listening to my hon. Friend make the case for the amendment, I wondered whether that is becoming something of a habit of this Government. It was not just the way the agreements were negotiated but the way that the Bill was brought forward—and just last night, of course, the Prime Minister apologised to the nation for the mistakes that she made as head of the Government in the recent mini-Budget and the disastrous effect that it had on the economy.
The clause gives Ministers the powers to put into operation what my hon. Friend and others have referred to as GPA-plus, with contracts of unknown value, and more contracts being advertised, to benefit not just companies from Australia and New Zealand but companies across the world whose countries are GPA members. I found what my hon. Friend said about the—I assume—unintended consequences extraordinary. I hope we all agree that if they are intended consequences, that would be a very retrograde step, because it would be deliberately harmful to small and medium-sized businesses in the country. As we heard from the Federation of Small Businesses and the other business groups that gave evidence to the Committee last week, it is already very difficult for smaller firms to get contracts in this country. Like my hon. Friend, I hope that the Government genuinely mean it when they say that they are trying to improve the situation for smaller firms bidding for Government contracts.
Government procurement is one of the best ways to stimulate the economy and push funds through smaller firms, which are a source of growth, of much innovation and creativity, and of job creation across our country. That is an incredibly important part of what any Government should offer if they want success, and it is at the heart of the Labour party’s offer in our industrial strategy and in our plans to make, buy and sell more in Britain. I hope that the Government’s approach to the legislation has not undermined support for small firms.
As my hon. Friend set out, if that has not been considered because the Bill has been rushed, some countries—the example of the Republic of Ireland is a good one, but the same applies to other European Union countries—may see an opportunity to win contracts in the United Kingdom at the expense of UK firms, in particular smaller ones, purely by dint of the fact that they have gained a competitive advantage through very poorly drafted legislation. I fear that that risks making it harder, not easier, for domestic companies to benefit from Government spending.
My hon. Friend was also right to mention the carbon footprint aspect. It cannot make sense for us to move away from the idea that, where it is sensible, domestic firms should win contracts from public bodies and, in building a more resilient, local supply chain and delivering British jobs, should have the best possible advantage. I will add one thing to my hon. Friend’s excellent point about the carbon footprint: in the light of the international situation—we all know that we face serious times because of Putin’s invasion of Ukraine—building greater domestic resilience in our supply chains must be a fundamental part of public policy. Moving away from that, which would weaken supply chains and make it harder for small firms in this country to win contracts from our own Government, sounds to me like the opposite of improving resilience and supporting the economy around the country.
I share my hon. Friend’s concern that the consequence of subsections (2) and (3) would be to weaken potential support for UK businesses and the jobs of the people who work in them. For those reasons, I agree with him that we should support amendment 19 and remove those subsections from the Bill.
Sir James Duddridge
Thank you very much, Mr Pritchard. I thank the Members of His Majesty’s official Opposition for their kind words.
The debate on amendment 19 has been useful and wide ranging. I am working on the assumption that we will not have a clause stand part debate, so with your permission, Mr Pritchard, I will speak widely and address all the points made by the shadow Minister—the hon. Member for Harrow West—and the hon. Member for Sefton Central. I will address the shadow Minister’s points more generally before moving into the detail of amendment 19.
The Federation of Small Businesses said that it had been consulted widely and was happy with what the Government have done on this process. The FSB is also part of various strategic advisory groups and trade advisory groups, so, structurally, it is wedded in with the Department on all issues, including procurement.
Sir James Duddridge
I look forward to that.
There were some wide-ranging comments about the Bill. This is a very focused Bill, and I will focus on the procurement element. The Government did not produce a focused Bill by design; we focused the Bill on what there was a legislative need to change. Everything else is done through statutory instrument and there has been wide consultation on the deal overall.
There was talk of GPA-plus. It is in the British interest to have many people tendering, beyond Australia and New Zealand, and to have transparent information. There was also a question about CPTPP, on which I think there is a bit of misunderstanding.
Gareth Thomas
I intend to come to some of the tensions between competition and “buy British” in our next group of amendments, but let me give the Minister the example of Essex County Council. He seems to be saying that it is fine for SMEs in Essex to face greater competition if they want to win contracts of unknown value and length as a result of the council’s having to advertise such contracts online and in English, even though we have not secured similar pledges from other GPA countries. Those small and medium-sized businesses that might hope to bid for a contract in, say, France or Ireland do not have the same advantages, as Ministers have not achieved that. Why give that bit of negotiating leverage away at this stage?
Sir James Duddridge
I think Essex County Council, which is Conservative-run, would think competition is good. The more people applying, whether they are from Essex, Kent or New Zealand, the better. If that provides better services procured with our money—taxpayers’ money—that is fundamentally good. Clearly, local businesses and SMEs have a competitive advantage because there is less transport and a closer understanding of the marketplace; there is a plethora of reasons why that would work. Competition is also good for driving change. If an SME or an organisation in the UK is not competitive or does not have exactly the right product, by not getting that one contract it will try to develop and improve. That is how we grow as a society—but I am straying slightly from the provisions of the Bill.
Let me return to CPTPP. There are some fundamental points here. The Australia and New Zealand trade deals do not die once CPTPP starts, for two reasons. First, they will remain in place because they will be the way we judge what has happened before; deals done in the period before CPTPP will be judged on the Bill. Secondly, the deals will sit alongside CPTPP, in that some of the provisions in the Australia and New Zealand trade deals will be better than those in the deal with the 11 nations in CPTPP, and we would not want to remove those benefits that we have given to our Antipodean colleagues.
Gareth Thomas
The Minister is describing an interesting context—the idea of the CPTPP sitting alongside the Australia and New Zealand free trade deals. Specifically on the issue of contracts of unknown value and length, is that provision contained within the CPTPP as well? We will be a rules-taker. That is the evidence that has been put, certainly to me, in terms of the procurement chapter of the CPTPP. Is it the same provision? I gently suggest that if it is going to be in the CPTPP, with largely the same wording, procurement experts have put it to us that we risk having some legal confusion between the procurement chapter of the CPTPP and the procurement chapters of the Australia and New Zealand FTAs.
Sir James Duddridge
The wording is in line with the CPTPP. Australia, New Zealand and ourselves are conscious that while this deal is in all three nations’ interests, it is also a potential stepping stone to a bigger deal. Throughout the negotiations we, on all sides, thought very carefully about what will be replicated in the new trade deal—what goes through—and also what we wish to retain in our special relationship with those two nations. As the hon. Gentleman knows, trade is always evolving. These deals contain some new and exciting provisions. I will focus my comments on amendment 19 specifically and pick up on thematic issues later, if the hon. Gentleman probes me on them.
I reassure the Committee that the scope of these powers is only to make regulatory changes that are absolutely necessary to implement the procurement chapters. Subsections (2) and (3) of clause 1 are there to ensure that the regulatory changes can be made. Some suppliers do benefit from a separate set of regulations to suppliers from other nations, including the UK. These provisions simply ensure that any supplier participating in a tender that is covered by the agreements do so under the same rules and processes. The amendment would fundamentally undermine the bringing forward of the deal that has been done with Australia and New Zealand in relation to procurement. I hope I have provided some reassurance to the Committee.
Gareth Thomas
Will the Minister explain how the provisions in the procurement chapter of the Australia and New Zealand FTAs sit with the Procurement Bill, which is going through Parliament at the moment, and whether this requirement to advertise contracts of unknown value and length is also touched on in that Bill? If so, there is a risk of confusion, not just as we accede to the CPTPP, but also from our own domestically introduced procurement legislation.
Sir James Duddridge
The Opposition Front-Bench spokesman is tempting me to speak to two Bills under one. When the Procurement Bill goes through, this Bill will not be needed. The trajectory the Government are taking is consistent across the board, but it would be wrong for me to debate a future Bill. We should focus today on what is before us, rather than on what might happen. It is still an active debate. That Bill is not even starting in this House; it is starting in the other place. Therefore, I hope the reassurance I have provided are satisfactory. I ask the shadow Minister to withdraw the amendment.
Gareth Thomas
I am grateful to the Minister for his reply. Although I am not 100% convinced by the argument that he advanced, this is a probing amendment and we will reflect on what he said.
We cannot find any evidence that there was a consultation with the FSB or anyone else on the impact of extending contracts of unknown value and length and on the requirement to advertise them online and in English to every other country with which we have a trade agreement, notwithstanding the Minister’s argument and the evidence we heard in Committee that there have been consultations between the Department for International Trade and the representatives of small and medium-sized businesses. I wonder, therefore, whether this so-called GPA-plus provision has had quite the attention it merits.
Bill Esterson
Did my hon. Friend notice that the Minister did not actually address one of the central points that he and I raised, which is that the opportunity would be widened to all countries that are signed up to the GPA? That causes great concern about the loss of contracts to businesses in this country.
Gareth Thomas
To be fair to the Minister, he sort of touched on the issue in very loose terms. Perhaps my hon. Friend may be reassured that amendment 5, which we are inching towards, would require much more consultation down the line. Perhaps that is a way to try to improve things for SMEs across the UK.
Lloyd Russell-Moyle (Brighton, Kemptown) (Lab/Co-op)
Is not the big problem—my hon. Friend rightly pointed this out earlier, but the Minister did not really reflect on it—that we are giving away negotiating elements for future deals? Opening this up to all GPA countries means that no GPA country will need to put it on the table. We have opened up our markets for them, and they have not opened up their markets—fantastic. We have cut off the nose to spite the face of all our small and medium-sized businesses, but other countries have not acted similarly. If we do this repeatedly with all areas of trade, in the end we will have unilaterally opened up all our borders but received no benefits for our small businesses. That is the basis of the Conservative negotiating strategy, and it is a disaster, is it not?
Gareth Thomas
I appreciate that Conservative Members will be focusing on other mistakes that the Prime Minister has made, but my hon. Friend is absolutely right. One wonders whether, in the rush to get a deal with Australia, Ministers essentially decided just to give up their negotiating leverage on these issues and hoped to push it through quietly without too much attention. None the less, we have aired these issues. We will reflect on what the Minister says, and we may well come back to this matter on Report. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Ms Anum Qaisar (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
I beg to move amendment 1, in clause 1, page 1, line 15, at end insert—
“(3A) Regulations under subsection (1) will not come into force before the date on which the procurement Chapters come into force.”
The amendment is pretty self-explanatory. It is about the timing of entry into force. As my hon. Friend the Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey and I have mentioned, the Scottish Government have consented to the intent of the Procurement Bill. The UK Government’s procurement provisions in the Procurement Bill will supersede this Bill’s procurement provisions when it receives Royal Assent.
The draft Bill was not cleared with the Scottish Government in advance of its introduction, while the drafting of key elements of clauses relating to cross-border procurement—which directly engage the legislative consent process—were not cleared with the Scottish Government until the day before the Bill’s introduction. There has therefore been no meaningful opportunity for the Scottish Government to engage on the specific drafting of provisions before their introduction. It is key that we pass legislation that is thorough. That is why such amendments as this are so important. I encourage colleagues to consider the amendment.
Sir James Duddridge
It is good to see the hon. Lady in her place. I think it is the first time we have served in Committee together—no doubt, not the last time—and I welcome her to her place.
I also welcome her probing amendment—I assume it is probing, forgive me—but it is unnecessary. Australian and New Zealand suppliers will not gain the benefit of the procurement chapters until the agreements have entered into force, in accordance with the existing framework for domestic legislation.
By way of example, the text of the Australian FTA states that the default date of entry into force of the FTA is 30 days after the date on which notifications confirm completion of domestic procedures on all sides, although both parties may agree otherwise. If for whatever reason we made it 31 days or 29 days, and that was acceptable to both parties, the change could be made to allow for all eventualities.
I argue that the amendment is not necessary and that, were we to pass it, it would remove the flexibility of that small change. I welcome the amendment, but ask the hon. Lady to withdraw it.
Gareth Thomas
The hon. Member for Airdrie and Shotts rightly raises an important issue about the linkages between the Procurement Bill and the measures in this Bill. One wonders why Ministers could not get their act together and get that Bill through both Houses of Parliament first. That would have been the sensible thing to do, rather than introducing specific and narrow legislation to implement the procurement chapters of these two free trade agreements, even though they will be completely usurped by the Procurement Bill coming down the line. Does the Minister have any insight into why there has been such a delay in getting the Procurement Bill through both Houses? Is it the chaos in the Conservative party? Is it that there was a need for more consultation with business about the Bill? Why has there been such a delay in the progress of the Procurement Bill?
Sir James Duddridge
The Procurement Bill is in the House of Lords. It has still not reached us. I do not wish to be disparaging about the House of Lords, but had the Bill started here and were the hon. Gentleman, the hon. Member for Airdrie and Shotts and I on the case, no doubt we would have sorted it earlier. I ask the hon. Lady to reflect and to withdraw her amendment.
Ms Qaisar
It will come as no surprise to the Minister that the SNP will disagree with what he is saying. However, we are content to reconsider the amendment and will perhaps bring it back at a later stage. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Ms Anum Qaisar
I beg to move amendment 3, in clause 1, page 1, line 15, at end insert—
“(3A) Where the appropriate authority is a Minister of the Crown, regulations under subsection (1) may not be made until the appropriate authority has consulted the relevant Scottish Ministers in relation to any matters affecting Scotland.”
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 4, in clause 1, page 1, line 15, at end insert—
“(3A) Where the appropriate authority is a Minister of the Crown, regulations under subsection (1) may not be made until the appropriate authority has consulted the relevant Scottish Ministers in relation to any matters affecting farming in Scotland.”
Amendment 5, in clause 1, page 1, line 15, at end insert—
“(3A) Regulations under subsection (1) may not be made before completion of such public consultation as the appropriate authority considers appropriate with the relevant—
(a) Scottish ministers,
(b) Welsh ministers,
(c) department of the Northern Ireland Executive, and
(d) representatives of the English Regions.”
Amendment 7, in clause 1, page 1, line 15, at end insert—
“(3A) Regulations under subsection (1) may not be made before completion of a review by the Trade and Agriculture Commission of the potential impact of the procurement Chapters on industry in the United Kingdom.”
Amendment 20, in clause 1, page 1, line 15, at end insert—
“(3A) Regulations under subsection (1) may not be made before publication of an impact assessment setting out the potential impact of the procurement Chapters on—
(a) employment rights and human rights in the United Kingdom, and
(b) climate change.”
Amendment 22, in clause 1, page 1, line 15, at end insert—
“(3A) Regulations under subsection (1) may not be made before publication of an impact assessment setting out the potential impact of the procurement Chapters on—
(a) Scotland,
(b) Wales,
(c) Northern Ireland and
(d) English Regions.”
Ms Qaisar
I should say, Mr Pritchard, that it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship.
Amendments 3 and 4, which I tabled with my hon. Friend the Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey, can be summed up as standing up for Scotland and Scottish farmers on procurement. The Bill fails to ensure that Scottish Ministers have the ability to scrutinise matters of procurement that impact on Scotland. The powers in the Bill are drafted too broadly. They confer too many powers on UK Government Ministers without securing consent from the Scottish Government. That does not appear to be democracy in action.
Scottish farmers are already struggling with energy costs, crops rotting in fields for a lack of pickers, rising fuel costs, the loss of EU farming subsidies, and fertiliser prices spiralling. Experts have spoken about the deal. We heard from the president of the National Farmers Union Scotland, who said that it appears to be very one-sided, with little to no advantage for Scottish farmers. That is heightened by so little having been done to ensure the continuity and expansion of Scottish and British agrifood exports to new and existing EU markets. Scottish interests and Scottish farmers are not expendable.
Gareth Thomas
I entirely understand and agree with the hon. Lady’s concerns about how Scottish farmers have been treated. They must rightly be very angry with the Government. Does she accept that the concerns of Scottish farmers are replicated among Welsh farmers and many farmers across England, for similar reasons? There is a sense that there has been a huge giveaway to Australia and New Zealand by the Government, perhaps because they were desperate to do a deal. The anger is only made worse by, as she rightly alludes to, the cost of living crisis facing many farming communities. Is she also sympathetic to amendment 5, which references not only the concerns that she articulates in respect of Scotland but those of the people of Wales, England and Northern Ireland?
Ms Qaisar
I thank my colleague for his intervention. He is correct that the challenges that Scottish farmers face are the same as those faced by Welsh farmers and farmers from across the four nations. A key point that he failed to mention, however, is that in Scotland over 60% of people voted to remain in the EU, and there is still a lot of anger from Scottish farmers in that regard.
Last week, we also heard from Jonnie Hall from NFU Scotland. He said something that struck me:
“There are clear potential impacts for particular sectors that are already really quite vulnerable in large parts of the United Kingdom, not least in Scotland. I am thinking particularly of the red meat sector and how important that is to the rural economy of Scotland and, indeed, the whole economy. Scotch beef and Scotch lamb are iconic products, but we are not in a situation whereby we can stack it high and sell it low, as it were. Anything that comes along and undermines our position in that respect is clearly going to be a considerable threat—I use that word advisedly—to the viability of agricultural businesses here in Scotland.”––[Official Report, Trade (Australia and New Zealand) Public Bill Committee, 12 October 2022; c. 32, Q40.]
Concerns have also been raised by the Scottish Cabinet Secretary for Finance and the Economy, Kate Forbes, and the Minister for Business, Trade, Tourism and Enterprise, Ivan McKee. They recommended that the Scottish Government do not give consent for the Bill in its current form. We need to be really careful. The UK Government must not continue on the path of creating delegated powers to implement the Bill.
Amendments 3 and 4 seek to ensure that there are high levels of dialogue and discussion between Scottish and UK Government Ministers. That dialogue would ensure that matters of procurement in Scotland are at the heart of this legislation, crucially protecting the interests of Scottish farmers. In order to support Scottish interests and farmers, I ask Members to please support the amendments.
Dame Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)
I rise to speak in particular to amendments 5, 20 and 22. I am sure that the Committee will be pleased to hear that in talking about amendment 5 and consultation, which is vital, I will also refer to amendment 22 and the issue of impact assessments, so as not to repeat myself. To avoid excessive repetition, I will give examples based on the Welsh Government, but that will certainly apply to Scottish Ministers, to the Northern Ireland Administration and to regions across England. The issue for us is that here we have a clause that will implement part of a trade agreement in which we would have liked to have seen better consultation and a more nation-specific impact assessment. What we can do here is try to put in appropriate consultation before the legislation that clause 1 will allow is finalised.
It is essential that there should be consultation specific to the nations and regions of the UK for a number of reasons. In the case of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, devolution means that within areas of devolved competence, such as agriculture and economic development, there is increasing divergence in the way that things are done. Indeed, public procurement policies are different, and it is important to see the impact of the implementation of the Bill on each nation.
There may be very different economic profiles for the different nations and regions. In the case of the Bill, what is of particular significance is the relatively greater importance that the production of beef, sheep meat and dairy products has in certain nations compared with the UK as a whole. The same may be said for specific regions of England, for example, the relative importance in Cumbria of the beef and sheep meat sectors. Equally, there can be concerns for a particular region because of its reliance on fishing or a specific industry. To give an example, 70% of agricultural output in Wales is beef, sheep meat or dairy, and 70% of the farmland in Cumbria is for beef and sheep livestock farming, with a further 16% for dairy. The importance of livestock farming in Scotland has just been mentioned by the hon. Member for Airdrie and Shotts.
It is no secret that the farming and food processing sectors are most concerned about the treaties; those are the sectors for which ongoing consultation on the implementation of the treaties and their impact on public procurement is absolutely vital. The Government’s impact assessment singled out agriculture, food and fishing, and food processing, as the sectors that lose out in both the Australian deal and the New Zealand deal, with gross value added down in the Australia deal by £94 million, and in the New Zealand deal by £48 million. Food processing is down in the Australia deal by £225 million, and in the New Zealand deal by £97 million. Obviously, there is real worry about what will happen to our farming industry because that has a massive impact on the guardianship of the local rural community, the family farms, and affects our culture—the Welsh and Gaelic languages.
Regarding the markets, let us take the example that 85% of the beef produced in Wales is consumed in the UK, as is 60% to 65% of sheep meat. There is a question about the impact that the huge and rapidly increasing tariff-free quotas of meat from Australia and New Zealand will have on our own farmer’s ability to sell into the UK markets. While we have mentioned the issue of school meals, it is not necessarily in the public procurement of the finished product, but in the supply chains of ingredients, where we will potentially see Australian and New Zealand products—cheese or meat—displacing UK produce. That is in conflict with some of the devolved nations’ procurement policies, where there is a wish to support the local and circular economy.
Further concerns have been raised. In the New Zealand deal the weights allowed in under the tariff rate quotas refer to the carcase weight equivalent, whereas in the Australia deal the volumes are shipped product weight, which means that they could be used disproportionately for the Australians to send their most expensive cuts, thus challenging the most lucrative part of the market for our farmers. We saw something similar to this during covid: when restaurants were not allowed to open, there was a drop in demand for steaks and higher end meat products, while supermarkets continued to demand the lower value products, and that had repercussions for our farmers and food processing industry.
Bill Esterson
My hon. Friend is making the case very well about the need to involve the farming and agriculture industry in trade agreement scrutiny. Was she struck, like I was, by the comments from Jonnie Hall of NFU Scotland about “retrospective scrutiny” and the fact that this weakened the role of the Trade and Agriculture Commission? Does she share my view that the evidence we heard is exactly why we need the kind of analysis referred to in amendment 7 before the regulations are implemented?
Dame Nia Griffith
I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. The whole point is that there should have been much better consultation, either directly with the farming unions or by their representatives in the Scottish and Welsh Governments who have raised these points and have very good, close relations with the stakeholder groups in their respective nations. As my hon. Friend rightly says, a number of concerns were raised by the NFU. The whole point of having consultation and impact assessments is that those concerns can be properly documented and we do not rush into the legislation produced by clause 1 and leave people in a more difficult predicament.
Gareth Thomas
Does my hon. Friend agree that one reason why the Minister ought to be tempted by amendment 5 and amendment 22 is that they would give Essex County Council—which is currently Conservative-run but probably not for much longer, given the mess the Conservative party is leaving our country in—the chance to consult directly with small and medium-sized businesses about the procurement chapter deals that have been done in the UK-Australia and UK-New Zealand free trade agreements? As a representative of the people of Essex, he would surely think that that sort of consultation is a good thing that might remedy some of the mistakes that his predecessors have made in this area.
Dame Nia Griffith
I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. The point is that locally based devolved authorities have much closer contact with the people they represent, so the consultation on how this is working out, what we are going to do next and what the next part of the implementation is must be able to take account of the feelings of those stakeholders on the ground who perhaps feel that they have not had a voice until now.
I pay tribute to officials in the Department for International Trade and the Welsh Government for their very positive and professional engagement. Indeed, the Welsh Minister for the Economy, Vaughan Gething, notes that there has been some improvement between the Australia deal and the later New Zealand deal, and I hope that the experience has been similar for colleagues in Scotland and Northern Ireland, and indeed for representatives of local government across the regions of England.
On procurement, the Welsh Government go as far as to say that there may be scope for businesses in Wales to take advantage of the provisions included in the UK Government procurement agreement, and that some Welsh interests in procurement were protected during the engagement with the Department for International Trade. However, Vaughan Gething says:
“I hope we continue to see improvements in the engagement we have with the UK government, and that future deals provide opportunities and benefits for producers and consumers in Wales.”
It should not be a matter of hoping or relying on good will, which is why the concept of consultation should be enshrined in the wording of the Bill and a meaningful consultation should take place before the clause allows for the implementation of the procurement chapters of the FTAs. Of course, there are certain powers that the Welsh Government have already. Under section 62 of the Government of Wales Act 2006, they have the power to make representations about any matter affecting Wales, but we still feel that this needs to be stated explicitly in relation to the Bill.
One of the issues that relates to procurement is the gradual elimination of tariffs on beef and lamb. Under the New Zealand treaty, for example, the UK or New Zealand can unilaterally accelerate the elimination of tariffs. This is clearly of huge importance to Welsh farmers, so the Welsh Government want to know that they will be fully consulted by the UK Government on any possible acceleration of the elimination of tariffs on goods from New Zealand well before any decisions are made, because secondary legislation could emanate from the clause to put that into action. Clearly, we need that consultation beforehand. Why? Because if we had had better parliamentary scrutiny of the trade deal, we might not be in this position in the first place.
Gareth Thomas
Given the comments that my hon. Friend has just made, perhaps the Minister will take advantage of this debate and reflect on whether his ministerial colleague, the right hon. Member for Chelsea and Fulham, was wrong to reject amendments to the Trade Act 2021 that would have increased scrutiny. As many suggested at the time, perhaps we should have a debate on each free trade deal as the negotiations are just beginning to get under way, so that interested bodies can set out their concerns and Ministers can properly understand the depth of concerns that particular sectors might have—especially on procurement, given that that is what we are debating at the moment, but more generally as well. We are only having to oppose the amendment because Ministers will not do the sensible thing and have proper parliamentary scrutiny much earlier and at the end of things.
Dame Nia Griffith
Indeed. As I said, there are a number of unanswered questions. For example, it would have been nice to have had some analysis from the UK Government to understand why such huge increases were agreed in the quotas of tariff-free beef and sheep meat. Indeed, the Welsh Government requested that but have not had an answer. During the negotiations, the Welsh Government also made calls for market access offers that recognise the risks that large increases in imports could pose to Welsh producers, who have to meet high animal welfare standards. All of this points to why consultation is so important from the very outset and all the way through to the stage we are at now and beyond.
This is not just about the things that have been done by the Bill; it is also about areas where the free trade agreements could have been made better. Let me take the example of antimicrobial resistance. It is okay to stay where we are at the moment, but it would have been useful to work towards a better situation and to use procurement to do that. We do not want just to say, “Well, we don’t want any more use of antibiotics.” Actually, we want to look to reduce their use, although we seem to have missed that opportunity in the trade deals.
We welcome the commitment in the free trade deal to regulate our own standards, as well as the commitment to non-derogation with respect to welfare standards, but the point is that we need the consultation. We want the statutory basis for consultation to extend much further to the point of having some form of concordat with the Welsh Government, the Scottish Government and the Northern Ireland Administration that set out exactly what the consultation would be throughout the process. Indeed, we have a similar concordat on justice between the Welsh Government and the UK Government.
The point is to try to give some shape to the framework, and some certainty, and such a concordat would have so much to contribute. I made a point earlier about the fact that the devolved Administrations are in many ways much more able to engage with stakeholders to represent their views. Going forward, we need to think about issues that might cause problems, such as rules of origin and the fact that small and medium-sized enterprises might struggle and need support in that respect—consultation, impact assessment and feedback are so important to getting this right.
Gareth Thomas
Surely one of the other benefits of consultation is that it might start the Welsh Government and the Department for International Trade thinking about how, together, they might help businesses in Wales to capitalise on a free trade agreement. My hon. Friend will remember that a previous trade Minister criticised the Department for not doing enough to support businesses trying to export. Early consultation with the Welsh Government presumably might help to address some of those failings and enable businesses, together with the Welsh Government and the Department, to begin to think more quickly about how they might take advantage of the benefits of an FTA.
Dame Nia Griffith
Indeed. Not only might there be a benefit, but the high penalties that can be incurred by the respective parties if, for example, they do not understand rules such as the rules of origin might be avoided. Such fears could be fed back through proper consultation and support put in place to ensure that we were able to take advantage of the free trade deals.
Another pertinent issue is the fact that we are debating legislation that overlaps with areas of devolved competence —for example, procurement policy, agriculture and economic development. We do not want the situation that arose with respect to the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020 whereby instead of a proper negotiation on where we should end up and what we wanted and required, we were frightened by the thought of being driven to the lowest possible common denominator on standards by the over-powerful influence of a UK Government purporting to represent the whole UK, but in fact listening only to themselves and not taking into account the views of the devolved Governments.
It is important that we recognise the powers that we have, and that the way forward is through consultation and negotiation, rather than riding roughshod over the issues. For example, the Welsh Government have devolved responsibility for setting domestic sanitary and phytosanitary strategy and policy. Clearly, that is of direct relevance to procurement and the way the FTAs were drawn up.
Gareth Thomas
In referencing Manchester, my hon. Friend has stimulated a thought in my head that, if I am lucky enough to catch Mr Pritchard’s eye, I hope to return to: the issue of levelling up. If levelling up is going to take place—I appreciate that it appears Conservative Members have now given up on that ambition—something we will have to sort out is the Government procurement market. It is quite clearly skewed away from regions such as the north-east and north-west, and nothing seems to have been done about it for the past 12 years. Perhaps a little consultation on how the procurement chapters of these two trade agreements will be introduced might give Government Ministers and Members some ideas as to how we can use Government procurement to facilitate levelling up.
The Chair
I reassure the shadow Minister that he will always catch my eye as long as his comments are—as they are always are—in the scope of the Bill.
Dame Nia Griffith
My hon. Friend raises the importance of consultation, working together and wanting to make things better by negotiation, rather than by imposing a view by one central Government Department on areas that are actually within the devolved competence of other Governments.
I will move on to speak more specifically about the issue of impact assessment. There are various reasons for wanting a proper impact assessment of the effects on Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland and on regions of England. Clearly, there is the levelling-up agenda. There is the fact that different sectors are of different importance to different areas. There is also the fact that the Government’s impact assessment in respect of the FTAs is literally just a table. This is the sop we have to anything to do with the individual nations or regions. We do not have a real study of the impacts of the FTAs on those areas.
As we go forward with the Bill and clause 1, with the powers it provides, it is absolutely essential that it should include a clause for proper impact assessment. The Welsh Affairs Committee was very critical of the lack of detail in that respect. The Committee referenced the Japan comprehensive economic partnership agreement, which includes a better attempt at regional impact assessment—of Wales, for example—but that again did not go far enough. There is a real need for proper impact assessment.
We have mentioned already the impact on agricultural producers and, as I have mentioned, the wellbeing of future generations. The importance of that is of course that FTAs have obligations that bind future generations. They are not things that we can go back on. That is why it would have been nicer to have had impact assessments earlier. If we had them now we could at least prevent mistakes going forward and not have negative impacts on our agricultural sector in the surrounding communities. Given that we already start with negative figures, there is clearly some work that needs to be done. The risk has been exposed. That has been detailed, yet the impact of what that means for farming families and our communities has not been thoroughly explored.
Gareth Thomas
The beauty of having a consultation before regulations are introduced as well as an impact assessment once regulations are about to be brought forward is that we can try to prevent mistakes and understand what might happen as a result of procurement regulations. An impact assessment can highlight to the Welsh Government and other Government agencies what ameliorative support might be needed to help businesses adjust to the impact of new procurement regulations as a result of the procurement chapters. That is an advantage of two of our four amendments as well.
Dame Nia Griffith
Indeed. In respect of support for businesses, there is a real concern about the cumulative impact. That, again, refers to the first amendment we debated today—the issue of what other FTAs with other countries might be included in the legislation. Also, we need to see what the situation would be if the agreement has a negative impact—for example, unfair subsidies made by New Zealand or Australia to help their businesses, or if there is a particularly high volume of imported goods. It is important that Welsh businesses can report and escalate any concerns to the relevant trade bodies and authorities. Again, the proper relationship with devolved Governments can facilitate that.
To sum up on the issue of impact assessments, the impact on sectors is very important. That dovetails with the question of the different regions in England and the different nations of the UK because different sectors can be affected by trade agreements in very different ways, particularly regarding the output and the employment in the different areas. What is the GVA in those areas? Those are all reasons why we want an absolute commitment from the UK Government to a proper consultation procedure and a proper impact assessment before the implementation of clause 1.
I want to sum up with the question of rights and the rights that we are concerned about. The Joint Committee on Human Rights did not give exactly give the ETAs a clean bill of health as they went through. We have had concerns from the trade unions. The Joint Committee on Human Rights raised the fact that in the Australia deal there is no language about the protection of human rights. I note that in the response to the International Trade Committee, the Minister at the time, the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Anne-Marie Trevelyan), rather brushed that off as “Oh, there are other ways we can deal with that.” However, as we know, it has become more common for trade deals to have a wider focus.
Whereas historically trade deals would just have focused on the economic benefits of trading relationships, they have now expanded to address a wider set of cross-cutting areas, such as small and medium-sized businesses and gender, labour and environmental policy, including climate change. Those wider considerations are particularly relevant to public procurement implementation because of the role of procurement policies in protecting the environment and fair work.
The Joint Committee on Human Rights was not exactly happy—[Interruption.] It was pleased to see provisions on forced labour, modern slavery and human trafficking, but noted the limitations on enforcement and supply chains, limitations that the trade unions also raised. The trade unions also pointed out that they were not part of the stakeholder consultation and did not have their rightful place at the table. Again, consultation through the devolved Governments could give them a better voice, because there tends to be a better relationship, but trade unions should be at the table, full stop.
I will not go into more detail on climate change, apart from to say that at the time of the negotiation of the Australia deal, Australia had a terrible reputation on climate change, ranking very low in the world, with a terrible record on emissions. This might have been an opportunity, perhaps, to do rather more.
Dame Nia Griffith
It was indeed. I hope that the new Government in Australia may do something of their own accord, but we should not be leaving it to them to act of their own accord, and hoping. That is the point of the amendment. It is not enough to leave things just to happen, because they do not. Unless we put positive steps in to make something happen, it does not happen.
Gareth Thomas
My hon. Friend is making a very good point about climate. Is that not one of the differences between the New Zealand FTA and the Australian FTA? Negotiating with a conservative Administration in Australia led to a deal that does not reference climate. Negotiating with a Labour Administration in New Zealand led to substantial provisions on climate—[Interruption.] Would it not be good to hear the Minister explain how he has been talking to the new Labor Administration in Australia about how they might perhaps insert some more climate provisions into the trade relationship between the UK and Australia as a result of some of the joint committees that have been set up under the FTA?
Dame Nia Griffith
Indeed, absolutely. One rather suspects that it was not thanks to the UK Government, but thanks to the New Zealand Government that the climate provisions found their way into the trade agreement; they somehow got completely lost in the Australian FTA.
All these points are reasons why we have tabled the amendments. These issues are too important to be left to chance. They should be fundamental to any form of procurement policy, which should be based on a full impact assessment, full consultation and full respect for human rights and employment rights, and our goal of getting to net zero. Those are all very important points.
The Chair
After that big bang, I am very tempted to call the ghost of Christmas past, but instead I call the very living and very present, Lloyd Russell Moyle.
Lloyd Russell-Moyle
I will take that in the good manner that it was meant. Thank you, Mr Pritchard.
I speak to amendments 5, 7, 20 and 22 for three main reasons: first, because we heard evidence of great concern from businesses and other organisations about the consultation that this Government will do when bringing forward regulations and the trade deals themselves. The Government have established the Trade and Agriculture Commission, but it is able to produce reports only after the trade deal is signed, defeating one of the main points of its existence—it produces a long report but we go and ratify the trade deal anyway, after the horse has bolted. That is same with the International Trade Committee.
Bill Esterson
My hon. Friend makes good points about the way that France and European Union scrutinise trade agreements. In the context of agriculture, the other really good example is the United States. Recently, the United States trade unions had access to negotiating texts during the negotiation period and were able to insist on improvements to employment rights in the recent United States-Mexico-Canada agreement, which, crucially, protects workers in Mexico who face draconian approaches and attacks on trade unionists. Does my hon. Friend agree that we should have a similar process in this country? In the absence of that process, the amendments are a desperately needed back-up.
Lloyd Russell-Moyle
I totally agree. The US is a much better example than us of scrutiny and engagement. It engages its elected representatives early on. We see a Democrat Government there—one of our sister parties—putting trade unions and small businesses front and centre in their ongoing prosperity, rather than trying to run roughshod and have corrupt practices, which the previous party of Government in the US was all in favour of.
There is a better way of doing this. The amendments are not the ideal. I am, desperately unfortunately, missing my Select Committee inquiry this morning on international trade agreements and how we how we process them. I am sure I will read the transcript of the evidence hearing with fascination this evening. The Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee’s inquiry makes it clear that the current ways that we produce trade deals and scrutinise their implementation—what these amendments are about—are inadequate. They are inadequate because they were created in an age when most of it was farmed off to the European Union and we had strong scrutiny processes of secondary legislation that came via the European Union—Committees that looked at that and debates in Parliament.
All that was swept aside—I will not get into the rights and wrongs of leaving the European Union. We have then just relied on a CRaG process and no other proper form of ongoing scrutiny process, which we would have accepted under the European Union, or which every other country has now developed, because trade deals are dynamic.
Gone are the days when trade deals were fixed in one piece of writing; they are ongoing, living, breathing documents. That is quite right, because trade deals really are multilateral deals on numerous issues: on not just direct trade but intellectual property and procurement, as we are discussing today. They affect the domestic implementation of issues, affecting how councils and public bodies are able to go about their day-to-day business, and the ability to consult.
Gareth Thomas
I apologise to my hon. Friend for missing his opening remarks. However, as he was reflecting on the weaknesses of the CRaG process, does he not think that perhaps part of the reason why Government Members genuflected towards the CRaG process so much, despite all its weaknesses, is that it was initiated by a Labour Secretary of State, Arthur Ponsonby, albeit 100 years ago? Perhaps that is what gives them some comfort. However, I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend that it is time to uprate and modernise it.
Lloyd Russell-Moyle
I do not think that even the most foresighted Labour politician would expect the rules that they designed 100 years ago to still be in operation today. Even if I managed to get one amendment through in my career here, I would not expect it to last 100 years.
The CRaG process, I am afraid, is not fit for purpose in the modern world. Although I do not want to prejudge what my other Committee will say, I suspect that is the conclusion that all sides are coming to—that it needs to be updated. These amendments allow a sticking plaster so that secondary legislation and regulations that are made must go through that process. That is what we heard businesses wanted.
The amendments would also ensure that all regions and nations of our country are properly consulted. The other part of my constitutional affairs hat is that we visit the devolved Administrations every year and speak to them about how they feel their relationships with the Union are going. I can tell Conservative Members that they think it is going very badly. That is not just the SNP in Scotland but Labour in Wales and the Democratic Unionist party in Northern Ireland. They think that the way this Government consult and work with them is arrogant and dismissive. That is what every single one of them said, and what Conservative colleagues in the devolved Administrations said to us too.
Sir James Duddridge
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his constructive criticism. In the 25 meetings between the chief negotiator and the devolved Administrations, what, specifically, did the DAs raise on procurement issues that they were unhappy with?
Lloyd Russell-Moyle
Well, I can go and look at my notes and see if they said that procurement was a particular problem. Their concern was that they were presented with a faits accomplis time and time again. They were presented with, “This is the way that you can have it; accept it or leave it.” That was in a wide range of areas, but trade was one of their many concerns.
The amendments are not to say that the Government are not meeting with the devolved Administrations or are not in communication with them, but to say that the Government must consult and work with the devolved Administrations and the English regions before the regulations are laid, in a co-operative, rather than dictatorial, way. It is therefore important that they are agreed to, because they would provide the reassurance that is needed to rebuild the way that regulations are laid that affect the whole UK. We have seen how, when legislative consent motions have not been provided, they are still run roughshod over.
Andrew Bowie (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (Con)
The Minister has just informed the Committee that the chief negotiator met the DAs 25 times in the run-up to this trade Bill being put down. Will the hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown inform the House, if he knows the answer to this, how many times the chief negotiators from the EU consulted the devolved authorities in the UK and, indeed, the UK Government and Members of this House when trade deals were being negotiated, given that he seems such a fan of the way the EU conducts itself in trade negotiations?
The Chair
Order. I am sure the hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown would give a very full and articulate answer to that, but we are slightly straying out of scope. The points about devolution have been well made and can continue, but only in relation to the United Kingdom. Thank you.
Lloyd Russell-Moyle
I am sure that my Committee’s report will include a fantastic comparison and I will ensure personally that the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine gets a copy of it when it is out. I can tell him, though, that when we were in the European Union, the devolved Administrations met the different sections of the European Union weekly, because the devolved Administrations had representatives in Brussels who would meet weekly on trade issues, and they would meet daily with the European Union officials. Anyway, we will move that to one side.
Drew Hendry (Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey) (SNP)
It may help to underline the hon. Gentleman’s point to quote Ivan McKee, the Scottish Government’s Trade Minister, who said:
“Once again we were not consulted by the UK Government before the introduction of proposed legislation that as currently drafted, bypasses the Scottish Parliament and undermines Scotland’s powers. That is…disappointing, but sadly no longer surprising.”
Lloyd Russell-Moyle
I think that is the case here.
These amendments, particularly amendments 2, 20 and 22, which relate to the devolved Administrations, provide a failsafe for the devolved Administrations and English regions to know that they will be consulted. They provide a failsafe for the businesses, including small businesses, that we heard in evidence to know that they will be consulted beforehand. Of course, with all consultation, the Government can still go away and say, “We have listened to you. We have heard you. We have put forward our suggestions. You don’t agree with them, but we are still going to push forward, because we think that is necessary.” That is democracy; of course that has to be allowed, but what we cannot have is people being bumped into things at the last moment or presented with things as faits accomplis, and that is the situation at the moment.
I rose to support the amendments. I think that they are vital; more importantly, they are vital in preserving our Union. I know that some colleagues have a different view, and it is people’s own right whether they want to leave or not—it is not my choice—but I would like to see the Union preserved. I think that those on the Government Benches would like to see the Union preserved as well. I am afraid that if we do not start treating the devolved regions and nations of this great country with more respect and more humility, people will be out the door and it probably will be understandable.
Gareth Thomas
I rise to support amendments 5, 7, 20 and 22, which were tabled in my name and which my hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli spoke to. In so doing, I want to indicate, as I hope my interventions on the hon. Member for Airdrie and Shotts indicated, my strong sympathy with her two amendments as well. I hope that amendments 5 and 22, in that they are more wide-reaching because they cover Northern Ireland, Wales and the English regions as well as Scotland, might be sufficient to encourage her support for them.
Amendment 5, as we have indicated, seeks to lock in the opportunity for more consultation with the whole UK about particular regulations that might emerge around the procurement chapters. As I said in my opening remarks, the Australia free trade agreement is more than 2,500 pages long, and it is quite easy for the bits on procurement to be largely missed. The opportunity to lock in a bit of consultation at this point—before implementing regs have to be made—would help to ensure that there is specific focus on the procurement chapters in both deals.
Bill Esterson
My hon. Friend is talking about consultation and amendment 5 refers to the representatives of the English regions. Earlier, the Minister was talking about Essex County Council. He did not mention Southend-on-Sea City Council, where he is a Member of Parliament. I could not help but notice that the procurement objectives of Southend are:
“Maximising the opportunities for Social Value, Economic Sustainability, and benefits for the local community”.
Does my hon. Friend agree that the Minister, in accepting the amendment, would do well to engage with the objectives of his own local authority to ensure that procurement policy is put into practice in a proper way?
Gareth Thomas
My hon. Friend makes a very good point in suggesting that the Minister look to his own backyard in the troubled times that he and his party are in at the moment. In the context of the free trade agreements’ procurement chapters, it would be particularly helpful for the Minister to seek the views of Labour-run Southend-on-Sea City Council and see whether it agrees with the stance that he is likely to be advancing, which I suspect will be against the idea of more consultation—
Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill (Twenty Fifth sitting)
Tuesday 18th October 2022
(1 year, 6 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023 View all Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 18 October 2022 - (18 Oct 2022)
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 5 / Noes: 8 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 5 / Noes: 8 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Chair
Welcome to the afternoon sitting. We now come to new clauses 2 to 7, which have already been debated. Does Rachael Maskell wish to move any of the new clauses formally?
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
We wish to bring them back later in proceedings, at which point we will press them to a Division.
New Clause 8
Industrial support reporting
“(1) The Secretary of State must prepare annual reports on—
(a) the rates of the matters in subsection (2), and
(b) the extent to which the fiscal and regulatory framework supports growth in those matters in areas with rates of poverty, unemployment or economic inactivity above the national average.
(2) The matters are—
(a) new factory openings,
(b) investment in new factory equipment,
(c) the introduction of tailored skills-acquisition programmes, and
(d) the creation of manufacturing jobs.
(3) The first such report must be laid before Parliament before the end of 2023.
(4) A further such report must be laid before Parliament in each subsequent calendar year.”—(Mrs Lewell-Buck.)
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to report annually to Parliament on the rates of, and the extent to which the fiscal and regulatory framework supports, new factory openings, investment in new factory equipment, introduction of tailored skills-acquisition programmes and creation of manufacturing jobs in areas with rates of poverty, unemployment or economic inactivity above the national average.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Mrs Emma Lewell-Buck (South Shields) (Lab)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The new clause is tabled in my name and that of hon. Friends and hon. Members right across the House. Time and again, we have heard from the many Ministers who have sat opposite us during our short time considering the Bill that the Government are committed and serious about levelling up, yet time and again, when the Opposition have suggested amendments to support and strengthen those aims, the Government have voted against them. I hope that the Minister will give serious consideration to new clause 8, as it will actually help the Government.
The Government have struggled to define what levelling up means and, consequently, how its success can be measured. In fact, in their own technical annex to the White Paper, when addressing how they will measure boosts in productivity, pay, jobs and living standards—especially in areas where they are lagging—the Government state that further work needs to be undertaken to refine the metric. I humbly suggest that new clause 8 does just that.
Legislating for a reporting mechanism that is linked to a revival in manufacturing will focus the efforts of this and any future Government into job and skills creation, as well as the promotion of the UK as a manufacturing powerhouse once again. For too long our economy has been reliant on the service sector, where jobs can often be low paid and insecure, especially in coastal communities such as mine—coastal communities, towns and cities that were once the manufacturing hubs of the UK.
In the last 12 years we have seen a marked increase in low rates of economic growth, leading to stagnation in productivity and living standards. That is felt most starkly in the north-east, where Hartlepool, Redcar, Cleveland, Darlington, Newcastle, South Tyneside and Sunderland have all seen significantly decreased manufacturing outputs compared with 2010. The consequence has been an over 50% decrease in apprenticeships in engineering and manufacturing technologies in every single north-east local authority since 2010. Manufacturing makes up only approximately 9% of UK output, compared with 17% in the early ’90s. In other countries, such as Germany, Japan, Switzerland and South Korea, it is nearly as high as 25%.
The UK brand is still powerful; we have the skills and talents to be making and doing so much more. I do not have all the answers, and I know it can be difficult to create the right environment for manufacturing to thrive, but there are plenty of people smarter than me out there who have thought it through and do have the answers. What we need is a Government who are willing to listen to them, and to be held accountable for any action they take. New clause 8 would do that.
I suspect that the Minister will try to explain why the Government do not support the new clause. I suspect that she will explain that there is already provision for measuring and monitoring the missions in the Bill. However, new clause 8 goes further than that: it cuts across nearly every one of the levelling up missions but, more than that, it targets them directly at the very areas that the Bill claims it wants to level up. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s views on the new clause.
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
It is an honour to serve under your guidance, Sir Mark. I am in full agreement with the hon. Member for South Shields, and I am pleased to be a signatory to the new clause, which gives the Government the opportunity to place real, measurable metrics at the heart of levelling up. It would ensure that we tackle some of the myths about growth, which is a word bandied around an awful lot in this place. Many of us think that so much of what the Government mean by “growth” is just consumer spending on the basis of credit and, therefore, does not really add anything long term to our economy.
The new clause gives the Government the opportunity to have measurables for this country to level up in a way that sees us restore manufacturing and skills to the heart of our economy, ensuring that we have growth that is not only real and sustainable, but distributed equally across the country. It would ensure that the Government can be held to account on whether they achieve that or not.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (Dehenna Davison)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Mark. I am grateful to the hon. Member for South Shields for raising this matter. As MPs for the north-east, we are acutely aware of the value of manufacturing. She referred to her manufacturing powerhouse, which the north-east certainly is. We want it to continue to thrive, but we also want the entire UK to thrive when it comes to manufacturing.
Manufacturing is vital to levelling up as it provides high-skilled and well-paid jobs. It is supported by the Government, including through a new £1.4 billion global Britain investment fund, with grants to encourage internationally mobile companies to invest in the UK’s critical and most innovative industries.
There are already publicly available official statistics covering matters in the new clause, such as the number of manufacturing jobs by region. We are a little concerned that the new clause would require an additional and disproportionate burden on businesses to collect data in a timely manner at a time when they are already facing unprecedented rising costs, which are particularly acute for manufacturing businesses. We therefore feel that the new clause is unnecessary at this stage.
The hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale talked about having real metrics at the heart of levelling up, which the Government are certainly passionate about. We want to be able to measure levelling up to show that we are successfully delivering it. That is why we are already taking steps to improve the quality of the spatial data that we have available.
My Department has established a new spatial data unit to drive forward the data transformation required in central Government. The unit supports the delivery of levelling up by transforming the way the UK Government gather, store and manipulate sub-national data to underpin transparent and open policy making. On that basis, I think we are reaching for the same end here. I reassure the hon. Member for South Shields that the spatial data unit will be pivotal in this matter. The Department for Education is also working to deliver a better understanding of local area skills demand and supply through its unit for future skills.
Mrs Lewell-Buck
I referred to the fact that the Government’s technical annex to the White Paper identifies an issue with measuring and understanding pay, jobs, living standards and productivity. If the Government do not want to put an extra burden on businesses, who will they ask to get this data for them? How will they do that?
Dehenna Davison
This is a matter for our excellent new spatial data unit, which is doing valiant work. It will really help us to understand the scale of the challenges, as well as the progress that we are making against the levelling-up missions. As a Government, we are determined to level up and make progress against those missions.
We are doing a lot of great work in this area and the spatial data unit really will be revolutionary in how we gather this data. For the reasons I have outlined, I ask the hon. Lady to withdraw her new clause.
Mrs Lewell-Buck
I am not entirely convinced, so I will go away and think about it, but I will not divide the Committee on the new clause today. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 12
Duty to have regard to impacts on UK agriculture, agricultural land and domestic food production
“(1) A relevant authority must, when making policy, have regard to any potential impacts of that policy on the resilience of UK agriculture, agricultural land and domestic food production, and seeking to minimise any adverse such impacts so far as is reasonably practicable.
(2) In this section, a ‘relevant authority’ means—
(a) a Minister of the Crown;
(b) a relevant planning authority (under the meaning in section 81).
(3) In order to comply with the duty under this section, the relevant authority must have regard to—
(a) any impacts the proposal may have on agricultural production in the UK;
(b) any impacts the proposal may have on the area of land available for agricultural production in the UK, including in particular the area of grade 1 and 2 land available for production;
(c) any impacts on the genetic diversity of domestic livestock populations;
(d) the impact on farming in areas of natural constraints including land above the moorland line;
(e) the ability of agricultural producers in the UK to operate competitive businesses;
(f) any impacts on food security; and
(g) any other factor which appears relevant to the relevant authority.
(4) Nothing in subsection (1) requires a relevant authority to do anything (or refrain from doing anything) if doing it (or refraining from doing it) would be in any other way disproportionate to the impact on UK agriculture, agricultural land and domestic food production.
(5) This section does not apply to policy so far as relating to—
(a) the armed forces, defence or national security, or
(b) taxation, spending or the allocation of resources within government;
(c) Wales;
(d) Scotland; or
(e) Northern Ireland.”—(Greg Smith.)
This new clause requires Ministers of the Crown and planning authorities (with a broad definition) to take account of the impact their policies are likely to have on the resilience of the agricultural sector, agricultural land and domestic food production.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Greg Smith (Buckingham) (Con)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 13—Statements about Bills which may impact on UK agriculture, agricultural land or domestic food production—
“(1) This section applies where a Minister of the Crown in charge of a Bill in either House of Parliament is of the view that the Bill as introduced into that House contains provision which, if enacted, could have an impact on UK agriculture, agricultural land or domestic food production.
(2) The Minister must, before Second Reading of the Bill in the House in question, make a statement under subsection (3) or (4).
(3) A statement under this subsection is a statement to the effect that in the Minister’s view the Bill will not have an adverse impact on UK agriculture, agricultural land or domestic food production.
(4) A statement under this subsection is a statement to the effect that—
(a) the Minister is unable to make a statement under subsection (3), but
(b) His Majesty’s Government nevertheless wishes the House to proceed with the Bill.
(5) A statement under this section must be in writing and be published in such manner as the Minister considers appropriate.”
This new clause requires a Minister of the Crown to make a statement when a Bill is introduced which is likely to have an impact on UK agriculture, agricultural land or domestic food production.
Greg Smith
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Mark. While I have no actual technical or financial interests to declare, for the sake of transparency, as we are going to talk about agriculture, I declare that my wife’s family are farmers. Conveniently and coincidentally, they are located in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk, who is sat next to me.
Some 90% of my constituency’s 335 square miles is agricultural land. Day in, day out, we see massive competing demands on that land, from the Agriculture Act 2020, with the environmental land management scheme and demands on farmers for rewilding and various other uses that take land out of agricultural use, to the thousands of acres of solar farm developments being brought forward, the housing demands, and state-sponsored infrastructure projects such as, in my constituency’s case, 19 miles of High Speed 2. As a result, when it comes to food security, we have seen our self-sufficiency declining over recent decades. We currently sit somewhere around 60%.
Within the national planning policy framework, there is a presumption to protect the most versatile and productive agricultural land, but I am certain that we in Buckinghamshire are not alone in seeing planning applications approved on said land, be those for housing, solar farms or other projects that I have listed. In the spirit of new clauses 12 and 13, in my name and that of my right hon. Friend the Member for North Thanet (Sir Roger Gale), it is high time we locked into the planning system a legal requirement for planning authorities—indeed, any public authority that considers these matters—to take food security into account when determining those applications.
I think that would take us to a place that is far stronger than the current NPPF presumptions that we see being overlooked and not enforced up and down the country. It would get us to a position that is good for our farmers, where they are not losing hundreds, if not thousands, of acres of their land and can get about their business—the way they make their money—growing crops or raising cattle, sheep or other livestock. It would improve our food security at a time of global pressures, which I need not take up the Committee’s time describing, not least the appalling war in Ukraine. It would also give the countryside back its very definition—that it is there primarily for food production. It is there for farmers to work the land to produce the food that we need as a nation.
James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)
My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech; there will be much sympathy for his argument in South Suffolk, where his family reside on a beautiful farm. Was he reassured by suggestions in one newspaper that the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs is looking at the classification of new solar? At the moment, we are using farmland that could still be productive; we should, potentially, be tightening those rules.
Greg Smith
My hon. Friend is absolutely right; I am reassured that the Government are moving to a place where productive farmland will not necessarily be used for solar in future. However, as it stands, we are trapped in a position where it has become very attractive for land to be taken over for solar use. We see the glossy planning consultants’ documents that show sheep grazing underneath the solar panel. That is all very well in year one, when there is still some grass underneath the glass, metal and plastic that form those solar panels, but when a field has been covered so comprehensively in those materials, the grass will not grow, and it becomes very difficult to graze a sheep underneath those panels in year two and beyond. We should call out and challenge the assumption that those planning consultants make when it comes to solar farms in particular.
New clauses 12 and 13 are not specifically about solar, housing, infrastructure or whatever; they are about taking the principles and precedent in the Environment Act 2021, which places a duty on planning authorities to take into account environmental concerns such as biodiversity gain, and extending them to include a requirement to take our nation’s food security as seriously as we take environmental concerns, energy security and national security.
Tim Farron
I congratulate the hon. Member for Buckingham on bringing forward these important new clauses. I agree with an awful lot of what he said. Undoubtably, food security is something that our country has overlooked hugely in recent decades, to our great cost. By some metrics, we produce only about 55% of the food we eat. That is not just a dangerous position to be in given the global situation, but it is morally questionable. As a first-world nation, we will go out and find the food we need, and we will inflate prices on the commodities markets, which will end up increasing prices for the poorest people in the world. On that level, we have a moral requirement to make good use of the land we have to produce food to feed ourselves so that we are not literally starving other people around the world.
It is worth pointing out that 70% of England’s land and about 72% of the United Kingdom’s land is agricultural. If we are serious about tackling global carbon emissions and improving biodiversity, we have to start with those working in farming. Anyone who thinks we can improve our environment without keeping people farming to deliver those environmental policies is not living in the real world.
The other thing that makes the new clauses attractive to me is that they refer to the responsibilities not just of planning authorities, but of Ministers. When it comes to planning authorities, a requirement to look at the impact of any proposal on food production and farming may sometimes mean that we protect land and do not allow development. It may also sometimes mean that we permit development, in order to allow, for example, diversification. Some level of renewable energy on farm sites is something that farmers actively want, to help shore up their businesses. I agree that we do not want to see whole farms handed over to solar, but many farmers would like the option to use renewables for environmental reasons and to cross-subsidise and diversify their business. Also, sometimes we simply need labour in those communities, and we may need to build some houses to ensure that we have sustainable farming.
I wish that the provisions of these important new clauses were already in law, because they would stop the Government botching the transition from the common agricultural policy, which was far from perfect, to the new ELM scheme. That will see farmers lose 20% of their income by the end of this year, with very little to replace it. Fewer than 2% of the 1,000 farmers in my patch—13 of them—have signed up for the new sustainable farming incentive. The botching of the transition means that farmers will lose their income, and so far they have very little to compensate for it.
However, to botch the unbotching is almost inexcusable. In the last few weeks, the Government have signalled that they might be ready to rip up ELMS altogether, after farmers have spent two years preparing for it. We see foolishness upon foolishness, all of which puts our farmers in a desperate position. They have never been more angry with the Government of the day—and we do not have time to go into the damage being done to our farming community by trade deals. We desperately need to remember, at the heart of policy making, nationally and locally, the importance of farmers and farming to food production and the environment. If the hon. Member for Buckingham were to press the new clauses to a vote, he could count me on his side—I would vote with him.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (Lee Rowley)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Mark. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham for his introduction to the new clauses and for the work he is doing on this important policy area. We absolutely accept the challenge that he puts to us. He made strong points about the importance of balancing competing demands, all of which are important in isolation and need to be thought through and integrated as best as possible, while recognising that it is sometimes not possible to do everything. The point of Government, both local and national, is to try to ensure that that balance is struck in the best possible way.
I hesitate to go too much into an agricultural discussion, although the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale was keen to move into that space, but I acknowledge the points that have been made. It is critical that we continue to have food security in the United Kingdom, that consumers have access to good quality, healthy and sustainable food and that domestic producers have a viable business in the long run. Although I do not want to trade figures, the figures I have in front of me state that we produce about 60% of what we eat, and we produce roughly 70% to 75% of what we can produce in this country. Given the problem of dates, times and the like, I recognise that those things move around, although they seem to have been relatively static over the last 20 years. Therefore—to my hon. Friend’s point—the question is whether the planning system needs further content and signals so that it is clear that these things can be weighed up more clearly.
At the current time, things are going on elsewhere in Government, particularly around the Agriculture Act, which my hon. Friend referenced. The Act commits the Secretary of State to have regard to the need to encourage the production of food by producers in England and for that production to be done in an environmentally sustainable way. Also in the Agriculture Act is a legal obligation to produce an assessment of food security once every three years. I hope that goes some way towards reassuring my hon. Friend, although I acknowledge that he is also interested specifically in the planning element.
This might be one of the statements that I make regularly over the next few minutes or so, but I am happy to talk to my hon. Friend in more detail about the underlying intent and calls behind his new clause. However, at the current time, I ask him to withdraw it in lieu of further discussions and debate outside after our sitting.
Greg Smith
I welcome my hon. Friend’s commitment to keep the conversation going. This is a subject, as right hon. and hon. Members can perhaps understand, that I get very passionate about. I could have a debate on agriculture for as many hours as the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale could. Our farmers produce the best food in the world, and we have to find the right balance to ensure that they have the land on which to produce it. In the spirit of carrying on the conversation before the Bill reports, I will not push the new clause to a vote, but I urge the Government to keep listening and talking to protect our world-class, best-in-class British farmers. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 14
Prohibition of mandatory targets and abolition of five-year land supply rule
“(1) Any housebuilding target for local planning authorities in—
(a) the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF),
(b) regulations made under any enactment, or
(c) any planning policy document
may only be advisory and not mandatory.
(2) Accordingly, such targets should not be taken into account in determining planning applications.
(3) The NPPF must not impose an obligation on local planning authorities to ensure that sufficient housing development sites are available over five years or any other given period.”—(Greg Smith.)
This new clause requires a revised NPPF within six months to provide that housing targets are advisory not mandatory and that the five-year housing land supply rule will no longer apply.
Brought up, and read the First time.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 15—Requirements of the National Planning Policy Framework—
“(1) The Secretary of State must ensure that the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) is in accordance with subsections (2) to (6).
(2) The NPPF must not contain a presumption in favour of sustainable development including where there are no relevant development plan policies, or such policies are out-of-date.
(3) The NPPF must provide for the right for persons to object to individual planning applications.
(4) The NPPF must provide that the Planning Inspectorate may only recommend that local plans not be adopted if—
(a) the consequences of that local plan would be detrimental to the objectives of such plans, and
(b) that local plan is markedly and verifiably atypical in comparison to other such plans.
(5) The NPPF must permit local planning authorities to impose bans on greenfield development in their areas, other than in exceptional circumstances, where—
(a) greenfield areas make a marked contribution to the local economy through leisure or tourism, and
(b) where sufficient brownfield land is likely to be available to meet housing needs identified in neighbourhood and local plans.
(6) The NPPF must include specific measures designed to support the creation of additional retirement homes, sheltered accommodation for the elderly and facilities for care homes.
(7) This section comes into force at the end of the period of six months beginning on the day on which this Act is passed.”
This new clause requires a revised NPPF within six months to provide that, among other things, there should be no presumption of sustainable development.
Greg Smith
This should be relatively straightforward, given the commitments that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made in the leadership election during the summer. I believe that she described her approach as ending the Soviet-style, top-down housing targets that exist in the United Kingdom at the moment.
New clause 14, in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Theresa Villiers), gets to the nub of the matter by getting rid of mandatory targets and leaving local areas free to decide what housing development, commercial development, infrastructure and so on they need. It also gets rid of something that has been an aberration in the planning system for far too long. I have talked to local government colleagues up and down the land, and the five-year land supply rules have got in the way of many areas deciding exactly what is right for them and of their ability to be dynamic.
The new clause gets to the nub of these issues. I hope that the Government can listen and that we can move forward by adding to the Bill either this new clause or whatever the Government wish to bring forward to meet the Prime Minister’s commitments over the summer.
Lee Rowley
Again, I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham for tabling the new clauses and for articulating the rationale and reasoning for them. I think he and everybody else present would accept the principle that these would be significant changes, whatever people’s views about some of the important points he highlighted, such as the five-year housing land supply rules, local plans and the NPPF. The appropriate balance needs to be struck in each case, and those debates could detain the Committee for many hours, with extremely strongly held views in many places. Each of us will have—as I do and as my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham and my right hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet, who is not on the Committee, do—individual recollections and experiences of the implications of the NPPF, the five-year housing land supply rules and other things for their constituencies and more broadly.
I recognise and acknowledge the significant underlying element of change that is proposed in the new clauses, the significant move away from the current approach, and the balance that needs to be struck. I also acknowledge that, as part of the leadership campaign, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made a series of statements over the summer about looking again at this area and bringing forward new proposals. However, I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham will be content on this occasion to emphasise the point in his speech, which was that we should either look at the new clauses or bring forward additional proposals. I hope we can bring forward proposals in due course that he will have the opportunity to comment on, so I ask him to withdraw the new clause, pending further discussions in advance of the Bill coming back at a later stage.
Greg Smith
I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Minister for those commitments. The statements made over the summer were very clear, and I look forward to working with the Government on their proposals or to put new clause 14 into the Bill on Report.
New clause 15 goes to the heart of localism and the same issue that new clause 14 talks about: the ability of local communities, rather than Whitehall, to decide. Given the commitment that the Minister made, I am equally content that we continue the conversation, which we will come back to on Report. For the time being, I am content not to press new clause 15.
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn
New Clause 16
Character test: determination of applications
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 37—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) The descriptions of persons which may be prescribed include in particular persons who—
(a) have been found to be in breach of planning control on a development undertaken by them, and
(b) that breach has not been rectified.
(3) A prohibition under the regulations applies despite planning permission (or any prescribed description of planning permission) having been granted.”
Greg Smith
New clause 16 is relatively straightforward. It addresses an issue that arose from talking to Conservative and other councillors up and down the country in areas where rogue development—build now and seek to apologise or get retrospective planning permission later—has caused significant issues. The new clause would give the planning authorities the ability to take into account an applicant’s character, such as whether they have previous form on rogue or illegal development, when considering any fresh applications. It is relatively straightforward and aims to give our planning authorities more ability to protect their communities from rogue development.
Matthew Pennycook (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Sir Mark. New clause 37 in my name and that of my hon. Friends, is, like new clause 16, a simple amendment. I will not devote too much time to making the case for it.
We all agree that it is essential that the integrity of the planning system is upheld, not only to ensure that unauthorised development cannot blight local communities, but to maintain public trust and confidence in the planning decision-making process. When considering chapter 5 of the Bill, we had a number of debates about how planning enforcement might be improved as well as better resourced. A number of members of the Committee, including my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields, have spoken at length about the impact that rogue developers can have on communities across the country.
New clause 37 seeks to probe the Government on a specific issue of concern. As the hon. Member for Buckingham has just made clear, at present it appears that it is entirely permissible for an individual developer to consistently breach planning control, with the only risk being that they face enforcement action in respect of that specific breach. We believe that it is right that enforcement of planning law and regulation is based on the principle of proportionality and that when it comes to cases of alleged unauthorised development, local authorities have discretion to determine how the breach can be remedied. However, we also believe there is a strong case for changing the law so that certain categories of proscribed persons, in particular those who breach planning control and make no efforts to rectify those breaches, can be prohibited from carrying out development of any kind.
New clause 37 would allow that sanction to be applied to those who persistently offend when it comes to contraventions of planning law and regulation. Its objective is the same as new clause 16, on a character test and the prior record of an applicant. Adopting new clause 37, or a version of it, would reduce the burden on local authorities that are attempting to deal with the minority of rogue developers of this kind, and would also strengthen the integrity of the system overall. I hope the Government will give it serious consideration.
Lee Rowley
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham and the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich for their new clauses. I am extremely sympathetic to some of the concerns. I agree with the hon. Member that ensuring the integrity of the planning system is paramount. We will all have examples from across the country of where development does not occur in the way that is sanctioned, or before it is sanctioned, and then an attempt is made to gain planning permission retrospectively by those who are not necessarily following either the letter or the spirit of the rules as set down. It is extremely frustrating.
By the same token, we have to tread extraordinarily carefully here. There are a set of principles, which my hon. Friend and the hon. Member acknowledged in their speeches—that the planning system is based on a specific application, which should be judged accordingly on its merits. It is challenging to bring forward a form of character test within those principles, although I recognise that there is an issue here that many communities up and down the land are seeing.
As those who have debated it for longer than I have will know, the Bill already includes a significant package of measures that will help tackle persistent abuses of the system. Those will speed up the enforcement process, restrict the circumstances in which an appeal can be lodged, increase fines for non-compliance and discourage intentional unauthorised developments that rely on a slow enforcement timescale. The Government acknowledge some of the concerns and are trying to find appropriate levers with which to approach them.
While offering a commitment to continue to talk about this issue, although wanting to be being clear that it is extremely difficult in terms of legislation, as my hon. Friend and the hon. Member acknowledged, the Government are not minded to accept the new clauses. I therefore ask both Members not to press them.
Greg Smith
I welcome the commitment my hon. Friend has just made to carrying on the conversation. I accept the complexity, in a system that looks at individual cases, of bringing in a more universal test. However, there are other areas of life where people—for example, those with particular criminal records—are barred from doing certain activities—particularly where children are involved. If we could extend the principle and precedent whereby somebody who has form with rogue development—that is, turn up, build now and apologise later—which blights communities up and down the land, is barred through legislation that is practical and that does not undermine the planning system, I am up for carrying on that conversation. If not through the exact wording of this new clause, then perhaps by another means, we could find a happy solution that protects our communities from those who, I am sorry to say, continue to blight them by building out schemes that they do not have planning permission for.
Matthew Pennycook
I thank the Minister for that response. I agree that we have to tread very carefully in this area; the principles that we have all spoken about, in terms of planning system proportionality and judgment on individual applications, are important. The Minister was not on the Committee at the time, but the Opposition broadly supported the measures outlined in chapter 5 of part 3, which strengthened enforcement. I welcome his commitment to continue the discussion outside the Committee, but I hope he gives the issue some serious thought.
I accept what the Minister said about the difficulties, particularly in terms of a character test, but at the same time it does not seem beyond the talents in this Committee Room—I will put it that way—to come up with a system that proscribes certain categories of person. Even if it was a threshold of a certain number of planning breaches in the past, beyond which someone cannot bring forward applications, there must be some way of doing it. A minority of rogue developers are causing havoc for communities and lots of work for planning departments in local authorities. We think the Government should give further thought to making progress on the issue.
Greg Smith
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 17
Community right of appeal
“(1) The Town and Country Planning Act 1990 is amended as follows.
(2) After section 78 (right to appeal against planning decisions and failure to take such decisions) insert—
‘78ZA Community right of appeal
(1) The Secretary of State must by regulations make provision—
(a) enabling communities to appeal against a decision to grant planning permission or permission in principle for a development, and
(b) about such appeals.
(2) The regulations may require a certain number or proportion of residents of a local area to record objection against a decision for such an appeal to proceed.
(3) The regulations may, in particular, make provision the upholding of such appeals and the revocation of permission if—
(a) the development is inconsistent with a relevant neighbourhood plan, or
(b) due process has not been followed in relation to the planning application.
(4) The first regulations under this section must be laid before Parliament before the end of the period of six months beginning on the day on which this section comes into force.’” —(Greg Smith.)
This new clause would introduce a community right of appeal against the granting of planning permission.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Greg Smith
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
This new clause gets to the heart of a frustration for many communities, be it Maids Moreton in my constituency, Ickford or many others. Planning permission is granted—or conceivably in some places not granted—but the community is opposed to the application. Conversely, the community wants it, but it is not given permission. We know that, as it stands at the moment, there is little power for communities to challenge that, short of the judicial review process. We all know how much judicial reviews can cost and how unlikely they are, in many cases, to succeed, because they are dependent on technical legal requirements, as opposed to the wider planning law environment.
The new clause would bring in a community right of appeal. It would mean that a community that felt particularly hard done by as a result of a decision of a planning authority, rather than being forced down the route of judicial review at great—often unaffordable—expense, could lodge an appeal, just as a developer can who is not content with the way that their application has been determined. This is about fairness—about giving those on both sides of the debate the same right of appeal. It is a point of principle that I hope the Government will listen to, and I hope that they find a way of getting this measure into the Bill.
Rachael Maskell
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Sir Mark. I add my support for these measures, because it is incredibly important that power be given back to people in communities. On many occasions, I have seen developers across York move into a space and determine the future of a community without engaging it, even if only in a consultative way. Occasionally, the community may be lucky enough to meet the partners cursorily, yet those developers will derive serious profit from the land. Also, what they place on the land will have huge implications for local housing prices and economic opportunities for the community, but the community is completely disregarded.
That feeds into a wider agenda around people identifying with their place. Across society, we are wrestling with that issue, and with people having a franchise in place. People are feeling more and more disconnected from their locality. It is crucial that we find a way, across communities, to rebalance people’s right to steer through a mechanism. In debate on my earlier amendments, I talked about deliberative democracy. The community should absolutely be involved in processes before they get to a certain point. It is far better to prevent an incident than to try to recover once it has happened. It is important to find a way to give people franchise over their community, particularly when we contrast the harm that could be done with the profit that developing companies and landowners will reap. This huge extraction economy, as I have been calling it, is playing off the localism that people want in their vicinity, and causing a lot of stress and tension, because while it benefit others, it causes the community harm. A community right of appeal will start to tilt the balance back towards local people, which is absolutely essential.
Tim Farron
This important new clause gets to the heart of a historical imbalance, injustice and inequity in the planning system. Developers, who tend to have significantly more resources than those who question or oppose a development, have the right to appeal against the local authority or national park that turned down their planning permission, and they have the resources to see that through; but what happens if a community that has opposed a development loses? It may have opposed not development, but the nature of the development proposed. In my constituency, we are very often happy with the number of houses proposed, but outraged that none of the houses is affordable to local people.
The ability to challenge a developer and a decision seems to be at the heart of democracy. To really level up, we must not just level up geographically, but level out the imbalance of power between developers, many of which have substantial resources, and local communities, who, generally speaking, do not.
The new clause is a sensible move in the direction of winning people’s consent to the planning system, so that communities do not feel that things are being done to them. If levelling up is to mean anything, and if devolution is to mean anything, the Government should surely want to embrace proposals such as this.
Lee Rowley
I thank hon. Members for their contributions. At a high level, the new clause is attractive, and I am tempted by it, but for reasons that I will outline, I am afraid that we will be resisting it. I completely accept the way in which all three of my colleagues have articulated the issues. I am sure that everybody in this room has stories of cases in which, although planning applications have gone through the process, there is a general lack of consent from the community to the manner in which they went forward.
Notwithstanding that, and notwithstanding my acceptance of the points that the hon. Member for York Central rightly made about the importance of franchise of place and embedding local consent in decision making, two fundamental principles mean that I am unable to accept the new clause. First, it is absolutely vital that we retain the principle that those who own land have the right to make applications, and to understand the processes that they can go through. Once that due process has been concluded, those landowners have the right to do as they wish with their land, within the established framework that the Government deem it reasonable and proportionate to apply.
Secondly—I recognise that I am speaking to people with a great interest in this area, and I am probably telling them lots of things that they already know—we would all accept that planning is a long, difficult and convoluted process at the best of times. In another part of my portfolio, I am looking at the reasons why a large proportion of local authorities do not have a local plan; a local plan is one of the processes through which discussion takes place and consent, hopefully, is given to development. That is a multi-stage, multi-consultative process in which people can put forward ideas, and in which those ideas can be tested, and then accepted or not, first in the community, and then with an additional body looking at them. Once that process has concluded, on most occasions, there is the opportunity for planning applications to be debated in principle. The community has the opportunity to get involved at that stage, and then once again in the case of reserved matters.
That is a very imperfect process, and we will all have lots of experience of it not leading to communities liking, or particularly wanting, individual applications. However, it is important to note the multi-stage nature of the process and the multiple elements of consultation in. While I understand the sentiments behind the new clause and the frustrations that have been articulated, and while I recognise that the system is very imperfect, I ask my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham to consider withdrawing the new clause. As many Members know, and occasionally remark on, I am only six weeks in post, but I have spoken to a number of people who have been involved with these matters for years. I understand that this proposal has been around for many decades, and one of the reasons why it has not been taken forward is the fundamental change it would make to the planning system. I accept and understand the importance of the new clause, but we are not able to accept it.
Rachael Maskell
I appreciate that the Minister was not here for earlier stages of debate on the Bill. Will he consider my suggestion about greater community engagement and involvement, and my point about ensuring deliberative democracy when sites are brought forward for use? It would be a way of trying to address the problem at source, rather than retrospectively, and it would give communities that engagement, franchise, and opportunity to determine how the community develops.
Lee Rowley
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her comments. We may have another discussion about deliberative democracy when we debate another amendment in a few minutes’ time.
I am a great advocate of local communities having as much involvement in these discussions as possible. It is a shame when councils—I experienced this in North East Derbyshire a number of years ago—do not emphasise the discussion at the appropriate point, and people do not feel as involved as they need to if they are to understand what happens later in the process. I hope that local councils take opportunities to be as broad and open in their discussions as possible. I am also a big fan of neighbourhood plans, because they give communities the opportunity to be more involved in discussion. There are parts of the system that can be used at the moment, though I respect and acknowledge the challenge of involving local communities in it. I ask my hon. Friend to withdraw the new clause.
Greg Smith
I absolutely hear what my hon. Friend says about due process for landowners who wish to develop their land. I am not in any way, shape or form seeking to take any of that away through the new clause; it is quite right that landowners or developers should have the due process set out, and a clear path to appeal if they feel that they have not been treated fairly.
What is missing is the other side of the equation, when something materially affects a village, town or neighbourhood. Some months ago, when speaking to an amendment, I gave the example of the way flooding is dealt with in the planning process. In the village of Ickford in my constituency, every villager knew that a piece of land flooded not just a little, but a lot, but that was completely ignored throughout the planning process and when it got to the Planning Inspectorate. The community could see the problem—they knew and felt it; they had puddles lapping up to the top of their welly boots regularly—but was left with a choice of going to judicial review or nothing. That community right of appeal did not exist. They could see, feel and breathe the issues. This was the place they call home, but that knowledge could not be put into any meaningful challenge that would not cost the village £1 million.
I am happy to withdraw the new clause for the time being, but I really urge my hon. Friend to look at how we can restore fairness, so that when a place feels that the planning system has worked against it, it can lodge a good, well-thought-through challenge that that does not go into the unaffordable realms of judicial review. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 18
Start of development for planning purposes
“(1) The Town and Country Planning Act 1990 is amended as follows.
(2) In section 56(4) (time when development begun) leave out paragraphs (aa) to (c)
(3) In section 92(2)(b) (outline planning permission) for ‘two years’ substitute ‘one year.”—(Greg Smith.)
Brought up, and read the First time.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
New clause 20—Revocation and modification of planning permission for unbuilt development by Secretary of State—
“(1) Section 100 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (revocation and modification of planning permission or permission in principle by the Secretary of State) is amended as follows.
(2) After subsection (1) insert—
‘(1A) In this section, “expedient” includes circumstances in which—
(a) a development for which planning permission has been granted is unbuilt and appears likely to remain unbuilt, and
(b) in the opinion of the Secretary of State it is in the public interest to revoke or modify that planning permission.’.”
New clause 21—Council tax to be payable on undeveloped sites for which planning permission granted—
“(1) The Local Government Finance Act 1992 is amended in accordance with subsections (2) and (3).
(2) In section 3 (meaning of ‘dwelling’ for Council Tax purposes), after subsection (3) insert—
‘(3A) A hereditament which—
(a) is all or part of a new or proposed new building the terms of planning permission for which required the building to already be completed, and
(b) which otherwise would be a dwelling for the purposes of this Part is a dwelling for the purposes of this Part.’
(3) In section (4) (dwellings chargeable to council tax), at the end insert—
‘(5) But a dwelling under section 3(3A) may not be an exempt dwelling.’
(4) Schedule 4A of the Local Government Finance Act 1988 (non-domestic rating: new building (completion days)) is amended in accordance with subsections (5) to (7).
(5) In paragraph 1(1), after ‘months’ insert—
‘or the terms of planning permission require the building to be completed within three months,’
(6) At the end of paragraph 2(2) insert—
‘or, if it is sooner, the day on which the terms of planning permission required the building to be completed.’
(7) After paragraph 4(1) insert—
‘(1A) But a person may not appeal under sub-paragraph (1) if the terms of planning permission required the building to be completed on or before the completion day.’.”
Greg Smith
There is clearly a game afoot, whereby many developers up and down the land acquire planning permission, but do not build out what they have received planning permission for. I stand to be corrected, but I believe that around a million homes that have planning permission are not being built out. New clause 18 would shut down some of the loopholes that are exploited; for example, if a trench is dug, or a single pipe is laid, or something very superficial to the development is started, that can satisfy the planning authorities that the development has started, even though not a single brick may follow, or certainly not in the timeframe the community expects.
Particularly pertinent is the ability under new clause 20 for a planning authority to revoke or modify planning permission where the development has not been built, or started. The community is expecting 10, 50, 1,000 houses or whatever, but the developer is simply playing a game, in order to increase the land value for resale later, or because they want to sit on the permission and distort property values in the a particular area, or for some other reason.
In our planning system, there should be an presumption that once a developer has been granted planning permission, they need to build the development. There will always be reasons why a development might not start immediately—force majeure or whatever—and we need to be conscious of that, but if a developer has been given planning permission, they should build or face a penalty. New clause 21 goes that little bit further: it would make council tax payable on sites that have been granted planning permission. That would give the developer a financial incentive, shall we say, to get on with the development, because if they are attracting council tax on each new home given planning permission, that will quickly rack up, certainly in many parts of the country, to many thousands of pounds per housing unit per year.
The new clauses are designed to get the planning system to work as it is meant to do. It is about ensuring that planning permission means something. When it is granted, communities that have consented to it should see the product—the homes and the commercial developments—that they want.
Tim Farron
These interesting new clauses highlight two issues about which I am particularly concerned—issues to which the hon. Gentleman alluded. They are very helpful new clauses, and I am grateful to him for tabling them. He is right that, over the past decade, roughly a million properties granted planning permission have not been built. That tells us something. When the Government consider growth and the need for new developments, they think they just need to loosen planning regulations. Well, the answer to that is that 1 million new homes have obtained planning permission but have not been built. Let us focus on making sure that those developments get delivered, rather than on reducing the regulations, because that tends to lead to the wrong sort of homes in the wrong sort of places.
Another issue affects tens of thousands—but not a million—houses. It is when developments begin but are not completed. That may be for a range of reasons, such as genuine business failure. It may also be due to a disreputable developer; we have seen plenty of those. I think of one in my constituency, a serial bankrupt, and it seems obvious to me that in their case, we are talking about a deliberate business tactic. Developments are either completely or partially abandoned. That is a waste of time and money, and it creates eyesores for communities, when the development could have provided nice, decent homes for people to live in.
Would the Government consider going further than the new clauses suggest and applying existing legislation, namely empty dwelling management orders? They allow local authorities to commandeer empty properties after a period. It should be noted, however, that the period is seven years, which is far too long, but we should be able to commandeer developments that were begun but not completed for public use and public good. I can think of one house in the Kendal Parks area of Kendal that has been uncompleted for 20 years. It is an eyesore, and damaging to the local community. It could be a decent home for someone. I can also think of a whole development in Burton-in-Kendal that has been poorly managed and has fallen out of the hands of one set of owners into those of another. The ability of local authorities to commandeer properties for the public good would be of huge benefit, not just to my community but to every Committee member’s community.
Lee Rowley
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale for his comments, and to my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham for tabling the new clauses.
I accept that this is another area of policy that is difficult and challenging and that a balance needs to be struck. I completely understand the concerns that have been raised. In order not to detain the Committee, and without offering any guarantees, I would be keen to continue the conversation outside the realms of the Committee to consider and reflect on the points made by those who have spoken. I am happy to discuss that in advance of further stages of the Bill, should my hon. Friend be content to do that.
Greg Smith
I welcome that commitment. I stand ready to carry on the conversation; therefore, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
Greg Smith
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
This new clause is in a similar vein to many of the others that I have tabled, although it looks at the controls for planning enforcement and essentially abolishes the time limits so that where rogue development or development carried out without planning permission takes place, especially in protected landscapes, it can no longer be timed out by a lack of enforcement action. I accept that planning enforcement is not a statutory service on local authorities, which are often overstretched. Removing the time limit would ensure that those who have done wrong by a community and developed that which they should not have, or have developed in a manner that is not commensurate with their planning permission, can still face the appropriate planning enforcement beyond the current statutory time limits.
Lee Rowley
I share my hon. Friend’s desire to ensure that important landscapes are protected from breaches of planning control. We would need to consider the time limit by which that occurs, and whether an open-ended time limit is the most appropriate way. While I understand the underlying principle and point that my hon. Friend makes, there is a challenge in leaving something so completely open ended, as it could come back in many years’ or decades’ time, however unlikely that may be.
As my hon. Friend will know from sitting on this Committee longer than me, the Bill already increases the time limits for some breaches of planning control from four years to 10 years. We hope that is a positive direction of travel that demonstrates the Government’s willingness to look at this area and make changes where appropriate, but in this instance, I ask my hon. Friend to withdraw the clause. I am happy discuss it further—although it is very difficult to see how an open-ended timeframe can be obtained. I hope that he can see in other parts of the Bill the Government’s intent to look at that where we can and where it is proportionate to do so.
Greg Smith
I very much welcome the Minister’s words. I accept that, with a totally open-ended time limit, the new clause is imperfect. I am happy to negotiate and find a happy medium that sets a more realistic and reasonable timeframe, so that planning enforcement does not just fall off the metaphorical cliff edge and communities are not left wanting. Therefore, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 23
Report on measures to incentivise brownfield development over greenfield development
“(1) The Secretary of State must, within 60 days of the day on which this Act is passed, establish a review of the merits of measures to financially incentivise brownfield development over greenfield development.
(2) The review must, in particular, consider the impact of—
(a) introducing a greenfield plot tax to provide dedicated funding streams for brownfield development,
(b) setting a uniform zero-rating of VAT for development on brownfield sites,
(c) applying standard VAT to development on greenfield sites,
(d) applying variable measures to ensure that increases in land values attributable to the granting of planning permission for development are used in support of communities local to those developments, and
(e) allowing a high degree of variation in the Infrastructure Levy to enable communities to value the loss of greenfield land depending on local circumstances.
(3) The Secretary of State must lay a report on the findings of this review before Parliament no later than one year after this Act comes into force.” —(Greg Smith.)
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to review the merits of measures that would financially incentivise brownfield development over greenfield development and to report the findings to Parliament.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Greg Smith
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
There have been so many Committee sittings in which I have said very few words, but it seems that this afternoon is my time in the limelight. [Interruption.] It is probably best that I did not hear the heckles from the Opposition Benches.
The new clause comes back to some of the earlier amendments that we have debated in this Committee that looked at the practical steps that could be taken to incentivise brownfield development over greenfield development. The Government are to be commended and congratulated on the move to a brownfield-first development approach. There is a reality that underpins that. It remains the case that for a developer, it is often grossly more expensive to develop a brownfield site than a greenfield one. That is most commonly because of the decontamination costs of former industrial land, which may have had petrol or oil tanks underneath it. We have to accept that the cost differential is, at times, extreme.
Just as the Committee has debated amendments proposing different rates of infrastructure levy for brownfield and greenfield sites, so this new clause would compel the Government to look seriously at financially incentivising the development of brownfield sites over greenfield ones. Subsection (2) contains some suggestions—I urge my hon. Friends on the Treasury Bench not to consider this an exhaustive list—around VAT and a greenfield plot tax. They are ways to say to developers that we want and need them to develop brownfield sites rather than taking yet more of the Great British countryside and greenfield sites; and that the Government will put the public’s money where their mouth is by providing these incentives. In many other walks of life, the Government offer incentives to do the right thing environmentally. We need to say to developers, “In the tax and planning systems, we will make it advantageous for you to go for brownfield sites first.” I believe that is what the public want, and I hope we can get it into the Bill.
Ben Bradley (Mansfield) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Mark. I want to give the Committee a change of scenery for five minutes, before I let somebody else speak. I will not develop these points; I will just add a thought that the Minister might wish to take away and consider in further conversations.
The Bill will, I hope, create numerous mechanisms and levers to incentivise local areas to bring forward brownfield sites, not least development corporations, combined authorities and the investment zones that have been the subject of much conversation. I should declare an interest, because I am the leader of a local authority and I am involved in a devolution conversation in the east midlands. At a regional level, we have been given funding to bring forward brownfield sites for development, and we are considering how we might use that funding locally to achieve this goal. Perhaps the Minister might consider whether some of the levers, funds and opportunities that my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham has proposed would sit better at a devolved, local level within one of the mechanisms created by the Bill, rather than in the Bill itself.
Dehenna Davison
It is a pleasure to speak to this amendment from my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham. We have done some great work on it together, and I hope we can continue in that spirit. Members will know that the Government strongly encourage the use of brownfield land over greenfield, and in national policy there is an expectation that local planning policies and decisions will give substantial weight to the value of using suitable brownfield land to meet our communities’ housing needs and other identified needs.
My hon. Friend was right to highlight the cost differential that developers face. We are investing significant funding to support brownfield development, including in some of the schemes that he has mentioned. I will rattle through them one more time for the Committee’s benefit. There is the £550 million brownfield housing fund and the £180 million brownfield land release fund 2, which builds on the success of the £75 million first brownfield land release fund. In addition, later this year we aim to launch the £1.5 billion brownfield, infrastructure and land fund, which will unlock sites around the country.
We are particularly sympathetic to this cause, which is why we are setting out a range of new measures and powers in the Bill to support brownfield development. My hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield is right to talk about local empowerment—something that I know he is a real champion of in his other role, at local government level. We are keen that the Bill in its entirety will empower local leaders to regenerate towns and cities through a range of provisions, including new locally led and locally accountable development corporations, which my hon. Friend mentioned, and support for land assembly and regeneration through enhanced compulsory purchase powers.
My hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham mentioned the infrastructure levy introduced in the Bill. It provides a framework in which, where increases in land value are higher—as is often the case with greenfield development—higher rates can be set. This mechanism would allow differential charging rates to be set by local planning authorities for different types of development, so that more could be levied on greenfield land as compared with brownfield land to incentivise development on that brownfield land.
We will also continue to work on wider planning proposals that will give the public an opportunity to shape our future national planning policy, and in relation to which the Government have committed to consult the public.
On that basis—because we are already taking such strong steps to encourage brownfield development and have a commitment to review national policy—we do not feel that the new clause is necessary, so I kindly ask my hon. Friend to withdraw it today.
Greg Smith
I very much welcome the Minister’s commitments. She is absolutely right in outlining the various schemes to support brownfield development. I guess the thought I will leave her with is the reflection that, rightly, there is a lot of carrot in those schemes; where I do not think we have quite enough at the moment is the stick to dissuade people from greenfield development. We need to ensure a proper balance of incentivising, through grant funding or whatever it might be, development on the brownfield sites, and also something to actively dissuade developers from looking at the greenfield sites. If we can carry that conversation on through to Report, I am content to withdraw new clause 23 at this time. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 24
Report on measures to improve the efficiency of the housing market
“(1) The Secretary of State must, within 60 days of the day on which this Act is passed, establish a review of the merits of measures to improve the efficiency of the housing market.
(2) The review must, in particular, consider the impact of—
(a) a stamp duty exemption to encourage elderly homeowners to downsize,
(b) an additional stamp duty surcharge on purchases by person not resident in the UK,
(c) a stamp duty surcharge on second home purchases,
(d) a reduction in the highest rates of stamp duty, and
(e) measures to promote an active market in long-term fixed rate mortgages to encourage lending to first time buyers.
(3) The Secretary of State must lay a report on the findings of this review before Parliament no later than one year after this Act comes into force.”—(Greg Smith.)
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to review the merits of measures to improve the efficiency of the housing market and to report the findings to Parliament.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Greg Smith
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
This is one where we genuinely have to tread extraordinarily carefully. I fully understand the scope for new clause 24 to be misinterpreted, shall we say, as trying to demand that people move, leave larger homes, or whatever it might be. There is no intention whatever—let me place this on the record—to compel or demand that someone living in a large house move out of it, or do any such thing. But I think we have to acknowledge that there is some failure in the housing market that is leading to the demand for new homes to be built, whereas perhaps a pensioner couple whose children have flown the nest, who find themselves—just the two of them—living in a five-bedroom house somewhere and who actively want to move are finding themselves trapped.
That is because of higher rates of stamp duty, certainly in parts of the south-east, where five-bedroom houses can very easily be north of £1 million, and in London, where they can be north of £3 million, £4 million or £5 million. People find themselves trapped in a situation in which the tax system just works against their being able to downsize as they wish to. That then of course has a concertina effect through the entire housing market. The family who are able to buy the larger house cannot, because there is not the supply. And that goes all the way down to the first homes: the discount market homes, the part-buy, part-rent homes or, indeed, the social rent homes. They are just not available.
The new clause does not call for anything in particular. It essentially creates a duty on the Government to review those mechanisms that are causing market failure in the housing market and that are trapping people, particularly through the stamp duty system—I am explicitly referring to the higher end of the stamp duty rates—and preventing them from doing what they wish to do with their homes. I repeat from the start that this is not about saying to people who want to stay in larger houses that they must move out—it is absolutely their right and choice to stay if they wish—but about fixing the system so that those who do wish to go up or down the housing ladder can do so without penalty. That might reduce the need to build quite as much as we are in the United Kingdom.
Lee Rowley
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for tabling the new clause. I absolutely accept his points about discussing this matter sensitively and accepting the real challenges in parts of the housing market. I understand and acknowledge that challenge, which the Department grapples with daily and as much as the state can. It is vital to have an effective housing market and for people to have good-quality properties and roofs over their heads, irrespective of tenure. Most fundamentally, we Conservatives know that expanding home ownership is vital. Although it is starting to increase again as a proportion, a gap remains between the number of people who want to buy a house and the number of people who can.
We all have our own individual stories. In North East Derbyshire, the way that properties are distributed—that sounds like a very technical word for real people’s lives—does not necessarily align in all instances with people’s needs. In one town in my constituency, a significant amount of which was built in the ’60s, ’70s and ’80s, lots of people who purchased properties to bring up their families are struggling to find houses—bungalows in particular—to downsize to, now that their families have flown the nest. Many Members will have similar stories.
At the same time, my hon. Friend has considered the matter closely and will acknowledge that there is a question about whether we need to legislate in this area. I humbly suggest that we do not, but I recognise the intent behind the amendment. Over the course of my time in post, I will continue to do what I can to answer some of those questions, as will the Department, so I ask him to consider withdrawing the amendment.
Greg Smith
I appreciate my hon. Friend’s comments. To clarify, yes, we would be putting a clause into legislation, but we would not be legislating for the outcome. We would be legislating for a duty on his Department to publish a report—to properly kick the tyres, if I may put it like that—on the housing market failures that are leading to the demand for so many new housing units to be built.
Of course, I fully accept that tackling stamp duty is not within the competence of the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities. Altering the rates to get the market moving more quickly would have to be pitched to His Majesty’s Treasury. With that in mind, I am content to withdraw the new clause, but I urge my hon. Friends the Ministers to consider this point as the Bill and the Department’s work on housing and planning move forward. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 25
Report on promoting development in already developed areas
“(1) The Secretary of State must prepare a report on possible measures to promote development in areas that are already developed.
(2) The report must consider measures to promote—
(a) the purchasing by housing associations of properties that—
(i) have been unoccupied for an extended period (with reference to the vacancy condition in section 152), or
(ii) are currently unfit for human habitation (with reference to requirements of the Homes (Fitness for Human Habitation) Act 2018;
(b) novel means of providing increased affordable housing that is sustainable and accords with surrounding areas.
(3) The report must be laid before Parliament before the end of the period of six months beginning on the day on which this Act is passed.”—(Greg Smith.)
Brought up, and read the First time.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 26—Review of compulsory purchase powers—
“(1) The Secretary of State must undertake a review of whether the powers of compulsory purchase available to—
(a) local authorities, and
(b) the Secretary of State
are adequate to meet the objectives of this Act.
(2) In undertaking the review the Secretary of State must, in particular, consider—
(a) whether existing statutory time limits for compulsory purchase action are appropriate,
(b) other means of accelerating compulsory purchase action with particular reference to properties to which subsection (3) applies, and
(c) the adequacy of compulsory purchase powers in relation to properties to which subsection (3) applies.
(3) This subsection applies to—
(a) properties that have been unoccupied for a prolonged period (with reference to the vacancy condition in section 152), and
(b) buildings of local public importance such as hotels and high street properties.”
This new clause would require the Government to review powers of compulsory purchase and whether they are adequate to meet its levelling-up and regeneration objectives.
Greg Smith
New clauses 25 and 26 are quite important to free up for good use properties that may have fallen into disrepair or been unoccupied for a long time. I am sure that we could all name properties in our constituencies that we have canvassed for five elections running but nobody is ever behind the door. We put leaflets through the door, but the post reaches almost as high as the letterbox itself. Those are homes that I hope all Members, of whatever political persuasion, would acknowledge really should not be sat empty, but should have a family or whoever living in them. Of course, the wider public good is also served by not allowing properties to fall into disrepair and become eyesores or perhaps hotspots for disorderly behaviour, as people seek to take them over illegally.
New clause 25 does not contain specific legislative measures to deliver the outcomes we are seeking, but it creates a duty on DLUHC to report on how better to ensure that empty properties that have fallen into disrepair and are perhaps causing other public health hazards can be more easily brought back into the housing supply chain for social rent, for part rent, part buy, for discount market housing, or for whatever it might be.
New clause 26 is about ensuring that the compulsory purchase powers available to local authorities are suitable, if I may put it in those terms, to enable them not just to get those properties back into productive use and put a roof over human beings’ heads, but to ensure that local authorities that often bang their heads against a brick wall when it comes to certain compulsory purchase powers are freed up to make the right decisions for the communities they represent.
Dehenna Davison
I completely agree with the sentiment behind these new clauses. We can probably all think of examples in our constituencies of the sorts of vacant properties that my hon. Friend mentioned. Indeed, I was out in Eldon Lane with neighbourhood wardens, local police and local councillors—I think last week or the week before—looking at streets where most of the houses sit empty and can become hotbeds for antisocial behaviour and petty crime, so this is certainly something we want to tackle.
I agree with the benefits of promoting development in areas that are already developed, but I do not think that new clause 25 is necessary. We have already debated the Government’s national planning policy framework, which promotes the development of previously developed land and makes it clear that local plans should also include sufficient provision for affordable housing. I share the interest in novel ways of increasing the supply of affordable housing. The Government’s affordable housing guarantee scheme is a good example of this kind of innovation. The same is true of the proposal in the Bill to secure affordable housing contributions in future through a new streamlined mandatory and locally determined infrastructure levy.
My hon. Friend also made the case for housing associations to purchase homes that are empty or not currently fit for human habitation. I agree that this can play a valuable role in expanding the availability of affordable housing and improving the overall quality of our housing stock. Local authorities and other social housing providers can access funding to acquire empty homes on the market and bring them back into use through programmes such as the affordable homes programme and the rough sleeping accommodation programme.
Briefly, on new clause 26, I strongly share my hon. Friend’s desire to ensure that the compulsory purchase system is fit for purpose and can play its part in delivering our levelling-up agenda. My officials have worked incredibly closely with key stakeholders to review the current system and develop the package of measures in the Bill. We believe that these measures, supplemented by improved and updated guidance, will together ensure that local authorities have the powers they need to bring forward the regeneration of their high streets and town centres, and to deliver much needed housing and infrastructure. We also believe they will deliver a faster and more efficient compulsory purchase system and make compensation simpler and clearer. I have also asked the Law Commission to undertake a review and consolidation of the existing legislation on compulsory purchase and land compensation, which will begin shortly.
On that basis, I hope that my hon. Friend will agree that a statutory review is not necessary and ask him to withdraw the new clause.
Greg Smith
On the back of those commitments, I am happy to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 27
Deliberate damage to trees linked to development
“(1) Section 210 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (penalties for non-compliance with tree preservation order) is amended as follows.
(2) After subsection (4) insert—
‘(4AA) Subsection (4AB) applies if—
(a) the court is considering for the purposes of sentencing the seriousness of an offence under this section, and
(b) the offence was committed for purposes connected to planning or development.
(4AB) The court—
(a) must treat the fact mentioned in subsection (1)(b) as an aggravating factor (that is to say, a factor that increases the seriousness of the offence), and
(b) must state in open court that the offence is so aggravated.’”—(Greg Smith.)
This new clause would make damage to trees or woodland in contravention of a tree preservation order an aggravated offence if it was committed for purposes connected to development or planning.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Greg Smith
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
This new clause goes to the heart of an issue very close to my constituents, who have seen a great number of trees damaged—largely by the Government’s HS2 project, I have to say. It happens far too frequently in rural environments, but it is equally applicable to urban ones, where trees that are unacceptably damaged, often with preservation orders on them, are often the only green for some distance around. Very straightforwardly, this new clause in my name and the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet seeks to put in place measures that will clamp down harder on those who deliberately damage trees during development.
Lee Rowley
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for moving this new clause, and I am sympathetic to the issue that he and other Members have raised. The protection of trees and the environment is hugely important, and it is frustrating when others do not support that cause. The information I have is that the law already provides a substantial amount of leeway to seek appropriate financial redress from people who have been accused of damaging trees, should the contravention have been through the local council via a tree preservation order.
With that in mind—I may be misinterpreting my hon. Friend—I am keen to understand from my hon. Friend or his colleagues why they believe there is still a need to change the law. There is obviously a bit of a difference in views at the moment, so we should try to bottom that out. If we can find an issue to debate, I would be very happy to do so, but for the purpose of today, I ask my hon. Friend to withdraw the amendment.
Greg Smith
I appreciate what the Minister says, but I think there is still a gap in the law. It is not as strong as it possibly could be to clamp down on deliberate—we must underline the word deliberate—damage to trees as part of development. I am mindful of the Committee’s time, so I do not think going through the detail now would please many hon. Members. I am happy to meet the Minister to go through the detail, along with other colleagues whose names are on this new clause, in the hope of finding a satisfactory result for later stages of the Bill. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 28
Local planning authorities to be allowed to meet virtually
“(1) This section applies to any meeting of a planning committee of a local authority in England.
(2) A reference in any enactment to a meeting local authority is not limited to a meeting of persons all of whom, or any of whom, are present in the same place and any reference to a ‘place’ where a meeting is held, or to be held, includes reference to more than one place including electronic, digital or virtual locations such as internet locations, web addresses or conference call telephone numbers.
(3) For the purposes of any such enactment, a member of a local authority (a ‘member in remote attendance’) attends the meeting at any time if all of the conditions in subsection (4) are satisfied.
(4) Those conditions are that the member in remote attendance is able at that time—
(a) to hear, and where practicable see, and be so heard and, where practicable, be seen by, the other members in attendance,
(b) to hear, and where practicable see, and be so heard and, where practicable, be seen by, any members of the public entitled to attend the meeting in order to exercise a right to speak at the meeting, and
(c) to be so heard and, where practicable, be seen by any other members of the public attending the meeting.
(5) In this section any reference to a member, or a member of the public, attending a meeting includes that person attending by remote access.
(6) The provision made in this section applies notwithstanding any prohibition or other restriction contained in the standing orders or any other rules of the authority governing the meeting and any such prohibition or restriction has no effect.
(7) A local authority may make other standing orders and any other rules of the authority governing the meeting about remote attendance at meetings of that authority, which may include provision for—
(a) voting;
(b) member and public access to documents; and
(c) remote access of public and press to a local authority meeting to enable them to attend or participate in that meeting by electronic means, including by telephone conference, video conference, live webcasts, and live interactive streaming.
(8) In this section, ‘planning committee’ means any committee or sub-committee to which a local authority has arranged for the discharge of planning functions under section 101 of the Local Government Act 1972.”—(Greg Smith.)
This new clause would enable planning committees to meet virtually. It is based on the Local Authorities and Police and Crime Panels (Coronavirus) (Flexibility of Local Authority and Police and Crime Panel Meetings) (England and Wales) Regulations 2020, made under s78 of the Coronavirus Act 2020.
Brought up, and read the First time.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 69—Local authority planning committee meeting—
“(1) The Secretary of State must by regulations make provision relating to—
(a) requirements to hold local authority planning committee meetings;
(b) the times at or by which, periods within which, or frequency with which, local authority planning committee meetings are to be held;
(c) the places at which local authority planning committee meetings are to be held;
(d) the manner in which persons may attend, speak at, vote in, or otherwise participate in, local authority planning committee meetings;
(e) public admission and access to local authority planning committee meetings;
(f) the places at which, and manner in which, documents relating to local authority planning committee meetings are to be open to inspection by, or otherwise available to, members of the public.
(2) The provision which must be made by virtue of subsection (1)(d) includes in particular provision for persons to attend, speak at, vote in, or otherwise participate in, local authority planning committee meetings without all of the persons, or without any of the persons, being together in the same place.”
This new clause would allow local authorities to hold planning committee meetings and reach planning decisions virtually or in a hybrid form.
Greg Smith
With this clause I have a very simple proposition, although I state from the outset that I absolutely hate virtual meetings. We all tolerated them throughout the pandemic, but I believe that as humans we are inherently social and meeting together is a far better way of doing things. However, I have spoken to many members of local authorities in my own constituency and in other parts of the country—as well as many town and parish councils, although they are not planning authorities—that find it extraordinarily difficult to get a quorum, or to get together in a single place all voices who want to be heard. That is especially the case in rural communities. Somebody living in the village of Dadford in my constituency would be looking at a 50-minute drive to a planning meeting in Aylesbury, and I am sure that driving times in the constituency of the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale are considerably longer than that.
Matthew Pennycook
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Buckingham. I think that hate might be too strong a word, but I certainly share his preference for in-person over virtual meetings, where possible. However, there are circumstances where virtual meetings have become necessary or useful, and that is what these new clauses both seek to address for the planning system.
While there are significant points of disagreement between the Opposition and Government Benches on the question of whether the Bill, in the round, will enhance or discourage community engagement in the planning process, there none the less exists a broad consensus that that objective is a worthy one. Whatever one believes the causes to be, there is general agreement that it is a problem that, as things stand, less than 1% of people engage with the local plan-making process, only around 3% engage with individual planning applications, and—of particular concern to the Opposition—particular segments of society typically have no voice whatsoever on planning decisions that will have a huge impact on their communities and their lives.
We therefore think that reducing barriers to engagement with the planning process would be beneficial for a variety of reasons. Chief among them—this is a point that I return to again and again—is that, in some ways, we think it would address the extremely low levels of trust and confidence that the public has in the planning system as a whole.
New clause 69, which, in many ways, is similar to new clause 28 in the name of the right hon. Member for Chipping Barnet, seeks to increase public engagement in the planning process by allowing local authorities to hold planning committee meetings virtually or in a hybrid form. That proposal is obviously not novel. We know from the experience of local authorities during the pandemic that allowing for remote participation both worked effectively and had a number of benefits, including—as the hon. Member for Buckingham said—reduced travel times for councillors and the public, and greater transparency and openness.
What attracts us to this proposal is the fact that virtual meetings facilitated an increase—in many cases a dramatic one—of resident engagement in decisions, in part because remote participation made it far easier for a broader range of people, including those with disabilities, caring responsibilities and work commitments, to take part in meetings for the first time. New clause 69 simply seeks to ensure that those benefits, particularly increased public participation in planning decisions, can be enjoyed on a permanent basis.
However, it is important to say that it does not seek to do so prescriptively. While the language used is drawn from section 78 of the Coronavirus Act 2020, we would expect any regulations to follow to provide for local authorities to determine for themselves whether any given meeting is virtual or hybrid. That is on the basis that councils and councillors are best placed to decide how and when to use different meeting formats in particular circumstances. We feel strongly that it is important that they are given the freedom to do so.
There is widespread support for putting remote meeting arrangements on a permanent footing, including from the Local Government Association, Lawyers in Local Government, and the Association of Democratic Services Officers. As the Minister may know, the planning inspectorate already enjoys the freedom to offer virtual or hybrid meetings, at the discretion of a lead inspector, relating to hearings and inquiries.
To conclude, as every hon. Member knows, online meetings are now commonplace not just for work but for many other forms of social interaction. The public rightly expect that kind of accessibility for council meetings as well, and we are convinced that the freedom for local authorities to hold virtual or hybrid meetings will be welcomed by all our constituents.
We hope that allowing planning committees the option of meeting virtually, or permitting virtual participation in physical meetings, is an uncontroversial and common-sense measure. I hope that the Government are minded either to accept the new clause or, if they feel that it is defective in some way, to table one of their own that achieves the same aim.
Ben Bradley
I support the principles of the new clauses, although I will suggest a way in which they might need to be amended so as to apply not just to planning meetings, but to all council meetings. Throughout the pandemic, councils were allowed—and therefore invested in the technology—to permit members of the public to engage in council meetings through those mechanisms, and the public did. As the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich said, engagement in many of those conversations was much higher during the pandemic. People were able to engage with them more easily from their own homes, and they probably had “Coronation Street” on in the background. The more something allows people to take part in a much easier way, the better.
As officers and councillors increasingly work in a more hybrid way, we are encouraging our staff in Nottinghamshire to work from home more, not least because of the practicalities—staff expect that these days. Financially, we do not want, and cannot afford, to run as many buildings as we currently have. Fewer people are in the office. Every time we have a face-to-face meeting that does not need to be face to face, that requires people to trek across the county. It requires councillors to do a three-hour round trip, sometimes for a 20-minute meeting. It is a waste of resources.
Through the pandemic, we also found that we saved thousands of tonnes of carbon—never mind the travel expenses—by not trekking around the county for meetings. I struggle to get opposition councillors, never mind members of the public, to attend some of our governance and ethics meetings. Accessibility is not an issue in that sense.
If there is to be a change to the new clauses, I ask Ministers to make them broader, to include all council meetings. Our full council meeting will always be an in-person public meeting; it is the exciting, set-piece event at the heart of our council calendar. However, many other meetings need not be. Giving local government that flexibility would be very welcome.
There has been a process to review this issue. There was a consultation a year or so ago, I think, and local government was asked to submit views. I can confidently imagine that the broad consensus was, “Give us flexibility, please, to make those decisions locally.” We have done it before, and we can very easily do it again. When Ministers consider the new clauses behind the scenes, I ask that they make them broader still and give us the scope to make those decisions locally.
Tim Farron
The two new clauses are about trusting local communities. We are not saying that every meeting must be held virtually, but that local authorities—in this case, planning authorities—should have the power to do so, and for good reason. My preference is for in-person meetings, but for the reasons that have been set out, especially by the hon. Member for Buckingham, local authorities should have that power.
Every part of my patch is parish. There are 67 parishes, and some of them are bigger than most Members’ constituencies and have not very many people living in them. To get from one end of the Lakes parish to the other, people have to pass three or four lakes. We should consider the age profile of some of the members of the parish councils and the distances involved. I said earlier that it rarely rains in the lakes, but occasionally it might. It certainly gets dark at certain times of the year. On a wet November night, holding a meeting on screen rather than physically is probably safer and better for everybody. Let us trust communities to make those choices on the go, and not impose.
The pandemic has been a traumatic and formative experience for us as a culture, as a society and as representatives of the people. We have learned many lessons, and some of them we should carry on with. I was disheartened and disappointed that some members of the Government seemed to be almost determined, as a point of principle, to close down any virtual operation of democracy during the pandemic—never mind at the end of it. It is encouraging to hear a cross-party outbreak of common sense today. It would be great if the Government listened.
Dehenna Davison
As a millennial Minister who is used to swiping and not to turning pages, Members might expect me to say that I prefer virtual meetings, but actually I do not. In-person meetings and the social element are important, yet we saw the value of virtual meetings during the pandemic, at the time when we needed them most. Hon. Members will remember the powers granted through the Coronavirus Act 2020, which allowed local authorities flexibility on remote and hybrid meetings, in certain circumstances. They will also know that those regulations expired back in May 2021. Since that date, all council meetings have had to be in person. The new clauses lean into the terms of those previous provisions and seek to replicate them on a permanent basis, but only for planning committees. I heard the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield.
Looking beyond the circumstances of the pandemic, the Government considered that there may be benefits to permanent provisions for remote meetings, and that local councils may be keen to have the flexibility to use that provision as they see fit. I have been lobbied by a lot of my local parish councillors on the benefits that remote meetings can bring.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield highlighted, the Government conducted call for evidence last year to test the views of those who had participated in and experienced councils’ remote meetings to inform our decision on this matter. I thank the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich, and the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale for their points on trust in local governance and local planning, which we all agree is paramount. Increasing participation is only ever a good thing.
The Department has considered the responses to the call for evidence and we have been weighing the benefits, which hon. Members have highlighted, against views that physical attendance remains important to deliver good governance and democratic accountability. I take on board the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield about the investment in the technology that a lot of local authorities had made, which must also be taken into account.
I genuinely thank my hon. Friends for tabling the new clause, but we need to first consider the call for evidence. We will issue our response, which will set out the Government’s intentions. I ask for a tiny bit more patience and for the new clause to be withdrawn.
Greg Smith
The self-styled millennial Minister makes the commitment. Asking for slightly more time seems reasonable to me. However, if we are to be true to localism, I would double-underline and highlight the need to ensure that local people are able to participate in proceedings. Just as we can still have a witness virtually at a Select Committee in this place, councils should have the discretion to use virtual proceedings, to maximise participation locally. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 29
Local authorities to be able to raise planning fees to cover costs including planners
“(1) Section 303 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (fees for planning applications etc.) is amended as follows.
(2) After subsection (5) insert—
‘(5A) Regulations made by the Secretary of State under this section may provide for local planning authorities to vary fees or charges under this section payable to the local planning authority to cover the reasonable costs of their exercise of planning functions.
(5B) In subsection (5A), “reasonable costs” includes the employment of qualified planners.’”—(Greg Smith.)
This new clause would enable the Government to allow local planning authorities to vary planning fees and charges to cover their costs relating to planning, which could include the employment of qualified planners.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Greg Smith
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
This new clause is pertinent to my local authority in Buckinghamshire, and I am sure that many local authorities up and down the land struggle with it. It is about the ability to vary fees and charges for planning so that local authorities can provide a good service to their residents.
My local authority, Buckinghamshire, borders London and, therefore, there is always a difficulty in recruiting, not just planning officers, but social workers or teachers or nurses, or whatever the public service role might be. When planning officers who are looking for work see jobs going in the London boroughs of Hillingdon or Harrow or, indeed, any of the London boroughs, they prefer to take the job with London weighting in those boroughs than apply to Buckinghamshire Council. That leaves Buckinghamshire in a position where it finds recruitment of planning officers very hard.
If local authorities had the ability to vary fees and charges so that they could pay a better rate for qualified planners and planning officers to provide all residents with an excellent service, we could get over some of the practical difficulties that stifle recruitment and that would ensure councils would be in a position where they could, if they wanted to, respond to all planning inquiries within however many days or hear all applications in good time. To do that, they need the ability to have a geographic variance to meet the costs of attracting the very best staff to and wanting to work in that place, rather than in a neighbouring area where there is a job that can pay more.
Lee Rowley
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham for tabling the new clause.
I absolutely accept the validity of this discussion; it is an important one, and I am relatively sympathetic to the point that is being made. It is appropriate that we think through the balance between localism and centralism in this area, and my own personal instincts are that localism should take priority and precedence. So, if he is willing to withdraw this new clause, I am very happy to talk about this matter in more detail.
As I know my hon. Friend will know, we have already committed to increasing planning fees, as part of an earlier discussion. However, I am happy to talk about what he perceives as the need in this area over and above that, particularly given his own local circumstances.
Greg Smith
I very much welcome the Minister’s comments; I fully accept that planning fees are allowed to go up and I look forward to having a discussion with him about how some geographical areas, particularly those areas that border London and that compete with London weighting, need to have greater flexibility.
In the meantime, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 30
Housing powers of the Mayor of London
“(1) Article 7 of the Town and Country Planning (Mayor of London) Order 2008 (direction that the Mayor is to be the local planning authority) is hereby revoked.
(2) Section 333D of the Great London Authority Act 1999 (duties of the Authority and local authorities) is amended as follows.
(3) At the end of subsection (2) (general conformity with the London housing strategy), insert—
‘, but any housebuilding target in the London housing strategy is advisory not mandatory and should not be taken into account in determining planning applications.’”— (Greg Smith.)
This new clause would remove the Mayor of London’s power to direct a London borough that the Mayor will be the local planning authority for a development, and clarify that any housebuilding target in the Mayor’s housing strategy is advisory only.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Greg Smith
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
We come to the end of this marathon run of new clauses. New clause 30 is one that could be a little bit prickly to navigate.
Without wanting to get into a debate about personalities who occupy the office of Mayor of London, the new clause seeks to test where the principle of localism actually sits, because across the London boroughs there are locally and democratically elected councils or directly elected mayors, and across the whole of the capital there is the Mayor of London. The councils and directly elected mayors, and the Mayor of London, have planning powers, which is an anomaly that has been thrown up and that causes political tension, when there is a Labour Mayor and a Conservative borough, or indeed when there is a Conservative Mayor and a Labour or Lib Dem borough. That tension is real; it exists.
My instinct is always that the most local area should be the one that makes the decision rather than the regional area or a pan-regional area. I accept that that is an ideological position of mine; it is how I believe decisions are best made. However, there is clearly a tension. I have talked to colleagues, such as my right hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet—this new clause has also been tabled in her name—and my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith), who has been very engaged in this debate as well, so I know that that tension exists.
It might not be my preference, but it might be the case that the most appropriate decision-making level in London is the regional level, which is the Mayor of London. I do not believe that it is, but that would be a legitimate answer. Alternatively, is it the London boroughs that have primacy when it comes to planning? If we are true to the principle of subsidiarity, it would be the London boroughs, but at the moment that tension exists. However, if we were to make the Mayor’s powers in relation to the boroughs advisory as opposed to compulsory, we would take that tension away.
I offer the new clause to the Committee as one that identifies a very tightly defined geographical problem that affects many Members’ constituencies and causes a lot of community upset, where a London borough’s planning authority is essentially over-ruled by a regional structure.
Lee Rowley
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham for tabling the new clause. I will resist the opportunity to defend the current incumbent Mayor of London, as I am sure he would expect, although I know other members of Committee would disagree with me.
A number of us in this room share experience of local government in London; at least three of us here—I apologise if I have missed anyone—served simultaneously on different councils in London. I served on Westminster council for eight years, until 2014. Even when there was alignment between regional and local tiers in terms of party, I recall a number of disagreements about individual applications and the general principle of where the relevant powers should sit. We will probably not resolve that philosophical debate today, other than to say that I acknowledge the concerns of my right hon. and hon. Friends who have put their name to the new clause.
It is particularly important to acknowledge the difference between inner and outer London, and the difficulties of making sure that policies can apply to both areas equally. I think we should tread extremely carefully when considering whether to amend the strategic powers of the Mayor, even if I happen to disagree with much of what the current incumbent does. Although my hon. Friend for Buckingham has made known his strength of feeling about the matter, and that of other colleagues, I ask him to withdraw the new clause.
Greg Smith
I welcome the Minister’s comments, and as I acknowledged, it is a difficult issue to navigate. It almost reopens some of the devolution questions. It is an anomaly that many London colleagues, certainly on the Conservative Benches, feel and I welcome the Minister’s commitment to work with them and me. Like him, I was a London borough councillor just a little way up the river from him for 12 years, some moons ago, and felt the same pressures. If he is willing to work with London colleagues to find a satisfactory way through this, I am content to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 34
Local government capital investments: economic appraisal
“(1) This section applies to local government capital investments of a value of £2 million or more.
(2) Before making an investment to which this section applies, a local authority must—
(a) commission an economic appraisal of the investment, and
(b) publish the findings of that appraisal.”—(Rachael Maskell.)
This new clause would require local authorities to commission, and publish the findings of any capital investment of the value of £2 million or more.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Rachael Maskell
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
It is a pleasure to move the new clause and to give the hon. Member for Buckingham some respite. The new clause relates to fiscal responsibility in local government. Without proper viability being sought, local authorities can pay millions of pounds on projects and never reap the return. That is why the new clause relates to capital investments and economic appraisals, which should be undertaken and understood, but without a Green Book-style appraisal, local authorities can end up paying and developers and landowners gaining, with ultimately no reward and benefit to the local community. The new clause is designed to ensure that the finances on any project are transparent and for the benefit of local people. It would ensure that there is gain for all and not ultimate loss, not least given that we are talking about the use of public resources. That is why the new clause is important.
The case study to which I want to refer particularly is that of the York Central site. The cost of bringing that site forward is now believed to be £200 million of public funding. As that project moves forward, more and more is being demanded from public sources to fund it, and yet the local authority may never see a return on that investment. City of York’s infrastructure investment was planned to be around £35 million, but it has now been given an estimated debt cost of £57 million based on April interest rates, which will clearly be significantly higher now.
The Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities has also put in £77 million and it is believed that more than £50 million will have to come through the Mayor’s budget once it is approved and in place—we are expecting that to be in 2024. In a briefing, councillors were told that the council would need to put in £85 million and debt costs to fill the gap, but we could now be talking about nearer £100 million rather than the £35 million once rejected. As a result, it is necessary to weigh up the viability of the site not for the developers, as set out, but for the local authority. It is that check that is not required for such a project today, but it is really important, not least because local authorities simply do not have the necessary margins and, as a result, have to cut back on vital services to fund such capital projects.
My amendment therefore calls for prudence. On sites where any capital investment over the value of £2 million is made, there must be an economic appraisal commissioned and then published assessing the financial viability of the site to the authority. York Central has been developed for housing, so it will not reap the opportunities that a larger business owner could bring in nor those to do with council tax, as most of the properties being developed will be for investment, not for local residents to live in. They will either be empty units, leading to a cost to our city, or will be turned into Airbnbs, a matter that I will turn to later. Of course, Airbnb falls under the thresholds of flipping the property, not paying council tax and not paying business rates either, so the local authority loses millions of pounds as Airbnbs dodge the system.
At a time of significant austerity in local government, it is crucial that more scrutiny is given to the costs it has to expend on sites. My amendment simply calls for proper governance over finances and, at a time when the whole nation is looking at how Governments at all levels are more prudent with the spending of their money, it is right to bring forward such a measure to ensure that public money is spent in a way that will see its return and will be for the benefit of the people, not the developers and landowners who ultimately gain from such development.
Dehenna Davison
I am grateful to the hon. Member for York Central, who always talks incredibly passionately about her constituency. I thank her for bringing her experience of the capital project she mentioned to the Committee. As a Conservative, my ideology tells me that ultimately we always need to get best value for taxpayers’ money.
The Government recognise the importance of local capital investment for economic growth, improved public services and meeting our priorities, such as on housing delivery. That is why we need a robust system that supports the benefits of local decision making and allows sensible investment while safeguarding taxpayer’s money and protecting the local government finance system. Unfortunately, in recent years a small minority of local authorities have taken excessive risks with taxpayers’ money; they have become too indebted or have made investments that have ultimately proved too risky. That is why we need to ensure that the system is fit for purpose.
The changes made through clause 71 provide a flexible range of interventions for the Government to investigate where capital practices may have placed financial sustainability at risk and to take steps to remediate issues if necessary. We think that that is sufficient to address risk.
We have recently taken a number of steps to improve the transparency of local authority capital investment and borrowing. Last year we completed our data survey, which is designed to extract new data from local government and fill our identified information gaps. As of February 2022, we amended our regular statistical returns to obtain more detailed data on local authority investment activity. That will provide the Government with the clarity they need on the performance of investment assets as well as the location and risk management of investment properties.
Rachael Maskell
I am grateful for the Minister’s contribution. However, will she acknowledge that even if the viability of a site stands up, some of the investors in it may not? What ultimately happens is that local authorities become the backstop for financing and have to fill the gaps in order for those sites to be brought forward. As a result, the benefit goes to the developer and the risk sits with local authorities.
Dehenna Davison
I have certainly heard what the hon. Member has said, and we all have examples from our own constituencies and authorities. The current legislation and statutory codes allow local government to appraise risks as they stand. Alongside that, the monitoring and provisions that we are seeking through clause 71 will provide central Government with assurance. We think that the new clause is unnecessary, and I ask the hon. Member to withdraw it.
Rachael Maskell
I am grateful to the Minister for giving way again. Reflecting on the example that I gave, will she say how her Department would scrutinise the funding of sites such as the one in York Central to assess the viability of the local authority’s having to make increased contributions? Has the Department done that?
Dehenna Davison
I will be happy to follow up with the hon. Member on that point in writing.
Rachael Maskell
I thank the Minister for her response, but I am not satisfied that what she says will be sufficient to ensure that there are safeguards on local public resourcing that is brought forward on a site, particularly one as important as the York Central site, where eye-watering sums of money are being spent. I will therefore read with care what she writes to me to see whether there are sufficient safeguards. If I am not satisfied, I will want to return to this issue at a further stage of the Bill, but for now I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 38
New use classes for second homes and holiday lets
“(1) Part 1 of Schedule 1 of the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987 (S.I. 1987/764) is amended as follows.
(2) In paragraph 3 (dwellinghouses)—
(a) for ‘whether or not as a sole or’ substitute ‘as a’, and
(b) after ‘residence’ insert ‘other than a use within Class 3B)’.
(3) After paragraph 3 insert—
‘3A Class C3A Second homes
Use, following a change of ownership, as a dwellinghouse as a secondary or supplementary residence by—
(a) a single person or by people to be regarded as forming a single household;
(b) not more than six residents living together as a single household where care is provided for residents; or
(c) not more than six residents living together as a single household where no care is provided to residents (other than a use within class C4).
Interpretation of Class C3A
For the purposes of Class C3A “single household” is to be construed in accordance with section 258 of the Housing Act 2004.
Class C3B Holiday rentals
Use, following a change of ownership, as a dwellinghouse as a holiday rental property.’”—(Tim Farron.)
This new clause would create new class uses for second homes and short-term holiday lets.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 68—Review of Permitted Development Rights—
“(1) The Secretary of State must establish a review of permitted development rights under Schedule 2 of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (as amended).
(2) The review should include an assessment of:
(a) the past effectiveness of permitted development rights in achieving housing targets;
(b) the quality of housing delivered under permitted development rights;
(c) the impacts of permitted development on heritage, conservation areas and setting;
(d) the estimated carbon impact of the use of permitted development rights since the expansion of permitted development to demolition;
(e) the relative cost to local planning authorities of processing permitted development compared to full planning consents;
(f) potential conflict between existing permitted development rights and the application of national development management policies;
(g) the impact of permitted development rights, or other policies in this Bill designed to deliver streamlined consent, on the efficacy of levelling-up missions.
(3) The Secretary of State must publish a report of the recommendations made by this review no later than twelve months after this Act comes into force.”
This new clause would commit the government to carrying out a comprehensive review of permitted development rights within 12 months of the Bill securing Royal Assent.
Rachael Maskell
I rise to move new clause 43 and to support new clause 68. They mirror one another and therefore emphasise the need for a review of permitted development rights, which are a major issue in planning.
New clause 43 calls for a change in the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015. It would require a review to be published, within a year of the Bill becoming law, on the effectiveness of permitted development rights in achieving housing targets. Much planning permission is granted on the basis of balancing the economic viability of a site in favour of developers. Planning authorities may stipulate the framework around that, but it is not uncommon for developers to come back to authorities pleading that the site does not hold viability and seeking to change the tenure of units planned for it.
Furthermore, we have a housing crisis. The Government are right to want to fix it by setting targets for the number of units to be built, but if those units are unaffordable to a local population, or if they are sold as investment properties—as assets—and remain empty or are converted into short-term holiday lets, the housing demand is not addressed. Worse, property prices can heat up the market, resulting in a greater pool of people who are unable to access housing, which is making things far worse.
By allowing such a liberalisation of planning, not least for developers, the Government are creating a worsening situation. Rather than resolving the housing situation, they are pushing people out of their localities, as people cannot afford to either buy or rent. Now, with the economic crisis, they cannot get a mortgage either, but cash buyers can scoop up properties and then drive revenue through holiday lets. In York, we are seeing that in spades. York Central promises to be such a site of investment properties rather than homes, with the wrong housing in the wrong place heating up the market and exposing our city to even greater numbers of short-term holiday lets. This has to stop.
My new clause would enable a review, which would include an examination of the quality of housing delivered. I cannot tell hon. Members the scale of shoddy workmanship that we are witnessing. Developers hand their properties over to property management companies and then deny responsibility. Water ingress is common. Sinks are fitted just with silicone, and not properly plumbed in. Wiring is half done. Bin stores are turned into inaccessible bike shelters. The list of unresolved complaints is endless.
York is naturally concerned about its heritage and conservation sites, and we want to ensure that its archaeology is preserved, too. On the environment, we know that new developments help to solve the carbon crisis rather than add to it. If measures are not reviewed and taken seriously, we know that transport planning can be poor, as we are seeing on the York Central site. That will have an impact on the rest of the city. I have already mentioned the thorny issue of the cost to local authorities of the mess that is being created.
Reviewing permitted development rights, as the new clause seeks to do, is about addressing all the consequences, foreseen and unforeseen, of rushing planning through, not least at a time when planning departments across our communities are significantly under-resourced and under-powered. The new clause seeks a review, which is needed, and we want to see action following on from that. If the Government committed the resources and time needed to carry out a review of a such a significant issue, they could make such a difference to communities up and down the country. The review would ultimately be of real value to the Government, by ensuring that the planning system is working effectively for the purpose for which it is designed.
Matthew Pennycook
I rise to speak to new clause 68, in my name and those of my colleagues, and to speak in support of new clause 43. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for York Central on tabling new clause 43 and on her powerful remarks, not least about the contribution of the extension of permitted development rights to the affordability pressures in urban parts of the country such as hers.
It is a matter of public record that the Opposition have long-standing concerns about the detrimental impact of the liberalisation of permitted development rights on local communities. The Government have always justified the progressive liberalisation of those rights on the grounds that it removes unnecessary administrative impediments to development in the planning system. There is no doubt that the extension of PD rights since 2013 has boosted housing supply; estimates suggest that it has led to a net increase of around 100,000 dwellings. However, the increased supply secured as a result of deregulatory measures over recent years, and the significantly reduced control of rural and urban land that they entail, has come at the cost of a loss of affordable housing and infrastructure contributions, and an increase in poor-quality housing, with obvious implications for public health and wellbeing.
Evidence of the negative impact of the extension of permitted development for the conversion of office, commercial and industrial units to housing is now ubiquitous. A report published by the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government in July 2020—at the same time, incidentally, that Ministers were setting out plans for a further extension of PD rights—found that, in comparison with schemes created through planning permission, permitted development schemes were far less likely to meet national space standards and far more likely to have reduced access to natural daylight and sunlight.
Members may well have come across some of the more well-publicised examples of poor-quality PD schemes. Those include the Wellstones site in Watford, which involved the conversion of a light industrial building into 15 flats, seven of which had no windows at all; 106 Shirley Road in Southampton, a former electric and gas fire shop, which was converted into six studio flats, each roughly the size of a single car parking space; and Terminus House in Harlow, a former office block converted into hundreds of homes, many with just one openable window, which has rightly been described as a “human warehouse”.
Lee Rowley
I thank Opposition Members for tabling the new clauses, and I understand why they have done so. In all processes, there will be challenges; there will be difficulties at the margins in how things work and where people try to push boundaries beyond where they are intended to be. I do not disagree that there will be examples around the country where PDRs have not been used in the right way, in the same way that there are problems with the existing planning system when people go through planning applications, or with enforcement when people have not done that.
There are problems in all systems, and I accept that the Government’s job is to try to minimise those problems while recognising that it is always a work in progress. I particularly accept the challenge that the hon. Member for York Central made about holiday lets and the like. I am happy to discuss that with her separately, if that would be helpful.
There is obviously a question about where we strike the balance between enabling processes to continue to happen in a way that is sped up, gives certainty and clarity, and brings out the “right answer” most of the time, and where additional consideration or time, or additional processes, are required. The latter all comes with cost, in terms of time and clarity, for those making applications. That balance is very difficult to strike, but we are trying to strike it by ensuring that the PDRs in the system, but also a significant proportion of applications that potentially require further consideration, go through the normal process.
The challenge that I have with the new clauses—I absolutely do not mean to caricature them—is that, in the way that they are written, they seek a review of every single element of PDRs. I know that the Opposition Front Benchers know that a significant amount of permitted development rights are relatively uncontroversial. The Opposition are effectively saying that, in order to look at problems that are understood and that need consideration and review—I am happy to talk to them about what we should do with those, if we are able to—we must also look at every single other PDR, including things such as how porches, chimneys, flues and microwave antennae are changed.
I am not sure that is the Opposition’s intention, so I gently ask them to consider withdrawing the new clauses on the basis that, while I am happy to continue the conversation, I think that their approach may be disproportionate to their intention.
Mrs Lewell-Buck
The Minister admitted that PDRs are not being used in the correct way. He feels that our new clauses seek a review of every element of PDR, but if he and the Government do not want to review every element, what elements would they review? He has already admitted that the system is not working properly, so will he offer an alternative?
Lee Rowley
For clarity, I said that no system is perfect. That is not necessarily a recognition that anything is systemically wrong, although I am happy to debate individual instances if Opposition Members believe that to be the case. We will never create a perfect system. I am sure that we all intend to make the processes better. There will be differences of view, both in the Committee and outside it, about where it is appropriate to draw lines in terms of the use and non-use of PDRs. That will be a discussion long after we have left this place. I am keen to hear from colleagues on both sides of the House about where they think PDRs are not working in the ways that we hope, recognising that no system is perfect but hoping that they are used correctly in most instances. I do not think, however, that it is proportionate to do a wholesale review of PDRs at this stage.
Mrs Lewell-Buck
I thank the Minister for being generous in giving way again. I do not think that he quite understood the point that I was making. He said that PDRs are not being used in the right way, so where do he and the Government feel that they need to be looked at? I am not getting any clarity.
Lee Rowley
I am happy to clarify. I did not say that PDRs were not being used in the right way; I said that no system—
Lee Rowley
I know that Hansard will demonstrate the context. I was saying that no system is perfect. I was not making any comment on individual PDRs, but I have said to colleagues on both sides of the Committee that I am happy to discuss individual areas where they have concerns, outside of a proposal for every single one of the 155-odd PDRs to be reviewed in detail within a timeframe that is not particularly proportionate. If there is a problem, let us talk about it in individual areas, but this approach is disproportionate. I hope that the Opposition will consider withdrawing the motion and having a separate discussion about specific instances that have been raised, and others that they are concerned about.
Rachael Maskell
I listened carefully to the debate, and I am grateful for all the contributions to it. The Minister will know that we are not putting forward a plan to tear up the whole PDR framework; we are simply calling for a review, as we believe is appropriate. After a scoping review, we would determine which points to drill down on, to ensure that we are looking at the parts of the system that are simply not working. That is the intention behind the new clause. Although it has a broader scope, it homes in on some of the challenges in the system. I therefore do not think that the proposal to put a scoping exercise in the legislation is unreasonable. I welcome the Minister’s offer of dialogue on these matters, which clearly are significantly impacting our communities. Dialogue will be really important. I will not press my new clause to a vote, but I will certainly take up that offer.
Matthew Pennycook
As I think the Minister will expect, I am naturally disappointed by his response. There are times when hiding behind the fact that there are trade-offs in balancing problems is appropriate; there are times when it is just a fig leaf, and not doing anything about a glaring problem. His own Department has produced evidence that it is not just a problem at the margins. I encourage him to go and see some of the sites being allowed on appeal because of national planning policy. It is not a problem at the margins; it is endemic, and intrinsic to the liberalisation of PD rights that has been allowed over the past nine years.
It is a straw man for the Minister to say, “We can’t do this, because it’s reviewing all PD rights.” Uncontroversial elements of PD can be dealt with very quickly; we are talking about the problematic aspects and the expansion of PD rights over the past nine years. It is causing a huge amount of human suffering, if nothing else. For that reason, not least to signal the Opposition’s intent to deal with this matter if and when we form the next Government, I will press new clause 68 to a Division when the time comes.
Rachael Maskell
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Nigel Huddleston.)
National Security Bill (Fourteenth sitting)
Tuesday 18th October 2022
(1 year, 6 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate National Security Act 2023 View all National Security Act 2023 Debates Read Hansard Text Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 18 October 2022 - (18 Oct 2022)
The Chair
I remind the Committee that with this we are discussing the following:
Government new clause 12—Offence of carrying out activities under an unregistered foreign activity arrangement.
Government new clause 13—Requirement to register activities of specified persons.
Maria Eagle (Garston and Halewood) (Lab)
As we adjourned this morning, I was expressing concern about the complexity of the two-tier scheme embodied in the new clauses. I was suggesting that it might be more effective to have one tier that applied to all countries and a broad range of covert activity, rather than this two-tier arrangement, which is more difficult to understand and which presents more barriers to the Government of the day, and to the Minister in particular, in designating those who ought to be covered by the secondary tier, which the Minister referred to as the enhanced tier. It might be more sensible to have a simpler but more extensive scheme that does not require lots of extra Government activity and inter-departmental negotiations between the Security Minister and other Ministers who are looking at relations with foreign countries and companies through a different lens. That was my basic point.
It is difficult to understand why, unlike comparable schemes in Australia and the US scheme, there are two tiers, and why the registration of harmful activity outside of political influencing—some of which is more serious—applies only where the foreign power has been designated by the Government. If it is not designated, or while the Minister is desperately trying to persuade other bits of Whitehall that it ought to be, such activity could go on unimpeded by these arrangements and the necessity for registration. That will have a consequent, knock-on effect on the transparency that should be gained, which is supposed to be one of the purposes of the scheme. If we cannot get something registered because there is no agreement in Government, we will not get the additional transparency that is supposed to be one of the major benefits of the foreign influence registration scheme.
I am questioning the entire underpinning of the way in which the scheme has been designed. I am certainly not convinced that it is better than a simpler but broader arrangement. That was the essential point that I wanted to make. I do not wish to repeat every point that my right hon. Friend the Member for North Durham or the shadow Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax, have made. However, I believe that the scheme, as set out in the new clauses, is too complicated and could be simpler, and that, were it simpler, it would be more effective.
The Minister for Security (Tom Tugendhat)
I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Garston and Halewood and the right hon. Member for North Durham for the tone with which they have approached the debate. I appreciate their comments and those of the shadow Minister, who has made similar points. They have made them in the spirit of openness, proper debate and trying to improve what they see, correctly, as a Bill that will keep our country safe. I am grateful to them for that.
I will go through some of the points that have been made. First, the right hon. Member for North Durham asked about the purpose. Part of the objective of registering under the scheme is to highlight and to be clear. This is not a sanction. The very fact that a scheme exists for foreign companies that trade with British companies does not in any way mean that it is a sanction. The intention is to bring transparency to relationships that might otherwise lie hidden. It is intended not as a punishment, but merely to promote openness.
The requirement to register an arrangement within 10 days is made so that the person acting on behalf of the Government, or the individual, makes that clear at that point or within a reasonable period of time. I am happy to hear arguments for a slightly longer or less long period, but I think 10 days is a reasonable period for a registration to be made. Again, that is not supposed to be a sanction or an obstacle, but it is merely supposed to be a way of achieving transparency. It is not really supposed to be stopping the entire process, but merely supposed to be enabling people to know what is going on. If there was a requirement, and if it was a sanction, that would be different and the process would have to stop immediately. That is not what this is about.
Holly Lynch
Of course, and I am grateful. May I bring the Minister’s attention to an example that I have had a chance to look at, and which has broken today? Up to 30 former UK military pilots are thought to have gone to train members of China’s People’s Liberation Army. They have been offered lucrative packages of up to £237,000 for their expertise in training Chinese pilots. Actually, a Ministry of Defence spokesperson has said that they are attempting to disrupt that activity
“while the new National Security Bill will create additional tools to tackle contemporary security challenges—including this one.”
Just looking at that example of where presumably some of those involved in headhunting might need to register that activity—
Holly Lynch
There is a need to try to put a stop to some of this activity, and I just wonder what the relationship is between the visibility and the need to stop it.
Tom Tugendhat
As the hon. Lady will know very well, I share her deep concern at this information, which was reported just this morning. First, may I say that there are already many different clauses in the Bill that are designed to make sure that individuals should not be co-operating with those who may be trying to steal secrets or to gain from secret information. It is possible, although I have not got the details of the case, that similar sorts of cases may be covered under other clauses in order to prevent the acquisition of information. The foreign agents element—the foreign influence element—would also come to play, but it is not the only element in the Bill that would come into play. It is absolutely correct that we do need the Bill in order to prevent such actions, which at the moment are more loosely defined, and therefore possible. The foreign influence element is not the only element, but I appreciate the spirit in which the hon. Lady has entered the discussion.
If I may, I will speed up a little.
Tom Tugendhat
You are very welcome, Mr Gray.
Subsections (3) and (4) of new clause 11 make it clear that a specified person can be a foreign power or an entity that is not an individual. Parliamentary drafters use that terminology for the legislation, but detailed guidance will be prepared so that it is clear to the public and businesses who is included.
I will follow up on other questions in writing, if I may, because a whole load of questions were put before lunch and I think many of us have forgotten which elements they related to. I will therefore conclude my remarks.
Question put and agreed to.
New clause 11 accordingly read a Second time, and added to the Bill.
New Clause 12
Offence of carrying out activities under an unregistered foreign activity arrangement
“(1) A person commits an offence if—
(a) the person carries out an activity, or arranges for an activity to be carried out, in the United Kingdom pursuant to a foreign activity arrangement required to be registered under section (Requirement to register foreign activity arrangements)(1),
(b) the arrangement is not registered, and
(c) the person knows, or ought reasonably to know, that they are acting under the direction of a specified person.
(2) Subsection (1) does not apply to a foreign power.”—(Tom Tugendhat.)
This new clause makes it an offence to carry out activities under a foreign activity arrangement that should be, but is not, registered.
Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.
New Clause 13
Requirement to register activities of specified persons
“(1) A specified person must not carry out activities in the United Kingdom unless the activities are registered with the Secretary of State.
(2) The prohibition in subsection (1) does not apply to a foreign power.
(3) A person who breaches the prohibition in subsection (1) commits an offence if the person—
(a) knows, or
(b) ought reasonably to know,
that the activity in question is not registered.”—(Tom Tugendhat.)
This new clause requires registration of activities carried out in the UK by a specified person.
Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.
New Clause 14
Requirement to register foreign influence arrangements
“(1) A person who makes a foreign influence arrangement must register the arrangement with the Secretary of State before the end of the period of 10 days beginning with the day on which the person makes the arrangement.
(2) A ‘foreign influence arrangement’ is an arrangement with a foreign principal pursuant to which the foreign principal directs the person—
(a) to carry out political influence activities in the United Kingdom, or
(b) to arrange for such activities to be carried out in the United Kingdom.
(3) ‘Foreign principal’ means—
(a) a foreign power,
(b) a body incorporated under the law of a country or territory outside the United Kingdom, or
(c) an unincorporated association formed under the law of a country or territory outside the United Kingdom, other than an association of persons where each person is a United Kingdom national,
but does not include a person within subsection (4).
(4) Those persons are—
(a) a specified person;
(b) a body incorporated under the law of the Republic of Ireland, or an unincorporated association formed under the law of the Republic of Ireland;
(c) an international organisation.
(5) The requirement in subsection (1) does not apply to a foreign power.
(6) The requirement in subsection (1) does not apply to—
(a) a recognised news publisher, or
(b) a person who makes a foreign influence arrangement with a recognised news publisher where the purpose, or one of the purposes, of the arrangement is the publication of news-related material.
(7) Subsection (1) applies in relation to a foreign influence arrangement made before the day on which this section comes into force as if, for the words from ‘10’ to the end, there were substituted ‘3 months beginning with the day on which this section comes into force.’
(8) A person who fails to comply with subsection (1) commits an offence if the person knows that the arrangement in question is a foreign influence arrangement.
(9) In this section—
‘international organisation’ means a person (other than an individual) which—
(a) is governed by international law,
(b) is set up by, or on the basis of, an agreement between two or more countries, or
(c) is recognised under an agreement between two or more countries and is specified by the Secretary of State in regulations;
‘news-related material’ and ‘publish’ have the meaning given by section 50(5) of the Online Safety Act 2022;
‘recognised news publisher’ has the meaning given by section 50 of the Online Safety Act 2022 but as if, in subsection (2)(e) of that section, ‘in the United Kingdom’ were omitted;
(10) Regulations under subsection (9) may specify a person or a description of persons.”—(Tom Tugendhat.
This new clause requires registration of arrangements with foreign principals to carry out political influence activities in the UK. Political influence activities are defined in NC15.
Brought up, and read the First time.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Government new clause 15—Meaning of “political influence activity”.
Government new clause 16—Offence of carrying out political influence activities pursuant to unregistered foreign influence arrangement.
Government new clause 17—Requirement to register political influence activities of foreign principals.
Tom Tugendhat
New clauses 14 to 17 relate to the primary registration requirement, which is the requirement for political influence activities to be registered where they are either to be carried out, or arranged to be carried out, in the United Kingdom at the direction of a foreign principal, or to be carried out by a foreign principal.
Before I get into the effect of these new clauses, I want to be clear and up front that the UK is welcoming of open and transparent engagement from foreign Governments and entities. Governments around the world, including the UK, should seek to advance their interests through the lobbying and influencing of other states—after all, that is what diplomacy is. Where this is conducted openly and transparently, it is welcome and plays a vital part in our democracy and public debate, as well as being essential to international relations and civil society.
The primary registration requirements under this scheme will play a critical role in encouraging that openness and transparency, while simultaneously deterring foreign powers that wish to pursue their aims covertly through the use of agents and proxies. It can only be right that the UK public and our democratic institutions are protected from covert influence and are better informed as to the scale and extent of foreign influence in our political affairs. Again, each of the new clauses is substantive so, as with the previous group, I will take each in turn.
New clause 14(1) requires a person to register with the scheme where they are in an arrangement with a foreign principal to carry out political influence activities within the UK, or where the person is to arrange for such activities to be carried out. The person must register within 10 days of the arrangement being made. I covered several relevant points of detail in my speech on the equivalent provision under the enhanced registration scheme relating to foreign activity arrangements, which we have already discussed today. I will not repeat those explanations, but will instead focus on key points of difference.
First, subsections (5) and (6) clarify who is not “a person” for the purpose of defining a foreign influence arrangement and who the requirement does not apply to. I have already explained, in our discussion on the previous group of new clauses, why a foreign power is not required to register, and the same principle applies here. In addition, the requirement to register does not apply to a recognised news publisher or a person who makes a foreign influence arrangement with a recognised news publisher where the purpose, or one of the purposes, of the arrangement is the publication of news-related material. The practical effect of this aspect of the new clause is to ensure that domestic and foreign news publishers cannot be in a registerable arrangement with a foreign principal, and nor can a person—for example, a freelancer—where the foreign principal is a recognised news publisher and the arrangement concerns the publication of news-related material.
I mentioned in my opening remarks on FIRS that these requirements are deliberately state and sector agnostic, and that it is the responsibility of all sectors to demonstrate transparency and accountability, but with exceptions for where existing obligations apply. This is one such example. We have a proud tradition in this country of upholding the freedom of the press. Indeed, it is our obligation to ensure that journalists are empowered to carry out their legitimate activity independent of state involvement. We do not consider it appropriate to replicate this safeguard for the enhanced measure. Unlike the primary registration requirement, specifying an entity for the enhanced assurance measure will be reserved for where the Government have determined that a greater level of scrutiny is needed to protect the safety or interests of the UK. As such, we do not consider it appropriate to replicate this safeguard for the enhanced measure.
Secondly, the clauses use different terminology from the enhanced registration requirement. The definition of arrangement requires there to be direction from a “foreign principal”, rather than a specified foreign power or entity subject to foreign power control, as is the case under the enhanced registration requirement. The definition of “foreign principal” in subsection (3) includes
“a foreign power…a body incorporated under the law of a country or territory outside the United Kingdom, or…an unincorporated association formed under the law of a country or territory outside the United Kingdom.”
I will not dwell on why the requirement applies to a foreign power, as that should be obvious. Instead, I want to address the importance of this definition capturing any foreign entity rather than those subject to foreign power control, as it is perhaps one of the most complex areas of this scheme.
We know that foreign powers deploy their influence through seemingly private or independent entities. This can be achieved through formal links with such entities, which may include shares, subsidies or financing, voting rights, or through other obligations to collaborate with the state. It can also be achieved through informal links, such as understandings or verbal agreements. There are also entities that are ostensibly private, yet nonetheless act to further a foreign power’s interests.
It is our intention to apply the registration requirements to all of those types of entity by requiring foreign influence arrangements to be registrable where made with any foreign entity. This is the approach taken by the Foreign Agents Registration Act in the United States, and it was the ambition of Australia’s foreign influence transparency scheme before its parliamentary passage. The Australian scheme’s definition of “foreign principal” was amended by its Parliament to require a formal connection between an entity and a foreign Government for activity to be carried out on its behalf to be registrable. Such a connection would need to meet technical criteria of ownership or control, or a formal obligation to act in accordance with the directions or wishes of the foreign Government.
Maria Eagle
New clause 14(9) includes definitions that refer to “the Online Safety Act 2022”, but that is a Bill, not an Act, and it is not on the statute book, is it?
Maria Eagle
Is it correct for this Bill to make reference to another Bill as being an Act of Parliament when it is not?
Tom Tugendhat
It is not entirely unheard of to make reference to other legislation that is going through at the moment. Should there be issues, then there may be obstacles, but—
Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)
The Minister needs to clarify—he can do so in writing, if he wants—whether that Bill is going through. It has been stayed, has it not? It has been pulled, so it will not even go forward. Therefore, I think we need some clarification.
Tom Tugendhat
That is simply not correct. It is going forward. [Interruption.] I commit to writing to hon. Members should there be any changes, but the Bill is still going forward.
New clause 15 defines “political influence activity” for the purposes of the scheme’s primary registration requirements. This relates to new clause 14, which we have just considered, as well as the other new clauses in this group. The overarching aim of the definitions in this new clause is to ensure that activities are registrable if they intend to affect political decision making, proceedings and those with the right to engage in UK electoral processes. I will break that down into four points: three points governing the relevant activities, which include lobbying, public communications and disbursements; and one covering the intended purpose.
Lobbying, for the purpose of this scheme, is defined under proposed new subsection (2)(a) as “making any communication to” a listed person. Capturing “any communication” is important in this context, as we do not want to provide an easy way for those engaged in state act threat activity to avoid the requirement to register by adopting a different means of communication. The listed persons include His Majesty’s Government and devolved Ministers; Members of the legislature; officers, trustees or agents of a registered political party; candidates at national, devolved or local elections; and senior officials or special advisers. We recognise that there are existing rules and regulations to ensure transparency and accountability around such activity. They include the provisions of the Lobbying Act 2014, as well as codes of conduct for those listed, including Ministers, officials, special advisers and Members of the legislature.
The foreign influence registration scheme will offer an extra layer of protection against those seeking to engage in covert lobbying for foreign powers directly, or indirectly through other foreign entities. These offences and penalties reflect that. They will require people to be transparent about who they are acting for, and will inform the public of the nature and scale of foreign influence in UK’s political affairs.
The persons listed in this new clause have been identified as those most likely to be of use to foreign powers in effecting change in our political system or proceedings. The primary registration requirement under FIRS will not only hold those persons to high standards while they are in public office or service, or engaging in our proceedings and elections, but will seek to protect them from those who would seek to influence them covertly. Of course, it may be necessary to amend the list and adapt it in the light of the trends and behaviours we see; that is why we propose including an ability to amend the list by regulations, so that the scheme is future-proofed against emerging threats.I remind hon. Members that for lobbying to be in scope of the scheme, it must be at the direction of a foreign principal, and must be for a political purpose. It is hoped that that constraint will ensure that the scheme delivers its objectives without unnecessarily bringing a wider range of activities within scope.
Public communications activity is registerable under proposed new subsection (2)(b) where it is not already reasonably clear that it is made at the direction of a foreign principal. This applies to the dissemination, or production for publication, of information, a document or other article. The ability to mobilise public opinion can be a powerful means of engaging with our political system and effecting change. The intention behind this limb of activity is to ensure that the public are aware of who is behind a communication that may influence the way they exercise their rights in this country, or the way they engage with our political system. It is to guard against those who seek to manipulate public opinion for the benefit of foreign powers and to the detriment of UK interests and security.
I emphasise, however, that a public communication is registerable only where it is not already reasonably clear that it is made at the direction of a foreign principal. Where a foreign principal is itself undertaking the activity—we will come to that shortly—that would already be clear to the public. A foreign charity making a public communication in its own name would not need to be registered. However, where a foreign charity directs a public relations firm to make the public communication, that firm would have a choice: either it makes it reasonably clear through the communication that it has been directed to make that communication by the foreign charity, or it registers that arrangement with the scheme.
Providing this choice offers a practical option to prevent all public communications for foreign principals from needing to be registered. By its very nature, a communication to the public is visible to the public; it therefore achieves the transparency aims of the scheme, so long as it is clear who it is for. We do not think that same rationale applies to the lobbying and disbursement limbs of political influence activities, which are naturally less visible to the public.
Thirdly, I will address disbursement activity. Under proposed new subsection (2)(c), this includes
“distributing money, goods or services to UK persons”,
and “UK persons” is defined in the Bill as including
“(a) a United Kingdom national;
(b) a body incorporated under the law of a part of the United Kingdom;
(c) an unincorporated association formed under the law of a part of the United Kingdom.”
As with public communications, targeted incentives can be a key method of deploying influence—for example, through the provision of money or hospitality.
The intention behind this limb of activity is to ensure that the public have greater visibility of how that influence is deployed by foreign principals. Under electoral law, political donations from or on behalf of individuals not on the electoral register, such as foreign donors, are prohibited, but the disbursement of money, goods and services to mobilise sections of the public for a particular cause is not. The definition of “political influence activity” in this scheme is cast more widely than the scope of electoral law.
For example, if a foreign principal was to distribute funds to organisations in the UK with the intention of influencing a Government decision, that would be covered by the foreign influence registration scheme. If foreign principals make or direct such disbursements that are not regulated by electoral law, with the intention of affecting the way in which a UK person exercises their democratic rights or how they engage with the UK political system, the Government are of the view that such activity should be transparent. That is to strengthen our resilience against those who seek to manipulate or mobilise the public for the benefit of foreign powers and to the detriment of the United Kingdom’s interest and security.
Finally, there is the purpose of the activity that makes it registerable. Whether the activity is lobbying, a public communication or disbursement, the purpose, or one of the purposes, of it must be to influence a matter or person listed in proposed new subsection (3). Those matters and persons include: the conduct of a UK election or referendum; a decision of the UK Government or Ministers in the devolved Administrations; the proceedings of Parliament or the devolved Administrations; the proceedings of a registered UK political party; or a Member of Parliament or the devolved Administrations.
The list is intended to limit the circumstances in which registration is required to circumstances in which there is an intention to influence UK political decision making, proceedings and those with the right to engage in UK electoral processes. The list is sufficiently broad to capture all the areas that we think require greater scrutiny, while maintaining proportionality. The measures should give the Government and the public greater clarity on the scale and extent of foreign influence in our political and governmental processes, while strengthening their resilience against covert foreign influence.
New clause 16 is the corresponding offence for the primary registration requirement to that which we discussed in the previous group of new clauses relating to the enhanced registration requirement in new clause 12. I will not repeat all the points I made earlier. New clause 16 makes it an offence to carry out a political influence activity, or to arrange for it to be carried out, pursuant to a registerable foreign influence arrangement that has not been registered. The main difference between this offence and that under the enhanced registration requirement is that this would require a person to know that they are acting pursuant to an arrangement that is not registered. As I explained earlier, we have deliberately created a higher bar for prosecution compared with the enhanced measure. It would need to be evidenced that a person knew an arrangement was unregistered and yet continued to carry out the activity.
New clause 17 is the corresponding registration requirement to that which we discussed in the previous group of new clauses relating to the enhanced registration requirement in new clause 13. Again, I will not repeat all the points I made earlier. New clause 17 requires foreign principals to register their political influence activities that are to be carried out in the UK. This prevents there being an obvious gap in the requirement to register, and will support the scheme’s objective of strengthening the resilience of the UK political system against covert influence. As with the enhanced registration requirement, foreign powers would not be expected to register under FIRS, so this requirement will apply only to a foreign entity that is to undertake political influence activities within the UK. The requirement will also not apply to a recognised news publisher for the same reasons that they are not required to register a foreign influence arrangement.
An offence would be committed if the foreign entity fails to register their political influence activities, and they know that the activity in question is not registered. Again, as I explained earlier, we have deliberately created a higher bar for prosecution, compared to the enhanced measure. I ask the Committee to support these new clauses.
Holly Lynch
I thank the Minister for giving us a comprehensive understanding of this group of new clauses. Before I talk about them, it is crucial that we have clarity on the outstanding issue of when an arrangement has been registered, because new clause 12 creates an offence of undertaking such activity before it has been registered. I put on record that the Minister was not able to respond to that point and said that he would follow up in writing.
It feels as though there has been a surge in hostile states seeking to infiltrate our political discourse. They are prepared to allow years for their efforts to bear fruit, in an attempt either to align our values with theirs or to sow division and polarisation across our country. That has become more salient following Russia’s abhorrent invasion of Ukraine.
Only days ago, a report from a German newspaper stated that the Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution is looking into the case of two civil servants who
“are involved with energy supply in key positions”
and are suspected of having Kremlin links, and I think a further and even more serious report from Germany has just broken. The allegation is that these individuals were advocates of Russian gas and highly supportive of Nord Stream 2. If confirmed, this case would represent exactly the type of security breach we have to protect ourselves against. Without wanting to repeating myself, there is just a single line in new clause 15 on the meaning of “political influence activity” by way of explanatory note. It is a crucial but operationally complex area.
I want to pull out subsection (6) of new clause 14, which explicitly states that the requirement to register a foreign influence arrangement does not apply to “a recognised news publisher” or
“a person who makes a foreign influence arrangement with a recognised news publisher where the purpose, or one of the purposes, of the arrangement is the publication of news-related material.”
Many civil liberties organisations and the National Union of Journalists have expressed concern over the need to ensure press freedom in relation to this Bill. That is absolutely right, and the Minister quite rightly put his strength of feeling about that on the record. But how do we protect ourselves and ensure transparency when blatant mouthpieces for hostile states present as news outlets, or when someone on the payroll of a hostile state seeks to place their pro-regime opinion pieces or articles in mainstream media? We have had assurances from officials that there are circumstances in which people in such situations may still have to register, and I would be grateful for clarity from the Minister on that.
Further to a point that my hon. and right hon. Friends have made, we gave one of the Minister’s predecessors some grief in discussion on Government amendment 9, which meant that this Bill would amend the “Online Safety Act 2022” by making online interference a priority offence. That was certainly a very welcome measure, but we said at the time that it was presumptuous to amend an Act when it was still a Bill in the Commons. Members might remember that the Online Safety Bill was on the Floor of the House while we debated it in this Bill Committee, so not to have made the change directly in the Online Safety Bill was somewhat cack-handed.
In subsection (9)(c) of new clause 14, we are referred once again to the “Online Safety Act 2022” for definitions. As things stand—I heard the Minister’s comments—what has happened to the Online Safety Bill is a bit of a mystery, and it seems to have been paused indefinitely. The last time it saw the light of day was that day in the Chamber, when we were in this Bill Committee. Can the Minister confirm that we will see that Bill again, and that the definitions in these new clauses will remain unchanged? Can he confirm that he is committed to ensuring that there is a future for making disinformation a priority offence, whether in that Bill or this? He will be aware that there are national security considerations in the Online Safety Bill that are of interest to him and to me, so we have an interest in ensuring that that Bill emerges once again.
Maria Eagle
Does my hon. Friend agree that for this clause to be accurate in referring to the “Online Safety Act 2022”, that Bill, which seems to have disappeared for now, has to have Royal Assent by the end of the year?
Holly Lynch
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We thought that that was quite an aspiration at the time, but now it is looking even more unlikely. I just make the point to the Minister that that needs consideration to make sure we do not lose the definitions, or something more substantial under Government amendment 9.
Government new clause 15 defines “political influence activity” for the purposes of the new registration scheme. Members will be aware of the Security Service interference alert sent from MI5 to MPs and peers back in January regarding Christine Lee. The alert stated that Lee knowingly engaged in political interference activities on behalf of the United Front Work Department of the Chinese Communist party. The warning read that the UFWD was seeking to covertly interfere in UK politics by establishing links with established and aspiring parliamentarians across the political spectrum and cultivating relationships with influential figures. Can the Minister confirm that such conduct would need to be registered under these new clauses?
Proposed new subsection 3(a) states that
“the conduct of an election or referendum in the United Kingdom”
falls under the criteria of political influence activity. This is a welcome inclusion and reflects the evidence provided to the Committee by several of the expert witnesses we heard from at the start, which feels like a lifetime ago—it was certainly four Chancellors ago! One of the expert witnesses was former deputy national security adviser Paddy McGuinness. He stated,
“Vladimir Putin’s intent, which is to have us off balance—is that if the Russians do hack into a political party’s servers and mess about within them, and maybe mess with the data or interfere, or if they play games with a technology platform that people rely on for information and put out information, and we decide as a result that we cannot trust a referendum or an election, they succeed. That is success for them, so I think what really matters in this space is the ability to measure the impact that state activity has on the democratic process we are looking at, and…that there is bright transparency so we know who is doing what.”––[Official Report, National Security Public Bill Committee, 7 July 2022; c. 24, Q48.]
We welcome the fact that the registration scheme will go some way toward addressing these concerns, but I want to again make the case for new clause 3, because the Minister was not here for that debate. His predecessor gave us a commitment to look further at it. Alongside this new clause, new clause 3 would provide for an annual review on disinformation, with particular consideration of interference in elections. That would help with the transparency and awareness piece that needs to sit alongside the provisions. In a similar spirit, we want to tighten Government new clause 15 with our new clause 29 on the registration of former members of intelligence services, and with new clause 5 on ministerial conduct when meeting with representatives of foreign intelligence services. We will come to those.
I would be grateful for clarity on when we can expect the new clauses to come into effect, as we are hearing that it might be some time. Will we seek to backdate them to capture political influence activity already in motion? I think I heard the Minister say that he could not yet say when the measures would come into effect, and essentially the Government would not be rushed on that matter. I asked the relevant agencies the same question, and the working assumption seems to be that we will not backdate the requirements. I ask the Minister to consider looking at that again. Surely we stand to miss much political influence activity that is already under way—not even necessarily activity that has started and come to an end, but conduct that may have started some time ago. We would create a loophole whereby people could claim, as a cover for failing to register, that the activity predated the introduction of the scheme, whether or not it actually did, and could thus commit an offence under new clause 16.
Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP)
I do not want to repeat anything the shadow Minister said, but I have a couple of short points. I am supportive of the goal of the political tier, though I am somewhat struggling with the design of the scheme. In debate on new clause 11, I asked questions about how the provisions would apply when intermediaries were used. It would be useful if the Minister could write on that, as I do not think we got an answer to that in his summing-up speech. The same concerns arise here. We have a lot of information to go away and take on board, but I am struggling to understand how these measures will apply in all sorts of situations. Lots of case examples will be essential if we are to get to the bottom of how this is going to work.
A simple example would be a case where an international NGO incorporated in another European country had a sister NGO in the United Kingdom. Both have employees of their own, some here and some in Europe. Both have Members, some here and some in Europe. How do all these provisions and this scheme apply to them if they have a month of action? An international NGO may take part in some direct engagement, so it would have to register that. What if it encourages its sister NGO to do that? What if either of them contact their members? The Minister has reassured us that employees would not have to register anything individually. It is not absolutely clear which part of the Bill makes that clear; it would be useful to know that.
I presume, as well, that members who are urged by an international NGO to email their MPs will not have to register any sort of activity like that. Again, it would be useful to know precisely where that is made clear in the Bill. Although I dare say we would all be quite happy not to have quite so many emails prompted by NGOs, equally, I do not think any of us would want them to have to register their schemes under the Bill. It would really be useful if we could get a handle on how the legislation will apply to these typical sorts of situations.
Tom Tugendhat
I want to start by addressing the point about disinformation, which is also about fake journalism. Hon. Members are absolutely right that that is a point that needs to be addressed by the Online Safety Bill, which I am sure is coming back—although I am but a Minister, so what would I know? I hope very much that it will. I accept that there may be a need for a drafting adjustment from “2022” to “2023”. I certainly anticipate that acts that are fundamentally propaganda activities rather than acts by journalists need to be covered by the Online Safety Bill.
It is also worth saying that any journalist who is not acting as a journalist but is instead acting as a lobbyist—some people do have dual roles—could perfectly legitimately not be covered as a journalist, but be covered as a lobbyist for certain elements of their activity. That is also important.
The applicable registration requirements will apply to arrangements that have already been entered into, but where the activity has not yet been commenced or completed. It will not be post-dated, as it were, but it will go from today forward, and therefore activities ongoing from the moment the Bill comes into force will be covered.
It is worth saying that the scheme will be introduced through regulations once the Bill has received Royal Assent. That will be done with the appropriate administrative and investigative resources that have been established. Existing arrangements will need to be registered within three months from the initial off.
It is also worth pointing out that although the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East and I may sometimes share frustration about the volume of emails, neither of us would seek to silence legitimate campaigning by organisations. That is covered by the “public” element. If it is a public campaign—a campaign general to everyone and therefore not targeted at any one particular individual or asking one particular individual to act—it is not covered. It is already public, by definition, because we know who is doing it and who is paying for it.
Question put and agreed to.
New clause 14 accordingly read a Second time, and added to the Bill.
New Clause 15
Meaning of “political influence activity”
‘(1) An activity is a “political influence activity” if—
(a) it is within subsection (2), and
(b) the purpose, or one of the purposes, for which it is carried out is the purpose of influencing a matter or person within subsection (3).
(2) The activities within this subsection are—
(a) making any communication to—
(i) a Minister of the Crown, a Northern Ireland Minister, a Scottish Minister or a Welsh Minister,
(ii) a Member of either House of Parliament, the Northern Ireland Assembly, the Scottish Parliament or Senedd Cymru, or an employee or other member of staff of such a Member,
(iii) an officer, trustee or agent of a UK registered political party or a member of such a party who exercises executive functions on behalf of the party,
(iv) a candidate at an election for a relevant elective office or a relevant Scottish elective office,
(v) a senior official or a special adviser, or
(vi) a person within a description of persons exercising functions on behalf of the Crown which is specified in regulations made by the Secretary of State;
(b) making a public communication, except where it is reasonably clear from the communication that it is made at the direction of the foreign principal;
(c) distributing money, goods or services to UK persons.
(3) The matters and persons within this subsection are—
(a) the conduct of an election or referendum in the United Kingdom,
(b) a decision of the government of the United Kingdom, a Northern Ireland Minister or Northern Ireland Department, the Scottish Ministers or the Welsh Ministers,
(c) the proceedings of either House of Parliament, the Northern Ireland Assembly, the Scottish Parliament or Senedd Cymru,
(d) the proceedings of a UK registered political party, or
(e) a Member of either House of Parliament, the Northern Ireland Assembly, the Scottish Parliament or Senedd Cymru.
(4) For the purposes of subsection (2)(b) a person makes a public communication if the person—
(a) publishes or disseminates information, a document or other article, or
(b) produces information, a document or other article for publication or dissemination.
(5) In this section—
“Northern Ireland Minister” includes the First Minister and the deputy First Minister;
“relevant elective office” and “relevant Scottish elective office” have the same meanings as in section 37 of the Elections Act 2022;
“senior official” means a member of the Senior Civil Service or a member of the Senior Management Structure of His Majesty’s Diplomatic Service;
“special adviser” means a person who serves the government in a position in the civil service of the State and whose appointment to that position meets the requirements applicable to that position set out in section 15(1) of the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010;
“UK person” has the same meaning as in section 2;
“UK registered political party” means a political party registered under Part 2 of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000;
“Welsh minister” includes the First Minister, the Counsel General to the Welsh Government and a Deputy Welsh Minister.’—(Tom Tugendhat.)
This new clause defines “political influence activity” for the purposes of the new registration scheme.
Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.
New Clause 16
Offence of carrying out political influence activities pursuant to unregistered foreign influence arrangement
“(1) A person commits an offence if—
(a) the person carries out a political influence activity in the United Kingdom pursuant to a foreign influence arrangement required to be registered under section (Requirement to register foreign influence arrangements) (1),
(b) the arrangement is not registered, and
(c) the person knows that the arrangement is not registered.
(2) Subsection (1) does not apply to—
(a) a foreign power;
(b) a recognised news publisher;
(c) a person within section (Requirement to register foreign influence arrangements)(6)(b).”—(Tom Tugendhat.)
This new clause makes it an offence to carry out political influence activities under a foreign activity arrangement that should be, but is not, registered.
Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.
New Clause 17
Requirement to register political influence activities of foreign principals
“(1) A foreign principal must not carry out political influence activities in the United Kingdom unless the activities are registered with the Secretary of State.
(2) The prohibition in subsection (1) does not apply to—
(a) a foreign power;
(b) a recognised news publisher;
(c) a person within section (Requirement to register foreign influence arrangements)(6)(b).
(3) A person who breaches the prohibition in subsection (1) commits an offence if the person knows that the activity in question is not registered.”—(Tom Tugendhat.)
This new clause requires registration of political influence activities carried out by a foreign principal.
Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.
New Clause 18
General exemptions
‘(1) The registration requirements do not apply—
(a) in relation to an arrangement that is a UK arrangement;
(b) to the extent that an arrangement relates to the provision of legal services.
(2) The prohibitions do not apply—
(a) to activities carried out in accordance with a UK arrangement or a UK agreement;
(b) to the provision of legal services.
(3) A “UK arrangement” or “UK agreement” is an arrangement or agreement to which—
(a) the United Kingdom is a party, or
(b) any person acting for or on behalf of, or holding office under, the Crown is (in that capacity) a party.
(4) The registration requirement in section (Requirement to register foreign activity arrangements)(1) does not apply to the extent that the arrangement relates to the provision of goods or services which are reasonably necessary to support the efficient functioning of—
(a) a diplomatic mission,
(b) a consular post, or
(c) the permanent mission to a UK-based international organisation of a country which is a member of the organisation,
(for example, the provision of catering or maintenance services).
(5) The registration requirements do not apply to persons who—
(a) are members of the family of a principal person forming part of the principal person’s household, and
(b) make a foreign activity arrangement or a foreign influence arrangement pursuant to an activity carried out by the principal person in that capacity.
(6) The prohibition in section (Requirement to register political influence activities of foreign principals) does not apply to persons who—
(a) are members of the family of a principal person forming part of the principal person’s household, and
(b) carry out an activity pursuant to an activity carried out by the principal person in that capacity.
(7) For the purposes of subsections (5) and (6)—
(a) “principal person” means a person who is a member of staff of—
(i) a diplomatic mission,
(ii) a consular post, or
(iii) the permanent mission to a UK-based international organisation of a country which is a member of the organisation;
(b) the members of the family of a principal person forming part of the principal person’s household include a person who is living with the principal person as their partner in an enduring family relationship.
(8) “Member of staff”—
(a) in the case of a diplomatic mission, means a member of the mission within the meaning given by Article 1 of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations (set out in Schedule 1 to the Diplomatic Privileges Act 1964);
(b) in the case of a consular post, means a member of the consular post within the meaning given by Article 1 of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations (set out in Schedule 1 to the Consular Relations Act 1968).
(9) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision for further cases to which the registration requirements or the prohibitions do not apply.
(10) In this section—
“consular post” has the meaning given by Article 1 of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations (set out in Schedule 1 to the Consular Relations Act 1968);
“diplomatic mission” is to be read in accordance with the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations done at Vienna on 18 April 1961;
“legal services” has the meaning given by section 8(1) of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012;
“the prohibitions” means the prohibitions in sections (Requirement to register activities of specified persons) and (Requirement to register political influence activities of foreign principals);
“the registration requirements” means the requirements in sections (Requirement to register foreign activity arrangements)(1) and (Requirement to register foreign influence arrangements)(1);
“UK-based international organisation” means an international organisation which has its headquarters in the United Kingdom and on which privileges and immunities have been conferred under section 1 of the International Organisations Act 1968.’—(Tom Tugendhat.)
This new clause creates exemptions to the registration requirements in NC11 and NC14 and the prohibitions in NC13 and NC16.
Brought up, and read the First time.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Government new clause 19—Registration information.
Government new clause 20—Information notices.
Government new clause 21—Confidential material.
Government new clause 25—Publication and copying of information.
Government new clause 28—Interpretation.
Tom Tugendhat
This group relates to scheme exemptions; the power for the Secretary of State to set what information needs to be registered with the scheme; the power for the Secretary of State to issue notices requesting information from registrants and those believed to be in scope of the requirements; provisions protecting confidential material from disclosure; the power for the Secretary of State to make regulations about the publication or copying of information provided through registration; and definitions for terms used in relation to FIRS. The majority of the new clauses in this group are substantive, so, as with the previous two groups, I will take each new clause in turn.
Stewart Hosie
The Minister has just described subsection (6) of new clause 19, which states:
“A person who fails to comply with subsection (3) commits an offence if, as a result of the failure, the information provided…is misleading, false or deceptive in a material way.”
That is absolutely correct. New clause 22, however, contains a range of offences that are committed if someone provides information that is “false, inaccurate or misleading”. Is there a reason why we have “deception” in new clause 19 but “inaccurate” elsewhere? Is there a different burden of proof for deception and inaccuracy?
Tom Tugendhat
If the right hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I will come to that in a moment.
New clause 20 provides the Secretary of State with the ability to give a notice to a person who has registered with FIRS, or who should have registered with FIRS but has not. On receipt of an information notice, the person will be required to provide the information requested within the specified timeframe. Failure do so without a reasonable excuse will be an offence. Receiving an information notice does not mean that an individual is guilty of a FIRS offence or that they are engaged in wrongdoing. It is, fundamentally, a tool to provide reassurance that individuals are meeting their registration requirements.
Stuart C. McDonald
I have a question about the new clause, and it may save the Minister from having to make a speech. With power, unlike with other notice powers, there seems to be virtually no limit on the nature of information that can be requested. There is no judicial oversight or right to challenge. It seems to be an incredibly broadly drafted power, and I do not understand why.
Tom Tugendhat
The hon. Member for Halifax has raised the question of oversight on various occasions and I have already committed to discussing it with her, so I will come back to that point. As for the nature of the information required, that will depend on the nature of the business. It is broad, as the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East correctly identified.
Where a person is suspected of committing a FIRS offence, the information gathered as a result of these notices can be used to support the investigation and prosecution of a FIRS offence. New clause 21 makes provisions clarifying that a person does not have to disclose any information that is protected by legal professional privilege or confidential journalistic material, or that would require them to identify or confirm a source of journalistic information.
Legal professional privilege, commonly referred to as LPP, or as confidentiality of communications in Scotland, is a fundamental tenet of UK law and protects those seeking legal advice and representation in the UK. It ensures that material such as communications between clients and their lawyers—and, in some circumstances, third parties—is protected from disclosure. LPP does not arise where a lawyer’s assistance has been sought to further a crime or fraud. Any disclosure requirement in FIRS that could have the effect of breaching LPP would fundamentally infringe the rights of individuals to receive confidential legal advice, where that advice is not for the purposes of enabling a crime, and their rights to a fair hearing.
There is also legal precedent for protecting against the disclosure of confidential journalistic material or sources of journalistic information, unless the power to require disclosure has been subject to prior or immediate after-the-event judicial or other independent or impartial scrutiny. The Government consider that protections for such material should also be included in FIRS to ensure adequate protections for journalists and their sources. The protections will apply even if a journalist or a recognised news publisher has to register under the enhanced tier of the scheme. The Government propose this new clause to ensure that FIRS upholds the rule of law and fair access to justice. It will ensure that there is adequate protection for confidential journalistic material and information related to journalistic sources.
New clause 25 allows the Secretary of State to make regulations about the publication or copying of information provided through registration. The ability to publicise certain information registered with the scheme is vital to delivering the aims of FIRS, by ensuring that the influence of foreign powers and entities is open and transparent. We intend to publish information registered under the primary or enhanced requirements that relates to the carrying out of political influence activities. The regulation-making powers also provide the flexibility to publish information registered about a wider range of activity under the enhanced requirements.
As I said earlier, however, that is to be determined alongside the decision to specify a foreign power or entity subject to a foreign power or control. Ensuring information can be publicised where it relates to the carrying out of political influence activities will help to strengthen the resilience of the UK political system against covert foreign influence. After all, sunlight is the best disinfectant. Not only will this ensure that the UK public are better informed of the scale and extent of foreign influence in our political affairs, but it will put a person actively seeking to avoid being transparent in a difficult position. Either they comply with the scheme’s requirements and expose their arrangements or activities, or they face potential enforcement action.
The information published will be limited to what is necessary to achieve the transparency aims of the scheme: for example, the name of the registrant, which could be an individual or an entity; the foreign power or principal for which political influence activities are to be carried out; or the nature and duration of such activity. Subsection (2) would allow the Secretary of State to specify or describe information or material that is not to be published. That is likely to include a situation where publishing the information would threaten the interests of national security, put an individual’s safety at risk or risk disclosure of commercially sensitive information.
Subsection (1)(b) would allow the Secretary of State to make provision for the copying of information provided through registration. It an important provision that will ensure data can be managed by the scheme management unit and shared with other enforcement agencies when necessary. As already mentioned, data will be managed in accordance with the Data Protection Act 2018 and GDPR. As with other parts of the registration scheme, we consider it appropriate for this level of detail to be outlined through regulations, which will also provide the Government with the flexibility to adapt should there be a need to make changes to what information is to be provided in order to meet the objectives of the scheme.
New clause 28 provides the definitions relevant to the registration scheme requirements. As we have discussed these terms in detail in relation to the requirements to which they apply, I do not consider that further examination is needed.
In my opening remarks, I explained that any arrangement with the Republic of Ireland or with a body incorporated or association under the laws of Ireland will be exempt from registration, as are activities to be carried out by such entities. This, again, ensures that the letter and spirit of the Belfast/Good Friday accord are protected, by avoiding interference with the right of citizens in Northern Ireland to identify as Irish. To achieve that in the drafting, subsection (2) clarifies that the Republic of Ireland is not to be considered a foreign power for the purposes of FIRS.
Holly Lynch
There is an awful lot in this group that is still to be determined in regulations, which is always a shame because it does not allow for the same scrutiny as when we consider everything as a package.
Government new clause 18 creates exemptions to the registration requirements laid out in the previous clauses. There is merit to each of those exemptions, but my concern is that we are creating a grey area, particularly when a person engages in both exempt activity and registrable activity. For example, I note that in subsection (4), we do not require those who support the functioning of a diplomatic mission or consular post to register. However, we know that we have potential weaknesses here following the case of one of our own British embassy security staff, who was arrested and charged in Germany with spying for Russia under the Official Secrets Act 1911; it is good to know that that legislation is not totally out of date. That raises the question: do we go as far as we need to on the networks surrounding the vital work of embassies, and can we ensure that an exemption by role does not automatically exempt activity that we would certainly want to know about?
I have had the opportunity to discuss with officials my mixed views about the complete exemption of family members of a principal person under subsections (5) and (6) of new clause 18. While it is right to create a distinction between those we are interested in and their family members, I worry that if we are explicit about this in legislation, we are presenting them as perfect potential spies to the regimes that their principal family member is associated with, bearing in mind that we are dealing with some fairly unscrupulous hostile states.
In new clause 19, again, we are waiting for a great deal more information to be set out in regulation. Under subsection (3), where there is a material change to any information already registered, the Secretary of State has to be notified within 14 days of the material change’s coming into effect. Why 14 days after? Why not in advance of the material change, as is the case in other clauses—for example, within 10 days of the agreement being made when first registering?
Subsection (6) states that a person commits an offence if
“the information provided to the Secretary of State in relation to the registered arrangement or registered activity is misleading, false or deceptive in a material way.”
To come back to my earlier point, who will be undertaking those investigations? We are presumably creating a whole range of new responsibilities here, so who will lead that work, and will they have the corresponding resources?
Government new clause 20 permits the Secretary of State to give a notice to a person to provide information in connection with arrangements or activities registrable under the registration scheme. Subsection (3) states that the Secretary of State may permit an information notice
“requiring the person to whom it is given to supply the information specified in the notice.”
I have no doubt that information notices will be a powerful tool, but there is still a lot to be specified in the new clause.
The hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East made a good point about oversight. I want to push the Minister on what means the public will have to query or raise concerns about an arrangement. If someone is aware of an arrangement that has either not been registered or not registered in full, what mechanism is there for them to raise that with the Home Office?
One of the examples that we discussed yesterday with officials was if a journalist writes an article that appears to be a blatant sales pitch for a hostile state. It would probably take an information notice to get to the bottom of whether it was commissioned by a hostile state, but how would a member of the public raise such a query? How would an employee of a company who is growing increasingly concerned about the nature of a joint project that they are working on raise those concerns with the Home Office? Currently, the mechanism is lacking from the provisions. I would be grateful to hear how the Minister intends to address that concern.
Government new clause 25 allows the Secretary of State to make regulations in relation to the publication and copying of information provided to the Secretary of State under the registration provisions. What really worries me about the registration scheme is that submissions will be made to the Home Office and they will go into some sort of electronic black hole and never see the light of day. We will not properly assess the arrangements or activities to see whether we are worried about them, and we will not publish them for months because we do not have the right back office resources to do so.
Any MP who has casework with the Home Office on almost any front—from visas to asylum and the national referral mechanism—will have experienced a similar service, despite, I have no doubt, the best efforts of civil servants. Can the Minister confirm that the register will be kept up to date in relative real time, and that it will be published online, which I think is what he said in his opening remarks? Can he also suggest a target turnaround time between registration and publication, which I am sure would be welcome and would set an early standard for what people can expect from the scheme?
Stuart C. McDonald
I will briefly emphasise how incredibly broadly and dangerously drafted new clause 20 is. All sorts of organisations will fall within the scope of the provisions; it could be a local business or a UK non-governmental organisation. Unless I am missing something, under the clause they can be asked by the Secretary of State in an information notice for virtually any information that she fancies helping herself to, with virtually no restriction whatsoever.
The new clause does not even require a link to some sort of ongoing investigation. There is no court oversight of the nature of the request, and there is absolutely no mechanism to challenge or appeal against any sort of information notice. If someone has been handed an absurd information notice and they refuse to comply with it, they can end up being prosecuted. As it stands, new clause 20 seems to be incredibly difficult and should be revisited.
Tom Tugendhat
I will come to the point made by the right hon. Member for Dundee East. He is absolutely right. Forgive me—that is a drafting error, which we will look at and tidy up.
On diplomatic staff, the hon. Member for Halifax makes a fair point. This is, however, diplomatic staff and their spouses acting in an official capacity—when they are conducting duties on behalf of their nation, and on behalf of the mission that they are sent to support. It is not supposed to be a blanket exemption; it is merely when they are acting in their role.
Who will manage the unit? A scheme management unit is expected to sit within the Home Office—that is, at least, the current plan—which will administer the scheme. It is unlikely that every registration will need to be scrutinised. More likely, the register will be a resource for public scrutiny. That is where the right hon. Member for North Durham, who is not currently present, was absolutely right: sunlight is the best disinfectant, and indeed disinfectant is the best sunlight.
Jess Phillips (Birmingham, Yardley) (Lab)
I am sure that the Minister has heard, just as I have, about cuts to Government Department budgets. This being a new additional spend, I wonder whether there has been any assessment of the cost of it, and whether he thinks the cost of it will survive.
Tom Tugendhat
As with the whole Bill, the way to think about it is as a public register, and because it is a public register the scrutiny will be provided, no doubt, by our friends in His Majesty’s press corps, who will look through every detail, as they look through every detail of the Register of Members’ Financial Interests and ensure that they keep us on our toes. They will no doubt do the same for businesses.
I will have a look at the question of the 14 days as opposed to 10. I am not quite sure why there is that difference, so I will come back to the hon. Member for Halifax on that, and with further details on the management of the scheme.
Question put and agreed to.
New clause 18 accordingly read a Second time, and added to the Bill.
New Clause 19
Registration information
“(1) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision about the information a person is required to provide to the Secretary of State when registering—
(a) a foreign activity arrangement under section (Requirement to register foreign activity arrangements),
(b) an activity under section (Requirement to register activities of specified persons),
(c) a foreign influence arrangement under section (Requirement to register foreign influence arrangements), or
(d) a political influence activity under section (Requirement to register political influence activities of foreign principals).
(2) Regulations under subsection (1) may, in particular, require the person to provide information about any arrangements made by the person pursuant to the arrangement or activity which is required to be registered.
(3) Where there is a material change to any information provided to the Secretary of State under this section or section (Information notices) in relation to a registered arrangement or a registered activity, the person who registered the arrangement or activity must inform the Secretary of State of the change before the end of the period of 14 days beginning with the day on which the change takes effect.
(4) The Secretary of State—
(a) may by regulations make provision about the information to be provided to the Secretary of State under subsection (3),
(b) may issue guidance about what may or may not constitute a material change.
(5) The provision which may be made by regulations under this section includes provision about the form in which information is to be provided.
(6) A person who fails to comply with subsection (3) commits an offence if, as a result of the failure, the information provided to the Secretary of State in relation to the registered arrangement or registered activity is misleading, false or deceptive in a material way.”—(Tom Tugendhat.)
This new clause provides for the information to be provided when registering arrangements and activities under the registration scheme.
Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.
New Clause 20
Information notices
“(1) The Secretary of State may give an information notice to—
(a) a person who is a party to a foreign activity arrangement registered under section (Requirement to register foreign activity arrangements);
(b) a person who is a party to a foreign activity arrangement which is required to be, but is not, registered under that section;
(c) a person who has registered activities under section (Requirement to register activities of specified persons);
(d) a person the Secretary of State reasonably believes to be carrying out an activity in breach of the prohibition in that section.
(2) The Secretary of State may give an information notice to—
(a) a person who is a party to a foreign influence arrangement registered under section (Requirement to register foreign influence arrangements);
(b) a person who is a party to a foreign influence arrangement which is required to be, but is not, registered under that section;
(c) a person who has registered activities under section (Requirement to register political influence activities of foreign principals);
(d) a person the Secretary of State reasonably believes to be carrying out a political influence activity in breach of the prohibition in that section.
(3) An information notice is a notice requiring the person to whom it is given to supply the information specified in the notice.
(4) An information notice must—
(a) specify the form in which the information must be supplied, and
(b) specify the date by which the information must be supplied.
(5) Where an information notice has been given to a person, the Secretary of State may cancel it by giving written notice to that effect to the person.
(6) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision about—
(a) the minimum period between the date on which an information notice is given and the date specified under subsection (4)(b);
(b) other matters which may be specified in an information notice;
(c) the cancellation of information notices.
(7) A person commits an offence if, without reasonable excuse, the person fails to comply with an information notice.
(8) The Secretary of State may not give an information notice to a foreign power.”—(Tom Tugendhat.)
This new clause permits the Secretary of State to give a notice to a person to provide information in connection with arrangements or activities registrable under the registration scheme.
Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.
New Clause 21
Confidential material
“(1) Nothing in this Part is to be taken to require any person to disclose any information that the person is entitled to refuse to disclose in legal proceedings on grounds of legal professional privilege (in Scotland, confidentiality of communications).
(2) Nothing in this Part is to be taken to require any person to disclose confidential journalistic material or to identify or confirm a source of journalistic information.
(3) In this section—
“confidential journalistic material” has the same meaning as in section 264 of the Investigatory Powers Act 2016;
“source of journalistic information” has the same meaning as in section 263 of that Act.”—(Tom Tugendhat.)
This new clause ensures that the obligations in connection with the registration scheme do not affect legal professional privilege or require the disclosure of confidential journalistic material.
Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.
New Clause 22
Offence of providing false information
“(1) A person commits an offence if—
(a) the person provides information to the Secretary of State under section (Registration information) or (Information notices) in connection with a foreign activity arrangement, and
(b) the information is false, inaccurate or misleading in a material way.
(2) A person commits an offence if—
(a) the person provides information to the Secretary of State under section (Registration information) or (Information notices) in connection with an activity which is required to be registered under section (Requirement to register activities of specified persons), and
(b) the information is false, inaccurate or misleading in a material way.
(3) A person commits an offence if—
(a) the person provides information to the Secretary of State under section (Registration information) or (Information notices) in connection with a foreign influence arrangement,
(b) the information is false, inaccurate or misleading in a material way, and
(c) the person knows, or ought reasonably to know, that the information is false, inaccurate or misleading in a material way.
(4) A person commits an offence if—
(a) the person provides information to the Secretary of State under section (Registration information) or (Information notices) in connection with a political influence activity which is required to be registered under section (Requirement to register political influence activities of foreign principals),
(b) the information is false, inaccurate or misleading in a material way, and
(c) the person knows, or ought reasonably to know, that the information is false, inaccurate or misleading in a material way.”—(Tom Tugendhat.)
This new clause creates offences of providing false or misleading information in connection with the registration scheme.
Brought up, and read the First time.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss Government new clause 23—Offence of carrying out activities under arrangements tainted by false information.
Tom Tugendhat
I turn to new clauses 22 and 23, which relate to the offence of providing false information and of carrying out activities under arrangements tainted by false information.
New clause 22 would create offences for where a registrant provides false or misleading information under the primary registration requirement or the enhanced registration requirement, or in response to an information notice. These offences are important to reduce the risk that the person is able to appear as if they have complied with the obligations under the scheme through the provision of false or misleading information. The delivery of the scheme’s objectives is undermined if a registrant is able to provide false or misleading information through registration or in response to an information notice without consequence. We should expect that those who seek to obfuscate their arrangements and activities will attempt to that, and we must be able to respond.
Such offences are not new or novel—indeed, they are common to requirements that place a positive obligation on members of the public to provide information. As with other offences we have considered, those that relate to the primary registration requirement have a higher bar for the prosecution to meet: that the registrant knows or ought reasonably to know that the information is false, inaccurate or misleading in a material way. By comparison, offences of the provision of false information in relation to the enhanced measure are to be strict liability. It should not be acceptable that such information is provided in relation to activity carried out for a specified foreign power or entity.
New clause 23 creates offences for carrying out activities under a registrable arrangement where false or misleading information has been provided in connection with the arrangement. I have already explained that the requirement to register an arrangement under the primary or enhanced registration requirements falls on the person who has made an arrangement with the specified foreign power or entity, or foreign principal.
We have also discussed the possibility that the registration of an arrangement could be made with false or misleading information: for example, where a person wants to appear as if they have complied with their registration obligations but is actively trying to conceal the true nature of their arrangements or activities.
These additional offences are important because they will allow for enforcement action to be taken against those who are acting pursuant to a falsely registered arrangement and are either complicit or in a position where they ought reasonably to know that the arrangement has been registered. As I explained in relation to the offences for carrying out activity pursuant to an unregistered arrangement, this will reduce the likelihood that unregistered activity is carried out, as well as providing a means of disrupting all levels of an organisation that has been identified as engaged in a covert arrangement or activity.
I want to reassure hon. Members that where an individual could not reasonably know that the information registered relating to the arrangement is false or misleading, they will not be prosecuted. It will be up to the courts to decide on a case-by-case basis whether someone charged with an offence ought reasonably to have known about the false information. I commend the new clause to the Committee.
Holly Lynch
It is right that new clauses 22 and 23 set out new offences that are created as a means of promoting compliance with the registration scheme. On that basis, we are satisfied that new offences are in order.
Question put and agreed to.
New clause 22 accordingly read a Second time, and added to the Bill.
New Clause 23
Offence of carrying out activities under arrangements tainted by false information
“(1) A person commits an offence if—
(a) the person carries out an activity in the United Kingdom pursuant to a foreign activity arrangement required to be registered under section (Requirement to register foreign activity arrangements)(1),
(b) information provided to the Secretary of State under section (Registration information) or (Information notices) in connection with the arrangement, whether by the person or by another person, is false, inaccurate or misleading in a material way, and
(c) the person knows, or ought reasonably to know, that the facts are as mentioned in paragraph (b).
(2) A person commits an offence if—
(a) the person carries out a political influence activity in the United Kingdom pursuant to a political influence arrangement required to be registered under section (Requirement to register foreign influence arrangements) (1),
(b) information provided to the Secretary of State under section (Registration information) or (Information notices) in connection with the arrangement, whether by the person or by another person, is false, inaccurate or misleading in a material way, and
(c) the person knows, or ought reasonably to know, that the facts are as mentioned in paragraph (b).
(3) Subsections (1) and (2) do not apply to a foreign power.
(4) Subsection (2) does not apply to—
(a) a recognised news publisher;
(b) a person within section (Requirement to register foreign influence arrangements)(6)(b).”.—(Tom Tugendhat.)
This new clause creates offences of carrying on activities under a registrable arrangement where false of misleading information has been provided in connection with the arrangement.
Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.
New Clause 24
Offences: penalties
“(1) A person who commits a foreign activity offence is liable—
(a) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 5 years or to a fine (or both);
(b) on summary conviction in England and Wales, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding the general limit in a magistrates’ court or to a fine (or both);
(c) on summary conviction in Northern Ireland, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months or to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum (or both);
(d) on summary conviction in Scotland, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months or to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum (or both).
(2) “Foreign activity offence” means—
(a) an offence under section (Requirement to register foreign activity arrangements)(10);
(b) an offence under section (Offence of carrying out activities under an unregistered foreign activity arrangement);
(c) an offence under section (Requirement to register activities of specified persons)(3);
(d) an offence under section (Registration information)(6) committed in relation to a foreign activity arrangement registered under section (Requirement to register foreign activity arrangements) or an activity registered under section (Requirement to register activities of specified persons);
(e) an offence under section (Information notices)(7) committed in relation to an information notice given under section (Information notices)(1);
(f) an offence under section (Offence of providing false information)(1) or (2);
(g) an offence under section (Offence of carrying out activities under arrangements tainted by false information)(1).
(3) A person who commits a foreign influence offence is liable—
(a) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 2 years or to a fine (or both);
(b) on summary conviction in England and Wales, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding the general limit in a magistrates’ court or to a fine (or both);
(c) on summary conviction in Northern Ireland, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months or to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum (or both);
(d) on summary conviction in Scotland, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months or to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum (or both).
(4) “Foreign influence offence” means—
(a) an offence under section (Requirement to register foreign influence arrangements)(8);
(b) an offence under section (Offence of carrying out political influence activities pursuant to unregistered foreign influence arrangement);
(c) an offence under section (Requirement to register political influence activities of foreign principals)(3);
(d) an offence under section (Registration information)(6) committed in relation to a foreign influence arrangement registered under section (Requirement to register foreign influence arrangements) or a political influence activity registered under section (Requirement to register political influence activities of foreign principals);
(e) an offence under section (Information notices)(7) committed in relation to an information notice given under section (Information notices)(2);
(f) an offence under section (Offence of providing false information)(3) or (4);
(g) an offence under section (Offence of carrying out activities under arrangements tainted by false information)(2).”.—(Tom Tugendhat.)
This new clause sets out the penalties for the offences created under the registration scheme.
Brought up, and read the First time.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss:
Government new clause 26—Offences: supplementary provision.
Tom Tugendhat
New clauses 24 and 26 deal with the penalties and supplementary provisions for the offences under the scheme. I start by reminding the Committee of one of the scheme’s aims: to deter foreign power use of covert arrangements, activities and proxies.
FIRS will play an important role in countering state threats. It is therefore important that the scheme should have penalties that reflect the seriousness of non-compliance within that context. The new clause makes provision for two separate maximum penalties for the two parts of the scheme. It is proposed that any offence committed under the primary registration requirement should be capable of attracting a custodial penalty of up to two years on indictment, or a fine; that is compared with an offence committed under the enhanced registration requirement, which we propose should be capable of attracting a custodial penalty of up to five years on indictment, or a fine.
The availability of a custodial penalty is a necessary reflection of the seriousness of seeking to hide or obfuscate influence or activity in the United Kingdom directed by foreign powers or entities. The penalty must be taken seriously by those engaged in the state threats activity that we are trying to counter; that would be unlikely if, for example, we were to impose only financial penalties. The offences under the enhanced measure would be capable of a higher maximum custodial penalty. This distinction is to reflect the seriousness of hiding or obfuscating arrangements and activities, carried out on behalf of foreign powers or entities, that the Secretary of State has identified as being necessary to specify in order to protect the safety or interests of the United Kingdom. I have covered the issue to some extent through my earlier explanations about the differing thresholds for offences.
I will not spend long speaking to new clause 26, given that it extends the application of clauses 28 and 29 to the offences under this part and mirrors the approach taken to exclude the public from legal proceedings in clause 31—clauses that have all been debated by the Committee already.
The new clause has several functions. First, it extends the application of clause 28 to this part so that the officers of bodies corporate and other bodies may be held liable for offences committed by those bodies. Given that a body corporate or other bodies can make either a foreign activity arrangement or foreign influence arrangement, it is crucial for the enforceability of the scheme that these bodies and their officers can be held liable should they breach the conditions set out under these provisions.
Secondly, the new clause extends the application of clause 29 to an offence under this part that is capable of being committed outside the UK. In the context of FIRS, that relates to where a foreign activity or foreign influence arrangement has been made outside the UK but has not been registered within the 10-day period. Although the activity pursuant to the arrangement must take place in the UK, the offence for failing to register can therefore be committed overseas. We have already debated the necessity of this in respect of the new clauses relating to the registration of arrangements.
Finally, this provision grants the court the power to exclude the public from proceedings for offences under this part, where necessary in the interests of national security; it is important to be clear, however, that this does not apply to the passing of a sentence. Excluding the public from proceedings might be necessary in circumstances where the Crown needs to adduce sensitive evidence as part of the prosecution—evidence that may be harmful to national security if shared more widely with the public.
For example, if a person provided false information in connection with an activity that is required to be registered in relation to a foreign influence arrangement, it might be necessary to rely on sensitive evidence to demonstrate why that information was considered to be false and what the person’s actual activities included. The provision would ensure that such sensitive evidence could be examined without the public being present. The decision to exclude the public would be made by the court, not the prosecution, and it is important to note that the power does not grant the use of closed material proceedings.
Holly Lynch
Government new clause 24 lays out the penalties for offences committed under the registration scheme. Subsection (1) states that a person who commits a foreign activity offence is liable on conviction or indictment to a maximum five years of imprisonment. Subsection (3) states that a person who is found to have committed a foreign influence offence is liable to a maximum two years of imprisonment. My hon. Friend the Member for Garston and Halewood raised this point yesterday with officials: why the marked difference in sentencing between the different strands of activity?
Subsection (1) of Government new clause 26 states that officers of bodies corporate may be held liable for offences committed by those bodies in relation to the registration scheme. That is a welcome measure that will ensure that corporate officers and organisations will remain accountable to the registration scheme. Like the inclusion of body corporate offences in part 1 of the Bill, it reflects the seriousness with which UK businesses must treat the provisions.
Subsection (3) provides that the public may be excluded from proceedings for an offence under part 1. As the Minister said, we discussed at previous stages of the Bill that it is right to have that option where matters prejudicial to the UK’s national security may need to be cited for prosecution. However, we stress that it is a power that should be exercised only when necessary.
Tom Tugendhat
The difference between the tariffs is purely down to the different importance of a general registration and an enhanced registration.
Question put and agreed to.
New clause 24 accordingly read a Second time, and added to the Bill.
New Clause 25
Publication and copying of information
“(1) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision about—
(a) publication of information provided to the Secretary of State under this Part;
(b) copying of information provided to the Secretary of State under this Part.
(2) The power under subsection (1) includes in particular power to make provision about a description of information or material which is not to be published.”—(Tom Tugendhat.)
This new clause allows the Secretary of State to make regulations in relation to the publication and copying of information provided to the Secretary of State under the registration provisions.
Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.
New Clause 26
Offences: supplementary provision
“(1) Section 28 (offences by body corporate etc) applies in relation to offences under this Part as it applies in relation to offences under Part 1.
(2) Section 29(1) and (3) to (5) (offences committed outside the United Kingdom) applies in relation to offences under this Part as it applies in relation to offences under Part 1.
(3) If it is necessary in the interests of national security, a court may exclude the public from any part of proceedings for an offence under this Part, except for the passing of sentence.”—(Tom Tugendhat.)
This new clause provides that officers of bodies corporate and other bodies may be held liable for offences committed by those bodies, that offences may be committed outside the United Kingdom, and that a court may exclude the public from proceedings for offences.
Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.
New Clause 27
Annual report
“(1) The Secretary of State must, as soon as is practicable after the end of each relevant period—
(a) prepare a report in relation to that period, and
(b) lay a copy of the report before Parliament.
(2) The report must provide details of—
(a) the total number of arrangements registered with the Secretary of State under section (Requirement to register foreign activity arrangements) or (Requirement to register foreign influence arrangements),
(b) the number of arrangements registered with the Secretary of State under section (Requirement to register foreign activity arrangements) or (Requirement to register foreign influence arrangements) during the relevant period,
(c) the total number of specified persons and foreign principals who have registered activities with the Secretary of State under section (Requirement to register activities of specified persons) or (Requirement to register foreign influence activities of foreign principals),
(d) the number of specified persons and foreign principals who have registered activities with the Secretary of State under section (Requirement to register activities of specified persons) or (Requirement to register foreign influence activities of foreign principals) during the relevant period,
(e) the number of information notices issued under section (Information notices) during the relevant period,
(f) the number of persons charged with an offence under this Part during the relevant period, and
(g) the number of persons convicted of an offence under this Part during the relevant period.
(3) ‘Relevant period’ means—
(a) the period of 12 months beginning with the day on which this section comes into force, and
(b) each subsequent period of 12 months.”—(Tom Tugendhat.)
This new Clause requires the Secretary of State to provide an annual report to Parliament on matters relating to the registration scheme.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Tom Tugendhat
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
New clause 27 requires the Secretary of State to prepare and publish an annual report to Parliament on the operation of FIRS. I have already spoken about the importance of transparency. Indeed, transparency is essential to the functioning not only of our democracy but of our entire state. The hon. Member for Halifax raised that issue on numerous occasions, and I have committed to working with her. The commitment to publish information about the scheme’s operation will help to ensure that the UK public is more informed about the scale and extent of foreign influence in our political affairs, as well as activity being undertaken for specified foreign powers or entities.
The information that the Secretary of State would be required to provide is as follows: the total number of foreign activity and foreign influence arrangements registered with the Secretary of State; the number of foreign activity and foreign influence arrangements registered with the Secretary of State over the previous year; the total number of specified persons and foreign principals who have registered activities with the Secretary of State; the number of specified persons and foreign principals who have registered activities with the Secretary of State over the previous year; the number of information notices issued over the previous year; the number of persons charged with a FIRS-related offence over the previous year; and the number of persons convicted of a FIRS-related offence over the previous year. The new clause acts as a safeguard by inviting parliamentary and public scrutiny of the operation of FIRS.
Holly Lynch
I thank the Minister for that explanation. We very much welcome new clause 27. My understanding is that the different elements of the scheme could come into effect at different times. Will the Minister confirm that if, for example, the requirement to register foreign influence arrangements becomes operational before the requirement to register foreign activity arrangements, or vice versa, the annual report will be due a year from the start date of the specific scheme, not a year after both parts of the scheme come into effect?
Tom Tugendhat
Yes, there is no question but that it should be according to when the first part of the scheme comes into effect, not when the whole scheme is done.
Maria Eagle
Briefly, I welcome the provisions for an annual report to give information to Parliament. I wonder whether the Minister might consider extending the requirements, when it comes to those who are charged and convicted, to include a need to make it clear which countries they come from, to give an overall view on the extent to which there are difficulties with particular places?
Tom Tugendhat
I take that point in the spirit in which it was made. I think that makes sense, but it should be possible to refer back through the registrations. If registrations have not been made, I take her point entirely.
Question put and agreed to.
New clause 27 accordingly read a Second time, and added to the Bill.
New Clause 28
Interpretation
‘(1) In this Part—
“foreign activity arrangement” has the meaning given by section (Requirement to register foreign activity arrangements);
“foreign influence arrangement” has the meaning given by section (Requirement to register foreign influence arrangements);
“foreign power” has the same meaning as in Part 1 (see section 25), subject to subsection (2);
“foreign principal” has the meaning given by section (Requirement to register foreign influence arrangements);
“political influence activity” has the meaning given by section (Meaning of “political influence activity”);
“recognised news publisher” has the meaning given by section (Requirement to register foreign influence arrangements);
“registered activity” means an activity registered with the Secretary of State under section (Requirement to register activities of specified persons) or (Requirement to register political influence activities of foreign principals);
“registered arrangement” means an arrangement registered with the Secretary of State under section (Requirement to register foreign activity arrangements) or (Requirement to register foreign influence arrangements);
“specified person” has the meaning given by section (Requirement to register foreign activity arrangements).
(2) For the purposes of this Part references in section 25 to a foreign State, or a foreign country or territory, do not include the Republic of Ireland.
(3) Any provision of this Part which does not apply in relation to a person (“P”) does not apply in relation to—
(a) a person who holds office in or under, or is an employee or other member of staff of, P (acting in that capacity);
(b) a person whom the Secretary of State reasonably considers to be exercising functions on behalf of P as if they are a person who holds office in or under, or as if they are an employee or other member of staff of, P (acting in that capacity).’ —(Tom Tugendhat.)
This new clause contains definitions relevant to the registration scheme.
Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.
New Clause 4
Proceedings relating to safety or interests of the United Kingdom
“(1) This section applies where a court is considering proceedings under Part 1 of this Act, where the proceedings involve the safety or interests of the United Kingdom.
(2) In proceedings to which this section applies, the court must take account of how the interests of the Secretary of State or of the Government of the United Kingdom may differ from the interests of the United Kingdom, in order to satisfy itself that the interests of the United Kingdom have been appropriately identified and considered.”—(Holly Lynch.)
Brought up, and read the First time.
Holly Lynch
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
New clause 4 is an attempt to make a clear distinction between what is in the Government’s interest and what is in the national interest, so that the two cannot be conflated. There are a number of new offences created under part 1 of the Bill, and a key condition running throughout those offences is that a person knows, or ought reasonably to know, that their conduct is prejudicial to the safety or interests of the United Kingdom. There are other conditions that must be met, with the foreign power condition perhaps being the most substantial.
The aim of new clause 4 is to ensure that a court considering proceedings in relation to part 1 offences must take account of how the interests of the Secretary of State, or the Government of the United Kingdom, may be slightly separate from the interests of the United Kingdom, in order to satisfy itself that the interests of the United Kingdom have been appropriately identified and considered. Members will recognise that there is already a difference between the safety of the United Kingdom and the interests of the United Kingdom, with the new offences encompassing both. I suspect there will be a great deal of consensus on safety, but to explicitly define and agree on interests I imagine would be much harder.
We worked through various examples as part of the deliberations on part 1 offences. One such example was whether, if the Government faced deliberate disruption enacting policy they deemed to be in the national interest, that would be enough to meet the threshold? If, for example, a deportation flight—the stuff of the Home Secretary’s dreams—was prevented from taking off because of protesters, would that be enough to meet the prejudicial to the national interest threshold? The Government might wish to argue that case, although it would be far from compromising national security.
We got some assurances from the Minister’s predecessor that national security laws would not transgress into conduct that may be irritating for the Government but lawful, or into prosecuting other criminal offences by treating them as unduly having national security implications. Beyond the specifics of the new offences created by the Bill, we also believe that new clause 4 would establish in principle the distinction between the Government’s political interests and the country’s national security.
I am explicit that the new clause, alongside new clause 5 and new clause 29, have at least in part been shaped by the meeting that we now have confirmation took place between the former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Boris Johnson), when he was Foreign Secretary, and former KGB officer Alexander Lebedev, at the height of the Salisbury poisoning. It is worth remembering that we did not have confirmation of that meeting when the Bill Committee first started, and the right hon. Member was still the Prime Minister. I do not know if that is an indication of how quickly things move in politics or of how long this Bill Committee has been going on for. However, it is the sort of example that warrants the separating out of Government and individual Minister’s political interests and national security interests. It has become too easy to suggest that answers could not be provided on that matter and others for security reasons, when actually getting to the bottom of what had gone on was very much in the national interest. It may not have been in the Government’s political interest, but that is the distinction that is important to put on a proper statutory footing.
Stuart C. McDonald
I support the objective of the new clause. When we were debating some of the offences in part 1, the SNP tabled various amendments to try to make it clear that the national interest and the interests of the Government are not necessarily the same thing—often, they are not the same thing at all. It appears that judicial authority says that, in essence, it is for the Government to decide what the national interest is; that does not really assist the position. Whether or not this new clause is the answer is something we will have to revisit again, but I express sympathy with the intention behind it.
Tom Tugendhat
I welcome the spirit with which the hon. Member for Halifax has entered into this discussion, and I appreciate her points. Making illegal those matters that irritate Ministers of the Crown would certainly make my life at home significantly quieter, as it would silence my children. Sadly, I think that trying to make case law for my family would be problematic.
It is certainly true that there is a difference between the interests of Ministers and the interests of an individual Minister, whether that be an ordinary Minister or a Prime Minister, and national security. Case law in the United Kingdom already recognises that in considering any prosecution in relation to offences to which the provisions regarding prejudice to the safety of the interests of the UK apply. The UK courts already consider the nature and risk to the safety and interests of the UK. Case law already makes clear that
“the safety or interests of the United Kingdom”
should be interpreted as the objects of state policy determined by the Crown on the advice of Ministers. That is notably different from protecting the particular interests of those in office.
Again, I appreciate the spirit with which the hon. Lady has entered into the conversation, but the provisions in part 1 to which the safety or interests test applies are measures that disrupt and respond to serious national security threats, such as those from espionage, sabotage and threats to the UK’s most sensitive sites. As I am sure hon. Members will agree, it is right that appropriate conditions—such as the test of whether conduct is carried out for, on behalf of, or with the intention to benefit a foreign power—are in place to limit the scope of the offences to the types of harmful activity we are targeting.
The combination of the conditions we apply to measures in the Bill mean that not only are the offences themselves proportionate, but an appropriately high bar has to be met to bring a prosecution. These conditions take us firmly outside the realm of merely leaking embarrassing or unauthorised disclosures, or indeed whistleblowing or domestic political opposition. The Law Commission shared that sentiment in the evidence it gave to the Committee—of course I was not present, but given her reference to the length of time in politics I am sure she will understand that.
Individuals and groups might not agree with Government policy, but it still represents the policy that the Government have been elected to carry out, so disclosing protected information from a foreign power can never be the right response to that. It would not be appropriate for the courts to second guess the merits of Government policy in this way. On the basis that the courts are well able to judge the difference between national interest and personal interest, I hope that the hon. Member will withdraw the amendment.
Holly Lynch
I suspect the Minister understands the points I am making and is sympathetic to what I am trying to get at. I put him on notice that, where I think there is information that could and should be in the public domain and I meet barriers relating to national security reasons preventing it from being in the public domain, I will be a thorn in his side every step of the way. With that veiled threat—
Holly Lynch
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 5
Ministerial conduct
“(1) This section applies in relation to any Minister of the Crown who engages with, or intends to engage with, or ought reasonably to know that they are about to engage with, a person who is a part of a foreign intelligence service.
(2) A Minister of the Crown may only engage with such a person if either of the following conditions are met—
(a) a senior civil servant is formally present at or party to the engagement, and a formal record of the engagement has been made by the senior civil servant; or
(b) a senior civil servant is not formally present at or party to the engagement, and a formal record of the engagement has not been made by a senior civil servant, but the written consent of the Prime Minister has been sought by the Minister of the Crown, and has been granted and formally recorded in writing.
(3) In this section ‘engagement’ includes meeting in person or via electronic means, and corresponding in writing or via electronic means.”—(Holly Lynch.)
Brought up, and read the First time.
Holly Lynch
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
New clause 5 is similar to the previous new clause and would mean that a Minister of the Crown may only engage with a person who is a part of a foreign intelligence service if either a senior civil servant is formally present at or party to the engagement, and a formal record of the engagement has been made by the senior civil servant; or a senior civil servant is not formally present at or party to the engagement, and a formal record of the engagement has not been made by a senior civil servant, but the written consent of the Prime Minister has been sought by the Minister of the Crown, and has been granted and formally recorded in writing. That would apply both to meetings in person and via electronic means. It would apply to any Minister of the Crown who engages with, or intends to engage with, or ought reasonably to know that they are about to engage with, a person who is a part of a foreign intelligence service. Failure to follow these rules should be a resignation matter.
The measures proposed throughout the Bill promise an extensive overhaul in establishing what constitutes meeting with and assisting a foreign power threat, including new offences and regimes covering almost all aspects of society. It is entirely right that we also consider the role of Ministers. I am afraid that, once again, the need for such a provision was born out of the conduct of the right hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip when he was the Foreign Secretary. However, there are other examples.
The right hon. Gentleman confirmed to the Liaison Committee that he met with former KGB officer Alexander Lebedev without officials and without permission at the height of the Salisbury poisoning back in 2018. To set the scene, that was immediately after the then Foreign Secretary had attended a meeting of NATO Foreign Ministers at NATO headquarters in Brussels to discuss the collective response to Russia’s use of Novichok on UK soil. In advance of that meeting, NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg outlined that Russia would be the first item on the agenda, after what he said were several years of Moscow’s “pattern of dangerous behaviour”, confirming, as the Prime Minister had already done, that:
“It is also highly likely that Russia was behind the nerve agent attack in Salisbury.”
That NATO meeting was on 27 April 2018.
The Foreign Secretary went straight from that NATO meeting to Palazzo Terranova in Italy for a weekend-long party hosted by Evgeny Lebedev, now Lord Lebedev. There he met with Evgeny Lebedev’s father, Alexander Lebedev, an ex-KGB officer. The Foreign Secretary attended the party with no security and no officials, despite his position being deemed to require round-the-clock protection from the Metropolitan police. There is a brief entry of ministerial interests on the Foreign Office website, where he declared an “overnight stay” at the party on 28 April, which is the only official record in existence.
While the Foreign Secretary was partying with Lord Lebedev and his father, the ex-KGB officer, the Novichok was still waiting to be found in a bin seven miles north of Salisbury. It was found by Charlie Rowley on 30 June, who survived his exposure to the Novichok. However, his partner, Dawn Sturgess, did not, having sprayed it directly on to her skin, believing it to be perfume.
In September 2018, the Prime Minister returned to update the House of Commons to confirm that, based on a body of intelligence, the Government had concluded that the two individuals named by the police and the Crown Prosecution Service were officers from the Russian military intelligence service, the GRU. The right hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip followed up in writing to the Liaison Committee in his letter dated 21 July 2022, saying:
“As far as I am aware, no Government business was discussed”
at that encounter with Alexander Lebedev. Needless to say, that one line presented far more questions than answers.
We have decided to keep the definition tight to someone who is a member of a foreign intelligence service. Committee members might point out that, in this particular scenario, given that Alexander Lebedev would describe himself as a former KGB officer, the right hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip would not necessarily be covered by the new clause. However, this new clause, new clause 4 and new clause 29 would work in combination to ensure that the gap in procedure exposed by the meeting I have just outlined would be closed down.
It is right to ensure that the Government and officials act with accountability and transparency. The new clause does not prevent such meetings taking place; it only formalises expectations around how any such encounter should be managed. The Government may argue that it is not necessary, as similar expectations are already provided for by the ministerial code, but the ministerial code was very much degraded in recent months, and was in effect when the meeting that I outlined took place, so there is very much a case for tighter measures.
The public have a right to expect the highest possible standards from their Government officials, in both their public and private lives. The new clause will ensure that Government officials adhere to strict clearance systems when dealing with the intelligence services of hostile foreign states. I hope the Government will welcome this opportunity to tighten standards and will support new clause 5.
Tom Tugendhat
I welcome the spirit in which the new clause was tabled. I understand the points made by the hon. Member for Halifax. As she knows very well, Ministers are already expected to uphold the ministerial code. I am not going to seek to defend the Administration of the right hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip; as the hon. Lady will know, we had our disagreements at that time, when I was chairing the Foreign Affairs Committee, and I put them on the record. Indeed, I attended the Liaison Committee hearing to which she referred.
It is important to look at where we are today and to recognise that the re-issuing of the ministerial code in May this year, which included proportionate sanctions, should be taken into account. It is also worth pointing out that the Bill already includes several measures to counter hostile activity, including updated espionage offences for disclosing or providing access to protected information and offences for engaging in preparatory conduct relating to espionage. That could just be a simple meeting and a cup of coffee.
In clause 3, the Bill also seeks to criminalise activity whereby a person either engages in conduct that they intend will materially assist a foreign intelligence service or knows or reasonably ought to know that conduct that they are engaged in is of a kind that it is reasonably possible may materially assist a foreign intelligence service. As the former head of GCHQ put it, this is all about making sure that others cannot construct a haystack in which to find a needle. It means that, for the first time, it will be a criminal offence to be a covert foreign agent and engage in activity that assists a foreign intelligence service.
To be clear to the Committee, the offences would capture Ministers of the Crown if they engaged in conduct that falls outside their official functions or capacity as a Minister. Moreover, ministerial conduct is principally a matter for the ministerial code and there are already transparency measures in place for Ministers of the Crown to formally record their engagements with external parties and declare any gifts and hospitality. If a Minister is with an external organisation or individual and finds themselves discussing official business without an official present—for example, at a social occasion—any significant content should be passed back to the Department as soon as possible after the event.
Although it would not be appropriate to comment on security or intelligence matters, what I can say is that Ministers are made fully aware of their responsibility to safeguard national security, including in respect of the standards of conduct expected of Ministers and how they discharge their duties in maintaining the security of Government business, as set out in the ministerial code. Although the new clause may seek to provide further accountability and propriety, it would not be appropriate to create new, separate provisions.
Overall, I consider that the existing mechanisms that are already in place to increase transparency around foreign influence in the UK political and governmental system, as well as the measures already in the Bill aimed at tackling and responding to the malign nature of seeking to assist a foreign intelligence service, are sufficient. I ask the hon. Member for Halifax to withdraw the new clause, although I recognise the pattern of actions that brought her to table it.
Holly Lynch
The Minister has gone through the pre-existing frameworks that should have prevented such a meeting from taking place, and suggests that those should be enough. Unfortunately, the example I gave shows that they were not enough. We still do not have all the answers we would like about what was discussed and what the nature of that engagement was, and the clarity that would satisfy us that there were no breaches of national security as part of that interaction. The Minister is right that all that should have been enough, but it was not in those circumstances, and as far as we can tell there were no real consequences in real time of that having taken place.
I have made my case strongly; however, as the Minister has put his personal views on the record and given his assurance that he understands the points I made and will continue to bear them in mind as we look at some of the protections in the round, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 6
Defences
“(1) In any proceedings for an offence under section 2 of this Act or section 5 of the Official Secrets Act 1989, it shall be a defence—
(a) that the disclosure in question was in the public interest, and
(b) the manner of the disclosure was also in the public interest.
(2) Whether a disclosure was in the public interest shall be determined having regard to—
(a) the subject matter of the disclosure,
(b) the harm caused by the disclosure, and
(c) any other relevant feature of the disclosure.
(3) Whether the manner of disclosure was in the public interest shall be determined having regard to—
(a) whether the disclosure has been made in good faith,
(b) if the disclosure relates to alleged misconduct, whether the individual reasonably believes that the information disclosed, and any allegation contained in it, are substantially true,
(c) whether the disclosure is made for the purposes of personal gain,
(d) the availability of any other effective authorised procedures for making the disclosure and whether those procedures were exercised, and
(e) whether, in all the circumstances of the case, it is reasonable for the disclosure to have been made in the relevant manner.”—(Mr Jones.)
This new clause introduces a public interest defence to the new disclosure offence created by clause 2, and the section 5 disclosure offence in the Official Secrets Act 1989. The proposed defence is modelled on the public interest defence in the Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Mr Jones
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
It will come as no surprise to the Committee that I am not moving the new clause as some bleeding-heart liberal, and I would certainly do nothing to undermine the security of our country. However, as can be seen from the names put to the new clause, it has cross-party support throughout the House, including on the Government Benches.
The new clause even has support in the Cabinet, from the Secretary of State for Wales, the right hon. and learned Member for South Swindon (Sir Robert Buckland), the former Justice Secretary. While he was off the Cabinet carousel—the system at the moment—he was clear in arguing for why we need a public interest defence. To quote from the opening paragraph of his article on “ConservativeHome” in December 2021:
“The principle of open government is too often seen as an issue for the left, but I firmly believe that it is profoundly Conservative to believe that transparent administration is what should lead to higher standards, greater efficiency and better value for taxpayers’ money. As Conservatives, we believe that the State should be our servant, not our master.”
I could not agree more.
Such a measure as this is long overdue. There are basically three arguments against it, which I have deduced over the past few months since I tabled the new clause: first, it will be too difficult, which is the obvious one that always comes out; secondly, if we are in favour of it, we will open the floodgates to leaks and will be a leakers’ charter; and finally, it will make it difficult for our security forces, because evidence would have to be put into court to defend such actions, even though that has to happen now anyway. In a minute, I will come on to reasons why that argument is nonsense.
In its 2015 report, the Law Commission argued for a public interest defence. Are there strong reasons why there should be criminalisation of the leaking information under the Official Secrets Act 1989? Yes, there are, but I would also strongly argue that there has to be a defence in the public interest where someone is disclosing serious wrongdoing in Government—that individual needs to be able to have recourse to that defence in the courts. The problem I have is that if we do nothing—which seems to be the Government’s approach—what we will have, which is what we have already, is leaving it up to juries. I would sooner have the defence outlined in law, so that people can use it and so that it is impossible for certain other people to use it.
The Law Commission said in its report,
“we cannot be certain that the current legislative scheme”
in the 1989 Act, which does not provide for a public interest defence,
“affords adequate protection to Article 10 rights under the ECHR.”
That is the right to freedom of speech. We have a recommendation from the Law Commission and we have the opportunity to act on it in this Bill. It seems that, like lots of things in the Bill, it has been put on a pile on somebody’s desk of things that are too hard to manage. It is a missed opportunity.
The other side to it is that the defence would act as a safety valve. I have said in earlier sittings that the Bill is a missed opportunity to reform the 1989 Act, and I am still bemused to know whether the Bill and that Act will work alongside one another. The 1989 Act is outdated: it does not recognise modern technology, as the Intelligence and Security Committee outlined in its Russia report in 2020. It also fails to protect the individual in cases in which they know of wrongdoing and release it into the public domain because they feel there is no other course of action.
We then come to how we define the defence. I am not suggesting that what I have put in the new clause is ideal, but the argument “It is far too difficult and we could never do this”—which is what certain individuals have said to me—is not right. If we look at what is already in law—employment law, I hasten to add—we see that there is a definition in the Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998. Can we cut and paste that definition? No, I do not think we can, but it certainly provides a template. It is a piece of employment law that prevents whistleblowers from being negatively treated or unfairly dismissed when reporting concerns. That is a starting point.
There are other aspects we could look at in terms of a definition. The subject matter of the disclosure will obviously have to be part of it, as will the seriousness of the misconduct exposed. We must consider the harm caused by the disclosure and the proportionality in that respect, as well as whether the disclosure was made in good faith. Certainly, if someone just dumped a load of data into the public domain, we could argue that that was not done in good faith and would not meet the test at all.
We must consider whether the disclosure is made for the purpose of personal gain. If someone is selling something, that certainly would not meet the criteria. There are factors such as whether the extent of the disclosure is no more than responsible and necessary for the purpose of exposing the relevant conduct, and whether the individual reasonably believes that the information disclosed and any allegations it contains are true. There is the availability of any other effective authorised proceedings; if there are no other ways to do it, that would be a defence. Lastly, we must consider whether in all circumstances and cases it is reasonable to disclose, as well as the manner in which the information was disclosed.
The Law Commission recommended another safety value, which is something I am open to, but it seems that the Government completely ignored that. The issue will not go away—that is the point. We want to protect our security services; I am sorry, but having done jury service myself I would not leave it to a jury to decide what the arguments are. At least if we had this defence, people could argue the legal points and use it as a defence. It is supported by many lawyers, by the right hon. and learned Member for South Swindon and by many newspaper editors. That is why I have moved the new clause.
My other two points are about the argument that if we cross this Rubicon, somehow the floodgates will open and there will be a green light for everyone to release information. There is no evidence of that at all. In Australia, New Zealand and Canada, where they have a similar public interest defence, there is no evidence that its use is increasing. The other argument that has been put to me is that introducing the defence would allow people like Julian Assange to use it as a defence, but that is absolute nonsense. The new clause would actually make the Bill Assange-proof, because anyone who data dumped could not use the public interest defence.
Finally, there is an argument that I find remarkable. I do not know where it has come from, but the argument is that if we put a public interest defence into law, we will somehow have a situation whereby the security services will have to disclose things in court. My response is that if there is a data dump or somebody is prosecuted under the Official Secrets Act, we still have to go to court, but we have closed hearings, which protect sensitive sources. I honestly do not understand why this has just been left off. I think it has been left in the “hard to do” pile and some people think, “Do we really want to upset the status quo?” We need to get the balance right between protecting our national secrets, which I would certainly argue we should, and allowing a legitimate balance between the powers of the state. That would perhaps not be a problem under the usual conventions, but in the previous debate my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax clearly demonstrated that we have a Government who seem to ignore every convention.
It is in that spirit that I move the new clause. I know that U-turns are in fashion at the moment among the current Government, and I wish and hope that if the Minister—with a new set of eyes on this matter—cannot agree to the new clause today, he will at least look at how we can incorporate a public interest defence into the Bill.
Holly Lynch
I thank my right hon. Friend for tabling new clause 6, and I thank you, Mr Gray, and Ms Ali for allowing a debate on its merits.
As my right hon. Friend has outlined, the new clause seeks to add a public interest defence to the new disclosure offence created by clause 2 and to the section 5 disclosure offence in the Official Secrets Act 1989. There is of course an undeniable requirement to protect from public disclosure information that, if revealed, could be harmful to our national security. However, for the security services to be able to function as they should within a democracy, they rely on the trust of the British people and their elected representatives, with enough transparency and oversight to make accountability a real part of their work.
As has been mentioned, three of our four Five Eyes partners already have a mechanism that provides a public interest defence with regard to disclosures of this nature. It is also well documented—this is a point made on Second Reading—that, as a country, we have increasingly asked juries to make their own determinations on public interest defences when considering judicial proceedings. We have seen that result in varied outcomes, with a great deal of discretion afforded to jury members in the absence of a clear legislative framework for them to start from.
We might also make the case that, in the event that someone feels they have an obligation to share information but there is no agreed and structured route through which to do that, the absence of an alternative whistleblowing procedure leaves them with limited options, often resulting in a decision to go public and take their chances in the courts.
The Law Commission examined all this in its incredibly detailed 2020 “Protection of Official Data” report—specifically, in chapter 8—and we are grateful to the authors of that report for their evidence at the start of the Committee stage. With the commission having engaged with a significant number of stakeholders, its report is clear in its recommendation to have a public interest defence.
The report’s authors deal with the complexities head on, saying:
“The public interest in national security and the public interest in transparent, accountable government are often in conflict. While, no doubt, public accountability can ensure that government is protecting national security, the relationship between security and accountability is nonetheless one of tension.”
They go on to say:
“Our concern in this part of the Report is to reconcile these competing interests (so far as possible). It is to propose a legal model that ensures that the price of protecting national security is not to undermine the rule of law (and vice versa). We are concerned to ensure that those with evidence of wrongdoing in Government do not feel that they must commit a serious criminal offence and take the law into their own hands, risking both the national security, and people's lives, in order to have that evidence properly investigated.”
Tom Tugendhat
I am conscious that another Minister is on their feet and a vote may be imminent so, if I may, I will whizz through my response.
Many people have looked at the public interest defence. Although there are differences of opinion, I would be happy to immediately assure the right hon. Member for North Durham that I will accompany him to a meeting with senior officials that he has requested in the past, but which has not yet happened. I will make sure that happens very soon; it is important that he hears the explanations of others and not just ministerial colleagues. I will make sure that happens imminently, because this is an important element. I appreciate the tone with which he has approached the issue; he is trying to be serious and sober in his reflection of the defence of those who are trying to do their best for our country but may indeed be doing harm as well.
I am not a believer argument in the floodgates argument—I do not believe that is a correct assessment of what could happen. It is, however, true that even a single release of some of this information could be extremely damaging to the national interest, as he is aware and would no doubt wish to avoid. I am very happy to have this conversation further and to cover various other issues.
It is also worth noting that other countries have a public interest defence, and we looked at them and the legislation. When considering reform, we looked particularly at the Five Eyes countries, but it is important to recognise the UK context in wider circumstances, so it would not be right to assume that a public interest defence that works for others is exactly the same as for this instance. I appreciate the right hon. Gentleman’s points, but I ask, on that basis, that he withdraw the clause and that we engage in further conversation.
Mr Jones
I thank the Minister. This issue is not going to go away, so we need to have further discussions. The Law Commission’s recommendations seem to have been ignored, and I think engagement with them would be useful before the passage of the Bill is complete. With the undertaking I have been given, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
The Chair
Before we move on, I should say that if we have a Division, or several Divisions, the Committee will be suspended for 15 minutes for the first one and 10 minutes for subsequent ones. If the discussion goes beyond 5.15 pm, which is of course our cut-off time, there will be no further time for debate thereafter, but we must return here for the decisions to be made whenever the Divisions are over.
New Clause 29
Registration of former employees of foreign security services
“(1) A former employee of a security or intelligence service of a foreign power who is present in the United Kingdom for more than 2 months must register their presence with the Secretary of State.
(2) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision about the information a person is required to provide to the Secretary of State when registering under this section.
(3) Failure to register as required by subsection (1) is an offence.
(4) A person commits an offence if, without reasonable excuse, the person fails to provide information required by virtue of subsection (2).
(5) A person commits an offence if—
(a) the person provides information to the Secretary of State by virtue of subsection (2),
(b) the information is false, inaccurate or misleading in a material way, and
(c) the person knows, or ought reasonably to know, that the information is false, inaccurate or misleading in a material way.
(6) An offence under this section is a foreign influence offence under section (Offences: penalties).”—(Holly Lynch.)
Brought up, and read the First time.
Holly Lynch
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
On considering the foreign influence registration scheme and its intended use, we felt that there was room to go further in relation to former employees of the intelligence services of other nations. New clause 29 will require all former employees of a security or intelligence service of a foreign power who are present in the United Kingdom for more than two months to register their presence with the Secretary of State. The Secretary of State has the discretion of making provisions by regulations about what information is required. We know that we are dealing with countries that are tasking their people to engage in a multitude of influence activities, from the loud and overt to the barely seen and covert, and everything in between.
Turning specifically to oligarchs and that culture, we have seen some individuals establish themselves almost as London celebrities. They are incredibly wealthy, and for some their status is built partly on the back of having been a former employee of an intelligence service. They make that clear as part of their persona, and it is the “former” bit that gives them a degree of cover. They have the connections and insight to be an interesting and potentially helpful ally to some of our politicians and decision makers, especially if they are incredibly wealthy, as so many oligarchs are, yet are deemed to be arm’s length enough for there to be the confidence for those relationships to grow largely unabated.
The notion of systemic opposition in Russia in particular provides for a degree of criticism of Putin and his regime as a means of occupying the space where actual opposition should be, and once again provides a degree of cover for those oligarchs overseas who engage in some criticism—enough to satisfy those they need to satisfy that they are indeed critics—before later mounting staunch defences of their former regimes when necessary. In addition to the FIRS framework set out in the Government’s new clauses, this is another intended layer of transparency, aimed precisely at those people, to put on a formal footing both those who are open about their previous work and those we may not otherwise know about.
We have discussed that those engaged in espionage are often not typical in any way. They will have received training, and will be incredibly capable and resourceful. Even those who have truly moved away from careers in the intelligence services will not lose overnight the ability to exercise those skills. I take on board that those working for security services have the right to a life after those careers; however, given that there are regimes known to pressurise, blackmail, or force co-operation from their people, even if they have truly walked away from that environment, there would be merit in the Secretary of State knowing where those vulnerabilities lie. I hope that the Minister will see the merit in this addition to the foreign influence registration scheme and adopt new clause 29.
Tom Tugendhat
I note the proposed new clause, and I hope that the hon. Member for Halifax will take my response in the way I intend it. Either foreign intelligence agents are already declared, in which case they are actively engaged in conversations with our intelligence services, or they are undeclared, in which case asking them to register may be something that we can hope for, but would be unlikely. I understand the intention behind the new clause, although I question whether it is proportionate, given that we are already trying to get anybody who is connected to a foreign agent to be registered. I feel that it may be more hopeful and aspirational than a realistic attempt to change other people’s actions.
Holly Lynch
The Minister absolutely understands the point that I was making. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Schedule 1
Disclosure orders
Part 1
England and Wales and Northern Ireland
Introductory
1 (1) This Part of this Schedule applies in England and Wales and Northern Ireland.
(2) “Relevant investigation” means an investigation into the identification of relevant property or its movement or use.
(3) “Relevant property” means—
(a) money or other property which is likely to be used for the purposes of foreign power threat activity, or
(b) proceeds of involvement in foreign power threat activity.
(4) The reference to proceeds of involvement in foreign power threat activity includes a reference to any money, other property or benefit in money’s worth, which wholly or partly, and directly or indirectly, represents the proceeds of the involvement (including payments or rewards in connection with the involvement).
(5) “Appropriate officer” means—
(a) a constable, or
(b) a National Crime Agency officer.
Disclosure orders
2 (1) An appropriate officer may apply to a judge for a disclosure order.
(2) The application must state that a person or property specified in the application is subject to a relevant investigation and the order is sought for the purposes of the investigation.
(3) The judge may grant the application if satisfied that conditions 1 to 3 are met.
(4) Condition 1 is that there are reasonable grounds for suspecting that the property specified in the application is relevant property.
(5) Condition 2 is that there are reasonable grounds for believing that information which may be provided in compliance with a requirement imposed under the order is likely to be of substantial value, whether by itself or with other information, to the investigation.
(6) Condition 3 is that there are reasonable grounds for believing that it is in the public interest for the information to be provided, having regard to the benefit likely to accrue to the investigation if the information is obtained.
(7) A disclosure order is an order authorising an appropriate officer to give to any person the officer considers has relevant information notice in writing requiring the person to do any or all of the following with respect to any matter relevant to the investigation—
(a) answer questions, either at a time specified in the notice or at once, at a place so specified;
(b) provide information specified in the notice, by a time and in a manner so specified;
(c) produce documents, or documents of a description, specified in the notice, either at or by a time so specified or at once, and in a manner so specified.
(8) “Relevant information” means information (whether or not contained in a document) which the appropriate officer considers to be relevant to the investigation.
(9) A person is not bound to comply with a requirement imposed by a notice given under a disclosure order unless evidence of authority to give the notice is produced.
(10) An appropriate officer may not make an application under this paragraph unless the officer is a senior officer or is authorised to do so by a senior officer.
Supplementary provision
3 (1) A disclosure order does not confer the right to require a person—
(a) to answer any question,
(b) to provide any information, or
(c) to produce any document or other material,
which the person would be entitled to refuse to answer, provide or produce on grounds of legal professional privilege in proceedings in the High Court.
(2) But a lawyer may be required to provide the name and address of a client.
(3) A disclosure order does not confer the right to require a person to produce excluded material.
(4) A disclosure order has effect despite any restriction on the disclosure of information imposed by an enactment or otherwise.
(5) An appropriate officer may take copies of any documents produced in compliance with a requirement to produce them imposed under a disclosure order.
(6) The documents may be retained for so long as it is necessary to retain them (as opposed to a copy of them) in connection with the investigation for the purposes of which the order was made.
(7) But if an appropriate officer has reasonable grounds for believing that—
(a) the documents may need to be produced for the purposes of any legal proceedings, and
(b) they might otherwise be unavailable for those purposes,
they may be retained until the proceedings are concluded.
(8) An appropriate officer may retain documents under sub-paragraph (7) only if the officer is a senior officer or is authorised to do so by a senior officer.
Applications
4 An application for a disclosure order may be made without notice to a judge in chambers.
Discharge or variation
5 (1) An application to discharge or vary a disclosure order may be made to the Crown Court by—
(a) the person who applied for the order;
(b) any person affected by the order.
(2) If the application for the disclosure order was made by a constable, an application to discharge or vary the order may be made by a different constable.
(3) If the application for the disclosure order was made by a National Crime Agency officer, an application to discharge or vary the order may be made by a different National Crime Agency officer.
(4) An appropriate officer may not make an application to discharge or vary a disclosure order unless the officer is a senior officer or is authorised to do so by a senior officer.
(5) The Crown Court may—
(a) discharge the order;
(b) vary the order.
Rules of court
6 Rules of court may make provision as to the practice and procedure to be followed in connection with proceedings relating to disclosure orders.
Offences
7 (1) A person commits an offence if without reasonable excuse the person fails to comply with a requirement imposed under a disclosure order.
(2) A person guilty of an offence under sub-paragraph (1) is liable—
(a) on summary conviction in England and Wales, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding the maximum term for summary offences or a fine (or both);
(b) on summary conviction in Northern Ireland, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months or a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale (or both).
(3) A person commits an offence if, in purported compliance with a requirement imposed under a disclosure order, the person—
(a) makes a statement which the person knows to be false or misleading in a material particular, or
(b) recklessly makes a statement which is false or misleading in a material particular.
(4) A person guilty of an offence under sub-paragraph (3) is liable—
(a) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 2 years or a fine (or both);
(b) on summary conviction in England and Wales, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding the general limit in a magistrates’ court or a fine (or both);
(c) on summary conviction in Northern Ireland, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months or a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum (or both).
Statements
8 (1) A statement made by a person in response to a requirement imposed under a disclosure order may not be used in evidence against that person in criminal proceedings.
(2) Sub-paragraph (1) does not apply on a prosecution for—
(a) an offence under paragraph 7(3),
(b) an offence under section 5 of the Perjury Act 1911 or Article 10 of the Perjury (Northern Ireland) Order 1979 (S.I. 1979/1714 (N.I. 19)) (false statements), or
(c) some other offence where, in giving evidence, the person makes a statement inconsistent with the statement mentioned in sub-paragraph (1).
(3) A statement may not be used against a person by virtue of sub-paragraph (2)(c) unless—
(a) evidence relating to it is adduced, or
(b) a question relating to it is asked,
by or on behalf of the person in the proceedings arising out of the prosecution.
Interpretation
9 (1) This paragraph applies for the interpretation of this Part of this Schedule.
(2) “Disclosure order” has the meaning given by paragraph 2.
(3) “Judge” means—
(a) in relation to England and Wales, a judge entitled to exercise the jurisdiction of the Crown Court;
(b) in relation to Northern Ireland, a judge of the Crown Court.
(4) “Senior officer” means—
(a) a constable of at least the rank of superintendent;
(b) the Director General of the National Crime Agency or any other National Crime Agency officer authorised by the Director General (whether generally or specifically) for this purpose.
(5) “Document” means anything in which information of any description is recorded.
(6) “Excluded material”—
(a) in relation to England and Wales, has the same meaning as in the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984;
(b) in relation to Northern Ireland, has the same meaning as in the Police and Criminal Evidence (Northern Ireland) Order 1989 (S.I. 1989/1341 (N.I. 12)).
(7) The terms defined in paragraph 1 have the meanings given in that paragraph.
Part 2
Scotland
Introductory
10 (1) This Part of this Schedule applies in Scotland.
(2) In this Part of this Schedule “relevant investigation” and “relevant property” have the same meaning as in Part 1 of this Schedule.
Disclosure orders
11 (1) The Lord Advocate may apply to the High Court of Justiciary for a disclosure order.
(2) The application must state that a person or property specified in the application is subject to a relevant investigation and the order is sought for the purposes of the investigation.
(3) The court may grant the application if satisfied that conditions 1 to 3 are met.
(4) Condition 1 is that there are reasonable grounds for suspecting that the property specified in the application is relevant property.
(5) Condition 2 is that there are reasonable grounds for believing that information which may be provided in compliance with a requirement imposed under the order is likely to be of substantial value, whether by itself or with other information, to the investigation.
(6) Condition 3 is that there are reasonable grounds for believing that it is in the public interest for the information to be provided, having regard to the benefit likely to accrue to the investigation if the information is obtained.
(7) A disclosure order is an order authorising the Lord Advocate to give to any person the Lord Advocate considers has relevant information notice in writing requiring the person to do any or all of the following with respect to any matter relevant to the investigation—
(a) answer questions, either at a time specified in the notice or at once, at a place so specified;
(b) provide information specified in the notice, by a time and in a manner so specified;
(c) produce documents, or documents of a description, specified in the notice, either at or by a time so specified or at once, and in a manner so specified.
(8) “Relevant information” means information (whether or not contained in a document) which the Lord Advocate considers to be relevant to the investigation.
(9) A person is not bound to comply with a requirement imposed by a notice given under a disclosure order unless evidence of authority to give the notice is produced.
Supplementary provision
12 (1) A disclosure order does not confer the right to require a person—
(a) to answer any question,
(b) to provide any information, or
(c) to produce any document,
which the person would be entitled to refuse to answer, provide or produce in legal proceedings on grounds of confidentiality of communications.
(2) A disclosure order has effect despite any obligation as to secrecy or other restriction on the disclosure of information imposed by an enactment or otherwise.
(3) The Lord Advocate may take copies of any documents produced in compliance with a requirement to produce them imposed under a disclosure order.
(4) The documents may be retained for so long as it is necessary to retain them (as opposed to a copy of them) in connection with the investigation for the purposes of which the order was made.
(5) But if the Lord Advocate has reasonable grounds for believing that—
(a) the documents may need to be produced for the purposes of any legal proceedings, and
(b) they might otherwise be unavailable for those purposes,
they may be retained until the proceedings are concluded.
Applications
13 An application for a disclosure order may be made without notice to a judge of the High Court of Justiciary.
Discharge or variation
14 (1) An application to discharge or vary a disclosure order may be made to the High Court of Justiciary by—
(a) the Lord Advocate;
(b) any person affected by the order.
(2) The High Court of Justiciary may—
(a) discharge the order;
(b) vary the order.
Rules of court
15 (1) Provision may be made in rules of court as to the discharge and variation of disclosure orders.
(2) Rules of court are, without prejudice to section 305 of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995, to be made by act of adjournal.
Offences
16 (1) A person commits an offence if without reasonable excuse the person fails to comply with a requirement imposed under a disclosure order.
(2) A person guilty of an offence under sub-paragraph (1) is liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months or a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale (or both).
(3) A person commits an offence if, in purported compliance with a requirement imposed under a disclosure order, the person—
(a) makes a statement which the person knows to be false or misleading in a material particular, or
(b) recklessly makes a statement which is false or misleading in a material particular.
(4) A person guilty of an offence under sub-paragraph (3) is liable—
(a) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years or a fine (or both);
(b) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months or a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum (or both).
Statements
17 (1) A statement made by a person in response to a requirement imposed under a disclosure order may not be used in evidence against that person in criminal proceedings.
(2) Sub-paragraph (1) does not apply on a prosecution for—
(a) an offence under paragraph 16(3),
(b) perjury, or
(c) some other offence where, in giving evidence, the person makes a statement inconsistent with the statement mentioned in sub-paragraph (1).
(3) A statement may not be used against a person by virtue of sub-paragraph (2)(c) unless—
(a) evidence relating to it is adduced, or
(b) a question relating to it is asked,
by or on behalf of the person in the proceedings arising out of the prosecution.
Interpretation
18 (1) This paragraph applies for the interpretation of this Part of this Schedule.
(2) “Disclosure order” has the meaning given by paragraph 11.
(3) “Document” means anything in which information of any description is recorded.”—(Tom Tugendhat.)
This new Schedule provides for disclosure orders to be made. These orders authorise constables and NCA officers (the Lord Advocate in Scotland) to require information for the purpose of relevant investigations as defined in paragraph 1 of the Schedule.
Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.
New Schedule 2
Customer information orders
1 (1) An appropriate officer may apply to a judge for a customer information order.
(2) The judge may grant the application if satisfied that—
(a) the order is sought for the purposes of an investigation into foreign power threat activity, and
(b) the order will enhance the effectiveness of the investigation.
(3) “Appropriate officer” means—
(a) in relation to England and Wales or Northern Ireland, a constable or a National Crime Agency officer;
(b) in relation to Scotland, the procurator fiscal.
(4) The application must state that—
(a) a person specified in the application is subject to an investigation within sub-paragraph (2)(a) and the order is sought for the purposes of the investigation;
(b) the order is sought against the financial institution or financial institutions specified in the application.
(5) The application may specify—
(a) all financial institutions,
(b) a particular description, or particular descriptions, of financial institutions, or
(c) a particular financial institution or particular financial institutions.
(6) A customer information order is an order authorising an appropriate officer to give to a financial institution covered by the application notice in writing requiring it to provide any customer information it has relating to the person specified in the application.
(7) The financial institution must provide the information at or by the time, and in a manner, specified in the notice.
(8) A financial institution is not bound to comply with a requirement imposed by a notice given under a customer information order unless evidence of authority to give the notice is produced.
(9) An appropriate officer may not make an application under this paragraph unless the officer is a senior officer or is authorised to do so by a senior officer.
(10) Sub-paragraph (9) does not apply in relation to Scotland.
Supplementary provision
2 A customer information order has effect despite any obligation as to secrecy or other restriction on the disclosure of information imposed by an enactment or otherwise.
Applications
3 An application for a customer information order may be made without notice to a judge in chambers.
Discharge or variation
4 (1) An application to discharge or vary a customer information order may be made to the court by—
(a) the person who applied for the order;
(b) any person affected by the order.
(2) If the application for the customer information order was made by a constable, an application to discharge or vary the order may be made by a different constable.
(3) If the application for the customer information order was made by a National Crime Agency officer, an application to discharge or vary the order may be made by a different National Crime Agency officer.
(4) An appropriate officer may not make an application under this paragraph unless the officer is a senior officer or is authorised to do so by a senior officer.
(5) Sub-paragraph (4) does not apply in relation to Scotland.
(6) The court may—
(a) discharge the order;
(b) vary the order.
Rules of court
5 (1) Rules of court may make provision as to the practice and procedure to be followed in connection with proceedings relating to customer information orders.
(2) In Scotland rules of court are, without prejudice to section 305 of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995, to be made by act of adjournal.
Offences
6 (1) A person commits an offence if without reasonable excuse the person fails to comply with a requirement imposed under a customer information order.
(2) A person guilty of an offence under sub-paragraph (1) is liable—
(a) on summary conviction in England and Wales, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding the maximum term for summary offences or a fine (or both);
(b) on summary conviction in Northern Ireland, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months or a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale (or both);
(c) on summary conviction in Scotland, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months or a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale (or both).
Statements
7 (1) A statement made by a person in response to a requirement imposed under a customer information order may not be used in evidence against them in criminal proceedings.
(2) Sub-paragraph (1) does not apply on a prosecution for an offence where, in giving evidence, the person makes a statement inconsistent with the statement mentioned in sub-paragraph (1).
(3) A statement may not be used against a person by virtue of sub-paragraph (2) unless—
(a) evidence relating to it is adduced, or
(b) a question relating to it is asked,
by or on behalf of the person in the proceedings arising out of the prosecution.
Interpretation
8 (1) This paragraph applies for the interpretation of this Schedule.
(2) “Appropriate officer” has the meaning given by paragraph 1(3).
(3) “The court” means—
(a) in relation to England and Wales or Northern Ireland, the Crown Court;
(b) in relation to Scotland, the sheriff.
(4) “Customer information”—
(a) in relation to England and Wales or Northern Ireland, has the meaning given by section 364 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002;
(b) in relation to Scotland, has the meaning given by section 398 of that Act.
(5) “Financial institution” has the same meaning as in Schedule 6 to the Terrorism Act 2000 (see paragraph 6 of that Schedule).
(6) “Judge” means—
(a) in relation to England and Wales, a judge entitled to exercise the jurisdiction of the Crown Court;
(b) in relation to Northern Ireland, a judge of the Crown Court;
(c) in relation to Scotland, the sheriff.
(7) “Senior officer” means—
(a) a constable of at least the rank of superintendent;
(b) the Director General of the National Crime Agency or any other National Crime Agency officer authorised by the Director General (whether generally or specifically) for this purpose.”—(Tom Tugendhat.)
This new Schedule provides for customer information orders to be made. These orders authorise constables and NCA officers (the procurator fiscal in Scotland) to obtain customer information from financial institutions.
Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.
New Schedule 3
Account monitoring orders
1 (1) An appropriate officer may apply to a judge for an account monitoring order.
(2) The judge may grant the application if satisfied that—
(a) the order is sought for the purposes of an investigation into foreign power threat activity, and
(b) the order will enhance the effectiveness of the investigation.
(3) “Appropriate officer” means—
(a) in relation to England and Wales or Northern Ireland, a constable or a National Crime Agency officer;
(b) in relation to Scotland, the procurator fiscal.
(4) The application must state that the order is sought against the financial institution specified in the application in relation to information which—
(a) relates to an account or accounts held at the institution by the person specified in the application (whether solely or jointly with another), and
(b) is of the description so specified.
(5) The application may specify information relating to—
(a) all accounts held by the person specified in the application at the financial institution so specified,
(b) a particular description, or particular descriptions, of accounts so held, or
(c) a particular account, or particular accounts, so held.
(6) An account monitoring order is an order that the financial institution specified in the application must—
(a) for the period specified in the order,
(b) in the manner so specified,
(c) at or by the time or times so specified, and
(d) at the place or places so specified,
provide information of the description specified in the application to an appropriate officer.
(7) The period stated in an account monitoring order must not exceed the period of 90 days beginning with the day on which the order is made.
Applications
2 An application for an account monitoring order may be made without notice to a judge in chambers.
Discharge or variation
3 (1) An application to discharge or vary an account monitoring order may be made to the court by—
(a) the person who applied for the order;
(b) any person affected by the order.
(2) If the application for the account monitoring order was made by a constable, an application to discharge or vary the order may be made by a different constable.
(3) If the application for the account monitoring order was made by a National Crime Agency officer, an application to discharge or vary the order may be made by a different National Crime Agency officer.
(4) The court may—
(a) discharge the order;
(b) vary the order.
Rules of court
4 (1) Rules of court may make provision as to the practice and procedure to be followed in connection with proceedings relating to account monitoring orders.
(2) In Scotland rules of court are, without prejudice to section 305 of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995, to be made by act of adjournal.
Effect of orders
5 (1) In England and Wales and Northern Ireland, an account monitoring order has effect as if it were an order of the court.
(2) An account monitoring order has effect in spite of any obligation as to secrecy or other restriction on the disclosure of information imposed by an enactment or otherwise.
Statements
6 (1) A statement made by a person in response to an account monitoring order may not be used in evidence against them in criminal proceedings.
(2) But sub-paragraph (1) does not apply—
(a) in the case of proceedings for contempt of court;
(b) on a prosecution for an offence where, in giving evidence, the person makes a statement inconsistent with the statement mentioned in sub-paragraph (1).
(3) A statement may not be used against a person by virtue of sub-paragraph (2)(b) unless—
(a) evidence relating to it is adduced, or
(b) a question relating to it is asked,
by or on behalf of the person in the proceedings arising out of the prosecution.
Interpretation
7 (1) This paragraph applies for the interpretation of this Schedule.
(2) “Appropriate officer” has the meaning given by paragraph 1(3).
(3) “The court” means—
(a) in relation to England and Wales or Northern Ireland, the Crown Court;
(b) in relation to Scotland, the sheriff.
(4) “Financial institution” has the same meaning as in Schedule 6 to the Terrorism Act 2000 (see paragraph 6 of that Schedule).
(5) “Judge” means—
(a) in relation to England and Wales, a judge entitled to exercise the jurisdiction of the Crown Court;
(b) in relation to Northern Ireland, a judge of the Crown Court;
(c) in relation to Scotland, the sheriff.”—(Tom Tugendhat.)
This new Schedule provides for account monitoring orders to be made. These orders may require financial institutions to provide specified information relating to accounts.
Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.
Tom Tugendhat
I beg to move amendment 66, Title, line 3, after “2007;” insert
“for the registration of certain arrangements with, and activities of, specified persons and foreign principals;”
This amendment amends the long title to add a reference to the registration scheme.
Tom Tugendhat
This is a simple change in the title of the Bill and I hope that everyone can support it.
Amendment 66 agreed to.
The Chair
Order. No, no—we have not finished yet. Hang on.
Question proposed, That the Chair do report the Bill, as amended, to the House.
Holly Lynch
I am so grateful for your guidance, Mr Gray. I want to put on the record my thanks to some of those who have supported the Committee’s deliberations and made our scrutiny possible. I thank the Clerks—Bradley Albrow in particular has been utterly unflappable, often in the face of absolute chaos. He has been a massive help to me and, I am sure, to many other Members, and I thank him for his services.
I also thank Home Office officials and the UK intelligence community, who, I think all Members will agree, have been transparent and engaged in this process, ensuring that we are—given the subject matter—as informed as we can be. I have met several members of the security services over the course of the Bill Committee; funnily enough, I do not have full names for any of them. I thank MI5 director general Ken McCallum and his team for all their support. I also thank Detective Superintendent Darren Hassard and Commander Richard Smith from counter-terrorism policing for their insight on provisions relating to their work, as well as Professor Thom Brookes and senior lecturer and retired police office Owen West for their invaluable assistance. May I also thank my incredibly dedicated parliamentary assistant, Jamie Welham?
I have been very ably assisted by my fellow shadow Front-Bench colleagues as well as by Labour Back Benchers, and I am eternally grateful to them. As we reach Report, I look forward to following up with the Minister on the detail of exactly what has been promised.
Tom Tugendhat
May I thank the shadow Minister, the Member for Halifax—she has been of tremendous assistance to me in the very unusual position that I have found myself in—as well as Opposition Members? I also thank enormously my hon. Friends, who have been extraordinarily generous supporters at times when I have been quite literally learning on the job.
I also thank the Clerks—particularly Chris, who was my first Clerk on the Foreign Affairs Committee, which brought me right back home—Home Office officials, the intelligence community, with whom it is such a pleasure to work again, and of course all those who have contributed to the Bill, including you, Mr Gray. Thank you very much indeed.
The Chair
I will ensure that those thanks are passed on.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill, as amended, to be reported.
Trade (Australia and New Zealand) Bill (Fourth sitting)
Tuesday 18th October 2022
(1 year, 6 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Trade (Australia and New Zealand) Act 2023 View all Trade (Australia and New Zealand) Act 2023 Debates Read Hansard Text Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 18 October 2022 - (18 Oct 2022)
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 2 / Noes: 10 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 2 / Noes: 10 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 7 / Noes: 10 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 7 / Noes: 10 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 7 / Noes: 10 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 2 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 2 / Noes: 8 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 2 / Noes: 8 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 2 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 6 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Chair
I remind the Committee that with this we are discussing the following:
Amendment 4, in clause 1, page 1, line 15, at end insert—
“(3A) Where the appropriate authority is a Minister of the Crown, regulations under subsection (1) may not be made until the appropriate authority has consulted the relevant Scottish Ministers in relation to any matters affecting farming in Scotland.”
Amendment 5, in clause 1, page 1, line 15, at end insert—
“(3A) Regulations under subsection (1) may not be made before completion of such public consultation as the appropriate authority considers appropriate with the relevant—
(a) Scottish ministers,
(b) Welsh ministers,
(c) department of the Northern Ireland Executive, and
(d) representatives of the English Regions.”
Amendment 7, in clause 1, page 1, line 15, at end insert—
“(3A) Regulations under subsection (1) may not be made before completion of a review by the Trade and Agriculture Commission of the potential impact of the procurement Chapters on industry in the United Kingdom.”
Amendment 20, in clause 1, page 1, line 15, at end insert—
“(3A) Regulations under subsection (1) may not be made before publication of an impact assessment setting out the potential impact of the procurement Chapters on—
(a) employment rights and human rights in the United Kingdom, and
(b) climate change.”
Amendment 22, in clause 1, page 1, line 15, at end insert—
“(3A) Regulations under subsection (1) may not be made before publication of an impact assessment setting out the potential impact of the procurement Chapters on—
(a) Scotland,
(b) Wales,
(c) Northern Ireland and
(d) English Regions.”
Gareth Thomas (Harrow West) (Lab/Co-op)
Thank you, Mr Twigg, for the opportunity to resume my speech in this debate that was opened by the hon. Member for Airdrie and Shotts. I will speak in particular to amendments 5, 7, 20 and 22.
It is a particular joy that you are chairing the afternoon sitting, Mr Twigg, because you will know, having been both a Minister and a shadow Minister, just how much the odds are stacked against a shadow Minister in a Bill Committee, with 1,000-plus civil servants backing up the Minister versus just one researcher and, fortunately, some very high-quality Labour colleagues. The odds are very uneven.
When this morning’s sitting ended, I had begun some preliminary remarks on the case for amendment 5. I was about to highlight some of the issues around the differences between the New Zealand free trade agreement procurement chapter and the Australia FTA procurement chapter. I suspect that businesses will need some help to navigate those differences, so consultation with interested businesses across the UK would seem sensible.
It is tempting to think that the differences are so marginal that they can be ignored and that any flaws in the procurement chapters can be swept away by the upcoming procurement Bill or our accession to the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership. As the Minister briefly alluded to, with the CPTPP not yet on the statute book and with plenty of issues to be addressed before it gets there—if it does—we have to get the trade deal procurement chapters and their implementation right, as they will, without question, affect the legal landscape in which businesses bid for contracts here in the UK and in which British businesses bid for contracts in Australia and New Zealand.
Not only are there subtle and important differences between the New Zealand and Australia deal procurement chapters, but they are not the only such chapters that we have signed up to since our departure from the European Union; of course, we have the procurement chapter in the deal that the previous Prime Minister negotiated with the European Union. Again, there are subtle but none the less significant differences between the EU procurement chapter and the Australia and New Zealand chapters. It would seem an obvious and sensible thing for Ministers to embrace some help to navigate those differences, and amendment 5 would help them to do that.
Where do the differences lie? It is important to remember that the Government procurement agreement is the foundation text for procurement negotiations. The procurement chapter in the EU deal—the first we signed—keeps the GPA text and builds upwards from it. I hope to come to the evidence of the procurement expert Professor Sanchez-Graells in a little bit. He argues that the text of the procurement chapter in the Australia deal not only replicates but, crucially, modifies the text of the GPA. That creates a GPA-minus agreement and risks all sorts of complications and legal problems when bidding for contracts, both here in the UK for Australian and New Zealand businesses, and in Australia and New Zealand for British businesses.
Another reason that we should perhaps consult firms is that, as I understand it from the evidence that Professor Sanchez-Graells gave us, a UK firm could be barred from all remedies—the interim relief remedy, judicial review, as well as full redress, compensation—if they felt they were being unfairly treated in an Australian Government tender process, on public interest grounds. In a similar process in Australia, a French firm could be barred from interim relief but not from a redress claim. So the French firm could potentially secure compensation if it was treated unfairly if the contract was moved forward on public interest grounds, but the British firm could not. Apparently, that is because the UK firm’s rights are considered under the UK-Australia FTA, while the French firm’s rights would be governed by France’s membership of the Government procurement agreement.
Lloyd Russell-Moyle (Brighton, Kemptown) (Lab/Co-op)
Is not this another worrying sign that the trade deals and the Bill often sell British businesses short? British businesses are being deprived of rights that they currently have. I am sure my hon. Friend will confirm that, if we pass the Bill without amendment, it will mean that British businesses have less access and security in the Australian and New Zealand markets than they currently do under the GPA rules that extend to everyone already.
Gareth Thomas
That is certainly my understanding of the evidence that Professor Sanchez-Graells gave this Committee, the Select Committee on International Trade in this place, and the International Agreements Committee in the other place.
Let me spell out for the Committee where the problem lies. As I understand it, the Government procurement agreement allows countries to bar access to some but not all remedies, on public interest grounds, for companies that are unhappy with Government procurement decisions, but, crucially, it does not allow a ban on remedies involving compensation. That is the difference with the Australia FTA procurement chapter, which does allow a ban on remedies involving compensation.
Potentially, the firms of other GPA countries will have more comfort and ability to risk tendering for big Australian Government contracts, because they will know that they have some access to remedies if things go wrong in the procurement process and they want to try to get compensation. As my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown rightly says, it takes some skill to negotiate a worse position for British businesses in terms of access to remedies than the situation we have now. That is probably not the biggest mistake that the now Prime Minister has made in her time in office, but it feels like a significant issue, and I look forward to the Minister addressing it.
Government procurement matters enormously. We have touched a little on some of the reasons for that. It helps if Government procurement is done well. One of the reasons why amendment 5 is necessary is to ensure that we do not make the current set-up for Government procurement in the UK worse but, instead, enhance it. Done well, Government procurement can help to build supply chain resilience. We saw the significance of that during the covid lockdowns, when our dependence on China became ever clearer and the need to re-onshore some of our supply chains became a topic for discussion by business and, I suspect, in Whitehall.
We are all too familiar with the horror stories about some of the dodgy personal protective equipment that was procured. We understand the context in which some of those decisions were made, but it is striking that Transparency International, with which I worked when I was a development Minister trying to tackle corruption in developing countries, felt the need to investigate the Government procurement market for PPE. It identified some 73 contracts, worth 20% of all the contracts, that it said raised one or more red flags for possible corruption. That suggests there is work to be done to improve the quality of Government procurement. The National Audit Office also highlighted concerns, where the Government admitted that they were not getting full value for money on PPE.
We also know that good conditions for Government procurement can create more choice and more scope for innovation, and can achieve better value for money. One thinks about the digital procurement expertise that we need, and the potential for artificial intelligence to help revolutionise public services. We need to make sure that the framework under which Government procurement contracts are being offered works well, and that this new injection of uncertainty—but also, potentially, enhanced opportunities for other firms to come into the Government procurement market—does not destabilise the UK procurement market but improves things. A bit of consultation might help in that regard.
I touched on some issues around levelling up, which, to my surprise, prompted murmurs of disagreement from Government Members. I understood from their chuntering that they think everything is rosy with Government procurement outside London and the south-east. However, some figures I have seen from the House of Commons Library suggest that at the moment, there is a clear bias in the Government procurement market towards businesses operating in London and the south-east. The last thing we would want is for the procurement chapters of the Australia and New Zealand trade agreements to exacerbate the difficulties for businesses, not only in London and the south-east but in the west midlands, the north-west, the north-east or the east of England, that are trying to get into the Government procurement market.
House of Commons Library data demonstrates that of the 445 most lucrative contracts awarded by central Government in 2019, 202 went to companies in London or the south-east. That does not suggest that Ministers are using Government procurement to level up. We know they are not doing much else on levelling up, so one would hope that they would take the opportunity to consult more, as our amendment 5 would require them to, in order to ensure that the Government procurement market is not being made worse for businesses outside London and the south-east that want to get involved. It might be an opportunity to look at reforms and think about how businesses outside London and the south-east can be encouraged to do so.
The Minister of State, Department for International Trade (Sir James Duddridge)
Would the hon. Gentleman concede that it is possible that the reason those figures are so weighted towards London is that that is where a lot of headquarters are, yet some of those services are delivered from around the United Kingdom and, indeed, from the devolved Administrations?
Gareth Thomas
I absolutely concede that point—that is possible, without a doubt—but I gently suggest to the Minister that there are real concerns that, unless there is proper consultation, the procurement chapters of the Australia and New Zealand FTAs could make the situation worse for businesses that are not headquartered in London and the south-east.
Gareth Thomas
Nevertheless, it seems a reasonable question to pose. A bit of better consultation might allow us to think about how we encourage more British businesses to secure Government contracts. The Minister rightly said that there is a good argument for extending the contracts covered by this legislation—he was thinking of contracts of unknown value and length—on the grounds that it would encourage more competition and better value for money, but we need to ensure that that does not put off good British businesses, particularly small and medium-sized ones in the local area, from getting contracts. I am yet to hear any convincing story from this Minister or, indeed, Business Ministers or Cabinet Office Ministers about what they are doing in that space to shift things forward.
Let me come to some of the specific concerns that Professor Sanchez-Graells raised, which are the most troubling of the many issues raised in the evidence sessions last Wednesday. It is worth highlighting Professor Sanchez-Graells’s experience. He is a professor of economic law at the University of Bristol Law School and co-director of the Centre for Global Law and Innovation. He has done a lot of research on economic law, particularly competition law and procurement, and his research concentrates on the way the public sector interacts with the market and how it organises the delivery of public services, especially healthcare. He is a significant witness. He was clearly taken seriously by the International Trade Committee and by the International Agreements Committee in the House of Lords.
Professor Sanchez-Graells argued that there are a series of problems with the way in which the procurement chapter has been written that, in effect, create the GPA-minus problem, which could have a chilling impact on the appetite of British businesses to bid in Australia and New Zealand, unless Ministers can rectify those problems and provide comprehensive reassurance that Professor Sanchez-Graells may not have considered the whole picture. He has been explicit in saying that he wants the procurement chapters of both the New Zealand and Australia deals renegotiated and only then put into law, so it is important that we hear the Minister’s reaction to those concerns.
I had thought that the biggest problems with the Bill were the huge giveaway to Australian farmers, the lack of protection for British agricultural goods, the lack of progress on geographical indications and the shocking levels of scrutiny, but Professor Sanchez-Graells appears to suggest that there are serious issues with procurement and whether the procurement chapters present the huge opportunity that Ministers have been keen to big up. He says that the legal uncertainties in the chapter that the Bill would write into law ensure that the rules clash with the World Trade Organisation’s rules on procurement, and we would then risk breaching international law, be it the GPA or the two trade deals.
We know that Ministers have a record of not being bothered about breaking international law—one thinks of the Northern Ireland protocol or other aspects of the trade agreement with Europe—but if Britain’s reputation for international lawbreaking gathers ground, that could have a chilling effect on our ability to negotiate other trade agreements and implications for the confidence of the markets, which is particularly worrying.
The GPA is the baseline for opening up access to procurement contracts. I commend Ministers for the objective of creating a GPA-plus regime, and the Australia deal secures some more substantive obligations that point in the direction of such a regime, such as the electronic publication of contracts by authorities, the inclusion of a clause on environmental, social and labour considerations and a clause on SME access to procurement opportunities, the expansion of economic coverage through the inclusion of concession and build-operate-transfer contracts, and so on. However, it also deviates in ways that alter or reduce substantive obligations, so we have the creation of a GPA-minus regime instead.
The scope for legal uncertainty risks having a chilling effect in terms of British businesses wanting to bid for Australian and New Zealand contracts, and vice versa. Amendment 5 makes it clear that consultation is key, and amendment 22 would give us the chance to understand fully the impact of these GPA-minus changes. Both would be helpful additions to the legislation and would allow us to address some of the concerns.
The concerns Professor Sanchez-Graells expressed in evidence to the Select Committee were very technical and challenged members of the Committee—they certainly challenged me when I read back over them to fully understand their scope. To bring them to life at our witness session last week, I asked him to give some examples of where his concerns might have played out. One example I asked him to think about was a British construction business bidding for a contract to help build the Melbourne airport link, which the Australian authorities are tendering. He said:
“Let us imagine that an innovative British company that wants to sell low emissions rolling stock for that metro link in Melbourne airport goes and tenders in Australia. It is excluded for any number of reasons and it wants to challenge the decision. It could also be barred from access to remedies in Australia, which means that the UK tenderer has lost its time and probably made a loss on the project.”––[Official Report, Trade (Australia and New Zealand) Public Bill Committee, 12 October 2022; c. 42, Q52.]
That business could lose its access to remedies if the Australian courts embraced the decision of the contracting authority on public interest grounds—that the contract could not be delayed and the compensation not offered, because it was so important that the Melbourne airport link got built on time.
If the UK tenderer had spent substantial amounts to get that contract and then could not get any compensation for all that money, that would create a big disincentive for anyone from the UK thinking of trying to tender for future projects in Australia. It is important that the Minister and the Department for International Trade explain what steps they will take to prevent that risk from coming to fruition.
Lloyd Russell-Moyle
Is there not also a danger that an international company could choose which of its subsidiaries a bid should come from? Rather than choosing the British company and channelling the money through it, it might consider that the protection offered would be marginally better should the bid come from the French or German company. The multinational company will choose to channel its bids through their other subsidiary companies outside the UK, which could deprive UK taxpayers of money and British workers of the contract, when the British company has done some of the necessary paperwork and processing. There does not need to be a material change; there only needs to be a theoretical risk that that could happen.
Gareth Thomas
Unfortunately, that is absolutely right, as Professor Sanchez-Graells argued. That is a real risk. There are potentially chilling impacts on British authorities that want to issue contracts, should New Zealand companies, and particularly Australian companies, bid.
On the possible GPA-minus provisions, a broader issue is relevant to the argument for amendments 5 and 22. Is the GPA being undermined? The GPA-minus provisions are not just an issue for the UK-Australia FTA, but are likely to be an issue under the CPTPP. Given how difficult it was to negotiate the GPA and how long it can take to secure improvements, enhancements and modernisation, one has to ask whether Ministers have given up a little on that multilateral process. Have they decided that it is so important to get individual procurement chapters agreed under trade deals with potential allies that we will give up on the process of modernising the GPA? Surely it needs to be a living document, because it dates quickly; the current version was negotiated more than 10 years ago and is already out of date on digital procurement and sustainability. The more GPA-minus provisions there are in trade agreements negotiated around the world, the more difficult it will be for the World Trade Organisation to negotiate an enhanced, modernised GPA. It would be good to hear what plans the Minister and the new Secretary of State have to prevent the UK-Australia chapter, with its GPA-minus provisions, from stopping any effort to modernise the GPA. One hopes that Britain would seek to lead that process at the WTO.
The second major concern of Professor Sanchez-Graells is why we are putting the two procurement chapters into law if we plan to accede to the CPTPP? It has its own procurement chapters, and both Australia and New Zealand are members of it. Those chapters are very similar to the Australia and New Zealand FTA chapters, so there is similar scope for uncertainty. We have been led to believe by the current Prime Minister and the previous Secretary of State for International Trade—presumably the present Secretary of State will tell us something similar—that CPTPP remains the top trade priority for Ministers. Professor Sanchez-Graells is concerned about the Government’s rush to get two procurement chapters on to the statute book when there is scope for future uncertainty. I am not sure what I think about that particular argument, but I would be interested to hear what the Minister has to say.
Lloyd Russell-Moyle
We heard from the Minister this morning that potential accession to the CPTPP will not replace this agreement but be additional to it. Therefore, British businesses will have to cope with three different systems. We have also heard from the Minister that the Procurement Bill will not entirely replace the chapters and agreement before us, so there will be four potential regimes that people have to navigate. Is that not creating more bureaucracy for businesses rather than less?
Gareth Thomas
We know that Conservative Ministers have become enthusiasts for red tape—that was the reality of the deal the previous Prime Minister negotiated with the European Union. I gently suggest that my hon. Friend should not be too surprised that Ministers do not seem bothered about more legal uncertainty for businesses interested in Government procurement contracts.
Either way, a bit more consultation, which amendment 5 would lock in, and a bit more thought as a result of an impact assessment under amendment 22, might help to encourage debate and consultation about how serious the problems are and how to resolve them. That might help to advertise the many apparent benefits of these agreements, which the Government’s impact assessment mentioned. However, I caution Committee members to hold on a second, because the third argument that Professor Sanchez-Graells advanced in public was that the procurement chapters will not lead to the huge benefits for British businesses that Ministers have claimed they will and that the impact assessment Ministers published over-eggs all of those benefits. For example, Ministers say there will be lots of new opportunities for transport firms to run transport contracts in Australia, despite there being many transport networks in the UK that are run by foreign companies. I hope to pick up that issue in the Committee’s discussions on new clause 4, but it would be interesting to hear which companies have indicated to the Minister that they are interested in the procurement opportunities in Australia and New Zealand that he and his colleagues have alluded to.
Professor Sanchez-Graells also noted the consequences of clauses 1(2) and (3), which we debated this morning. He noted that contracts of unknown length and tenure would be extended by regulations to cover more than just Australian and New Zealand firms, with no reciprocity in mind. If only the Secretary of State had given evidence in good time to the International Trade Committee, which my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown sits on, some of those concerns could have been addressed.
To help me understand Professor Sanchez-Graells’s arguments, I asked him to explain them in the context of the Elizabeth line—Crossrail, as it was known—and of the need to rebuild a hospital. Members will remember the significance of the Elizabeth line, stretching as it does from Paddington in west London through to Abbey Wood and Stratford in east London. Its cost to date is almost £19 billion, and it will be fully operational this year. It is a huge public procurement exercise—that £19 billion does not include new trains or a number of other things. It has been a huge success story for the UK and London. It has generated 14,000 jobs, it comprises 42 km of tunnels and it has used 13,500 cubic metres of concrete. In short—
The Chair
Order. I understand the argument the hon. Gentleman is making, but I think we get the point about Crossrail. He needs to move on to the relevant argument.
Gareth Thomas
The argument I am making is that Professor Sanchez-Graells highlighted the risk of a chilling effect on the progress of the Elizabeth line had the Australian and New Zealand procurement chapters been in force. Let me set out how it might have played out—fortunately, neither agreement was in place, so there was not the same legal uncertainty and we have not had such a delay.
Let us suppose for a second that both procurement chapters had been in force. To slightly simplify it, the Elizabeth line offered three contracts—one for the construction of Crossrail, one for the supply and maintenance of the rolling stock and one for the operation of the line, which was a services concession. That services concession would not have been covered by the UK-Australia free trade agreement, but the construction contract and the rolling stock contract would have been covered under both the WTO’s Government procurement agreement and, crucially, the UK-Australia FTA. There would effectively have been dual regulation contracts.
There could have been a real, substantive clash of provisions between the GPA and the FTA. The crucial issue of access to remedies could then have played out. If an Australian company had expressed an interest in the relevant tender—for construction or for supply of the rolling stock—and had ended up not getting the contract, it could have been barred from access to remedies under the UK-Australia FTA on grounds of public interest. Why would we have wanted to delay the completion of the Elizabeth line?
The Australian company would have missed out on compensation and scope for judicial—
Gareth Thomas
This is relevant to clause 5. If we had consulted better with firms across the UK that benefited from the supply chain of the Elizabeth line, they might have been able to highlight their concerns at an early stage, preventing any problems going forward.
If you, Mr Twigg, are not convinced of the relevance of an argument that looks back, let me put to you an argument that looks forward and give the example of a hospital that needs to be rebuilt. Let us say it is the Queen Elizabeth Hospital in King’s Lynn, which we know needs rebuilding. The Australian and New Zealand free trade agreements, and the procurement chapters of both, will be in play at this point, assuming the Bill becomes law. If they are, and an Australian company bids for the contract to rebuild the Queen Elizabeth Hospital, there could be a chilling effect.
Let us say the company is denied access to the contracts, for whatever reason, thinks it has been treated unfairly, tries to put in a bid for judicial review to stop the contract being won and started by the relevant British company, and cannot get judicial review to stop it, because of public interest grounds—because the hospital is falling down. The court might say, “We’ve got to crack on with this.” The Australian company would miss out on judicial review, also on public interest grounds, and the court would be open to rule against giving it compensation. Australian companies would now look askance at the NHS procurement market and think, “We won’t take the risk of bidding for contracts there. We may well miss out because of the terms that have been agreed under the procurement chapter of the UK-Australia agreement.”
It does not just go one way. That same risk is potentially in play in Australia for British firms bidding to rebuild Australian hospitals. If one were falling down and a British company bid and lost out and then thought it had been treated unfairly, it might initially turn to its lawyers and say, “Let’s put in a judicial review bid to stop the contract going ahead while we try to persuade the court to restart the tender process. Let’s at least try to secure compensation for all the money it’s cost us to put the bid together.” In my understanding of the arguments advanced by Professor Sanchez-Graells, under the terms of the UK-Australia free trade agreement, if the contract is not awarded to the UK firm but to an Australian one, and the court decides on public interest grounds that that is fine, the British business would lose an awful lot of money that it might have invested in bidding for the contract.
The irony is that if a French firm bid for the same contract, it might not be able to stop the contract or get judicial review, but under the terms of the GPA, it could argue for compensation. The British firm would not even be able to apply for compensation, but firms from other GPA jurisdictions could. In those circumstances, British firms that specialise in overseas procurement may be tempted to look not at the Australian or New Zealand markets, but at other markets in which they have better protection if future contracts go wrong.
That is a substantive and serious concern, and it would be good to hear the scale of the Minister’s concern about such risk. Ministers and Committee members may still think that companies take risks all the time, so if a contract does not go their way and they cannot secure compensation or judicial review, then tough luck. However, it is also worth considering the effect on the bit of Government that is trying to issue the contract.
I pray in aid the case of Draeger Safety UK v. the London Fire Commissioner, which has been substantially protracted. The London Fire Commissioner wants to upgrade the quality of equipment available for its firemen and women—quite understandably, it wants the best, most modern equipment. Draeger Safety UK lost the contract, thought the contract was unfair, and is trying to secure compensation. That is not an isolated case; similar cases are going through the UK courts.
Adding to the process the complex GPA-minus provisions of the UK-Australia and the UK-New Zealand FTAs could have a chilling—or certainly a delaying—effect on the issuing of tenders. For that reason, I hope that a little more consultation by Ministers with each part of Government around the UK that might want to issue a contract, and a little more thought—perhaps through an impact assessment—about the impact of the GPA-minus provisions that Professor Sanchez-Graells set out, might help to avoid those sorts of problems, and that the procurement chapters of both FTAs could actually be really useful.
I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say about Professor Sanchez-Graells’s concerns, and I strongly encourage the Minister to support amendments 5 and 22.
Sir James Duddridge
I haven’t said anything yet. This morning was incredibly jolly. I am sure that Mr Pritchard will be devastated that he cannot be here, but I will send him a copy of Hansard so that he can catch up.
The debate was interesting. A Labour speech literally brought the house down—one could hear things crashing down from the ceiling. Thankfully, no members of the public were hurt. I was amazed by the wide-ranging discussion, and the ability of Members to pop in the word “procurement” here and there to make their remarks orderly. It was a masterclass in Opposition debate, verbosity and probing—in a good way. I was surprised that there was a proposal to provide free hot school meals daily from New Zealand to the good burghers of Southend, which I am sure was heard by Essex County Council and Southend-on-Sea City Council—I was going to say it was Labour-run, but it is a bit of a shambles of organisation and coalition in Southend.
Sir James Duddridge
If I am given some leniency near the end, there might be an opportunity to intervene then, if there is a particular element that I have not picked up on, because there are about 25 issues that I need to cover.
Broadly speaking—officials will not like me saying this—I agree with a lot of what has been said. I agree about the importance of consultation, and of reviewing and evaluating what we have done. There is a lot of that in the Bill, and a lot of it has been done by the Government already. I will go through what we have done, but just because we have consulted, that does not mean we do what someone wants. It is a balancing act. I suspect the hon. Member for Harrow West would do things differently from me if he was in the hot seat, but I am sure he would have consulted as widely as the Department and officials did on behalf of His Majesty’s Government. I am disappointed to hear that he will press two of these measure to a vote. He has thrown down the gauntlet, and I have picked it up, so hopefully I can persuade him not to vote on them, because we are covering a lot of the issues raised.
Communication with the devolved Administrations is integral to not only the way the Department conducts its negotiations but ensuring that legislation operates effectively in each and every nation of the United Kingdom. I am more than happy to reiterate the commitment of the then Secretary of State for International Development that the UK Government would not normally legislate without the consent of the devolved Administrations. The hon. Member for Airdrie and Shotts may well say, “Why not put that in the Bill?” That is a valid point, but it is not one about procurement; it is about the fundamental nature of devolution. Treaty making is done at the UK level on procurement, as it would be in an international treaty on, for example, nuclear non-proliferation.
Drew Hendry (Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey) (SNP)
The point that the Minister is making underlines that it would do no harm to make this commtment in the Bill. What would be wrong with that?
Sir James Duddridge
If the hon. Gentleman wants to bring forward a devolution Bill and completely revolutionise how our nations are run—
Sir James Duddridge
He clearly does, but that is not for this Bill. On scrutiny, Members drew comparison with the EU and the US. I gently point out that those are very different democratic bodies. The EU is a body of 27 nation states, remotely located; and the US has a presidential system, and an Executive that is more detached from the legislature, whereas we are much more integrated here.
On consultation, there was a wider discussion that related to all types of scrutiny but included procurement, so with your permission, Mr Twigg, I will go through how we have looked at scrutiny through the lens of procurement.
Lloyd Russell-Moyle
The Minister is quite right to mention that those two systems are different. Norway operates a dualist system for international treaty agreements in the same way that we do. It operates a prime ministerial system with a constitutional monarchy in the same way that we do. Their Parliament has the ability to scrutinise the heads of terms of international agreements, and its committees can agree the additional measures that are coming through, and can be consulted on them. So, yes, he is right in relation to the two big examples that I gave, but there are many other international examples, and I do not want to bore the Committee by going through more of them. Will he not at least acknowledge that we are on the worse end of the scale when it comes to the consultation of Parliaments, devolved areas and civil society, not on the better end?
Sir James Duddridge
No, I do not. I do not want to go through a comparative analysis of every country around the world, but we are not. There is a lot in legislation that we have to do; there is a lot that is not in legislation that we do on a repeated basis. For example, on issues of the scrutiny of the New Zealand and Australia trade deals, particularly in relation to procurement, prior to our talks, we published all of our objectives. We published the economic scoping document and a Government response to the call for input. During the negotiations, we published six public reports of what happened, so Parliament and the public could input and lobby. We published extensive information at the agreement stage and at the in-principle stage. We also engaged in Parliamentary activity. All together, there were over 12 sessions with either the International Trade Committee or the Lords International Agreements Committee.
Sir James Duddridge
I will just finish the point and then I will certainly give way to the hon. Gentleman. I was rather hoping that he was going to be at a Select Committee, but it is a pleasure to see him here—[Interruption.] I will finish my point and then I will give way. I apologise, Mr Twigg, for being slightly disorderly. We made nine ministerial statements and there were eight formal MP briefings; Ministers also made themselves available more informally to Members on both sides of the House.
Lloyd Russell-Moyle
I could not resist this Public Bill Committee and so I am missing the opportunity to grill the Secretary of State for International Trade. Hopefully I would not just be grilling her, but having fruitful discussions, such as those that we will now have. I look forward to doing that on future occasions.
The Minister listed a number of documents that the Government have published, but he has confused publishing information with having detailed, constructive and structured dialogues—with sitting down and engaging with people.
I have already publicly put blame on the previous Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Anne-Marie Trevelyan), and I will not repeat myself. However, for one reason or another, more than five times, she was unable to meet the International Trade Committee, and she was unable to meet it before it published its report on the Australia and New Zealand free trade agreements. That led to an urgent question in the Chamber and a Westminster Hall debate. Will the Minister not at least accept that there is more that the Department could do to engage co-operatively with the International Trade Committee and others, to stop the contention that we have had?
Sir James Duddridge
During long interventions, sometimes Ministers jokingly ask to intervene, but I had been sitting down for so long that I genuinely thought I was listening to a speech.
Relations with the International Trade Committee have not been as good as the Government, the Committee or the House want. That is going to change. We will make ourselves fully available. I know the Secretary of State has already started having those meetings with the Committee. Her diary obviously shifts quite quickly, so I cannot say where she will be, when. I know there is a whole series of activities planned. I am looking at the Public Gallery; there are civil servants looking into how we can link better with members of the Committee. I will play my part as Minister of State at the Department, and will always make myself available to the Committee, if at all possible. It will be my top priority, over and above speaking to the House or taking part in other Committee processes.
The hon. Gentleman said, “You just publish reports. That’s not enough.” If that is all we did, it would not be enough, but it is not all we have done. There are inter-ministerial groups on these issues, which are attended by Ministers from the devolved Administrations, particularly those with responsibility for trade. The forum that we are discussing was established to consider all trade policy, and its effective implementation, and will be able to review and evaluate that policy’s impact.
The hon. Member for Harrow West seems incapable of using the word “effect” or “impact” without prefacing it with the word “chilling”, as if these were haunting issues. We want to evaluate policies, to look at the impact assessment, and to improve all the time. As has been said, the agreements are evolving. They get built on and improved. The forum has met eight times since its inception in 2020. It provides for open discussion about negotiation, and allows Ministers from devolved Administrations to contribute their views directly, both formally and, in the sidings, informally.
Gareth Thomas
How many of those meetings have focused purely on procurement?
Sir James Duddridge
I have absolutely no idea. As the hon. Gentleman said early on, procurement is a very small section of these matters. Most, if not all, of these meetings were probably open, so I could check the minutes, but I suspect that not every nuance is captured in them. Also, sometimes trade issues can be looked at through lots of lenses. For example, one issue might relate to the motor industry, procurement and Wales.
There are bilateral meetings with counterparts from the devolved Administrations, and there is weekly engagement by UK Government officials. That all helps to build a better relationship. The hon. Member for Llanelli asked whether the relationship could be better. I am unsure of how well sighted she and the Committee can be of the details of that—I think that is what the hon. Member for Harrow West is alluding to—but it would be interesting to look at the Welsh example, in particular; there have been a lot of compliments, with people saying that engagement has increased and is better. That is not to say that it cannot be even better, but let us give credit where credit is due—not to Ministers, but to the Department.
Dame Nia Griffith
Absolutely, and I made that point clearly. Large questions remain unanswered, including why the quotas were set so high. Those sorts of things could have been sorted out if consultation had gone back a bit further and had been more timely.
Sir James Duddridge
I will focus my comments on the devolved Administrations, and I will come back to meat later, in the meaty bit of my speech. We have been discussing the necessary changes to procurement regulations with devolved officials since they were first raised in negotiations. I hope that our level of engagement demonstrates that consultation is already integral to what we do. The remit of the Trade and Agriculture Commission, in which there has been some interest, focuses on a critical issue for Government, the public and farmers: agricultural standards. Its analysis is an absolutely critical part of the scrutiny framework for new free trade agreements, and it supports the Government’s clear commitment to upholding the United Kingdom’s high agricultural standards.
The commission’s remit is very specific, so that it can produce high-quality advice that speaks to its collective expertise. The Government would not want to dilute its important work by widening its remit; that would weaken its focus on its core mission. If amendment 3 is intended to allow the commission to consider the impact of the procurement chapter on agricultural standards, it is unnecessary; the commission can already consider any part of an agreement that it thinks is relevant to the issue of domestic standards—specifically to animal and plant health, animal welfare or the environment. The amendment would widen the commission’s focus beyond what we want it to focus on. I respectfully suggest that that would have unintended consequences.
The Department committed to including in the impact assessments, every two years, a monitoring report on the deal. Furthermore, within five years of the agreements entering into force, there will be a comprehensive evaluation report on both deals. These evaluations will do exactly what I think hon. Members want and seek Government assurances on, because they will aim to show how and why the agreements were made, whom they benefited, what the outcomes are, and how they could be better. I am happy to assure the Committee that those reports will look at all the regions—Northern Ireland, Wales, Scotland and England—and, if necessary, consider the regional picture if that is still a concern, notwithstanding my comments and the evidence over that period.
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)
Rosa Crawford pointed out that the trade unions had never been given a place on the trade advisory groups since they were set up, if the Minister remembers last week’s evidence session. Why is it that in the United States the trade unions have access to negotiating texts and are able to influence changes, as they did in protecting workers in Mexico? Does he think that that is right or wrong? If he thinks it is right, why does he not allow it to happen in this country?
Sir James Duddridge
The unions are involved in the trade advisory groups. There is, I think, one issue with an offer that has been made to one union to join, but it is holding out because it wants another union also to be involved and is therefore not participating.
On returning to the Department after the previous sitting, one of my officials expressed surprise at the evidence given because it contradicted something she had been at—she had been present at one of those meetings. While I am happy to look again and the current Secretary of State has made it clear that she wants all consultees to be included in the process, we are the decision makers in our process, and I would not want to contract out UK Government decision making to any organisation.
I am not going to answer the question on the United States. I am responsible for many things, but not the system in the US.
Lloyd Russell-Moyle
The Minister has said that the trade unions are members of trade advisory groups, but I have looked up the membership of those groups, searching for the word “union”, and there are only four union members, and they are all farmers union representatives. I understand that farmers unions are important, but they are different from trade unions and the TUC, so either the list on the website is not up to date or there is some confusion here. It would be useful if we got some clarity.
Sir James Duddridge
Absolutely. On unions—I mean unions in the broadest sense; I am not trying to pull a fast one by referring to four regional national farmers unions—my understanding is that six unions, as the hon. Gentleman would understand the term “union”, as opposed to the Conservative and Unionist party, for argument’s sake, are genuinely involved in the trade advisory groups. That is what we would want.
That is on the record. If I am wrong and if I have misread my brief, I will correct the record later and write to the hon. Gentleman with the details of the unions, and perhaps with more information around the issue of the union being invited to something and there being some type of deal, if it is in the public interest to put that out. I want to encourage the unions to come and be part of the process, and I want us to make decisions.
Gareth Thomas
To be clear, is the Minister saying that if the TUC, as the representative of the trade union movement, is not on any of the relevant trade advisory committees, he is committing himself to inviting the TUC?
Sir James Duddridge
The Minister did not commit to that. I think the question is, will I commit to that? The answer is no. I will commit myself to ensuring that unions are on those trade advisory groups. I think they are on the trade advisory groups—
Sir James Duddridge
Because there are many unions out there. That is not part of the Bill—
Sir James Duddridge
This is an interesting question, but the hon. Gentleman, who was an able Minister, would not have made such an on-the-hoof commitment when he was sitting on this side of the Committee without consulting and without thinking about the implications for other unions. However, I am more than happy to go away and look at the issue if that makes him happy. I am picking up the gauntlet to try to bring him onside and get the Bill through, so perhaps that is a nice suggestion.
Gareth Thomas
Almost nice. All I would say to the Minister is that I would have known the question was coming.
Sir James Duddridge
There were no telepathic Ministers available, so the hon. Gentleman is stuck—
Sir James Duddridge
I certainly want us to make progress.
Let me turn to the meat of my speech—the lamb and beef. We have secured a large range of measures to safeguard farmers generally within the tariff quota with respect to a number of products, but specifically, on the New Zealand side, I would point out that UK sheep imports from New Zealand have fallen over the past decade, so I do not think the idea that these measures will radically change the relationship is right. On Australia, increases in beef imports are likely to happen, but rather than displacing our domestic farmers, those imports are more likely to displace slightly more expensive beef from the EU. That means that beef will be coming from Australia, not France, for argument’s sake, and it will be cheaper for my constituents—my Sunday roast, their Sunday roast. That is part of levelling up and getting on with tackling the cost of living.
More broadly, there is a strong case for free trade. Earlier, the hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown made the case for not unilaterally making moves and to hold back the negotiating power. That is a valid argument, because some of these things could be traded off for something else. However, there is actual underlying value in reducing tariffs and minimising systems; it makes products cheaper. That is what we are trying to do as a Government and I do not think that anyone would disagree with that. So, it is a third balancing act within that arena.
Dame Nia Griffith
Would the Minister accept that there really is a need for consultation and that there is also a need for an ongoing impact assessment, because the situation for Welsh farmers is so different from that of farmers in Australia and New Zealand, where the quantities involved and the farms themselves are absolutely huge? We are obviously very aware here that our hill farms are in some of the areas that are hardest to farm and that really there is no straightforward comparison with Australian and New Zealand farms. Then add to that the other costs of production, such as the costs arising from the higher standards that we have. Again, it seems that the cards are already stacked, and that consultation and a continued impact assessment are absolutely essential in trying to protect our farmers.
Sir James Duddridge
Fundamentally, I agree with the hon. Lady that that needs to be done. However, I think there is a question of frequency. We talked about the evaluation at the five-year point; we have talked about a two-year evaluation. Should there be consistent—I am trying to find the words that she used—or repeated evaluation? Well, there might be some value in that, but there is also a big cost in that, and if you produce annual report after annual report, sometimes they just go on the shelf. So, there is the right point to do the evaluation rather than doing it too frequently.
The other point that I would make is that we cannot flick a switch overnight and suddenly go from one trading situation to a new one, with a whole different array of goods and services being traded. It happens over time. So, over the first year, I will take on the responsibility for both implementing the deal and for what we call within the Department utilisation, which is basically taking advantage, because there is no point in this pile of new trade deals just sitting on my desk. They need to be explained to British businesses; we want to take them out to Australia. Only a few weeks ago, I went to Ipswich, where there is a company producing recyclable bottles. I hope that I have got this in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests—they gave me a bottle of gin and the bottle was a reusable paper container. That company will want to export to Australia, I think, one of their machines; the New Zealanders will no doubt want a similar thing; and we will then import lighter weight, lower cost wine, which I think benefits everyone.
I will return a bit more forensically to some of the points that have been raised, while being conscious of time. The issue was raised of farming and discussions with Ministers in devolved Governments about procurement. While there would have been the overall discussion, I am not aware of the specifics on procurement in farming, because that is more about the consultation for the deal and not about the consultation for the Bill, which is more narrowly focused.
I think that I have covered off the issue of impact assessments. What I would say is that they are not forecasts; they are indicative. But in many ways my criticism of some of the forecasts is that they are not dynamic enough—that is, we are underrating the potential value of some of these deals. However, the process allows for a level playing field and a comparison between different things.
The hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey talked about the Scottish Minister for Trade. In respect of the content of the Bill, the procurement policy teams met with officials from the devolved Administration for roundtables on the text of the procurement chapters in both negotiations: for this Bill; and for the procurement regulations that are consequently developed from the Bill. We have been discussing the necessary procurement regulations that will follow on. So I can reassure the hon. Gentleman that that is happening.
There was some discussion around trade remedies. The hon. Gentleman said that I am blessed with a box full of wonderful officials and no doubt behind the scenes they are texting backwards and forwards. The resources are slightly less. I think there has been some misunderstanding, effectively, on what happens.
The same exclusion of trade remedies in the Bill applies to GPA, but the exclusion on remedies only applies to temporary measures to suspend a supplier from the procurement process. Crucially, it does not prohibit them from bringing a claim, so they can still do that.
Gareth Thomas
If the Minister cannot elaborate on this now, will he commit to write to the Committee with a more detailed respond to Professor Sanchez-Graells’s analysis? He had substantial concerns, which the International Trade Committee and the International Agreements Committee accepted, and nobody challenged it in the evidence he gave last week. I understand that the Minister may not have access to all the information he needs, but I wonder whether he would be good enough to write to us. I hope he is right—I really do—that the provisions negotiated are GPA-plus, but there seems to be doubt that some of the tweaks that have been made might make them GPA-minus, and that needs to be ironed out as a matter of urgency for British business.
Sir James Duddridge
I am happy to iron it out. The departmental advisers respectfully disagree with the professor, and I am more than happy to write with their analysis of why they disagree. Clearly, we cannot take evidence from 30 academics and say, “This is an outlier out of 30,” but I will send the Committee that letter.
On the unions, it is slightly more complicated than what the hon. Gentleman asks and what I said. The TUC has already been offered roles on the advisory groups but unfortunately has not taken them up so far. The TUC has been represented on the Department’s Strategic Trade Advisory Group, and in 2021 we offered six unions—that is where the figure six came from—roles on the group. I assumed incorrectly that they had taken us up on that offer. I do not know why, but they have not. They are still welcome, and I am more than happy to write again making that offer, to try to understand why they have not taken it up. We are saying that we want to consult more widely. We have offered the unions a consultation role, and Members say that unions want to have an even bigger role, but they have not come to the table. I am sure that there are complicated, good reasons for that, and we will try to work through those.
Hopefully I have answered the questions sufficiently and have only failed in my lack of telepathic skills to know which questions would come up. I will try harder next time and get the best brains on providing said facility to the hon. Gentleman.
Gareth Thomas
I am grateful to you, Mr Twigg, for allowing me briefly to respond. I am grateful for the Minister’s willingness to write to the Committee with a more detailed response to the concerns that Professor Sanchez-Graells raised. I am happy not to press amendments 7 and 20. However, tempting as it is to think that the Minister has given comprehensive answers, he was almost comprehensive but did not give quite enough for us not to press amendments 5 and 22. We will press them to the vote.
Ms Anum Qaisar (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
The legislation does not reflect the values that Scotland stands for, and it does not adequately safeguard food and farming standards in Scotland.
The powers in the Bill should not be exercisable by UK Ministers in relation to Scotland without a requirement for them to secure the consent of Scottish Ministers. That is what amendments 3 and 4 propose. While negotiation of international agreements is a reserved matter, the implementation of such agreements in devolved areas such as public procurement is devolved. There is no reason for UK Ministers to hold such powers in relation to Scotland.
The Scottish Government have consistently and successfully implemented international obligations on procurement since 2006, when they first transposed the EU directives, and they have been consistent in their commitment to upholding international law. The Scottish Government continue to engage with the UK Government on the issue, and I understand that officials are in continual contact with counterparts in the Cabinet Office and the Department for International Trade.
It might be better to make provision in the Bill for the implementation of those agreements, rather than using a delegated power. The Minister mentioned the issue, although I still do not understand why that is not possible and there appears to be no particular reason for powers needing to be provided. Such agreements are signed and there is common understanding of the amendments that need to be made to procurement legislation in order to implement them. That could be done in the Bill, which in turn could provide for commencement regulations to ensure that the amendments took effect at the desired moment.
I thank the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Harrow West, for his sympathy, as he put it, towards amendments 3 and 4. Those amendments are specific to discussion and dialogue between the UK Government and the Scottish Government, and I would argue that amendment 5 is not as strong as our amendments. However, we do support Labour amendments 7 and 22.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
The Chair
Before we come to the question that clause 1 stand part of the Bill, I note that I was quite lenient in the previous sitting about interventions. I would like to remind Members that interventions should be short and to the point.
Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 1 agreed to.
Schedule 2
Regulations under section 1
Gareth Thomas
I beg to move amendment 9, in schedule 2, page 9, line 5, leave out from “section 1” to end of line 6 and insert—
“may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before and approved by resolution of each House of Parliament.”
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 10, in schedule 2, page 9, line 8, leave out “negative” and insert “affirmative”.
Amendment 11, in schedule 2, page 9, line 11, leave out from “section 1” to end of line 12 and insert—
“may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before and approved by a resolution of Senedd Cymru.”
Amendment 12, in schedule 2, page 9, line 13, leave out from “section 1” to end of line 16 and insert—
“may not be made under this Act unless a draft of the regulations has been laid before and approved by a resolution of the Northern Ireland Assembly.”
Amendment 13, in schedule 2, page 9, line 25, leave out from “applies” to end of line 26 and insert—
“may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before and approved by resolution of each House of Parliament.”
Amendment 14, in schedule 2, page 9, line 28, leave out “negative” and insert “affirmative”.
Amendment 15, in schedule 2, page 9, line 29, leave out sub-paragraphs (5) and (6).
Amendment 16, in schedule 2, page 10, line 2, leave out from “Ministers” to end of line 3 and insert—
“may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before and approved by a resolution of Senedd Cymru.”
Amendment 17, in schedule 2, page 10, line 5, leave out from “department” to end of line 7 and insert—
“may not be made under this Act unless a draft of the regulations has been laid before and approved by a resolution of the Northern Ireland Assembly.”
Amendment 18, in schedule 2, page 10, line 9, leave out sub-paragraphs (9) to (12).
Gareth Thomas
Thank you, Mr Twigg. You will understand the frustration of Labour Members present that Ministers are once again seeking to get through a whole bunch of regulations using the negative procedure, rather than the affirmative resolution procedure. Amendments 9 to 18 seek to make it a requirement that the affirmative resolution procedure be used for every set of regulations that Ministers want to propose under the procurement chapters of these two free trade agreements.
In making the case, I note that the affirmative resolution procedure is by no means a perfect process. However, it is better than the negative procedure. Without the affirmative process, Ministers would have carte blanche to introduce regulations based on these procurement chapters without the slightest hint of anything resembling parliamentary scrutiny. The negative resolution procedure that the Government propose is the least rigorous of all parliamentary procedures available to the House for scrutiny.
Having served in government, I can understand the Minister’s appetite to avoid scrutiny. There is very little to be gained for a Minister of State or an Under-Secretary of State in having to come and justify to a parliamentary Committee why particular regulations should be introduced. However, it is none the less important that Parliament has the opportunity to ask questions about regulations that are being introduced and to consider whether they fit with the objectives that were set out for the trade negotiations and actually seek to achieve those objectives.
It is worth remembering that the last negative instrument to be successfully annulled, as I understand it, was the Paraffin (Maximum Retail Prices) (Revocation) (No. 3) Order 1979. With such a small chance of a negative instrument being successfully annulled, I can well understand the appetite of Ministers to use this process.
Sir James Duddridge
Does not the evidence that the hon. Gentleman has brought forward actually negate his case? If there was a genuine problem and there had been some error, the Committee would have voted against it or, indeed, the Government would have withdrawn the measure.
Gareth Thomas
I gently suggest to the Minister that it is much better not to get ourselves into the position where we have to persuade Members from all parts of the House to vote down an order. One swallow does not make a summer. Just because there is an example in the far distant past that we should endorse negative instrument, a little bit of parliamentary scrutiny and pressure on the Minister, and a few nerves to make the Minister check their brief in more detail before signing off on a set of regulations, would seem sensible. The scrutiny arrangements for the Australia FTA to date have been poor, and we have had no debate on the Floor of the House on the New Zealand FTA, apart from the Second Reading of this Bill. Given that, we should switch from the negative to the affirmative process, and I gently encourage him to adopt an even more reasonable tone than he has adopted up until now.
Sir James Duddridge
I am sure the Whips will note with criticism the hon. Gentleman saying that I have been reasonable. In all seriousness, I thank hon. Members for the amendments and I hope to provide reassurance as to why the measures are necessary. The hon. Gentleman says he wants to hold my feet to the fire. He suggested that I may not read the brief quite as closely if I do not have to defend it in Parliament, but I will ensure that I do that anyway. I will regularly check my brief.
It is worth remembering that the amendments would not be a vote on the agreements. They would be a vote on the secondary legislation of a trade agreement. By the time these agreements enter into force, Parliament will already have had the opportunity to scrutinise the obligations of the procurement chapter in these agreements through the process set out in the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010. The Government are certainly committed to transparency in our trading arrangements, and we have put in place a suite of enhanced transparency and scrutiny arrangements that go well beyond our statutory obligations, and we will continue to do so. That includes providing the International Trade Committee and the Lords International Agreements Committee with at least three months to report on the agreements before Parliament scrutinises them more formally through the process set out in the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act, which comes later.
For the Australia agreement, the period was triggered after Parliament had had the deal available to scrutinise for over six months, and it has already been subject to scrutiny through the Trade and Agriculture Commission, which published its report in April 2022. The Department has since responded with the publication of the Australia agreement report under section 42 of the Agriculture Act 2020. In addition, future changes in the procurement chapters will relate mostly to machinery of government changes and the subsequent updating of lists.
This is not a novel procedure. Section 1 of the Trade Act 2021 enabled the implementation of the UK’s membership of the World Trade Organisation agreement on government procurement to operate in a similar way. This approach was acceptable to Parliament, and we received no negative comments from the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee. These sessions and holding Ministers to account are useful, but Ministers are a limited resource. We are not an infinite number, and we should perhaps focus on the more critical pieces of legislation rather than just statutory instruments. I therefore ask the hon. Member to withdraw his amendment.
Gareth Thomas
I am grateful to the Minister for his response, but I gently suggest that we have not been deluged with regulations from the Department for International Trade, so I do not buy his argument that Ministers or shadow Ministers are so busy that there is no time to discuss regulations. If our amendment is accepted, it may well be that our debates would be relatively short, and they would provide the opportunity to ask questions and raise issues that are slightly outwith this debate but important to a range of stakeholders outside the House. It would make sense to switch from the negative to the affirmative process, so I intend to press the amendment to a vote.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Gareth Thomas
I beg to move amendment 6, in schedule 2, page 10, leave out lines 31 to 38.
Amendment 6 would delete part 3 of schedule 2. I want to focus on what that would mean. Part 3 says:
“The power to make regulations under section 1 in relation to”
both Government procurement chapters, or
“any modification of either Chapter which requires ratification, is capable of being exercised before the agreement or (as the case may be) modification concerned is ratified.”
The Minister seems to be asking for carte blanche to be able to make any change to the procurement chapters without proper parliamentary scrutiny, and certainly before the UK-New Zealand FTA has been ratified. I am open to persuasion as to why such a requirement is necessary, but I wonder whether Ministers are again seeking to avoid serious parliamentary scrutiny, specifically on the terms of the UK-New Zealand FTA. The Minister will know that there has not been any sustained debate in the Chamber on the whole of that free trade agreement. I look forward to hearing his justification for this particular part of schedule 2.
Sir James Duddridge
I hope to be able to provide that assurance. This part of the Bill is there not at the request of Ministers, but at the request of lawyers, to give legal certainty and predictability. It is a necessary part of the process of implementing trade agreements to make the legislation before ratifying.
The amendment would create legal uncertainty regarding the process of implementing the two agreements. Several steps need to be taken to get agreements into force and allow UK businesses and, indeed, consumers to benefit from the significant economic advantages that they provide. Entry into force is the final step. However, the UK can proceed to enter into force only after it has ratified the agreements. In turn, ratification may only be agreed to once all the necessary domestic legislation is in place. Without the provision that the amendment seeks to change, there would be legal uncertainty about whether domestic legislation could be made before ratification. That is the reason behind it. I hope that the hon. Gentleman, having heard my response, will withdraw what I hope will turn out to be a probing amendment.
Gareth Thomas
I am grateful to the Minister for his explanation. I now understand a little better the reason for the provision. I will reflect on his remarks, but for now I will not press this to a vote. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 2 agreed to.
Clause 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 4
Extent, commencement and short title
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 8, in clause 4, page 3, line 5, at end insert—
“(4) This Act expires at the end of the period of two years beginning with the day on which it is passed.”
Amendment 21, in clause 4, page 3, line 5, at end insert—
“(4) If the United Kingdom becomes a full member of the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership, this Act expires on the day that the United Kingdom becomes a full member.”
Ms Qaisar
The UK Government are negotiating trade deals for the first time in more than 30 years, and that is not an easy task. Trade deals in matters of procurement are not just for Government photo ops; they impact on every fibre of our and our constituents’ being. Therefore, we must have high levels of security at the start, during and at the end of discussion about the legislation. I appreciate that we have the CRaG—Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010—process during the drafting of legislation, but as has been said this afternoon, it does not guarantee a debate or any votes in Parliament. It is a poor scrutiny tool from the outset.
In setting an expiration date, our amendment would allow for scrutiny at the end. That would enable Parliament to judge the legislation’s effectiveness on the proposed date of December 2027. That would also allow our constituents to examine the usefulness of the legislation in matters of procurement that have arisen over the years. We must also consider the potential of traders across the country getting locked into agreements that do not work for them. Consumer group Which? has already found that 72% of people in the UK do not want food that does not meet current standards coming in through trade deals. The majority of survey respondents—67%—also felt that the UK Government provide a poor level of information about new trade deals. The amendment would ensure that we bring public and parliamentary scrutiny to the forefront. I urge colleagues to support the amendment.
Gareth Thomas
Amendments 8 and 21 are probing amendments, to understand better how the Procurement Bill and potential accession to the CPTPP might affect the provisions in the procurement chapters of the Australia and New Zealand free trade agreements.
As I understand it, the Minister has touched on some of the reasons why the New Zealand and Australia free trade agreements need to stay on the statute book for considerable time to come, but I want to understand whether the Procurement Bill will provide the opportunity to sweep up the measures proposed by the two amendments, so that this Bill can be taken off the statute book to avoid any legal uncertainty. Clarity on that would be helpful. If there is a chance that the legislation will not be necessary, because the Procurement Bill would take the matter forward, that creates additional opportunities for Members to consider the impact of the trade legislation going forward.
I wonder whether Ministers might be tempted to think, “Let us stick with the Trade (Australia and New Zealand) Bill because we have no idea whether the Procurement Bill will survive in its current iteration.” I say gently that, given the chaos in the Minister’s party, one does not know which legislation will survive if there are further ministerial changes. He will understand that there has been considerable criticism of the Procurement Bill. Clearly, it would not be appropriate to dive into that now, but it would be helpful to understand the interplay between that crucial piece of UK domestic legislation and the two procurement chapters. If the experts in his Department are wrong about the concerns that Professor Sanchez-Graells outlined about possible GPA-minus provisions now being the problem for British exporters to Australia and Australian exporters coming here, the Procurement Bill might provide an opportunity to sort those problems out.
Amendment 21 refers to the CPTPP and the potential accession of the UK to it. It would be good to hear from the Minister how the negotiations are going and what might be a reasonable timeline for the House to have the chance to consider the accession documents to the CPTPP. I ask that because the provisions in the procurement chapter of the Australia free trade agreement appear to largely mirror the provisions in the procurement chapter of the CPTPP. Everything that has been written about the CPTPP suggests that we will be rule takers and will not be able to shape in any significant way the procurement chapter of the CPTPP that we might wish to join. Was that part of the motivation for Ministers deciding to just roll over and accept the request of the Australians for the GPA-minus provisions in the procurement chapter of the Australia FTA? We would simply have to accept them on joining the CPTPP.
The Minister will know that a series of trade experts have suggested that we will be rule takers if the CPTPP comes into force. We will not have much opportunity to influence the negotiations, and that is a considerable concern given that the idea of Britain being a rule taker was a motivation for many to vote for leaving the European Union. I look forward to the Minister explaining the interplay between provisions in the Trade (Australia and New Zealand) Bill and those in the Procurement Bill and the CPTPP.
Sir James Duddridge
I welcome the probing amendments tabled by the official Opposition and the amendment tabled by the Scottish National—or nationalist—party. Forgive me, but I forget which word it is. [Interruption.] I will do my homework better next time.
Amendments 2, 8 and 21 would ensure that the power in the Bill expired, even if provision under it was still required. The Bill is about implementing and maintaining our commitments in the procurement chapters of the agreements. That means that we need to ensure day one compliance as well as compliance beyond that. That is why the amendments that would remove the power are inappropriate. Although the amendments would permit the procurement chapters to be implemented, they would remove the power when it might be needed for modifications, and that would not be a satisfactory position to be in. Future modifications in the procurement chapters may relate to machinery of government changes and updating of lists. An example is when the Department for Culture, Media and Sport added digital. I do not think that we would want to come back to this Committee to make such a change.
Let me deal with amendments 8 and 21, tabled by the hon. Member for Harrow West. Bilateral trade agreements, like the ones dealt with in this Bill, sit alongside agreements like the comprehensive and progressive agreement for trans-Pacific partnership and the World Trade Organisation agreement on Government procurement. The procurement chapters of these deals will not be superseded by the accession to the trans-Pacific partnership. Accordingly, the powers in this Bill will still be needed after the accession in order to implement future modifications to both these agreements.
Sir James Duddridge
I will, but I suspect I am coming to the hon. Gentleman’s point.
Gareth Thomas
The Minister mentioned the GPA, which provides me with the opportunity to intervene and press him on it. Presumably the Government are still significant supporters of the GPA, but I hope that the Minister accepts my point about the need for the GPA to be a dynamic and more modernised agreement. If he does accept that, what are Ministers doing to try to convene signatories to the GPA in order to start the process of modernising that agreement?
Sir James Duddridge
I agree that the GPA should be dynamic. In terms of what Ministers are doing, I can speak for myself: at G20, I met Dr Bright Okogu, Professor Ngozi’s right-hand man in the WTO, and I agreed that I would go to Geneva for probably a week and meet all the officials there to get up to speed with the detail at a quiet time, rather than the busy time of a multilateral agreement, to raise exactly these types of issues, because we believe in a free trading system globally and the value of promoting that for all UK equity—it is not just exports, but the cost of living and also development, which both of us care massively about.
I think that I have covered the issue about the CPTPP. I cannot give a running commentary on negotiations there. It is a high priority for the Government. At my most recent meetings with internationals, I raised it, both bilaterally and multilaterally, and I will continue to do so, as will other Ministers. The Australia deal and this Bill are a stepping stone to get there. As a precondition, we want to get this done so that we are on a firmer footing for the next transition.
Gareth Thomas
The hon. Gentleman will be well aware, I suspect, that one of the big concerns about the CPTPP relates to investor-state dispute settlement. One of the mildly reassuring things about the procurement chapters of the Australia and New Zealand FTAs is that they do not allow for investor-state dispute settlement to kick in in a very obvious way. The CPTPP appears to be much more explicitly in favour of ISDS. It would be helpful to understand from the Minister, at a time of his convenience, whether the Government are accepting the principles of ISDS, locked as they are into the CPTPP, or whether he is actively pushing for them to be deleted from the requirements that Britain has to sign up to in order to accede to the CPTPP.
Sir James Duddridge
I really cannot, as part of this Bill, give any more to the hon. Gentleman than I have done on my discussions in international forums and my intention to go out to Geneva. I want to go out there open-minded. A number of issues will be discussed in Geneva above and beyond this one, and I want to have an open discussion. I do not want to prioritise the hon. Gentleman’s equities and desires, or anything else; I want to listen openly to what Dr Ngozi says, and talk about how her priorities fit with the Government’s and how we can move forward together. That is the nature of multilateralism: because every member has a vote, the process can easily be held up, so I am resistant to being too strong in accepting what the hon. Gentleman has said. However, I am very sympathetic to it.
Gareth Thomas
I am grateful to the Minister for his explanation about his upcoming meeting with the staff of Professor Ngozi, who is a great figure internationally. The Minister—I do not chastise him in any way for this—had to have a discussion with his Whip, the hon. Member for Workington, but the question I asked was whether ISDS was included in the CPTPP. I wonder whether the Minister might be willing to look at the record and perhaps drop me a note about the question I actually asked.
Sir James Duddridge
I will certainly do so.
Turning to the question of whether the powers fall away, as ever it is slightly more complicated than yes or no. The powers in clause 1(b) for dealing with matters arising out of, or related to, the FTA chapters will cease to exist for England, Wales and Northern Ireland when the new procurement system becomes law through the Procurement Bill, assuming that all happens; those functions will instead be carried out through the powers in clause 82 of that Bill. It is different for Scotland, because competency for treaty making is at the UK level, but the actual procurement legislation and processes are done by the devolved Assembly. Scotland has separate procurement regulations from the rest of the UK and will retain those regulations after the Procurement Bill comes into effect.
Ms Qaisar
The Minister struggled to say the name of the Scottish National party at the start of his speech. I was a modern studies teacher before my election, and I would be more than happy to share my old PowerPoints on Scottish politics with him if he is struggling to remember the name of the largest party in Scotland.
Over the course of today’s sitting, we have heard time and time again—mainly from Opposition Members—that there has been a lack of scrutiny of this legislation. The amendment proposes that we can come back to this House in five years’ time and discuss the reality of how this trade deal has impacted not just us but our constituents. Trade deals are no longer pieces of paper that are signed by Trade Secretaries—they impact the fibre of our constituencies across all four nations. We therefore intend to push the amendment to a Division.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
New clause 2—Assessment of impact on hill farmers and crofters in Scotland—
“(1) The Secretary of State must publish an assessment of the impact of the implementation of the procurement Chapters on hill farmers and crofters in Scotland within six months of Regulations made under section 1 coming into force and every six months thereafter.
(2) The impact assessment under subsection (1) must be laid before both Houses of Parliament and before the Scottish Parliament.”
New clause 3—Impact assessment: Geographical Indications—
“The Secretary of State must publish an assessment of the impact of the implementation of the procurement Chapters on the operation of Geographical Indications in the United Kingdom within two years of Regulations made under section 1 of this Act coming into force.”
New clause 4—Impact assessment—
“The Secretary of State must publish an assessment of the impact of the implementation of the procurement Chapters within twelve months of the coming into force of Regulations made under section 1 of this Act and every three years thereafter.”
Ms Qaisar
The SNP has proposed new clauses 1, 2 and 3 because we need impact assessments to fully examine the practicalities of these trade deals in matters of procurement, which is so important. I will begin with new clause 1. By examining the social, economic and environmental impacts, we can ensure that we are presented with a fair assessment. That is especially important, as we believe that the UK Government have rushed these trade deals and matters of procurement through Parliament with little to no scrutiny.
While the Bill is narrow in its focus on the procurement chapters of these two agreements, it is important to note the huge potential for imports to increase. Australia currently exports 5,000 tonnes of beef to the UK each year, but the agreement will allow 35,000 tonnes in the first year, increasing each year after that. We know that Australian producers do not have to adhere to the same animal welfare and environmental standards as Scottish farmers. It is a similar story with the agreement with New Zealand, under which exports to the UK beef market will rise to 68,000 tonnes by year 15 of the agreement.
Crucially, there are almost no benefits in this deal for Scotland’s food and drink sector. All this legislation achieves is to expose the Scottish agricultural market to the most export-orientated food producers in the world. Our new clause seeks to ensure that we can examine the impact of the deal. The UK Government’s own analysis shows that the deal with New Zealand will deliver a mere 0.03% of UK GDP benefit over 15 years, and the Australia deal will contribute 0.08%. Scotland has been forced against its will to trade outside the EU, tied to this UK Government, so that they can pretend Brexit is working. That is an undesirable position to be in, but unfortunately it is the position we are in, so we must try to protect Scottish interests as best we can. The impact of this agreement will be felt all across Scotland, so I urge colleagues to back new clause 1, as an impact assessment will improve this piece of legislation and future trade deals.
New clause 2 would provide for us to assess the impact of the implementation of the procurement chapters on hill farmers and crofters in Scotland every six months. Scottish producers are likely to be undercut by lower-quality goods in procurement, and regular impact assessment would allow us to keep track of any potential undercutting. It would also highlight the potential harm that this deal would do to Scottish farmers.
We know that Australia and New Zealand producers are not held to the high standards that Scottish producers are. The UK has put no environmental conditions on the agricultural products it will accept from Australia and New Zealand. The UK Government’s own advisers have conceded that pesticide overuse in Australia is a valid concern for UK farming. There are 144 highly hazardous pesticides authorised for use in Australia—many of the bee-killing variety—which is almost double the figure in the UK. Australian poultry farmers use 16 times more antibiotics per animal than British poultry farmers, and the Australian pig industry uses three times more antibiotics per animal.
While matters relating to food standards fall within the competency of devolved Administrations, they have no power to exclude imported products on the basis of how they have been produced. The Scottish Government have no power to exclude produce awash with pesticides and antibiotics from Australia, and already since Brexit the UK Government have fallen behind the EU on farm antibiotic standards. This undercutting of standards means that meat costs less in the UK if it has been shipped in from Australia or New Zealand. Where does that leave Scottish farmers? Analysis by Quality Meat Scotland has found that
“New Zealand beef farmgate prices are 25-30% lower than Scottish farmgate prices”
and that New Zealand lamb farm-gate prices are
“10% lower than their Scottish counterparts”,
undercutting Scottish farmers on price.
We are in a food security crisis within a cost of living crisis. New clause 2 would ensure that future generations of hill farmers and crofters in Scotland are protected. Last week, during the Bill’s evidence session, we heard from Donald MacKinnon from the Scottish Crofting Federation, who said
“I reiterate that it is so important that these trade deals are given the scrutiny that they deserve. The really important thing is that we consider all the potential unintended consequences—for our sector, in particular—of what may be well meaning motivations.”––[Official Report, Trade (Australia and New Zealand) Public Bill Committee, 12 October 2022; c. 32, Q39.]
None of us has a crystal ball to show us what potential unintended consequences may result from the legislation we are debating. Therefore, it makes logical and economic sense for the UK Government to commit to impact assessments and to back new clause 2.
Going beyond the unfair economics, we do not believe that the community-level impacts that these deals will have on our rural languages, rural local cultures and landscape and on the mental health of farmers, food processors and all those who support them across Scotland have been adequately taken into account. Therefore, supporting new clause 2 would ensure that we put Scottish hill farmers and crofters at the heart of this legislation. Crucially, having impact assessments could help to mitigate the damaging impact that these deals could have on Scottish producers. They would also ensure accountability, as we have stated that they would
“be laid before both Houses of Parliament and before the Scottish Parliament.”
Moving on to new clause 3, we also propose an impact assessment on geographically indications. The food and drink industry is vital in Scotland. Scotland is, of course, world-renowned for its production of whisky, beef and lamb.
Drew Hendry
My hon. Friend mentioned Scotch whisky, and having the safeguard of geographical protections is absolutely vital to that industry, as it is for many others, and I am sure she will touch on that. Is it not a small ask for the Government to include this, in a week where they have just abandoned their pledge to freeze alcohol duty, costing millions, and where their mishandling of the trade negotiations with India threaten even higher tariffs for the Scotch whisky industry, which is a massive export for Scotland? Of course, it sits very proudly in the UK balance of trade as well.
Ms Qaisar
I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. He is correct, because there is real concern that these industries will be threatened by imitation products, which risks undercutting Scottish companies.
Geographical indications are of considerable importance for Scotland because, as I say, they protect the origins of our world-renowned products. Examples include Scotch beef, Scottish-farmed salmon and, as my hon. Friend said, Scotch whisky. The UK Government did not secure recognition of agrifood geographical indications in their agreement with New Zealand, which has, with the EU, now succeeded in gaining recognition of its agrifood GIs in its free trade agreements.
The UK-Australia deal only commits to letting the UK put forward potential geographical indications if Australia introduces bespoke GI schemes for iconic Scottish spirits and agrifoods, rather than including a full list of recognised GIs from day one of the deal, as well as the ability to enhance the list.
Drew Hendry
Does my hon. Friend find it strange that this has been omitted from the Bill and has not been considered until now, given the impact on rural constituencies across Scotland and the fact that one of the people who presented the Bill is in fact the Secretary of State for Scotland?
Ms Qaisar
I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention; he is completely correct. What people may fail to consider—it is important to remember this—is that the food and drinks industry is twice as important to the Scottish economy as to the UK as a whole, and the food and drink export trade is four times as important to the Scottish economy. The legislation in front of us will impact industry, with the UK-Australia trade deal expected to cause a £94 million hit to UK farming, forestry and fishing per year and a £225 million hit to the semi-processed food sector per year. However, UK Ministers pressed ahead with these deals despite prior warnings, effectively treating Scottish interests as expendable.
Dame Nia Griffith
I rise to speak about new clause 4, but I will briefly mention new clauses 1, 2 and 3. I commend the SNP for laying them, but I gently suggest that the issues in them could be covered in new clause 4, which proposes having a proper impact assessment that takes account of the interests of the four nations.
I will not repeat everything I said this morning, which I am sure the Committee will be glad to hear, but the reasons for wanting country-specific impact assessments—and region-specific impact assessments in England—of the ongoing implementation of the Bill, its effect on procurement and the economic effects of the procurement clauses of the FTAs are very much to do the different characteristics and the different proportions of GVA that are countable by different sectors, as mentioned by the hon. Member for Airdrie and Shotts. Within the devolution settlement there are powers regarding agriculture, economic development and procurement policies that the different nations have, which all overlap with what is in the Bill.
There are particular areas that are of great concern. Earlier I mentioned—I do not think the Minister has quite answered this—the power to unilaterally accelerate the elimination of tariffs. Clearly, it would be of huge importance if the UK Government wished to do that and allow in more meat from Australia and New Zealand. We would clearly want consultation on that, but we would also need proper impact assessments to evaluate the situation, and those need to be country-specific impact assessments. As I mentioned earlier, we have is just a group of figures that are region and nation-based.
The other issue—the Minister looked rather quizzically at me before—is the massive use of antibiotics by certain farmers in Australia and New Zealand and the cumulative impact that that will have on the food chain. Again, that needs to be looked at in detail from the perspective of not only the potential commercial advantage it could give over Welsh, Scottish and Cumbrian farmers but what it is doing to our food chain. Linked to that, of course, are pesticides and the sad fact that the Government have accepted the use of pesticides that we would not use in this country. None of these things is going to go away—they will be there for some considerable time and could be in our systems permanently.
On geographical indications, it is an immense disappointment that neither the Australian nor the New Zealand trade agreements include geographical indications. It is a complete failure by the UK Government. The EU made an agreement with New Zealand that did include geographical indications. There will clearly be a competitive advantage for goods from the EU being able to fly their flag and show geographical indications that our goods and our exports will not have. That is a great pity.
I return to the impact on the different nations of the procurement parts of the Bill. The New Zealand agreement contains a general bilateral safeguard mechanism, which is available if the elimination of customs duty causes an increase in imports that threatens or results in serious injury to domestic industries for any given good or products. The Welsh Government does not have that power, because it is not regionally or nationally based—a challenge on those grounds has to be put forward by the UK. We need to have information from the nations about the impact on the particular sectors, which will inform whether there is a danger and whether to flag it up and invoke that bilateral safety mechanism.
It is extremely important that we should not let negative impacts accumulate. That is why we propose an impact assessment within 12 months, and repeated assessments every three years. We know there is a 15-year gap until the full free tariffs come in, on meat, for example, but it is no good waiting 15 years and then finding we have no industry. We should be flagging up and knowing exactly what is happening. As the Minister said, it will not happen on day one; it will be gradual. We need a very specific impact assessment so that we know what is happening.
It may surprise people to know that New Zealand has only ratified six of the eight core International Labour Organisation conventions, which we touched on briefly this morning. It does not have a minimum age for starting work, as long as the work does not interfere with school or is not a matter of concern for health and safety. The Welsh Government have asked for clarification from the UK Government on whether not adhering to the same labour standards as the UK will give New Zealand an advantage. In addition, New Zealand does not protect strikes on economic and social grounds, only on collective bargaining and health and safety. These are important issues and we must keep an eye on exactly what is going on with the procurement and what opportunities and challenges there are, and ensure that the Minister takes action sooner rather than later if we find there are difficulties.
Finally, I would reiterate that there are huge differences between different parts of England and different nations of the UK in terms of the sectors they are dependent on and the impact that anything injurious to any of those sectors might have for their populations.
Sir James Duddridge
May I clarify, Mr Twigg, that we are considering all the new clauses together?
The Chair
Yes. There will be separate votes, but we are considering the new clauses together.
Sir James Duddridge
Thank, you Mr Twigg.
The Government are committed to transparency. We have put forward a suite of enhanced transparency and scrutiny arrangements that go well beyond our statutory obligations.
Lloyd Russell-Moyle
I am pleased to hear about the Government’s commitment to transparency, but at 3 o’clock, the Secretary of State cancelled her meeting with the Chair of the International Trade Committee. He turned up to the Department, where an official said, “The Secretary of State is going to be in the House for votes so cannot meet you now. We will have to postpone to another week.” Is that the reset that we were promised and the kind of openness and transparency that we should expect?
Sir James Duddridge
I have made the point that we want to establish a good relationship with the International Trade Committee, and the Secretary of State giving evidence to it is clearly part of that. The hon. Gentleman will know that Ministers sometimes need to deal with matters urgently. I do not know what other matters are going on, but I am sure that the Secretary of State has apologised profusely and looks forward—as I do—to attending that Committee. I am more than happy to update the hon. Gentleman in a bit more detail, informally—perhaps even later today if I have time to go back to the Department.
Gareth Thomas
As part of this new spirit of transparency from the new ministerial team at the Department for International Trade, will the Minister commit to publishing the analysis used to produce the impact assessment that the Government published for the FTAs? As I understand it, Ministers are refusing to publish the modelling used to generate that assessment. That leaves a slightly cynical taste in the mouth. One suspects that the economic model is not being released because the impact assessment was perhaps slightly inflated.
Sir James Duddridge
I would like to make it clear that this is not a new plan for transparency. I am being credited, to a degree, with what is just the old order and transparency—[Interruption.]
Sir James Duddridge
I am sorry, Mr Twigg. I will stick entirely to new clauses 1, 2 and 3.
I am more than happy to take away the issue of impact assessments, and look at the formula and what was disclosed. I have read the document, but it is very big. I will probe and look at what has already been disclosed before asking the Department to disclose further information.
Sir James Duddridge
I am more than happy to give way but I think I am unlikely to be able to provide the hon. Gentleman with more information than I already have.
Gareth Thomas
I suggest to the Minister that he should approach that discussion with his officials in a slightly different way. Why does he not go to his officials and ask, “Is there any reason why we cannot publish all the economic modelling behind the impact assessment?”
Sir James Duddridge
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his suggestions but, with respect, I will do things my way if that is okay.
We published impact assessments within the agreements—we have spoken about that already. In the reports, the Department provides analytical evidence as a base, but we will do more. I have already spoken about the five-year and two-year assessments.
On UK suppliers competing for procurements, there is a designated team in the Department—complemented by staff from Australia and New Zealand—who will support UK businesses across the country. I have already seen a bit of that.
Sir James Duddridge
I believe that the Secretary of State was tasting Scotch whisky in Scotland last week—that was certainly the plan, but forgive me if things changed. I have plans to go to Scotland myself, but I do not want to say where I am going because I have not yet informed the Member of Parliament for that area. The Department will ensure that I do visits across every nation, every region and in every sector, so that I am not going back to Ipswich or the east of England to look at food and drink every single time. As a reward to this wonderful Committee, if anyone wants me to come and visit their constituency—particularly with the Bill’s export or procurement angles in mind, and perhaps some other bits and pieces as well—I would be more than happy to do so.
Sir James Duddridge
I may just be coming to the point that the hon. Lady wishes to make. The UK prohibits the use of artificial growth hormones in both domestic production and imported meats. Nothing in the deal changes that important issue. The Trade and Agriculture Commission found that there was
“no reason to believe the scheme is not reliable and robust.”
The Chair
Order. I will suspend the sitting for Divisions in the House. I remind Members to come back promptly so that we can get on, as we are nearing the end of proceedings.
Sir James Duddridge
Yes. I have just two or three points. On the argument of the hon. Member for Llanelli, who challenged me outside the Committee Room to go further and be bolder, absolutely the Government should go further and be bolder in this regard, but not in this procurement Bill.
On Jersey potatoes, I was tempted to offer a PowerPoint presentation on the United Kingdom, given that the hon. Member for Airdrie and Shotts is going to send me one on Scotland. I remind the Committee that Jersey is a Crown dependency, and Crown dependencies and overseas territories are not part of this Bill.
I turn to some of the issues raised by the Scottish National party. I think they are inadvertently—I am sure not vertently, if that is a word—part of the anti-growth coalition, because my briefing says that this Bill is rather good for Scotland. I find myself in the position of promoting Scotland—perhaps quite rightly, as the Minister—while the hon. Lady is talking it down a little. The Australia FTA alone is expected to boost the economy by approximately £120 million. Adopt this good news; put it in a press release. Tariffs on Scotch whisky have been cut to 0%.
Drew Hendry
It is on that subject. I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. To be clear, this is about the geographical indicators not the deal itself, in terms of the trade involved. It is about protecting Scottish whisky and the brand.
Sir James Duddridge
There are no changes to geographical indicators in the Bill, but that is not to say we could not do something differently in future. I know there are issues with different spellings of whisky in different places, including in Northern Ireland. I also understand that there is a Northern Ireland issue to this. It has many distilleries—I believe eight—and Members of the Committee are invited to taste the products of some on 27 October.
Gareth Thomas
May I point out gently to the Minister that the point on GIs is that Ministers secured nothing in terms of protection for British GIs in the Australia deal. That comes on top of a very lengthy delay to get any GIs agreed with Japan. There is a worrying pattern of British businesses and good British products not getting the protection they deserve.
Sir James Duddridge
This is not an adverse change. It is just the start of an agreement and not everything can be done on day one.
I have further good news for the Scottish National party. It is slightly outside the scope of procurement, but there will be big benefits from the financial services industry, particularly in Edinburgh. Exporters were very keen, when the Secretary of State went there, to explain that they were happy about tariffs being reduced. That will reduce prices and increase profit. There is good news for Scottish salmon—not for the salmon themselves, as they will be dead—because they are guaranteed to clear customs in six hours. Hon. Members will know that time is an issue with fresh products. Scotland’s services firms, of which there are many, will benefit from access to millions of pounds worth of extra Government contracts. That is good news for the United Kingdom and good news for Scotland.
Ms Qaisar
Thank you, Mr Twigg. I thank the Minister for his contribution. He is more than welcome to come to Scotland. I have a distillery in my constituency of Airdrie and Shotts and he is more than welcome to visit, though I warn him that he may not get as good a response as he hopes, as a Tory MP walking the streets of Scotland.
The Chair
Order. A Division has been called. The maximum is 15 minutes but please be back as quickly as you can after the vote. We shall continue then if the Whips are happy.
The Chair
Anum Qaisar, I am not sure you had quite finished speaking. Do you want to continue?
Sir James Duddridge
Any misunderstanding, I am sure, was accidental. The hon. Lady did actually invite me. I understand how comments can be misinterpreted, and we need to be very careful. Inadvertently, some people might have taken fright at the suggestion that I might not be welcome in Scotland. I have always found Scotland to be very hospitable and welcoming, and look forward to visiting. This perhaps ups the priority of visiting the hon. Lady’s constituency.
Ms Qaisar
That invite is on the table. The reality is, of course, that Ministers in the UK Government have not protected geographical indications. The Minister claimed that he could not do everything on day one. That is understandable, but this is before day one; he has a prime opportunity to do something. I urge him and his colleagues to back new clauses 1, 2, and specifically 3, which protects geographical indicators.
I should say to Labour colleagues that new clause 1 does not mention Scotland specifically. We would like impact assessments on all four nations. The hon. Member for Llanelli said that it was a complete failure of the UK Government not to include geographical indicators, so I hope that I can look forward to her and her colleagues’ support for new clause 3.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
Sir James Duddridge
On a point of order, Mr Twigg. I thank the Clerks for their advice, the Doorkeepers for keeping good order, my super-excellent team of officials, and my private office, who are truly wonderful—so much so that I have asked my private secretary to take a note of all the Clerks and Doorkeepers who helped, and have asked them to drinks in the Churchill Room, in the hope that we will soon complete Report and Third Reading. I extend the invitation to you, Mr Twigg, and to Mr Pritchard. This legislation implements the Department’s first from-scratch agreement, and officials of the Department have done us proud.
As we await Report and Third Reading, however, issues are bound to crop up. I encourage hon. Members to discuss those with me. In fact, at 7 o’clock this evening, I will be available in the Smoking Room, if anyone wishes to continue discussion on the agreements. I am more than happy to buy Members whatever tickles their fancy—an Australian wine, a New Zealand wine, an English wine, or whiskies from all nations.
Gareth Thomas
Further to that point of order, Mr Twigg. On behalf of the official Opposition, I add my thanks to you and to Mr Pritchard for the generous way in which you have chaired proceedings. I must also thank the Clerks for their assistance with drafting, the Hansard staff for the challenging job that they will have to do to understand my notes in particular, and the Doorkeepers for keeping order. I can well understand why the Minister praises his officials; I hope others will understand if I take the opportunity to praise my one member of staff, who has assisted me in preparing for the Committee.
We have had a lively and provocative debate, in which a whole series of serious issues were raised by hon. Members from the Scottish National party and from the Labour party. I am grateful to my hon. Friends the Members for Llanelli, for Nottingham South, for Brighton, Kemptown, and for Sefton Central for their support.
I note that not one Conservative Back Bencher took the opportunity to praise the person who negotiated the Australia and New Zealand deals today—
Ms Qaisar
Further to that point of order, Mr Twigg. I will not keep the Committee much longer. I echo the thanks to the Clerks and the Doorkeepers, who are the backbone of this place. Somehow, I seem to have had more help than the official Opposition: Katie, Clo and Calum have been fantastic on the research and background. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey and I, and others in the SNP, will be knocking on the Minister’s door in coming weeks, championing Scotland, Scottish farmers and Scottish products.
Bill to be reported, without amendment.
Westminster Hall
(1 year, 6 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
Floating Offshore Wind Projects
(1 year, 6 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
Stephen Crabb (Preseli Pembrokeshire) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered delivery of floating offshore wind projects.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Christopher, and I am grateful to have secured time for a debate on the delivery of floating offshore wind power, which is one of the most interesting and exciting energy developments in play. It is good to see colleagues from across the United Kingdom and I look forward to hearing their contributions. I put on record my thanks to RenewableUK, the Crown Estate and many of the developers for reaching out ahead of the debate to provide briefing and insight.
This is a timely moment to discuss the role of floating offshore wind in the UK’s energy mix and to consider what further steps the Government need to take to facilitate the emergence of that new industry. The twin challenges of net zero and energy security mean that the strategic imperative around this home-grown clean energy solution is becoming ever stronger.
Floating offshore wind—or FLOW, to use the shorthand—harnesses the power of wind by using turbines based on floating structures rather than fixed. It offers an opportunity to deploy enormous turbines in larger, deeper, more exposed offshore areas where the overall wind potential is higher and therefore more energy can be generated.
There is a high level of expectation that floating wind is going to become an increasingly important part of our energy mix. The Government have set a target of 5 GW of FLOW to be installed by 2030, and Offshore Renewable Energy Catapult estimates that we could have up to 95 GW of floating wind in UK waters by 2050. At that point, the majority of the wind turbines in UK waters would be floating, not fixed to the seabed as they are today.
The UK is already home to the largest floating wind farm in the world—Kincardine, off the coast of Aberdeen in the North sea—which is using the highest-capacity turbines ever installed on floating platforms. The success of Kincardine should give both industry and Government confidence that the technology works and is scalable, and that it can be replicated elsewhere.
Floating wind will be critical to achieving the Government’s energy security targets, and if we do not choose to industrialise FLOW we will have to generate at least 15 GW of power by 2035 using other means. Indeed, it is difficult to see how the overall expansion of offshore wind envisioned by the Government’s targets would be technically possible without doing floating wind in a very big way. That industrialisation of floating offshore wind will create the pathway for cost reduction, as has been proven with fixed-bottom offshore wind.
Floating wind offers a huge opportunity for the world to harness offshore wind power, not just those limited regions with shallow sandbanks close to shore. Globally, the UK Government have set the most ambitious targets for developing floating offshore wind, but other countries are catching up fast. Spain has announced a target of 1 GW to 3 GW of FLOW by 2030. Similarly, France, Norway, Japan, Ireland and parts of the United States have set clear and ambitious targets. The world will therefore develop floating wind for sure. The UK is well positioned as the leading marketplace for investors, but if those targets are not followed through, I fear that the UK is likely to be left behind as other countries move to seize on the new technology.
Along with parts of the North sea, the Celtic sea—located off the coasts of south-west Wales, Devon, Cornwall and southern Ireland—is one of those areas with the greatest potential to deploy FLOW. It is attracting enormous interest from developers and investors, and I am delighted that my hon. Friend the Member for North Devon (Selaine Saxby), chair of the all-party parliamentary group for the Celtic sea, is here today. I look forward to hearing her remarks.
Floating offshore wind in the Celtic sea represents a multibillion pound economic development and investment opportunity for Wales, the south-west of England and the whole UK. The area has excellent wind resource infrastructure and local industry for potential supply chain development. The Crown Estate’s Celtic sea leasing programme aims to deliver 4 GW of new floating offshore wind by 2035. It could provide power for almost 4 million homes, and the project will kick start an innovative new industry in the area, with the Celtic sea assessed to have the economic potential to accommodate up to an additional 20 GW by 2045. Just last week, the Crown Estate announced that it is seeking to accelerate the leasing process for that first stage of development, recognising the importance of bringing floating wind onstream as soon as possible, and will be looking to launch the tender process in the middle of next year.
For us in west Wales—I represent a Welsh constituency —floating offshore wind represents a hugely exciting and valuable prospect. It is another stage in the evolution of Milford Haven port in my constituency. Shared with my right hon. Friend the Member for Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire (Simon Hart), Milford Haven is one of the UK’s most important energy ports, beginning in the late 18th century when whale oil was imported for use in streetlamps. The late 20th century brought oil refining and trade in petroleum products, and the early 2000s brought liquefied natural gas imports. Strategically, Milford Haven plays an incredibly important role in our energy mix, and I believe that the coming decades at Milford Haven will be about floating offshore wind and hydrogen.
Early analysis by Cardiff Business School suggests that floating offshore wind, hydrogen and sustainable fuels investment could add an additional 3,000 Welsh jobs to the 5,000 already supported by the Milford Haven waterway. Floating offshore wind will facilitate the transition to a vital new green energy era, supporting the continued evolution of that major hub for another 50 years. On the Milford Haven waterway, we already have a number of very active projects: we have Blue Gem Wind, a joint venture between Simply Blue and TotalEnergies, which is looking to establish the first demonstrator projects in the Celtic sea. We have DP Energy, a joint venture involving EDF, and RWE—which has a major gas-fired power station on the Milford Haven waterway—is looking at floating offshore wind opportunities, in conjunction with exploring the possibilities of producing hydrogen and moving its entire operation in Pembrokeshire to a lower carbon future.
Simon Hart (Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire) (Con)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that the much-rumoured and long-awaited freeport status for places such as Milford Haven—even in conjunction with Neath Port Talbot or similar—would accelerate all of the exciting initiatives he has referred to?
Stephen Crabb
I will mention freeport opportunities a bit later, but my right hon. Friend is exactly right. So often when people talk about freeports, it is in the context of an answer looking for a question; what we have in Milford Haven—together with Port Talbot, I might say—is a solution. It is something that will help facilitate a new industry, and if we can use the freeport process to help support that—I am looking towards the Minister—then that would be excellent indeed.
Stephen Kinnock (Aberavon) (Lab)
The right hon. Gentleman is making an excellent speech, and I congratulate him on securing the debate. Building on his point about freeports, one of the key advantages of our freeport bid is that it is in synergy with the floating offshore wind opportunity. That will deliver a huge amount of added value through the manufacturing opportunities and long-term sustainable job opportunities that will come out of it, so the freeport offer is a strategic offer, not just transactional.
Stephen Crabb
As is typical, the hon. Member has gone right to the heart of the matter. Floating offshore wind is going to happen in a big way in UK waters— I absolutely believe that. The challenge that we need to get our heads around is how much real economic value and content can be captured and secured for the UK. The hon. Gentleman is exactly right that a collaborative bid between Port Talbot and the port of Milford Haven provides a potential framework to allow that industrialisation and capturing of domestic content to happen.
FLOW presents an important economic opportunity for the whole of the UK—for ports, industry and energy infrastructure, and by driving up investment and regional and national growth, as well as increasing the numbers of skilled jobs and career opportunities. The levelling-up opportunities are enormous: tens of thousands of people are already working in the offshore wind industry and supply chain in places such as Hull and Hartlepool. That is the kind of domestic content and supply chain opportunity that we want to deliver for Wales and the whole of the Celtic sea region. With large-scale projects in the Celtic sea perhaps five to 10 years away, there is an opportunity now for the development of the appropriate infrastructure and supply chain capability, which will deliver significant local opportunities in the region and, in turn, drive regional economic growth.
While we are talking about Port Talbot, I should say that I was excited to see RWE recently announce a new partnership with Tata Steel in the constituency of the hon. Member for Aberavon (Stephen Kinnock). That will explore how steel manufactured in south Wales could be used for floating wind projects, which is exactly the kind of innovative thinking that we need to achieve everything to which we aspire.
I hope to have outlined the scale of the vision and opportunity in front of us. It is ambitious and exciting, and in my view it is achievable. There is enormous private sector interest. However, along with the scale of the opportunity, there is an enormous delivery challenge. Ensuring that we have the appropriate offshore and onshore capabilities to deliver this is a big and complicated challenge. The 5 GW by 2030 target is ambitious. The industry is confident that it can respond to the challenge, but it will require a lot of work. Think about the sheer scale of what we are talking about: hundreds and hundreds of enormous new turbines being manufactured and towed out to sea. We have also to think about all of the onshore infrastructure around the turbine: the port infrastructure, new grid capacity, new grid connections, all the supply chain work that we have talked about, the financial architecture around it—contracts for difference—and, of course, the planning regimes in which the projects operate.
Projects cannot happen without the underpinning physical infrastructure—grid and ports—and the right policy architecture. Creating the right frameworks will require a lot of collaboration between the public and private sectors.
Stephen Kinnock
The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right about all of the wraparound and complexity. One thing he may have mentioned—I may have missed it—is maintenance and servicing. Once the structures are in place, they require regular maintenance and servicing, which in itself is a huge employment-generating opportunity.
Stephen Crabb
The hon. Gentleman is exactly right about the operations and maintenance role. That is not just a job creator; they are valuable jobs. There is real economic value in those support services.
I come back to the delivery challenges around this big, complicated opportunity. The first challenge relates to leadership and co-ordination. As with the early development of fixed-bottom offshore wind, the support of the UK Government will be crucial in driving forward the political, regulatory and financial support frameworks that are needed to maximise the flow opportunities. I welcome recent positive statements by the Government, but there needs to be much more visible engagement from Ministers when it comes specifically to the Celtic sea opportunity. I have been impressed by the leadership that the Crown Estate has shown, and the work that it is doing to create robust frameworks around the tender process and environmental protections. However, there is a role for UK Government, over and above what the Crown Estate is doing, to push forward the Celtic sea programme. That role starts with setting credible, ambitious targets. We are in a relatively strong position when it comes to the UK’s clear pipeline of offshore projects, which is backed up by a firm commitment from Government. That is critical in increasing investor confidence in the UK market, but Ministers should be going further, perhaps by setting supplementary, longer-term targets to strengthen signals to investors and developers. Ministers should be clear about the UK’s intentions to scale up the sector rapidly in the coming 10 years.
The next area of challenge is getting the right financial architecture in place: a market environment that encourages price competition and industrial development. The contracts for difference have been incredibly effective at reducing the costs of renewable energy projects by reducing wholesale price risk, but the weakness of the structure of the CfD auction scheme is that it considers only the price of projects, and not wider industrial and economic considerations or future cost reductions. The Government should look to reform the CfD system to create a premium or incentive that recognises projects that make substantial commitments to industrial and economic development in the UK and to innovation in the UK. The aim of these reforms should be focused on fostering a market environment in which investment, innovation and economies of scale are incentivised. Consideration should also be given to what form of support can be provided to combined FLOW and hydrogen production projects, which cannot really be assessed alongside conventional FLOW from a cost perspective. I mentioned the work that RWE is doing in Pembroke, looking at the role of floating offshore wind to support hydrogen development, and there probably needs to be a different way of looking at that in terms of price support.
At the heart of the infrastructure challenge are ports. Floating offshore wind will require a lot of port infrastructure. No port close to the Celtic sea is currently ready to handle the key activities for deploying floating offshore wind, but we have a window of opportunity now to address this and ensure that the economic value of deploying these vast structures can be captured for the UK. The FLOWMIS—floating offshore wind manufacturing investment scheme—funding that the Government are making available will help. As far as I am aware, the Government have not yet announced how that money will be used, but a good chunk, if not the lion’s share, should be devoted to supporting the development of the Celtic sea industry.
Given the targets that we are looking to achieve and the scale of activity that will be required, there will be enormous opportunities for all ports across south-west England, Wales and Northern Ireland. There is a clear starting point, and we have already discussed it: the ports of Milford Haven and Port Talbot. Independent reports from the likes of ORE Catapult and FLOW developers have identified Pembroke Dock in the port of Milford Haven and Associated British Ports at Port Talbot as potential anchor ports for floating offshore wind. However, without collaboration and significant investment at both ports over the next decade, the vast majority of the potential £4 billion of benefits could simply go overseas. A combined, dual port solution, with close proximity to the Celtic arrays, has enormous potential to accelerate the deployment of floating offshore wind and increase prospects for UK Government generation goals.
Stephen Kinnock
The right hon. Gentleman is being very generous in giving way, and I thank him for that. He is right that port infrastructure is vital, but another key part of our infrastructure is the national grid. Does he agree that there are real concerns about the capability of the national grid to deliver the power that we need from offshore wind, and that the UK Government need to get round the table with National Grid and Ofgem to make that happen?
Stephen Crabb
I swear I have not shared a copy of my speech with the hon. Gentleman, but he anticipates the next section extremely well. I will just finish this point about the freeport bid. I am not expecting the Minister to comment—it is a live bidding process—but as I said on the Floor of the House yesterday in Levelling Up, Housing and Communities questions, I hope that Ministers will look closely at what is coming forward from Milford Haven, Pembroke Dock within that port, ABP at Port Talbot and the two relevant local authorities, because it is genuinely exciting and represents something different. We should not get hung up on freeport labels; it is about doing something innovative and collaborative that can help to unleash the full economic potential of this opportunity.
Let me get on to grids, before I bring my remarks to a close. The hon. Member for Aberavon (Stephen Kinnock) is exactly right: potentially even more challenging than delivering port upgrades is achieving a serious step change in the way we increase grid capacity and make available new grid connections here in the UK. The planning and consenting processes are ridiculously slow and difficult—they are not fit for purpose. We on the Welsh Affairs Committee in recent months have been taking evidence on the grid infrastructure in Wales. Our report on that will be coming out soon, so I will not pre-empt that. I was pleased in the evidence we took to hear about steps that are being taken by Government to reduce the offshore wind consenting times, but the truth is that we need to see far more urgent action from Government to address grid capacity. The danger is that developers will increase their capabilities and be able to construct and deploy large-scale renewable energy infrastructure way ahead of the planning process, and that cannot be acceptable. We need more anticipatory investment so that new grid networks are built in time for those major new sources of generation and for demand. We could talk about other planning challenges: in the Welsh context, we have the devolved body Natural Resources Wales. Developers are concerned that Natural Resources Wales should be fully equipped to be able to handle the volume and complexity of the planning jobs that they will be asked to do, to assess the impact on seabeds and things like that.
Floating offshore wind represents a major, exciting opportunity for the UK to tackle a number of critical issues: wholesale prices, energy security, job generation, levelling up and net zero. It is an exciting package. Floating offshore wind presents a compelling answer to all those challenges. The key challenges for us to consider are the risks and potential difficulties around delivery, and achieving the scale of offshore and onshore capabilities and systems that will be required just a few years from now. I look forward to hearing from colleagues and the Minister.
Stephen Kinnock (Aberavon) (Lab)
I congratulate the right hon. Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire (Stephen Crabb) on securing this vital debate.
If the last 12 months have taught us anything, it is that if we are to better protect ourselves from rocketing energy costs, as a country we must become more resilient and less exposed to fluctuating global energy prices. The good news is that the UK is well placed to do that, but we need a UK Government who will grasp the nettle and realise our potential.
A Labour Government will turn the UK into a green growth superpower through our green prosperity plan, by creating GB Energy, a new publicly owned clean energy generation company that will harness the power of the UK’s sun, wind and waves. We will establish the UK as a clean energy superpower, delivering a zero-carbon electricity system by 2030 and guaranteeing long-term energy security. It is only through a publicly owned company that we can ensure that communities and people across the country feel the benefits of the power created on our own shores through cheaper bills, good local jobs and putting money back into the public purse.
To achieve clean power by 2030, we will need to quadruple offshore wind. Floating offshore wind will be crucial in helping us achieve that goal. The Celtic sea will be a vital next step in that journey. The deployment of 24 GW of floating offshore wind in the Celtic sea presents a major opportunity to establish manufacturing and logistical support in south Wales. Port Talbot is ideally placed to be the hub for that activity, and a catalyst for the growth of FLOW in the region. Unlocking the Celtic sea’s potential requires ports that are capable of constructing foundation substructures, component storage and turbine integration, and continuous maintenance of those turbines.
Port Talbot’s deep sea harbour, with the land around it fully available for development, makes it the only port with capacity to combine FLOW fabrication, assembly, staging and flotation. The harbour is sheltered from high winds by a natural bay, and the space, size and water depth means that it can easily accommodate the substructure construction for the largest turbines in sufficient quantity to meet long-term Celtic sea demand.
Port Talbot also has the key infrastructure to support that groundbreaking technology. We are centrally located and have excellent transport links, with easy access to the M4 and the rail network. We also have world-class steelworks and the existing manufacturing supply chains, which bring with them the vital workforce skills and labour pool, including port workers, heavy industry workers, and maintenance and servicing workers, to support the quality manufacturing and assembly jobs essential for FLOW to become a reality.
Local businesses already in the manufacturing supply chains are keen to bring their transferable skills to the table and be part of this new, cutting-edge technology. Such is the scale of the FLOW project that there is significant potential to attract new industries in the supply chain, to create thousands of skilled jobs and to open up a world of opportunity for my Aberavon communities and those well beyond.
In short, Port Talbot has the capacity to deliver this scale of growth. It is a daunting project, but we have the basic infrastructure right there; it just needs to be mobilised. We have the critical mass and established manufacturing base needed to make a success of this future industry, but it is not just Port Talbot that would benefit. The benefits would be felt right across south Wales and beyond. The Swansea Bay economy has the ability both to absorb the initial demand and to translate it into new economic activity, and the sheer scale of what we are talking about would require additional resources to support Port Talbot, with the ports of Swansea and, as the right hon. Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire so eloquently pointed out, Milford Haven having the capacity to carry out vital supporting activities right through the supply chain, including integration, maintenance, and assembly of mooring and cabling components. This has to be a team effort if it is going to work.
A south Wales freeport centred around Port Talbot and Milford Haven has huge potential to support FLOW manufacturing, assembly, installation and associated supply chains, and those opportunities can be distributed between the ports of Port Talbot and Milford Haven, which complement each other and offer the prospect of establishing the energy and manufacturing coast in south Wales at the necessary scale. Freeport status for Port Talbot and Milford Haven would help to create an environment to attract inward investment for the manufacturing of components for FLOW and the development of wider industrial manufacturing. The proposed new port infrastructure at Port Talbot will be an attractive site for the co-location of manufacturing for offshore wind components, improving the logistics of the supply chain. Port Talbot will also offer access to new export markets as well as the industrialised economy of south Wales.
The ability to offer the benefits of freeport status for development land in close proximity to the newly constructed port infrastructure will provide significant advantages for potential investors seeking to establish new manufacturing capacity in the UK, but also across Europe. I have had extensive discussions with Associated British Ports, which stands ready to invest over £500 million in new and upgraded infrastructure to enable the manufacturing, assembly and launch of floating foundation substructures and the import, storage and integration of wind turbine components in Port Talbot. These plans would be transformative for my Aberavon constituency and the surrounding area, but support from the UK Government will be a crucial precondition for drawing in private sector investment so that the FLOW project can get off the ground. FLOWMIS co-funding would demonstrate the UK Government’s clear long-term commitment to developing the site and the sector, giving confidence to allow investors and other funding providers to back the project and unlock sizeable private sector investment potential.
There is no time to waste. As the right hon. Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire pointed out, other European countries, such as Ireland, France, Spain and Portugal, are also looking at investing in FLOW, so we must act now if we are to secure first mover advantage. We missed the boat with onshore and offshore wind in the past; other countries stole a march on us, and now they benefit from energy produced here. The largest onshore wind farm, which also happens to be in my Aberavon constituency, is paying for schools and hospitals in Stockholm. The Chinese Communist party has a stake in our nuclear industry, and millions pay their bills to an energy company that is owned in France. Such countries, rather than the local communities where the energy is actually being generated, also benefit from the manufacturing jobs that go with these industries. It is simply scandalous, which is why I am lobbying the Crown Estate to ensure that when it grants the lease for the Celtic sea, local benefits are maximised and we grasp the opportunity to build a homegrown manufacturing base to underpin these local industries. The manufacturing supply chain must stay in south Wales.
Worryingly, the Crown Estate’s announcement last week on the seabed licences lacked detail on the supply chain and the local content commitment that developers will have to give when bidding for seabed licences for FLOW development in the Celtic sea, and I urge the Minister to raise the issue with the Crown Estate as a matter of urgency. Under the current criteria, there is a real risk that the opportunity will yet again be missed to maximise prospects for local jobs and supply chains. The Crown Estate must therefore provide more detail on the local content commitment that developers will have to give as part of the bidding process.
The future of our country is in our air, sea and skies, and mother nature has truly given us a gift in Wales. We were the cradle of the first industrial revolution, and now Wales can be the cradle of the green industrial revolution, with Port Talbot at the forefront. Investing in Port Talbot as the hub for this game-changing form of renewable energy would turn south Wales into a green power superpower in the generation of renewable energy. I therefore urge the UK Government and all other key stakeholders to come together to ensure we grasp this opportunity with both hands.
Several hon. Members rose—
Sir Christopher Chope (in the Chair)
There are four Back Benchers seeking to catch my eye, and we have about half an hour before the wind-ups.
Selaine Saxby (North Devon) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Christopher. I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire (Stephen Crabb) for securing this important debate. I will reinforce and reiterate much of what he and the hon. Member for Aberavon (Stephen Kinnock) said.
I set up the all-party parliamentary group for the Celtic sea because the opportunities presented by the Celtic sea were apparent, but there was a disjointed approach, which many of my Welsh colleagues have discussed. I was concerned that we might miss out on the opportunity altogether in North Devon, and I am delighted that my hon. Friend the Member for Truro and Falmouth (Cherilyn Mackrory) is here to put in a case for the south-west of England. If we are to deliver these projects, we need a strategic approach that takes into account all the ports, skills and opportunities right the way around the Celtic sea. This is a national and international opportunity, and I am delighted to have the support of the Celtic sea APPG secretariat here today. We have been working hard to drive forward the issue, and we now have a Celtic Sea Developers Alliance. We have now established that the wind blows the opposite way in the Celtic sea, so we are delighted to have an opportunity, alongside our Scottish counterparts, to work across the whole country to see how we can deliver these projects.
On the strategy, like others I am concerned about the UK supply chain, because pretty much everything that is planned is coming in internationally. We are not realising the economic benefits that these enormous turbines present. I have seen the work going on in Blyth, and it is clear to me that my beautiful constituency is probably not best placed to develop a big port. However, we are the closest port to the development sites, and yet I cannot see anything local that is developing the kind of maintenance system that we need to service the 250 floating offshore wind turbines that are coming at us in the next five to 10 years.
In addition, as has been said, our ports are not ready. Much as it is lovely to hear everyone bid for projects for their ports, it would make much more sense to have a strategy that delivers the floating offshore wind manufacturing investment scheme—FLOWMIS—and liaises between the ports. Competition is great and drives innovation, but we need a decision so that we do not have three or four ports building exactly the same thing, none of them terribly well. We need to say, “This one can maintain and this one will build blades,” so that strategically we take the opportunity that we are presented with.
That is no better demonstrated than when it comes to cables, which are a particular bugbear of mine, given what has happened on the east coast with fixed offshore wind. Now that we understand that blue carbon is released every time we disturb the ocean floor, why on earth are we not insisting that cable corridors be put in at the start of the projects so that we can connect to the grid—I will come to the problems there—and damage the floor only once? When assessing the bids, we need to consider the full environmental impact, because we tend to look just at the benefits of delivering the wind power from the turbines without considering the international components—how far they have come, how they were made and what happened to the carbon in their production—let alone the damage to the floor.
I want to highlight some of the very small development sites, which I am sure were designed to deliver great opportunities and develop scientific insights. I have a small one in my North Devon constituency that can go into a small substation, but because there is no cable corridor connecting to the main grid, its cables go across four highly designated beaches, straight through my biosphere, and disturb all my sites of special scientific interest.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for allowing me to intervene because she hits on an important point: the lack of co-operation and strategy. It is not just about cable corridors, important though they are. It is also about how floating offshore wind and, perhaps later, tidal stream generation sit with other users of the seabed. Fishermen in my constituency, and I do not doubt in hers, are already concerned about spatial squeeze. It should not be a barrier; it would be an unnecessary conflict if we do not take the opportunity now to do something meaningful, and hold the ring around the different people who want to use the sea and the seabed.
Selaine Saxby
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his intervention—I agree entirely. I am also grateful for the work of the Crown Estate in trying to tackle some of these matters. We need to take a far broader strategic approach when it comes to the ocean floor.
Once we have got things into a cable, hopefully in a corridor, and have connected into the grid, the grid is perhaps able to take 30 kW out of the Celtic sea, but is that the full potential? What work is being done to upgrade that grid? Why have we got small substations, such as the development site at Yelland, when potentially it could go into the main national grid? Alternatively, if Yelland is to become a proper substation, can we have a proper cable corridor, so that it has to go through our precious beaches only once?
I hope that as we move forward we can look at the full environmental impact, and properly cost some of those points into the next round of contracts for difference. It is important to recognise that it is not always about price. As touched on by my right hon. Friend the Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire, other factors could be considered when awarding the contracts.
My other big concern is skills. We do not have anyone to do any jobs in North Devon right now, to be honest. I would like to see skills incorporated in the contract for difference, and that we reward developers who are prepared to invest in science, technology, engineering and maths facilities along our ports, right around the Celtic sea, so that all of us along those patches are able to develop the next generation of engineers.
On strike price, I would highlight concern in the industry that the price was too low in the contract for difference auction round 4, because it took into account some of the infrastructure that was already present. That is not a true reflection of where the price would be moving forward. I urge the Minister, as we look to take advantage, please can we consider some of the other elements that have been discussed today, such as the supply chain, environment and skills, and not just price, as we look to develop contract auction round 5?
We have the world’s largest pipeline and target for the sector, and there is long-term confidence in the UK. However, it is critical that that next auction round—AR5—demonstrates that we also have the right market conditions, or we could fail to realise the investment opportunities already displayed, and see it move to more competitive markets, which will have knock-on effects for subsequent auction rounds for contracts for difference.
Although I love the fact that my APPG has been able to drive some change. As a former maths teacher and not an engineer, I do not think I am best placed to drive this forward. I very much hope we shall see some big strategic interventions to achieve the potential of the Celtic sea.
Kenny MacAskill (East Lothian) (Alba)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Christopher. I congratulate the right hon. Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire (Stephen Crabb) on securing the debate and on an excellent speech. I concur with him on the future possibilities. I have a minor comment, meant as an assistance rather than a chastisement: the pronunciation of the windfarm’s location is actually Kincardine, although he is not from those parts and is not to know. Otherwise, I fully agree.
Scotland has 60% of the UK’s onshore wind; it has 25% of Europe’s offshore wind capacity. It is not simply the Celtic sea; it is all around Scotland’s shores. The Berwick Bank field, between East Lothian, my constituency, and Fife is able to power something like 2.5 million households. Scotland only has 2.4 million, and that is one field alone, so the potential is significant. It follows on from oil and gas and precedes, as has been mentioned, tidal possibilities and even carbon capture and storage, so our country has been blessed with huge natural resources—a significant blessing. Scotland is energy-rich, but Scots are fuel-poor. It is no comfort to be able to see turbines turning—if they are—onshore or offshore if people cannot heat their home, power their business or obtain employment. That is why we ask: where is our country’s and our communities’ benefit from resource?
I appreciate that there is a disconnect that has to be resolved. Scotland has more energy than it requires, as I mentioned with the Berwick Bank field. England has a surfeit of requirement, but not the ability to access that energy and therefore cabling makes sense. But where is the consequent payment? Where are the jobs? At present, they are simply not coming.
The turbines are going to be constructed, but sadly almost none in Scotland. Every yard in Scotland should be clanging and riveting. Every estuary in Scotland should be producing them, but we are bringing them in from south of the border, from the Netherlands, from Indonesia. Where is the work for our people? It is not evident in my constituency or across the country.
Transmission stations are also—correctly—being built. I have one near Torness that will take the cabling south to Redcar. A similar one is going from Peterhead down to Drax, but where is the consequent payment and compensation for Scotland’s losing the energy from our shores? Where is the money that we should be entitled to? It is simply coming in and going on. I get told there are supply chain jobs. I spoke to Scottish Power. The transmission station will employ four people in my constituency. That is an inadequate return. It is simply unacceptable. We accept cabling, but there has to be compensation and it cannot simply be a few pounds for the Crown Estate. It has to be for the communities and the country as a whole.
It is not simply, as I say, the cabling. Although the Berwick Bank field is in Scottish territorial waters and although it lies between East Lothian and Fife, 40% will be cabled directly south to Blyth. The Crown Estate will not even get any benefit. The Scottish Government, Marine Scotland, the councils, the communities, Crown Estate Scotland—nobody is getting any financial recompense. That cannot be right. It has to be addressed.
Mr Carmichael
The hon. Gentleman has hit on something really important: community benefit. In Orkney and Shetland for the last 40 years we have derived real community benefit from the presence of offshore oil and gas in our communities. It would be an absolute scandal if we cannot get the same benefit from the next generation of clean renewable energy. Does he agree that it is rather perplexing that when the ScotWind round of leasing was facilitated, a cap of £100,000 per sq km was put on bids in the auction? I do not understand for the life of me why that was necessary. It is a real missed opportunity. Scotland’s seabed has been sold cheap.
Kenny MacAskill
It has. The right hon. Gentleman raises two issues, including the community benefit that there should be. I pay tribute to Mr Clark and Shetland Islands Council, who negotiated that. Anybody who goes to Shetland will see the community benefit. East Lothian would give its eye teeth for that. That community benefit should apply not simply in Scotland and the Scottish islands, but across the UK. There should be a community benefit. It would not be a disincentive to investment, and it should be available for communities.
With regard to the Scotland project, the bulk of my criticism, because energy is overwhelmingly reserved, is against the UK Government, but the Scotland auction has been lamentable. Nobody goes into an auction, whether at a fundraiser for a political party or whatever, and puts a cap on an auction. Normally we put a floor on an auction, but for some reason the Scottish Government decided to put a cap on it. They returned a benefit of £700 million and crowed about that being a great benefit to Scotland. Of course, £700 million is better than a poke in the eye with a sharp stick, but one month later New York had the New York Bight. It put up for auction one quarter of what was disposed of in Scotland and it obtained $4.3 billion. The Scottish Government have to answer for their incompetence and the UK Government for their failures.
There are opportunities. There should be employment in Scotland. There should be energy storage, because that is now coming onshore with the battery, so we should be able to keep stuff in Scotland. We should be able to manufacture hydrogen—green hydrogen, not blue hydrogen. In my constituency, what do we require for hydrogen? In the main, we require water and energy, and we have that by the score, so there has to be more. This is a huge potential benefit that has landed in Scotland and its communities, but at present—through failures by the Scottish Government but primarily the UK Government—we are not seeing that benefit in terms of employment. We are not seeing our share, because it is ours and we should be taking it. It is absurd, as the hon. Member for Aberavon (Stephen Kinnock) mentioned, that Vattenfall and the Chinese national corporation are owners and yet our people are not. This potential must be for the benefit of our country and communities. The Government have to up their game and, indeed, so do the devolved Governments.
Cherilyn Mackrory (Truro and Falmouth) (Con)
I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire (Stephen Crabb) for securing this important debate, which places a spotlight on an exciting emerging sector for my constituency of Truro and Falmouth in Cornwall and the south-west as a whole. Cornwall is already at the heart of the green revolution. We are mining and drawing out lithium and are drilling for deep geothermal, which is why I have worked on the all-party parliamentary group for the Celtic sea to promote floating offshore wind projects off our Cornish shores.
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for North Devon (Selaine Saxby), who set up the all-party group. She works tirelessly on this issue and is brilliant at bringing all the different threads together. When we became MPs in 2019, I was lobbied by only one company. Not a year later we had a reception on the Terrace where there were between 50 and 100 companies present, and that number continues to grow. It is a growing sector and one that should benefit all parts of the United Kingdom.
I was delighted to welcome the Defence Secretary, the COP26 President and the Business Secretary to Falmouth to see first hand how Cornwall can help deliver this vision. It is right that the Government have a target to raise the UK’s floating offshore wind capacity from one gigawatt to five by 2030. Floating offshore wind in the Celtic sea will be crucial to reaching that target, with the Crown Estate recently announcing that the leasing round for the region will be launched in mid-2023. That could deliver 4 GW of installed UK floating offshore wind capacity by 2035, supporting up to 3,200 jobs, with the potential of £682 million spend in the local supply chain by 2030.
A key part of the strategy is the TwinHub project, which is the first floating offshore wind project in the Celtic sea, based off the Cornish north coast. TwinHub has developed a new design that places two turbines on one platform, which gets twice the bang for its buck. This offshore wind farm will produce more energy while taking up comparatively less space and, by 2025, will be generating enough electricity to power 45,000 homes. The wider opportunities that floating offshore wind and the Celtic sea present will create over 1,500 skilled jobs, with £900 million headed for the regional economy by 2030 based on current projections.
As my right hon. Friend the Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire alluded to, the grid support maintenance will require cohesive collaboration between the public and private sectors, but we need the big port upgrades to build these floating offshore wind farms. Falmouth is one of the deepest ports in the world and is ideally positioned to become an integration port where turbines will be put together before being towed out to sea. Falmouth is also best placed for the maintenance of components and used vessels. The south-west supply chains will then be built up and will develop a strong network of experienced project developers and a wealth of skills and experience. These are all high-quality careers for the future of Cornish children in my schools. Falmouth should therefore receive its first share of the £160 million floating offshore wind manufacturing investment scheme to unlock wider private sector investment in the Celtic sea.
North sea ports already have the necessary infrastructure to be competitive due to their historical industry. If Celtic sea ports such as Falmouth are not upgraded, we risk utilising just one sea rather than the two. I urge the Government to look at further streamlining planning regulations to speed up the upgrades. One thing that the Celtic sea APPG has done perfectly is to encourage a port strategy. If I have one plea for the Minister, it is to try to do that, so that we know which ports will be best placed to do which parts and we can turbocharge development to ensure we get it right. Incidentally, Cornwall Council has submitted its application for an investment zone, which will include Falmouth port. I pay tribute to the council and our portfolio holder for economic growth, Louis Gardner, who has turbocharged efforts since coming into post recently to ensure we get this right for Cornwall.
Cornwall has a rich and proud maritime industrial history. I believe the Government can build on that by supporting investment in the port of Falmouth and the development of TwinHub, as well as ensuring high-skilled, well-paid careers for Cornish young people. If we can do that, Cornwall can continue to be at the heart of the green revolution. I urge the Government to listen to everything that is being said today.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the right hon. Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire (Stephen Crabb) for leading the debate, and all the right hon. and hon. Members who have made significant and helpful contributions. I look forward to hearing from the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Dr Whitehead), as well as from the SNP spokesperson, the hon. Member for Aberdeen South (Stephen Flynn), and from the Minister, who I welcome to her place.
With the spikes in global wholesale gas prices, the rise in our national price cap and Russia invading Ukraine, we have seen an acceleration of the UK’s British energy security strategy to combat those circumstances. More recently, that has been seen in the floating offshore wind projects across the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. It is great to be a part of the conversation, and to ensure our commitment to a UK-wide low carbon future.
Initially, I seek an assurance from the Minister that all of the United Kingdom can feel the benefits of the offshore wind policy—I believe that is happening, but it is always good to have it on record. To give an example, I know from my discussions with the Anglo-North Irish Fish Producers Organisation that it sees opportunities for some of those in the fishing sector in that field of alternative technology. That is something from back home that I am aware of, and it is good news.
The United Kingdom has announced plans to speed up consent for offshore wind projects across the nation to improve our energy sustainability, which is welcome news. They include reducing the consent time from four years down to one and assessing environmental considerations at a more strategic level. While that is welcomed, all nations throughout the United Kingdom have a role to play on offshore wind. In March 2022, just seven months ago, Simply Blue Group launched its latest offshore wind project in Northern Ireland, called nomadic offshore wind. It will be located between Northern Ireland and Scotland. Our Gaelic cousins, both in Northern Ireland and Scotland, are intertwined on that project. The company responsible is MJM Renewables of Newry, and it is playing a pivotal role in tackling climate change and developing offshore wind in Northern Ireland, this time in conjunction with those in Scotland as well. We are pleased to be part of that project.
Government must play a leading role in incentivising the use of greener energy. This winter has been a real eye opener in proving how global circumstances can impact upon our daily lives. Green energy and offshore wind will create additional projects such as manufacturing facilities, hydrogen production, and data and research centres, thereby creating the opportunity for more local jobs. I am always greatly encouraged by what the Scottish Government do on renewables in Scotland, and I often wish that we were in a position to match that. The UK is one of the world’s largest markets for offshore wind with the projects currently installed. BP has stated that the capability is there to power over 6 million homes, with 11 gigawatt of power currently under construction. Ørsted, the world’s largest renewable energy company, has invested over £14 billion in the construction of new offshore windfarms in the UK, generating 7% of the UK’s electricity.
I am pleased to see the chair of the all-party parliamentary group for the Celtic sea, the hon. Member for North Devon (Selaine Saxby), in the Chamber, and I thank her for all that she does. I am pleased to be vice-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on marine energy; the hon. Lady does all the work, I just have a VC—not a Victoria Cross, but rather a vice chairman title. As an MP for the coastal constituency of Strangford, it is imperative for me that marine technology be developed to maximise the economic impact in the UK. Ørsted has said that that is crucial for creating world-class UK supply chain companies.
I have been contacted by the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, which has raised concerns about the deterioration in UK waters, which is evident through the catastrophic declines of globally important seabirds. I want to ensure that we have protection within the green energy strategy that we are pushing forward. Between 1986 and 2019, the number of breeding seabirds fell by almost a quarter across the United Kingdom. I seek reassurances from the Minister and the UK Government that any further consideration for offshore wind will not impact our marine wildlife. That must be a commitment from not just this Minister, but the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs as well.
There are ongoing concerns over the security, affordability and sustainability of our energy supplies. We have aspirations for our climate strategy, and offshore wind is proving to be one of the leading initiatives. We must do more to put the United Kingdom in the best position to benefit from the growth that the renewable energy sector has to offer. What an opportunity. What possibilities there are for the future.
All nations across the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland have a part to play in achieving our net zero goals by 2050. Offshore wind projects truly present a great opportunity for us all. I call on the Minister and the Department to see this as a priority in meeting our climate change and net zero targets. I commend the right hon. Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire for bringing forward the debate, and I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Stephen Flynn (Aberdeen South) (SNP)
I thank the right hon. Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire (Stephen Crabb) for bringing forward this incredibly important debate. I will start in a slightly unusual fashion, by referring to something that happened 10 years ago. In April 2012, there was a Scottish parliamentary inquiry into renewable energy. An Aberdeenshire hotelier put forward a submission, both in writing and in person. He said that offshore wind was unreliable and an expensive form of power. Much like many things that Donald Trump has said, that has been proven to be completely untrue. As we know, offshore wind is six to nine times cheaper than its gas equivalent, and it is very reliable. He was referring to the Aberdeen Renewable Energy Group, a joint venture with Vattenfall, which sits off the coast of Aberdeen. It has been providing clean, green, sustainable electricity—enough to power all the homes in Aberdeen—since it came onstream. I was fortunate to visit it recently with the team from Vattenfall.
Another wind farm that sits just off the coast of Aberdeenshire is the Kincardine development, which has been referred by both the right hon. Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire and the hon. Member for East Lothian (Kenny MacAskill). I went to visit Kincardine just under two weeks ago with a couple of colleagues. The weather was very Scottish—put it that way. The waves were choppy, and it would be unfair of me to name my colleagues who were perhaps a bit sick, although of course we cannot name people in the Chamber or Westminster Hall, so I guess my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen North and my right hon. Friend the Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber have nothing to worry about.
It was a fascinating visit to the world’s largest offshore windfarm, and it showed us what can be done. Scotland’s potential in this regard is absolutely enormous, as has already been mentioned. We have 25% of Europe’s offshore wind capacity. What does that mean in real terms? At the moment, Scotland has about 1 gigawatt of installed offshore floating wind. There are 7 more gigawatts in the pipeline, and 28 gigawatts are due to come onstream from the first ScotWind licensing round in the years to come.
People want to know what that means for them. In the first instance, we need that to mean jobs and opportunities. That is particularly true for my constituency, given the sheer volume of individuals who work in the pre-existing oil and gas sector. We need to see a just, managed, fair transition that protects their employment and allows them to have new jobs in the future. I firmly believe that can be achieved. It is about not just jobs and opportunities, but energy security. It is about not just ensuring energy security for Scotland, because we are going to have far too much electricity to meet our own needs, but ensuring energy security for our friends and allies elsewhere on these isles and right across the European continent.
It is not just about energy security either, but about what we could achieve. Scotland could become not just an offshore wind delivery hub for these islands or Europe, but a global renewable offshore wind hub. Again, I firmly believe we can achieve that. The reason I believe we can achieve it in Scotland is that we have achieved it with the oil and gas sector. We lead the world in our expertise in that field, and we can do the same in renewables.
However, the issue is not just about all those things; there are also massive opportunities for the Scottish economy. Primarily, those will come from exports and the ability to turn renewables electricity into clean, green hydrogen, and again, to export that not only to our friends and allies across the UK, but across Europe using the hydrogen backbone. We have to aspire to that because it will bring not only employment and good jobs, but core economic value for the Scottish economy, which we will need when we break free from this place in the not too distant future.
What does that mean in real terms? It means around £25 billion of gross value added and 300,000 jobs by 2045. Do not take my word for it; take the word of David Skilling, who has produced a report of this very nature in recent weeks. The opportunities and the scale for Scotland are huge, but we need to grasp those opportunities and make sure they are delivered.
There are challenges, however—obvious challenges, some of which have been touched on in the debate. There is the concerting challenge of ensuring that these projects, which we want to come on stream, do come on stream at pace with jobs locally. Those local jobs will not appear in the next year or two, and maybe not even in the next five years: we cannot click our fingers and create an industrial base, but we can in the years to follow, and we must make sure that we do.
There are challenges in relation to the grid, which I hope the Minister will address, and challenges in relation to TNUoS—transmission network use of system—charges, whereby renewables projects off the coast of Scotland pay to access the grid and projects in the south-east of England get paid to access the very same grid. That is an inequity that should not stand: we have the highest grid charges not just in the UK, but in Europe. If we want to fulfil our potential, we need the UK Government to act in the interim, and we need to be free from this place to make our own decisions in the longer term.
One important thing has been mentioned by absolutely nobody. We have heard a little about skills and ensuring that we upskill people on our island. I do not disagree with that but, as the Government say all too often, employment is at a record low, so where are the people coming from? We need people to come from elsewhere and we need the Government to change their immigration policies because the reality is that the volume of jobs that need to be filled cannot be filled without a change to those immigration policies. We do not just need to talk about skills; we need to talk about that reality, and it is about time the Government got real.
Dr Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test) (Lab)
We have had what I would characterise as one of the most sensible debates that I have heard in quite a long time in this place, and I congratulate the right hon. Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire (Stephen Crabb) on bringing that debate to us. I also congratulate him on covering all the bases on offshore wind because the debate is not about pie-in-the-sky reflections on something that might be. It is about something that can make an enormous contribution in pretty quick time to the UK’s energy requirements, and do so in a way that unlocks a lot of resources that we have in this country, but which have hitherto been rather set aside because we have been concentrating on other technologies in other parts of the country.
Floating wind in particular is the energy answer for the western side of the UK, just as offshore fixed wind is the answer for the east coast. As far as the east coast is concerned, we have the great benefit of having an only slightly drowned large offshore island called Doggerland to come to the aid of wind. Offshore has successfully been planted in sea depths of 50 feet or less, but of course that is not the case for the west coast of the UK. Floating offshore wind is the answer to that problem: it can be established in much greater depths, and—as we know from the Scottish floating wind farm that has already been established—its efficiency level is far higher than fixed offshore. An efficiency level of 57% has been recorded for the Scottish floating offshore wind farm, compared with an average of about 40% for fixed offshore wind.
We in the Labour party are completely convinced that floating offshore not only can but will play an enormous role in the ambitious targets that we are now setting for wind overall to supply a very large proportion of our future energy needs. We have heard important and thoughtful contributions, not only from the mover of the resolution, the right hon. Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire, but particularly from my hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon (Stephen Kinnock). He concentrated on the things we need to do to really get offshore floating wind underway, particularly in the Celtic sea. Those include what we do about fabrication, the installation of floating offshore wind—because the techniques for installation are quite different between floating and fixed—and how we land the power we are going to get from floating offshore and integrate it into the grid system generally. We will have to address all those issues very quickly if the potential of floating offshore wind is to be realised as well as we hope it will be.
The industry has its own targets that it thinks it can install: about 18 GW of floating offshore by the early 2030s. Those are realistic appraisals, including supply chains and all sorts of other factors. To give Members an idea of the contribution that would make, that is 1.5 times the present installed capacity of all the offshore wind we have at the moment—which, as I say, is mainly fixed. An enormous contribution can be made, and I personally think that our targets—the original 1 GW target for 2030, now increased by the energy security strategy to, I think, 5 GW—can be easily exceeded over the immediate coming period.
However, as the hon. Member for North Devon (Selaine Saxby) alluded to quite substantially in her contribution, we need a great deal of anticipatory investment to make sure we can secure the potential that we know is there. That means proper investment in port infrastructure. From my hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon and the right hon. Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire, we heard that there is an opportunity for joint arrangements between Milford Haven and Port Talbot to secure fabrication, servicing, assembly and so on in areas where we have the resources to do so. That will service what is beginning to be a tremendous opportunity in the Celtic sea for floating offshore wind. It is a tremendous opportunity not only within the UK. As hon. Members have mentioned, it is an opportunity to be an international leader in floating offshore wind: sited in the UK, using UK components and perhaps exporting not just to countries around the Celtic sea, which are also beginning to think about floating offshore, but to a much wider canvas.
The UK component element of the task, which includes getting the Crown Estate around the table and giving them a good talking to about the UK content in bids, is not important just because bringing some industry to the UK is a nice thing to do. It is important because, by developing all the supply chains, skills, know-how, fabrication and so on in the UK, we can become an international leader in floating offshore in the way that, as hon. Members have mentioned, we failed to do in previous iterations of offshore wind. I want to see us supplying floating offshore wind to Denmark, rather than Denmark supplying us with offshore turbines and various other things, as it has so successfully over many years.
Today’s debate has summed up both where we are with floating offshore wind and where we need to be in the not-too-distant future. That leads us to what the Government need to do now to ensure that this revolution can succeed. It means proper anticipatory investment in ports and infrastructure. It means a great deal of anticipatory investment in the grid: both the development of the offshore grid, and the ability to land and incorporate energy properly into the onshore grid. We absolutely must not repeat the mistakes that we made in offshore grid connections: we connected each wind farm separately, just on the basis of the concerns of that particular wind farm, on a point-to-point basis with cabling. We must ensure that the infrastructure is available—in south Wales, Cornwall and Devon—to take the power, and to extend that out into the Celtic sea in particular, so that we are able to develop a collective collection of the resource.
Hopefully, there is a very rosy future for floating offshore wind; Labour is absolutely committed to that rosy future. As my hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon mentioned, one of the vehicles, I am sure, will be the GB energy company that we intend to set up in Government. That will be able to take the anticipatory investment forward, and will be a leading partner in the development of everything that is necessary to make floating offshore wind a great success. I look forward to hearing what the Government’s contribution to this exciting prospect will be. I hope that it will be positive; I am sure it will be. Together, we can then move forward to the rosy future of floating offshore wind.
The Minister of State, Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Jackie Doyle-Price)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Christopher. I thank you for making sure that I behaved in an orderly way at the beginning of the debate; I am very grateful. I also thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire (Stephen Crabb) for securing the debate, and all Members who have taken part.
As the hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Dr Whitehead) just said, this has been a very sensible debate. I would say it has been a very mature debate in which we have reflected on what needs to be done to properly take advantage of the huge opportunities that we have around this island for floating offshore wind, and I want to highlight some of the contributions that we have heard. There was an absolutely fantastic advertising pitch for Aberavon from the hon. Member for Aberavon (Stephen Kinnock), and I heard about the freeport application from both his representations and those of my right hon. Friend the Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire. Obviously, that is not a decision for me, but from the agenda that they both articulated, it seems to tick all the boxes for what we are expecting from freeports. I say that as a former chair of the maritime and ports all-party parliamentary group, which has been involved in many of the bids. I wish them all well with the application, which is a competitive one.
At the heart of it, both the hon. Member for Aberavon and my right hon. Friend the Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire articulated a clear vision for what freeport status would do for the bid—a clear vision based on a port that is based on energy. Frankly, what better objective could we have in these times, when energy security is such a challenge? It is great to see such imagination and, more to the point, such a practical application of policy to fix a significant strategic problem. We will wait and see.
I was very struck by what the hon. Member for Aberavon said about British ownership of these industries. As a Minister in the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, this is something that I reflect on very often. Yes, we are an open, free-trading nation and open to inward investment, but we also need to recognise that maximising those opportunities for this country means that we have to be very careful about making sure that we are doing everything we can to encourage homegrown investment. We have seen too often that some of these investments are made by state-owned overseas players, which is something to reflect on.
We heard from the hon. Member for East Lothian (Kenny MacAskill) and the hon. Member for Aberdeen South (Stephen Flynn) about the net contribution that Scotland can make in this area, and long may that continue. I will take away the points about what that means in terms of compensation.
The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and my hon. Friend the Member for North Devon (Selaine Saxby) reflected on the environmental implications. As we realise the benefits of floating offshore wind, we absolutely have to address the environmental consequences. We in Government have to look at all this in a very joined-up way, and sometimes the silo culture does not necessarily make for the best decision making, but laying cables once is sensible and cheaper. A more strategic approach might be necessary and the way to go.
I will reflect on the reference to investment zones by my hon. Friend the Member for Truro and Falmouth (Cherilyn Mackrory). Of course, we are in a position whereby investment zones are a vehicle for securing the investment needed to achieve the kind of supporting infrastructure that we need if we are to properly exploit floating offshore wind. This is going to be a significant industry, and the sector could give a completely new lease of life to the port infrastructure at Port Talbot and Milford Haven. We must make sure that we are properly looking at everything, rather than just at what we can do to exploit new energy sources. It is about what floating offshore wind can do to contribute to economic regeneration and development more widely.
We have heard a great deal, and the Government would completely agree that renewable energy is central to the UK’s decarbonisation and economic growth, with floating offshore wind remaining a part. I am glad that my right hon. Friend the Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire referred to it as FLOW. I absolutely hate acronyms, but it just so happens that this one conveys exactly what we are talking about and is a very good description of floating offshore wind, which is a bit of a mouthful. It provides secure, low-cost and domestically generated electricity, and reduces our dependence on imports from overseas—there is no better lesson than the one we have learned over the past year—so what is not to like? It is absolutely essential that the Government get behind this source.
Offshore wind generates 11% of our electricity, and through the development of floating offshore wind, that figure will grow. As we have heard, we can be proud that the UK is already a world leader in offshore wind deployment. We have the most installed capacity in Europe, and we currently generate enough to power nearly 10 million homes. As I mentioned, it also has an important role to play in delivering the Government’s growth agenda by generating jobs and attracting significant private investment. According to the WindEurope trade association, the UK attracted investment worth €56 billion over the past decade, making it the biggest offshore wind market in Europe for capital spending commitments.
The Government intend to build on that success through the ambitions set out in the British energy security strategy for developing up to 50 GW of offshore wind by 2030, of which 5 GW will be from floating offshore wind. We estimate that will bring in £25 billion to £32 billion of private investment to the UK, and we expect it to support about 90,000 jobs by 2030. Those jobs will mainly be in coastal communities, which are in most need of job creation as they have traditionally been more reliant on heavy, high-carbon industry.
On that point, I was struck by what my right hon. Friend the Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire said. We often talk about those communities as if their greatest days were in the past, but they are not; they are in the future. If we get our offering right for these new industries, those communities can be the powerhouses they were at the time of the industrial revolution. We should not be modest in our ambitions. This is a great country, and we need to make the best of our assets. We really need to put our shoulder to the wheel for this sector.
Stephen Kinnock
All hon. Members raised concerns about the national grid, and landing and integrating power. Can the Minister say something about what action the Government are taking to resolve that issue?
Jackie Doyle-Price
I am glad that the hon. Gentleman intervened, because that is the one thing I was really tackling in my head. I really worry about the grid’s ability to respond to the demands we are making of it through our transition to renewables. We collectively need to give it enough support and oomph to make sure it delivers that. I am acutely aware of companies that have been doing the right thing by investing in renewables, but then have difficulties finding connections to the grid. It is a bit chicken and egg: if we are to exploit offshore wind, we must ensure that the grid connections are there and are effective, not least because otherwise we lose so much in terms of transition.
The Government are working with Ofgem and the National Grid Electricity System Operator to bring forward a series of strategic network designs to determine what the required infrastructure will be to support our net zero targets. A holistic network design was published in July, which includes the 1.5 GW Mona project off the north Wales coast, and an indicative network design for floating wind in the Celtic sea with a connection to Pembroke dock. It is being planned for, but we collectively need to ensure we execute that in order to realise the benefits as soon as possible. I will invite the responsible Minister to write to the hon. Gentleman fully about that, because it is a very real concern, given our experience with renewable energy in the past.
As I said, we recognise the potential of floating wind technology playing a key role in our energy mix as we move towards net zero. The floating wind deployments we have identified in Scotland and the Celtic sea represent a major development opportunity for the sector, which will create major employment opportunities.
Our support for floating offshore wind is demonstrated by the floating wind pipeline being supported in the previous contract for difference allocation round with a ring-fenced budget. That resulted in the first ever contract for difference-supported floating wind project, the 32 MW TwinHub project in Hayle, Cornwall. My Department has also joined the Offshore Renewable Energy Catapult’s floating offshore wind centre of excellence. We are providing the centre with £2 million over four years and strengthening its mission to accelerate innovation in the UK’s floating wind sector. I hope that will put us in a prime position to capitalise on a growing export market as other countries look to use this technology. Our pipeline project is growing. This year’s ScotWind seabed leasing round for Scottish waters resulted in 28 GW of new projects, of which 18 are floating wind projects.
We have heard much reference to the role of the Crown Estate. As we speak, Crown Estate Scotland is running a leasing round for innovation projects to decarbonise, which could result in another 6 GW. There are more than 400 MW of floating pathfinder projects already leased in the Celtic sea next year. The Crown Estate will run its Celtic sea floating leasing round, which will bring forward 4 GW of this innovative technology in the waters around south west England and south Wales. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire said, there is potential for a further 20 GW of floating wind by 2045. That is transformational in terms of decarbonisation, and we must ensure we do what we can to secure it.
Our fixed-bottom pipeline is also strong, and we have 12.7 GW already operational, with a further 6.8 GW under construction and due to come on line by the mid-2020s. The world’s largest wind farm, Hornsea 2, became operational off the Yorkshire coast this summer, and offshore construction has already started on Dogger Bank, which will eventually take over Hornsea 2’s mantle as the world’s largest wind farm.
However, it is important that we do not rest on our laurels. This summer, the Government published results of the latest allocation round of contracts for difference. This year’s auction was by far the most successful yet, at a combined capacity of almost 7 GW. The successful offshore wind projects represent a significant step towards meeting our increased 2030 ambitions. Those projects are now finalising procurement and construction plans.
I am grateful to all hon. Members who contributed to the debate. This is just the start, and I look forward to continuing the dialogue to ensure that we realise the capability of floating offshore wind to contribute to our energy mix. I wish everybody well with the projects that they are supporting.
Stephen Crabb
I thank the Minister for her response to the debate. I am also grateful for the contributions from the hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Dr Whitehead) on the Opposition Front Bench. It has been a good debate, and I look forward to continuing the discussion with the Minister and her team of colleagues and officials at the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy about how we deliver this exciting new industry.
There are two takeaways for me from this debate. There is a key point around co-ordination and leadership and the need for strategy. It cannot just be left to the marketplace; it will require Government to pick winners in places, to set out a plan and execute it. The second takeaway is the point made extremely well by the hon. Member for East Lothian (Kenny MacAskill) about community benefit, ensuring that the communities closest to this large-scale infrastructure directly feel the benefit, yes, in terms of jobs and training opportunities, but also financially. It comes down to that: if we are to deliver on major new energy infrastructure in a timely way, communities need to be incentivised. The hon. Member’s points were well made.
If those who have participated today or are watching online have had their appetite whetted on floating offshore wind, the Welsh Affairs Committee is hosting an evidence session next Wednesday morning with many key players from the Celtic sea, including Associated British Ports from Port Talbot, Milford Haven, RWE and a number of others, along with the Crown Estate.
Thank you, Sir Christopher, for your chairmanship this morning.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered delivery of floating offshore wind projects.
Northern Ireland Residents: British Passports
(1 year, 6 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
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered British passport ownership by Northern Ireland residents.
I am thankful that this debate has been called and placed on the Order Paper today. I am also glad to see the Minister in his place.
The issue that I wish to raise unites people of all backgrounds, traditions and preferences in Northern Ireland in terms of their nationality, whether they describe themselves as British, Irish or Northern Irish. Here in the House of Commons, the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee has looked at the issue on several occasions and, again, there has been unity, with hon. Members from the DUP, SDLP, Alliance, the Conservative party and the Labour party all agreeing on the issue. It is uncontroversial with everyone except, it would seem, the Home Office. The issue was first raised by me back in 2005 via a private Member’s Bill, which had insufficient parliamentary time and therefore did not proceed. So, what is the issue?
Our Government and, indeed, successive Governments have accepted that people in Northern Ireland can describe themselves and be accepted as British, which is what they are under the United Kingdom constitution, Irish, if they prefer to be known and regarded as Irish, or Northern Irish, if they wish to be so. Indeed, the census results released last month demonstrated that a vast majority of people describe themselves in a multitude of ways and a combination of those three ways. The position with passports is that residents in Northern Ireland, whatever their background or description, can apply for an Irish passport and there is no additional cost or form filling as a result of Irish Government action taken several years ago, which regards them as Irish if they so choose.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank my hon. Friend and colleague for bringing that forward. He is right. My father, who is not with us anymore, was born across the border and yet grew up as British when he moved to Northern Ireland. Does my hon. Friend not agree that those who may be born a mile or two across the border, have lived in Northern Ireland all their lives and have happily paid their British tax with their British national insurance number are entitled to pay the same amount as anyone else under the same circumstances? It really is illogical. My hon. Friend has pursued the matter at some length and we look forward to the Minister giving a decent response to a matter that has been outstanding for a number of years.
Mr Campbell
My hon. Friend has hit the nail on the head in a succinct way, which I hope to elaborate on over the next few moments.
The Irish Government took action because they regard citizens on the island of Ireland as Irish citizens, if they choose to be so regarded. Unfortunately, our Government have not done the same. There are those who are resident in Northern Ireland, and have been for decades, who must be able to do the same for a British passport as those who choose to be Irish can do for an Irish passport, yet they are not permitted to do so. We have an open land border with more than 280 crossing points along its 300-mile length and we are all familiar with the issue in relation to the protocol, the EU and all those things. Over decades and for generations, communities and families have traversed this open border for business and socialising. For that reason and because of the common travel area, successive British Governments have indicated that they do not mind which nationality people prefer to have.
According to UK law, anyone born before 1949, when the Republic of Ireland left the Commonwealth, who wishes to become a British subject can do so, but anyone born after 1949 cannot. That means that if someone were born in the Republic in 1950 and the day after their birth moved to live in Northern Ireland, became a UK resident, grew up and became a UK taxpayer and UK voter—in one famous instance they sat in the British establishment of the House of Lords—they would still not be regarded as a British citizen, because they were born at the wrong time. People born a few miles across the border are disadvantaged in this way. They have to go through the same naturalisation process as people coming from the other end of the earth in order to be regarded as British citizens. This has obviously created angst and annoyance.
We now have a tale of two passports. One is a passport of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, which people like me cherish and will have for as long as we live, as will our children and grandchildren. The other is of the Irish Republic, which some people in Northern Ireland are forced to have because they cannot have the passport they associate with their sense of identity, allegiance, loyalty and belonging. They are British, but they are forced to have an Irish passport, because they of an accident of birth a mile on the wrong side of an open border.
Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP)
I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who has campaigned on the issue for many years. Does he agree that it has been clear throughout the peace process and indeed stretching further back that the British Government have been incredibly generous to those who want to take Northern Ireland out of the Union and have made Northern Ireland an incredibly accommodating and welcoming place for them? Does he agree that they have been generous on citizenship and dual identity and such issues, but when it comes to supporting those who believe in the Union, choose Northern Ireland as their home and who have been British citizens for the majority of their life, the generosity does not stretch that far?
Mr Campbell
My hon. Friend’s comment is very appropriate and accurate. In fact, many draw on the contrast of how our Government treat those who want to break up the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland compared to those who would prefer that we remain, because we are, in the words of what is more than a cliché, better off together.
The issue at the moment is that some people have an Irish passport because they need it to travel, but they would prefer to have a British passport. The Home Office in effect say to them, “Just naturalise. Just pay the £1,330 to get what is your right.” If they go on to the Home Office website—I hope the Minister can read this paper even from this distance, as I have enlarged it—the first page reads:
“Check if you can become a British citizen”.
They already are! That is what they demand. That is what they have been for decades, and then the Home Office says to check if they can become a British citizen. There is nothing more insulting or demeaning than to have that on the Home Office website. It tells them, “Well, of course you can avail yourself of British citizenship, now trot along and fill out the necessary form. Then apply for the passport and you will get one.”
Meanwhile, the neighbour in the house next door—or, in some cases, family members who were born at a different time—may want to have an Irish passport and may never even have visited the Irish Republic. They simply go along to the post office and ask for an Irish passport application, fill it out and attach the necessary fee, and an Irish passport comes in the post. The Irish Government have declared that they are prepared to recognise those people as Irish if they choose to apply for a passport. We want our Government to do exactly the same.
People have chosen and demanded to be regarded as British because they have lived here virtually all their lives—in some cases, for 60 or 70 years. They should not be forced down the route of applying for citizenship and going through the naturalisation process, which applies to people who come from thousands of miles away. That is particularly true when the same Government say repeatedly to everybody in Northern Ireland, “We accept that it is a diverse place.”
Successive Governments have repeatedly said they accept that many people regard themselves as British—I hope they will remain so—while some regard themselves as Irish. Each United Kingdom Government here in Westminster say that they accept those people’s right to be so regarded—except when it comes to the symbolic matter of owning a passport. What greater symbol is there of a person’s sense of belonging and nationhood, of who we are and what we are, than a passport? It describes who someone is and, if they are overseas and get into difficulty, to whom they should go for assistance. However, these thousands of people are regarded differently.
I understand that the Minister is Minister of State for the Northern Ireland Office, and that this is primarily a matter for the Home Office to resolve, but I hope that he will acknowledge in his response the hurt and anguish that people have felt over many years. I hope that he can relay to the Home Office the fears, views and demands of people who want this insult rectified.
Successive Home Office Ministers have come to the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee and tried to defend this, saying that they do not regard some of these people as the people of Northern Ireland, even though they have lived there all their lives. This is indefensible and it cannot be sustained. I hope that the Minister will take action with his colleagues in the Home Office, whose responsibility it is primarily to respond. I hope they will deal with the matter satisfactorily for all concerned, because there is nobody in Northern Ireland who objects to this proposition.
The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr Steve Baker)
I am grateful to have the opportunity to address this issue, Sir Christopher. I am grateful to the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr Campbell)—my hon. Friend, if I may say so—for making his case so articulately. His constituents will certainly know that he has made their case with great force and passion, and I have understood it clearly. There is a point to be made about the difference between identity and citizenship, but I want to ensure that I spell it out accurately with reference to my notes, so I will come back to it.
On the issue of the Union, I want to make it absolutely clear that I am defiantly and ferociously pro-Union. Equally, under the Belfast/Good Friday agreement, the Government are obliged to participate impartially, which may sometimes create tensions. I want to make it clear to everyone that I am pro-Union and this is a pro-Union Government.
On passports, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not mind if I slightly playfully point out that although I am somewhat known for my pro-Brexit views, I have not troubled to update my passport. I still carry an EU passport, which may surprise some. I want to put that on the record. I know that many people will share with the hon. Gentleman the passionate belief that our passport is a great symbol of who we are. However, personally, I am defiantly independent of the state, Government Minister though I may be. For me, my passport is an administrative thing, not a definition of who I am. I gently make that point to illustrate that perhaps not all of us feel exactly the same way about our passport.
Gavin Robinson
The Minister is entitled to consider his passport whatever way he likes. My hon. Friend the Member for East Londonderry (Mr Campbell) mentioned a Member of the House of Lords. To encapsulate the absurdity of the position that my hon. Friend has outlined today, if the Member he mentioned went through the naturalisation process, he would have to demonstrate that he could speak English and he would be invited to Hillsborough castle for a citizenship ceremony governed by a lord lieutenant. The very same man was the Speaker of the Northern Ireland Assembly for eight years and has been in the House of Lords for many years. If that does not encapsulate how absurd the requirement to go through the process to obtain a British passport is, I am not sure what else could.
Mr Baker
The hon. Member makes his point with great clarity, of course. However, I observe that in public administration there are quite often moments, particularly around transitions and edge cases, that look absurd on the face of it.
Before I get on to my notes, I will make two points. Representing Wycombe, I have observed that geography is very different from what it used to be. The internet has shrunk the world immeasurably, and many of my constituents are closely in touch with events and people thousands of miles away, so geography has a slightly different meaning these days. I will also pick up the point on hurt and anguish; if I have learned one thing in my few weeks as Northern Ireland Minister, it is the decades—possibly centuries—of hurt and anguish that have built up on one another. I do take those issues very seriously, knowing how deeply felt they are. The hon. Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson) has spoken with great passion, and I know he sincerely means everything he has said.
Turning to matters of law, the right to apply for and hold a British passport is wholly contingent on the holding of British citizenship. It is perfectly possible to remain a British citizen even if someone chooses not to hold a British passport, or if they acquire and hold another passport. The people of Northern Ireland are guaranteed specific protections under the Belfast/Good Friday Agreement, and they are considered by the agreement to be
“all persons born in Northern Ireland and having, at the time of their birth, at least one parent who is a British citizen, an Irish citizen or is otherwise entitled to reside in Northern Ireland without any restriction on their period of residence.”
The two birthright protections of the Belfast/Good Friday Agreement guarantee this group the right to identify and be accepted as British, Irish or both, and the right to hold both British and Irish citizenship. The protections recognise the unique circumstances of Northern Ireland and do not apply more widely. The UK Government are steadfastly committed to the Belfast/Good Friday Agreement, and those provisions are given full effect in law, which provides for British citizenship to be conferred at birth.
In that context, non-British nationals living in Northern Ireland would need to obtain British citizenship in order to receive a British passport, just as they would anywhere else in the United Kingdom. I think that is the heart of the matter. I have heard clearly the point made by the hon. Member for East Londonderry. It is the difference between identity and the administrative and legal status of citizenship.
Mr Gregory Campbell
I accept what the Minister says, and it is the repeated mantra that we have got from the Home Office. However, he alluded to the unique circumstances that pertain to Northern Ireland. That is what successive Governments of recent vintage have always done. Does the Minister not understand and accept the unique circumstances of the case that has been made, and that this is why the Home Office should act?
Mr Baker
I certainly do understand the unique circumstances of Northern Ireland, and the hon. Gentleman is very articulate and once again makes his case with great clarity. However, I have to tell him that unique circumstances in those matters apply in a great many places in the UK, including in my own constituency in some number. They are not the same unique circumstances, by any means, but I am gently trying to make the point that there are large numbers of people in the country who would claim special circumstances. The Government are under an obligation to deal fairly with everyone in the UK. The hon. Gentleman will remember some of the unfortunate circumstances of the Windrush affair, and there are other people who have had various difficulties. There are people in my constituency who, although they were born elsewhere, have lived there longer than I have been alive. They may or may not have British citizenship or a British passport, but I am glad to represent them.
Let me turn to some of the specific points that the hon. Member for East Londonderry made. He said that there are 40,000 people resident in Northern Ireland who were born in Ireland after 1949, and there is a sense of unfairness that they are made to apply for naturalisation. He enlarged a piece of the website that I could not quite read, but he made his point with some force. The crux of the matter is that an Irish national can naturalise in the same way as any other long-term resident who now considers the UK their home. I appreciate that at the heart of the sensitivity is the fact that people who identify as British, who were perhaps born not far from the border, but on the other side of it, are being told that they need to naturalise. He made the point clearly that for those who are British but were born on the other side of the border, this is a matter of utmost sensitivity.
The Government are treating those people—from an administrative point of view, they are not British citizens and they need to naturalise—in line with other nationals who reside here in the UK. We are glad that they feel at home here. We are of course glad that they identify as British—that they choose to be British—and we welcome them. The hon. Gentleman mentioned the case of our noble Friend in the other place. In order to ensure that we treat everyone in the UK fairly, they need to naturalise to make their nationality align with their identity.
That is the key point, and it is a matter of administration and law—[Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman shakes his head. I know that that is unsatisfactory to him, but we do not want to assume that all who identify as British necessarily wish to align their nationality. He might well ask whether it could be made easier and quicker for people of Northern Ireland who were born in Ireland to apply for naturalisation, but the requirements are made in statute. Irish nationals would enjoy more favourable provisions for naturalisation should they wish to apply.
One might ask why the Irish-born people that the hon. Gentleman represents have to naturalise at all. Under the common travel area, Irish people do not need to naturalise to reside in the UK. The common travel area provides that British and Irish citizens have the right to enter and remain in the other state without requiring permission. That is provided for in law, which the hon. Gentleman knows very well. They can make the decision to become a British citizen when they are ready to do so, as with any person who wishes to become British.
I think that the hon. Gentleman wants me to make specific commitments, but I have to disappoint him. The Government are very clear on the need to treat people fairly right across the UK. If we were to make special exemptions for the people he recognises as being on the cusp of a border, we would find ourselves in some considerable difficulty administratively.
Gavin Robinson
In many ways, the Minister is arguing against himself. He knows that he does not have the space to concede in this debate. Whether people are a mile from the border or at the very south of Ireland, the principle remains the same. The entirety of the Republic of Ireland is legally treated differently from any other country in the world, with the common travel area, the lack of immigration controls and no restrictions on working or living in the United Kingdom.
Will the Minister reflect on the fact that in the last four years, His Majesty’s Government have blurred the lines between citizenship and identity? The shoe was on the other foot, but a Northern Ireland resident, and therefore a British citizen, who wanted British citizenship for her partner was uncomfortable with the notion that she had to denounce citizenship that she did not want. She is, in identity terms, an Irish nationalist, and she objected. She lost the case in court because the Government argued robustly the distinction between citizenship and identity. However, the British Prime Minister ordered a review into the matter thereafter and wanted to show generosity of spirit, given the complaints. All we are asking is that the Minister and this Government do exactly the same thing for people who are notionally, emotionally and in every other way practically British.
Mr Baker
Once again, the hon. Gentleman makes his point with great passion and clarity. The Government welcome people’s choice to identify as British. We welcome the choice that people born in Ireland can make to apply for a British passport, and for non-British citizens to become British citizens. We recognise that the Union of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is all the stronger for its rich diversity in all aspects, whether people travel to Great Britain from the southernmost parts of the Republic of Ireland or from far overseas. For all its diversity, the United Kingdom is improved. Britishness is perfectly compatible with Irishness and Northern Irishness, just as much as Englishness, Welshness, Scottishness or, in my case, Cornishness.
The Belfast/Good Friday agreement rightly understands the highly personal nature of decisions around identity and citizenship, and the exercise of those distinct birthrights. It affords the people of Northern Ireland the freedom to make their own choices on identity. To reduce Britishness to the passport that someone holds in our United Kingdom would overlook the freedoms that the Belfast/Good Friday agreement rights enshrine and a fundamental truth of the strength of the Union: that Irishness and Northern Irishness readily coexist and compliment Britishness. That is a fact that we all ought to celebrate.
Hon. Members have made their points with great clarity. I will certainly reflect on what they have said, but they will understand that the Government’s policy is as it stands.
Question put and agreed to.
Kinship Carers
(1 year, 6 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
Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered support for kinship carers.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Ali, and introduce this important debate. I am grateful to have this opportunity to acknowledge and champion the thousands of grandparents, aunts, uncles, siblings and family friends who step up to support a child in crisis. With the Government due to respond to the independent review of children’s social care by the end of the year, this feels like a pivotal moment to recognise and unlock the role that family and friends can play in raising children who would otherwise be brought up in care.
I want to use this debate to commend to the Department for Education the proposals contained in my Kinship Care Bill, which I presented to Parliament earlier this year. Sadly, the day after I presented my Bill, the then Children’s Minister, the hon. Member for Colchester (Will Quince), resigned. I hope that today’s debate does not have the same impact on the new Minister, whom I welcome to her place. As the then Minister could not respond when I introduced my Bill, I look forward to hearing what the Minister present has to say today. I will touch on a range of issues that I brought up when my Bill was introduced and go a bit beyond that, too.
This is a big week for kinship care. Today, we have this debate. Tomorrow, I am hosting a reception to champion kinship carers and Kinship Week, which was earlier this month; I look forward to the Minister and the shadow Education Secretary, the hon. Member for Houghton and Sunderland South (Bridget Phillipson), joining us. On Thursday, ITV will broadcast a documentary highlighting the struggles faced by grandparents who look after children whose parents are not able to care for them.
Members might wonder why I decided to champion this particular issue. The reason is plain and simple: it is because of the stories that some of my constituents have brought to me. I want to tell the story of Kim, who lives around the corner from me in my constituency and who was one of the first constituents to approach me during the first covid lockdown to highlight just how little support the family had.
Kim is a kinship carer to her grandchild, who sadly had a difficult start in life with her parents and maternal grandparents—Kim is her paternal grandmother. At one point, Kim and her husband found themselves literally holding the baby. When the family courts were considering the case, the judge very unusually took aside Kim’s husband and asked if they would be willing to apply for a special guardianship order for the child. The story of how their situation came about from the sidelines in a not particularly routine way is representative of how many kinship carers find themselves looking after children who have either lost a parent or whose parent is going through a difficult situation, meaning that they can no longer care for them.
Kim, who is self-employed, reduced her working hours to manage her childcare commitments. She was initially given an allowance, but it was means-tested. When her allowance was withdrawn, Kim and her husband challenged it, but it is now half of what she used to get, despite the fact that her costs have increased as her granddaughter grows older and her work income reduced through the pandemic.
Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Ind)
Raising children is expensive. Over the past year, 89% of kinship carers reported that they were worried about their financial circumstances. Does the hon. Lady share my concerns that this kind of widespread financial stress will inevitably lead to negative impacts on the mental wellbeing of both carers and the children they are looking after?
Munira Wilson
Absolutely. There was a recent survey by the charity Kinship that showed the financial stress that many kinship carers found themselves under. The cost of living pressures that everyone faces are felt particularly acutely by kinship carers, who often find themselves looking after an additional member of their family without additional financial support. That survey showed that some kinship carers are struggling to pay their mortgage and even to put food on the table.
As I was saying, Kim had to remortgage her house, and accept financial help from friends and family, to afford the legal costs of applying for a special guardianship order. That was despite the fact that, as I have already mentioned, it was the family court judge who had made the suggestion of applying for the order. Kim’s granddaughter had a lot of mental health needs, and needed a lot of emotional and development support, but social services were very slow to provide that support. It was only after about a year that Kim was finally granted funding for some attachment therapy for her granddaughter through the adoption support fund. When I have talked to Kim about her situation, she described at length the damage that her granddaughter would sometimes cause to possessions in the house and to the house itself, and she would physically attack Kim and her husband, because of this attachment disorder. However, Kim had to fight to get support for therapy for that child. Kim says:
“On a personal level, we’ve had to give up our roles as grandparents and become her parents. We have done so gladly, but there are moments when we do grieve for those lost roles that we will never get back. Our grand-daughter is in our care until she turns 18 and we will be in our early and mid-seventies—not what we expected as we headed towards our older years.”
The sad irony is that Kim is actually one of the lucky ones, because her granddaughter was classified as “previously looked after”, so she was eligible for far more support, such as the adoption support fund money that funded the therapy, and pupil premium plus. That is much more than many other kinship carers receive.
Kim’s grandchild is one of perhaps more than 160,000 children across England and Wales who are cared for by someone who already knows and loves them. The numbers are quite sketchy. That is partly to do with the poor definitions, which I will touch on later, and the fact that we do not count how many people are in these sorts of arrangements.
We know that those who end up being looked after by somebody they know and love, as opposed to going into foster care or being cared for by someone they do not know, have equal or better mental health, education or employment chances than those children looked after by unrelated foster carers. Indeed, a child is over two and a half times more likely to live in three or more placement settings if they are in foster care than if they are in kinship care. The What Works Centre for Children’s Social Care found that kinship care placements are 2.6 times more likely to be permanent than unrelated foster care arrangements. Additionally, most people prefer kinship care to living with unrelated foster carers.
Despite the fact that we hear all of those statistics, which show better outcomes for children looked after by people who know them, kinship care is the Cinderella service of our social care system. It is less well understood than foster care, despite there being double the number of children in kinship care than there are in foster care. Kinship carers also receive only a fraction of the support received by foster carers or adoptive parents. That is why I introduced my Kinship Care Bill in July, which calls for kinship carers to be provided with three types of support, to put them on a par with the support that foster carers and adoptive carers receive. It proposes that kinship carers are provided with a weekly allowance, at the same level as the allowance for foster carers; it would give kinship carers the right to paid leave when a child starts living with them; and it would provide extra educational support for children in kinship care, by giving them pupil premium funding, and priority for their first choice of school, as which looked-after receive.
Earlier this year, I had an encouraging but brief discussion with the Minister’s predecessor, the hon. Member for Colchester, when he was Children’s Minister. During that brief conversation, he suggested that while the Government were broadly supportive of providing greater support to kinship carers, Ministers had two main concerns. The first was who should be regarded as a kinship carer—the definition issue that I pointed out—and the second was how the Department for Education could possibly persuade the Treasury to make the extra money available to pay for it. Sadly, the events of the past few weeks will probably ensure that that second part is a lot harder for the Minister to achieve.
The independent review of children’s social care recommends making weekly allowances and paid employment leave available to carers with either a special guardianship order or a child arrangements order where the child would otherwise be in care. That would begin to provide a definition of who should get some additional support; it would be a huge step forward, and I understand the logic of that approach. Kinship care arrangements with a legal order are less likely to deteriorate, with just one in 20 special guardianship orders dissolving before the child turns 18.
However, that narrow definition ignores the realities of most kinship care arrangements, where a close relative is phoned at short notice by the council warning that if they do not take the child now, they will go into local authority care. Those people do not have a legal order—at least initially—despite the council proposing the arrangement, yet they are then expected to cough up thousands of pounds of their own money to secure a special guardianship arrangement, as we heard in Kim’s story. The independent review of children’s social care noted that four in 10 families receive no help with the legal costs associated with becoming a kinship carer, spending on average more than £5,000. Moreover, denying support to close relatives using informal arrangements punishes families who have sorted out their situation themselves without getting the local authority involved at all.
The Government already have systems in place for identifying informal carers, which could be adapted. The Children Act 1989 provides a definition of privately fostered children: a person other than a close family member caring for a child for at least 28 days. Informal kinship carers are also exempt from the two-child limit on benefits if their social worker signs form IC1, so I encourage the Minister to reconsider the eligibility criteria for schemes such as pupil premium plus or the adoption support fund where support is only available to kinship children who were previously looked after by the local authority. Why is it that if a grandparent steps up when asked by the council to look after a child to prevent them going into care, they are then punished by the state for making that decision, whereas that child would have been entitled to extra support had they gone into care? It is a totally perverse incentive to allow the child to go into care in order to receive additional support.
Turning to the issue of financing support for kinship carers, my message to the Minister is this: the question is not whether her Department can afford to support kinship carers, but whether it can afford not to. The numbers speak for themselves. The independent review of children’s social care warns that on the current trajectory, more than 100,000 children will be in local authority care by 2032—a record high—and it will cost local authorities £5 billion more than it does now. On average, it costs £72,500 a year for a local authority to look after a child; by contrast, in 2021, it would have cost on average just shy of £37,000 to provide a child in kinship care with a social worker and a weekly allowance for their carers. Well-supported kinship care could therefore save the taxpayer over £35,000 per child a year. The Minister’s Department will be speaking to the Chancellor of the Exchequer about the efficiency savings—otherwise known as cuts—that it will have to make, and I suggest that preventing children who could otherwise be looked after by a kinship carer from going into care is a very good efficiency saving.
Tomorrow, Kinship is launching its national campaign, “The value of our love”, to highlight how it makes sense to invest in kinship care. It delivers better outcomes and experiences for children by keeping them within their loving families, and is good value for the public purse. During the cost of living emergency, that support is needed more than ever. As has already been pointed out, Kinship’s 2022 financial allowances survey found that four in 10 kinship carers could not afford household bills, and one in four were struggling to afford food for their family.
Ian Byrne (Liverpool, West Derby) (Lab)
I thank the hon. Member for all the outstanding work that she has done on this issue with her Bill. It is important that the issue of support for kinship carers, including many in my constituency of Liverpool, West Derby, is discussed in the House today. Many families say that they feel invisible, undervalued, unimportant and ignored by the Government. Some 75% of kinship carers entered the cost of living crisis in severe financial hardship.
Important work is happening in Liverpool, with the kinship charter, which was developed with kinship families and has been finalised with local authorities so that they can adopt it. However, families urgently need change at a national Government level, so does the hon. Member agree that the Minister must make changes in law about the statutory duty, and provide the vital funding and support that kinship families need, so that we achieve the best possible outcome for families?
Munira Wilson
I congratulate Liverpool on the work that it is doing on this. I agree with the point that the hon. Member made on recognising kinship carers and providing them with additional support.
Returning to the Kinship financial allowances survey, it found that while seven in 10 special guardians received allowances, those were means tested, and fewer than one in 10 carers with no legal order received support. However, in more than two thirds of cases, those allowances were means tested and subject to regular reviews, unlike the allowances that foster carers receive. Kim’s story shows us that that really is precarious and depends on what the local authority is willing and able to fund. Given that local authority budgets have been cut to the bone, we need those national regulations and legislation in place to ensure that kinship carers get an equal amount of support, regardless of where they live.
Almost any kinship carer will say that it is a decision that they do not regret. One carer told the Parliamentary Taskforce on Kinship Care:
“The decision to become a kinship carer has cost me £180,000 plus in terms of pension benefits etc. I would do it again, my grandson is worth every penny.”
The independent review of children’s social care is due to receive a response by the end of this year. While I do not agree with everything in that review, its recommendations around kinship care could mark a step change in the support that we provide for kinship carers, and would recognise the value of the love and support that they give to children.
I urge the Minister not to miss this important opportunity to step up for the kinship carers who step up for children, sometimes in the most dire circumstances, at zero notice. The Government talk a lot about levelling up; it is about not just geography but different groups of people in society. They also talk about the importance of the family; there is no better example of how families really step up than when the chips are down and a child desperately needs that help.
Kinship carers have been overlooked for far too long, so I hope that the Minister will take the opportunity to provide us not just with words of encouragement but with some actions to follow, by responding to those recommendations from the independent review and indeed going beyond that. Every child, no matter their background, deserves the opportunity to flourish, and we know that those who had a troubled start in life are much more likely to flourish in kinship care than those who end up looked after by a foster carer.
Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Ali. It is also a pleasure to see the new Minister in her place. I wish her well.
I start by sincerely thanking the hon. Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson), not only for securing today’s important Westminster Hall debate, but for her tireless work on this subject. I know that kinship carers across the country are very grateful for the voice she gives to this cause. I speak as the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on kinship care and as a kinship carer myself. As many hon. Members will know, my wife Allison and I care for our extraordinary three-and-a-half-year-old grandson Lyle. Soon after Lyle was born, it became clear that his birth parents would be unable to care for him, and Allison and I went through the family court before securing a special guardianship order. That is a heavily truncated version of the story, which spares listeners the seemingly endless legal wranglings, anxiety, confusion, fear and frustration that the vast majority of kinship carers will understand. At the end of the process to become a kinship carer, provided there is a positive outcome, those carers will be left caring for a child that they will love unconditionally, but the process itself is nothing short of traumatising.
I could spend hours talking about my experience, and many more hours sharing the experiences of people I have spoken to in my capacity as APPG chair. Instead, I will reiterate some key figures, which speak to the current state of the child welfare system. The independent review of children’s social care in England projects that there will be nearly 100,000 children in care in England by 2032. Unless we implement the systematic change that families are crying out for, the system will be overwhelmed. Personally, I think that ship has sailed. Provision for looked-after children living with unrelated foster carers or in residential homes is already extremely stretched.
Local authorities routinely place children in accommodation far away from their families and their support networks. I am sure many hon. Members will have read the recent BBC story about the shocking decision to place one 12-year-old boy 100 miles away from his siblings and school. That is just not acceptable. We need to utilise family support networks, and to incentivise kinship care. We are not doing either of those things, and children and families are suffering as a result.
As many hon. Members know, poverty is an enormous issue for kinship carers. Research by the Family Rights Group points to the fact that 75% of kinship carers experience severe financial hardship. Almost half of them—49%—are forced to leave their jobs to provide adequate care for children, many of whom have complex needs arising from trauma, as the hon. Member for Twickenham set out in her opening speech. It is worth noting that, because of the cost of living crisis, those figures will only get worse unless more is done to support kinship carers. I would be grateful if the Minister recognised in her response the dire financial situation that many kinship carers find themselves in, and outlined what the Government plan to do to reverse that worrying trend.
Another issue is the legal system. A scarcity of legal aid, combined with a system that can generously be described as convoluted, means that many kinship carers literally do not know where to turn for help. There is also little regard for how the process can further split families that are already under enormous emotional and financial pressure. That was highlighted in the all-party parliamentary group’s recent legal aid inquiry, which I was proud to chair.
We need to see better access to information, support networks and support services for kinship carers. Make no mistake: empowering kinship care has benefits far beyond improving the lives of children and those who care for them. The charity Kinship estimates that for every reduction of 1,000 in the number of children looked after in local authority care, up to £40 million is saved. Put simply, the moral benefits of supporting kinship care are matched by the economic case for supporting kinship care.
Allison and I were lucky enough to be in a financial position to seek the requisite legal support. It was costly. Even with that support, the experience was totally overwhelming. It impacted our work and caused immense emotional strain. As an aside, it would be nice to see the Houses of Parliament—this House of Commons—take a lead. When the social services stork dropped a baby at our front door, there was no provision for me to take paternity leave, because I was not the father. I was the grandfather—the kinship carer. That is crazy, and it shows how much the system has to change. My wife, a local councillor, literally had to arrange her entire diary around the care of a new baby for whom we had not planned. It caused enormous problems with her work, and enormous strain for both of us.
But I would do it all again, of course. That is just the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham. She is my friend: out goes the etiquette in this debate. All kinship carers do it because they love their families. They love their grandchildren, nephews or nieces. They want to support the family, and to support that young child. Should people have to go through all that we went through just to care for a child whom they love so dearly? I do not think anyone in this Chamber would say that they should. We need comprehensive change.
The Minister will no doubt be aware that the independent review of children’s social care made a number of far-reaching proposals, including an extension of legal aid to more kinship carers, an entitlement to kinship employment leave and a single legal definition of kinship care to improve recognition and access to support. The Department for Education indicated that it is considering those recommendations, and will publish an implementation strategy later this year—there is not much of this year left.
In her response, will the Minister provide more information about the strategy? When will it be published? Are all the recommendations relating to kinship care being considered? Is there any way she can expedite the response, to provide clarity to kinship carers? There needs to be a sense of urgency. Every day that passes without action from Government is another day when carers try to navigate an emotional and legal labyrinth. That hurts families. It hurts the childcare system. It hurts children, who deserve to be looked after in a caring, safe and supportive environment. Minister, it is time for that change.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
What a pleasure it is to speak in this debate, Ms Ali. The hon. Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson) put forward a very concrete case, not that she had to do that for me—I was already on her side. I think we all are. She outlined the detail of kinship care and how important it is. It is something in which I have a particular interest. This is an opportunity to express the views that the hon. Lady and the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Gwynne) put forward. I thank him for sharing his story. He and his wife gave that young child a chance in life; without their love and affection, who knows where that young child would be today?
I am pleased to see the Minister in her place; we have had many engagements in the past. When she was responsible for high streets, we had her over to Newtownards and she was most responsive to our enquiries. Even now, that visit is still talked about very favourably by the people the Minister met. I look forward to her response to this debate because, looking at her past responses, I am certain that she will be every bit as positive as she was when she came to Newtownards.
I am well known as an advocate for kinship care. I believe that knowing they are part of a family means something to a child, even if circumstances sometimes mean they cannot be with their mummy and daddy. Having a familial bond with a loving care family is helpful. I am shocked by what the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish said—that one 12-year-old boy was located 100 miles away from his siblings. My goodness! The hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Ian Byrne) and I were just saying that we could hardly believe that. Why would they do that? Surely the sibling bond is important to keep going, and siblings should be kept together.
Over the years, I have had some good friends who have fostered and given kinship care. One lady in Newtownards, whom I know very well, fostered all her life; I was always amazed because she gave young boys and girls an opportunity to have a loving family relationship. Sometimes those young people came from very challenging circumstances. It is not always a bed of roses being a foster or kinship carer.
I also have an extremely good friend who has been my friend for all of my life—he is younger than me, so I should say all of his life—and who fosters five children. He tells me now and again some of the things that happen. Some of those children come from very disturbed homes; they come from a background where love was never there. When they come to a new home, they find a mum and dad, and also a number of siblings from different families who love and care for each other. Kinship care provides an incredible chance to give an opportunity to young people.
I always give a Northern Ireland perspective—the Minister and others will know that—and we have a very high rate of kinship care there. On 30 March 2021, 81% of children who were being looked after—2,857 children—were living with foster carers. Of that number, 1,400 were in non-kinship foster care; 1,457 were in kinship foster care—an even break in the numbers. In Northern Ireland, we are still eagerly trying to encourage others to take up the opportunity of foster and kinship care, because there are still many children who do not have a parent to look after them, or a mummy and daddy—be that biological or not—to give them the love that they need.
Those numbers show a high level of families who want to help out in the short term, and even in the long term. The 81% represents children who are in kinship foster care and non-kinship foster care, but it leaves 19% who do not have anybody. An interesting statistic that I came across, which poses a challenge in a factual but hopefully compassionate way, is that 25% of children of compulsory school age who were looked after continuously for 12 months or more had a statement of special educational needs. That compares with only 6% of the general school population.
Margaret Ferrier
As the hon. Gentleman has just said, many children in those arrangements do have additional support needs. That can be difficult for carers if both the carer and the child do not have access to the right support. Health services are under a massive strain across the UK at the moment with long wait times, but formal diagnosis can often be the key to accessing the right services for ongoing support. Does he agree that this is an area that must be reviewed urgently?
Jim Shannon
I thank the hon. Lady for bringing forward something very pertinent to the debate, as she so often does in Westminster Hall and the Chamber. I wholeheartedly agree with everything she said. It is really important that these issues are addressed.
The figure of 25% of children in kinship and foster care having special educational needs compares to the figure among the general population of just 6%. That tells us—or should tell us, as the hon. Lady has just said—that something needs to be done. When she sums up, can the Minister give us some indication of how the extra help that is clearly needed can be given?
People can give love—mums and dads do that, foster carers and kinship carers do that—but sometimes, no matter how hard people want to love, it can be challenging. It is important that the extra help is given. It is not always an easy decision to bring a new family member into the home. It can be a disruption to one’s own family and children. In life, I try never to judge anybody, so I never judge a grandparent, aunt or uncle who simply cannot make it work, because it sometimes does not work, and sometimes the reason for that is that they are on their own.
People who are able to foster should be encouraged and should know that they are not alone—in other words, there is somebody there who they can talk to. There are support networks and social workers, and there is financial help to make it work if at all possible. I am ever mindful of that. Sometimes a problem shared is a problem halved. Quite often it helps just being able to bounce off somebody and talk about what something means. The hon. Members for Twickenham and for Denton and Reddish referred to how important it is to have someone just to share things with. I think it is probably the same with all of life. It is always good to share something with someone. I think it always helps to talk issues through if at all possible.
In this cost of living crisis, I would like to think that carers will be given a bit more to help, so that additional strain is not placed on the family unit’s finances. We are here to underline these issues. I would ask the Minister in a kind way, not to be negative, for a response that can encourage us. Will there be a cost of living payment to kinship families to help with the additional pressure of groceries and petrol increases? All these things are a substantial part of fostering and kinship care. Bringing other people into the family unit adds pressure, and we need to ensure that financial stress is not part of the equation. How often in life do financial bills seem to overwhelm us all? Our constituents tell us that they place such a burden that they are unable to focus on the love, care and affection they want to give.
As of April 2022, foster carers receive £141 a week for a child aged nought to four, £156 for a child aged five to 10, £177 for a child aged 11 to 15, and £207 for those aged 16 and over. That does not seem to take into account the additional cost of living increase. Some may say that the house needs to be heated whether there are one or five people in the house, but anyone who has a teenager knows that heating the water for a daily shower can require a mortgage itself. I say that jokingly. I had three young boys, and they were always showering. They were always chasing the ladies—I suppose that was the reason. They always wanted to look well, and their hair had to be in place. They are lucky; my hair disappeared 20-odd years ago and it has never come back, but that is by the bye.
I am asking that more help be temporarily allocated to the kinship allowance in the light of the crisis we are all in. It is easy for us to always ask for something, but we are asking on behalf of the kinship and foster carers who do such fantastic work. We have all heard the statistics on the outcomes for children who are looked after, who are not always as well placed as children who are in their own family units, and I understand that, but what carers try to do is make the home and its surroundings easier for those children to settle into.
Through no fault of their own the odds are stacked against these children, and we have a duty to do all we can to place them with family members in their own communities. As the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish said, we should not send one sibling 100 miles away; that should never happen, and it annoys me to think that it did—I am sure the trauma that all the siblings went through as a result was quite substantial. Kinship fostering is absolutely vital to enable their little lives to continue, including their schooling and the friendship groups and friends that they have made and that the might suddenly lose.
I conclude with this: the debate has given us an opportunity to highlight the issue, to raise awareness of where we are and to bring together all the detail, information and evidence, while hearing about the personal involvement of the hon. Members for Denton and Reddish and for Twickenham, who set the scene so well. I look forward to hearing the SNP shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Glasgow East (David Linden), who is a dear friend of mine and who knows this subject well—we will certainly hear some important words from him shortly. I also look forward to hearing the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes). Then it is over to the Minister, who will have to answer all those questions in a way that will encourage us. I am pretty sure I will not be disappointed, but it is important that we do all we can to offer more help and better outcomes to vulnerable children. It is worth any investment that it takes to provide additional support for those who take on children to make their lives just that wee bit more settled.
David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)
It is, as ever, a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Ali. It is also a great pleasure to follow my friend, the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon). I have often raised eyebrows back home in my constituency when I have explained that one of my best friends in this place is a Democratic Unionist party MP from Northern Ireland—but less on that, I suspect.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson) on securing the debate. It will come as no surprise that this is not one that my party would normally have sent a speaker along to; I do not think it was planning to do so this time, because of the devolved nature of the issue, but I intimated to our Whips Office that I was keen to come along and support the debate, for reasons I will explain in a moment. The hon. Lady was right to talk about some of the support that perhaps was not offered during covid-19. Clearly, arrangements for kinship carers will vary in different parts of the UK, but it would be churlish for any of us to think we managed to support kinship carers properly during the pandemic, in particular. I have seen quite a lot of casework coming through my constituency that shows that the legacy and the impact are still there.
I also pay tribute to the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Gwynne). I have known about the situation with his grandson for quite a while now. I remember when I came to this place in 2017 having been a fresh-faced researcher—I am certainly not fresh-faced anymore, after five years here—and how surprised I was that he was actually a grandfather, because I did not think he was old enough. Hearing him recount some of his story was not only genuinely moving, but a reminder of that.
The hon. Gentleman was absolutely right to talk about the link to poverty. In my constituency, which lazy newspapers such as The Guardian characterise based on things they saw 20 years ago, there is no doubt that there are still challenges, particularly around poverty. Again, it is no coincidence that there is a relationship between poverty and a high number of kinship carers, particularly in the Easterhouse area of my constituency—there is a clear correlation there. He was also spot on to talk about some of the challenges that he and his wife Allison faced, particularly in juggling their work.
One of the immense frustrations I have had, particularly in this Session of Parliament, has been the lack of an employment Bill. We have done some really good stuff through private Members’ Bills—whether on neonatal leave or the allocation of tips—but we are doing a lot of piecemeal stuff in legislation when it comes to supporting people in employment, and particularly those who have different responsibilities. We have not done enough on maternity leave and miscarriage leave, or on the point raised by the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish. I appreciate that employment rights are no longer in the Minister’s domain, although they were at one point, but it would be good if she could take back to her colleagues in the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy some of the points about caring responsibilities and how they are juggled.
The main reason I wanted to come to the debate today is based on my five years as a constituency MP, and I have mentioned the high number of kinship carers in my constituency. I am not here to do a sales pitch on behalf of the Scottish Government—according to my colleagues, they get everything right and nothing wrong, which is clearly daft—but I do want to pay tribute to the local organisations in my constituency. I had the pleasure about five years ago of running the marathon to raise money for East End Community Carers, which is in the same building as my constituency office. As my staff and I go in and out doing our surgeries, I never cease to be amazed by a lot of the families that come in—grandparents, aunties and uncles. The hon. Member for Denton and Reddish is absolutely right: these people never expected to be in that position.
When we leave this place and go back to our constituencies, we often say what a hard week it has been, but kinship carers do not have that luxury or the ability to just switch off. There is a much wider conversation that we should have about the provision of respite. Far too often, local authorities think, “That person is a kinship carer. They’re sorted now.” If we reframe how we look at this, we realise that kinship carers, foster carers and many other people are saving the state a hell of a lot of money by stepping in and providing support. That must be recognised by Governments as well.
North of the border, kinship carers get the same allowance as foster carers. The kinship care allowance recognises the importance of kinship care. It is a really difficult thing to do, especially when money is tight, so we need to look at the financial support there.
I want to round off by mentioning another couple of charities. Glasgow North East Carers is led by Jean McInaw up in Easterhouse, an area where there is quite a high number of kinship carers. The final organisation that I want to commend in this place is Geeza Break. For those not well versed in the vernacular of Glaswegian, that is “Give us a break.” Geeza Break has been working for 30 years—this year is its 30th anniversary. It is led by Doreen Paterson, the chief executive, who I am privileged to count not just as a key stakeholder in my constituency but as a real friend. The work that Doreen and her team do all year round supporting kinship carers—last year they supported 428 families—is amazing.
I am sick, tired and fed up with having to write funding support letters for such organisations, when many of them should be a commissioned service. That will not please some of my colleagues back home, but those organisations are doing a tremendous job to support kinship carers, who do an invaluable job. We need to stop putting them up for funding once every year and to perhaps look at using them as a commissioned service.
Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Ali. I congratulate the hon. Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson) on securing the debate and on the work she does to raise the profile of kinship carers and the issues they face.
I want to put on record that, until late last year, I was an officer of the all-party parliamentary group on kinship care, chaired by my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Gwynne). In the work of that group I met kinship carers regularly and was involved in the parliamentary taskforce on kinship, which made recommendations on the ways in which Government policy and practice should be changed to support kinship carers. I am grateful to all the hon. Members who have contributed to today’s debate.
I pay particular tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish, who spoke so movingly about his own experience as a kinship carer and on behalf of the APPG and kinship carers across the country about the poverty and intensely stressful processes that kinship carers have to endure. I have said it before in this Chamber and I will say it again today: little Lyle is very lucky to have such a wonderful grandad.
I also pay tribute to the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), who spoke of the willingness of families to step up and care for children who need support if only they can be supported better to do so, and the hon. Member for Glasgow East (David Linden), who paid tribute to voluntary sector organisations in his community that work to support kinship carers. I am sure all of us would want to recognise the work of such organisations across the country, which—as he rightly said—often step into the breach and into the spaces where public services really ought to be. I pay tribute to kinship carers across the country, who step in to look after a child when a family member or friend is unable to do so, and to the Family Rights Group, the charity Kinship and the Kinship Care Alliance, who work to support kinship carers and advocate on their behalf.
Recently, during Kinship Care Week, I was glad to have the opportunity to meet an amazing group of kinship carers, and I am grateful to Kinship for arranging that meeting. It is always humbling to meet kinship carers. Everyone in the group I met wanted, first and foremost, to convey their unconditional love for the children they look after and the joy and pride they receive from being able to play a part in their lives, but they wanted to talk about the challenges too. Every single person in that group had had to give up work or reduce their hours to look after the children in their care. One had taken retirement and used her pension lump sum to provide for the everyday needs of her grandchildren. She spoke about her commitment to ensure that one grandson could keep on doing football, which he loved and which helped him to deal with some of the other challenges he faced, but football comes at a cost that simply cannot be covered from her regular income.
Another carer told me that contact arrangements had been really challenging, but when she approached her local authority for support, she was told that it regarded them as private and that it had no role to play. One told me how difficult it had been for her grandchild when they were making the transition to secondary school, but no additional support had been available. A fourth spoke movingly of the trauma the children she cares for have been through and of her fears for the long-term impacts it will have.
All those women were doing what the vast majority of us would do if a cherished niece, nephew, grandchild or child of a close friend was at risk of being taken into care; they were doing it gladly, but they really needed more help and support. Some 180,000 families across the country are in the same situation: they have stepped in to care for the children of a family member or close friend, but they find that enormous personal sacrifice and considerable extra cost are involved, with little meaningful support.
In thinking about the needs of kinship carers, we must also look at the reasons why the number of children who are unable to be cared for by their birth families is increasing. The Family Rights Group has highlighted the erosion in early help and support for vulnerable families. More than 1,300 Sure Start centres have closed since 2010, a loss that is not nearly matched by the paltry commitment to open family hubs in just 75 locations. The National Children’s Bureau estimates that Government the funding available to councils for children’s services fell by 24% between 2010 and 2020, and the pandemic is likely to have made it even harder for councils to offer early intervention for families. Now we are once again faced with the spectre of public sector cuts, which will most likely fall on local authorities up and down the country. The failure of this Government to ensure that early help is always available to the most vulnerable families, wherever in the country they live, has a direct bearing on the extent to which families are able to overcome challenges and avoid a crisis in which it becomes unsafe or impossible for children to remain with their parents.
Kinship carers are an essential part of the way in which our society looks after children. They deliver outcomes for children that are as good as, and often better than, foster care or children’s homes, and for a fraction of the cost. This Government have been failing children and their families for 12 long years now. It is absolutely right that the independent review of children’s social care included a focus on kinship care and set out recommendations for ways in which the system can be improved to provide more support to kinship carers. However, nothing will change until the Government set out their response to the independent review and their implementation plan for reform of children’s social care. I welcome the Minister to her place, but it is very hard to see how a Government so mired in a crisis of their own making will be able to find the space and time to prioritise the needs of vulnerable children. However, I hope they do.
During her first Prime Minister’s Question Time, responding to my question, the Prime Minister committed to publish a response to the independent review and an implementation plan before the end of the year. I hope the Minister will set out today how that will be brought forward for full scrutiny by the House, so that the reform that is so urgently needed to support vulnerable children and their families, including kinship carers, can be delivered with urgency. Labour put children first when we were in government. I can assure the House that we will do so again. In this place, the very least we owe kinship carers up and down the country for the job they do on our behalf of caring for the most vulnerable children is not to leave it a moment longer to deliver the reform they need.
The Minister of State, Department for Education (Kelly Tolhurst)
It is a great honour to be here today responding on behalf of the Government in my new role. I want to start by thanking the hon. Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson) for securing what is an important debate. I agree 100%. Also, I have never had the opportunity to say this directly to him, but let me say in my role here that what the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Gwynne) and his wife Allison have done for their grandchild is just fantastic and to be commended. He is a fine example of how kinship can work, so well done.
All hon. Members who have joined today’s debate will agree that kinship carers are an untapped and undervalued asset. Their value to the children’s social care system and the lives of children up and down the country cannot be overstated. A fortnight ago, we celebrated national Kinship Care Week, which recognised the important role that such carers play in children’s lives. As part of those celebrations, we invited a group of kinship carers into the Department to hear their stories and inform the work we are doing to produce a children’s social care implementation strategy by the end of the year. I also wish to thank the APPG for the work it has done in this area, as well as charities such as Kinship and other organisations in the sector, which have been doing so much for this cohort of carers.
Hon. Members may be aware that I have a deep personal connection to this issue. My own sister is a social worker, and I have been an independent visitor for a looked-after child for many years. I have seen many children thrive in the care system but then face significant challenges when they reach the age of 18 and are often left with few loving relationships to sustain them throughout adulthood. Kinship care can be the antidote to a lifetime of isolation and loneliness. It allows young people to remain safely rooted within family networks and local communities, which provide us with the mental, emotional and physical support we all need. The need for family and community was acutely demonstrated during the recent covid-19 pandemic.
I am passionate about improving the lives of children. That is why I was honoured to become the Minister for Schools and Childhood last month. Supporting kinship care is a route to ensuring that all children have the opportunity to grow up in a loving, safe and stable environment and to maximise their potential. I welcome the opportunity to set out what we are doing as a Government to make that vision a reality.
This year, we have seen the publication of three reviews that, in their own way, call for a reset of the children’s social care system. As we know, they were the independent review of children’s social care, the national child safeguarding practice review into the murders of Arthur Labinjo-Hughes and Star Hobson and a report by the Competition and Markets Authority into the children’s social care market. In Prime Minister’s questions on 7 September, in response to the hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes), the Prime Minister told the House that the Government would publish a response to those landmark reviews before the end of the year. We are still committed to that timeline, and that has been a major part of my work since being appointed to the Department. Hon. Members will understand that I cannot give full details of the response today, but I am glad to be able to update the House on the progress so far.
First, we have established a national implementation board, which will include people with lived experience of the care system and leaders who have experience of implementing transformational change. The board will oversee a programme to reform children’s social care. Secondly, we have made early progress on commitments that the Government made when the independent review of children’s social care was published earlier this year. On Thursday 6 October, we launched the data and digital solutions fund, to help local authorities to unlock progress for children and families through the better use of technology. That includes a project to better understand data on kinship care, and to scope options for improving its use.
Perhaps most importantly in the context of this debate, the independent review of children’s social care shone a spotlight on successive Governments’ lack of focus on kinship care and the children who live with kinship carers. The review made seven specific recommendations, which sought to prioritise and improve support for kinship carers and children, and we will respond to those in the upcoming children’s social care implementation strategy. Although I cannot announce the detail of the response today, I can commit that kinship care will be front and centre. It will get the focus and backing from Government that it deserves in the years to come. Our response will address many of the issues raised by hon. Members today, including the hon. Member for Twickenham—hopefully including financial support, entitlements for kinship carers and the creation of a new definition of kinship care, which was a specific recommendation made by the review.
Kinship carers play a vital role in looking after children who cannot be cared for by their birth parents. There are over 150,000 children in England living in kinship care, many of whom would be in local authority care if those families had not stepped in. It is clear that more needs to be done to build a system in which every child’s right to a family is safeguarded. We must give all children an opportunity to grow up in a loving kinship home when that is in their best interests and when they cannot be safely looked after by their parents.
Some local authorities already make greater use of kinship care placements than others. The proportion of children in care placed in kinship foster care ranges from 4% in some local authorities to 39% in others. It cannot be right that children’s opportunities to live with their families are based on their postcode, and I will use the response to the care review to begin to address that disparity.
Children growing up in kinship care achieve better outcomes than their peers who grow up in care. That includes achieving better GCSE results on average, and having a greater chance of being in employment than children who grow up in foster or residential care.
Jim Shannon
In my contribution, I referred to two figures. Some 28% of those in kinship care are educationally challenged—to use that terminology—as against a national average of 6%, which is a real anomaly. The figures to which the Minister referred are greatly encouraging, but can she confirm what extra assistance is available for kinship carers who are looking after young children who are educationally challenged?
Kelly Tolhurst
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. We need also to look at this through the lens of our work in the Green Paper on special educational needs and disabilities and alternative provision. In my experience, this issue affects not just children in kinship arrangements but looked-after children. My focus throughout this whole process is achieving better outcomes for children. That will always be front and centre of all decisions and all information that I receive.
Despite the good outcomes for children in kinship care, they still lag behind those children who have never had involvement with children’s services. There is much more to do, with greater Government focus and close collaborative working with local authorities, schools and colleges. I am convinced that we can reduce that gap.
As hon. Members will no doubt recognise, the theme underpinning many of my points today is that we have made progress but far more remains to do. Last year we announced £1 million of new funding to deliver high-quality peer support groups for kinship carers across the country. We know that becoming a kinship carer for the first time is often a frightening and bewildering experience, as the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish illustrated.
The support of peers can act as a beacon to help people through. Those support groups are already building powerful communities and enabling kinship carers to connect with those in similar situations. The Government recently confirmed that we will invest a further £1 million next year to ensure that more than 100 peer support groups are established across the country by January 2024.
Hon. Members have raised with me, including in this debate, the issue of educational entitlement for children in kinship care. That area is important to me, and I recognise how much has been done, but there is more to do. Since 2018, virtual school heads and designated teachers have had a responsibility to promote the educational achievement of pupils who leave state care to live with an adopter or special guardian. Children who live with special guardians and were previously looked after by the state are eligible for the pupil premium, as the hon. Member for Twickenham outlined.
Kinship children who were not previously looked after but had been entitled to free school meals, at any point over the past six years, attract the pupil premium funding. We constantly review that and assess the effectiveness of the pupil premium, to ensure that it supports pupils facing the most disadvantage. Last year we consulted on changes to school admission codes to improve in-year admissions. Children in formal kinship care were in scope of those changes, which mean that kinship carers can secure an in-year school place for their child when they are unable to do so via other means. Those new measures came into force on 1 September 2021.
Finally, children living with special guardians who have previously been in state care can access therapeutic support via the adoption support fund, which has already been outlined. This year, we have also made that support available to those children who live with relatives under child arrangements orders. We are looking to improve local authorities’ engagement with the adoption support fund, to increase the proportion of eligible kinship carers who apply.
As hon. Members have eloquently outlined, I recognise the strain that kinship families are under, and will continue to work collaboratively with local areas to ensure that children, young people and families have access to the support they need to respond to the cost of living pressures. I am committed to supporting kinship carers. The independent review of children’s social care recommended a financial allowance for carers looking after children under a child arrangements order and those looking after children under a special guardianship order. My Department is considering each recommendation, and will respond by the end of the year.
Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South East) (Lab)
I wanted to be part of this debate, but I had two meetings about my private Member’s Bill next week, so I could not be here at the beginning, for which I apologise. I wanted to implore the Minister, in considering the financial issues, to reflect on a situation in my constituency, where the grandmother ended up having to look after the grandchildren while the parents were having issues. The problem was that she had to spend her own money, and she did not have a lot of it. When we asked social services, they said, “Only if we place the children in her care will she get some financial funding, but not until then.” For weeks and weeks, nothing happened. This issue may have been discussed, but I wanted to raise it.
Kelly Tolhurst
I know that the hon. Lady is passionate about this area, and I recognise what she has illustrated. The stories that Members have told in this debate have alluded to similar pressures that they have come across in their constituency casework, and it is something that I have seen at first hand, prior to becoming a Member of Parliament. Given that we recognise the value of kinship carers, we are taking the recommendations very seriously, and I am doing my best to show that the Government are committed to looking at this area and taking reasonable decisions.
Kinship carers often develop strong bonds with children who have just entered their homes, and taking leave from work could play a role by giving those carers time to do so. There is currently a range of Government support for such carers and employers, and some employers provide significant support to employees without a legal requirement to do so. We would encourage employers to continue to respond with this flexibility, but we will be considering the case for extending parental leave to kinship carers as part of our response to the independent review of children’s social care later this year and—I hear the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon)—when I speak to my successors in the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy on this topic.
I also recognise the importance of making informed choices about the legal status of children entering the homes of kinship carers. The Ministry of Justice laid a statutory instrument yesterday to make legal aid available for special guardianship orders in private family proceedings, which will help prospective special guardians to get advice and assistance on the order before processing. My Department is working closely with colleagues in the MOJ on implementing the recommendations from the social care review, and on giving access to legal aid to some kinship carers.
Today’s debate has rightly focused on some real issues that we know kinship carers face. My hope is that we will be able to respond to the concerns and recommendations with the implementation strategy by the end of the year. I am absolutely committed to that, and to listening to and learning from kinship carers, who make the selfless decision to care for a child who cannot safely remain with their parents. I look forward to working with them and all hon. Members on this important issue, because it is important not only for many of us across this Chamber, but for our country and for how young people develop and thrive in the United Kingdom.
Munira Wilson
I thank everybody who has participated in the debate. Like everybody else, I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Gwynne). He and his wife’s story is inspirational, and Lyle is a very lucky little boy. I thank the hon. Member for what he is doing, and I thank kinship carers up and down this country. As has been pointed out, they are doing an amazing job and helping so many children to have life chances that they would not otherwise have, as well as saving the taxpayer a huge amount of money.
Although I set out the short-term economic case in terms of the cost savings that could be achieved, the hon. Member talked about the moral benefits and the long-term economic case. We hear this so often about children and young people. It depresses me that Government policy so often does not think long-term enough. Under the “invest to save” argument, we invest early in our children and young people. The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes), talked about early intervention and ensuring that we are really investing in those vulnerable families so that we prevent a lot of the challenges further down the line.
I thank the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), who is always in every single debate—I do not know how he does it—in particular for shining a light on the additional needs of many of those in kinship care, and indeed in all types of care, as the Minister pointed out. I thank the hon. Member for Glasgow East (David Linden) for pointing out the important work of charities working on the ground and for stressing the connection between poverty and kinship care. The data shows us that kinship carers are disproportionately those from the most disadvantaged families and from black and minority ethnic backgrounds, so there is all the more reason for us to provide them with the right financial support. As the shadow Minister said, we must not lose sight of these issues amidst this political turmoil.
I was encouraged to hear some of the things the Minister said today. I thank her for her work and for her sister’s work in supporting children in care. I know that the Minister cannot make any firm commitments today; clearly, she cannot announce anything. However, I was encouraged that she referenced the fact that the Government’s response will talk about financial support and definitions of kinship carers, and the fact that extending parental leave is on the table. A lot of the language was clearly very hedged—she said that these things will be considered and there will be a response. I hope that the response is positive, in terms of both the money and the leave available to those carers. I welcome the news that an SI was laid yesterday for legal aid for those seeking a special guardianship order. We are slowly edging in the right direction.
I thank the Minister for the work she is doing, but I urge her to continue to be a champion for children and young people. They are often the ones who suffer the most when we are in economic and financial turmoil. They have suffered the most through the pandemic, and they suffer the most when there is an economic downturn. It is incumbent on all of us as elected Members to be their voice here. Children and young people have neither a vote nor a voice, so it is up to us to be their voice.
My Bill had cross-party support, so I am really disappointed that there are no Back-Bench Conservative Members present. However, I know there is support across the House for these measures, and I look forward to working with all Members and the Minister to make some of those recommendations a reality.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered support for kinship carers.
Port of Dover: Border Controls
(1 year, 6 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
Rushanara Ali (in the Chair)
I will call Natalie Elphicke to move the motion and then call the Minister to respond. There will not be an opportunity for the Member in charge to wind up, as is the convention for 30-minute debates.
Mrs Natalie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered border controls at the Port of Dover.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Ali. Today I will raise three matters of concern about border controls: illegal entry of people; legal transit of people and goods; and illegal dangerous food and goods.
Dover stands as the guardian of and gateway to England. Currently, with the number of people in small boat crossings at over 35,000 people, that guardian role is being sorely tested. The Home Secretary says that this situation is out of control and it is. There is much more to do to secure our sea border.
We need to recognise that every person coming into Britain through this route is breaking the law, and every person organising and facilitating such small boat crossings is committing a crime. This is organised criminal activity and it is no different from the smuggling of guns, drugs or any other contraband. Indeed, it is not simply criminal: it kills people, too. I will never forget how 27 people died in the channel last year; they drowned when their small boat sank.
Every person who steps into an inflatable boat on the French coast is putting themselves and others at risk when they are completely safe in France. They are not safe at sea, crossing the English channel in an overcrowded, unseaworthy inflatable boat. They will become even less safe as winter approaches and the weather becomes colder and the sea rougher.
I was pleased to meet the Home Secretary last week and again earlier today to hear about her plans and her determination to tackle this issue. I was also glad to be able to raise it directly with the Prime Minister at last week’s Prime Minister’s questions, urging her to take urgent action with President Macron.
The bottom line is that it is only when migrants and people smugglers alike know that they cannot break into Britain through the channel that this route will be closed down and lives saved. That will only happen when Britain and France act in concert, jointly patrolling the French coast and the English channel, and jointly ensuring that illegal entrants are returned to France.
In my area, people are fearful that there will be further tragic loss of life this winter. Both the UK and France have a human and moral obligation to act now to save lives. That starts and ends with ending this crisis for good and the best way to do that is to keep people out of the dangerous inflatables and safe on land. In order to help genuine refugees, save lives and stop the criminals, more must be done to tackle this issue and secure the border. I look forward to hearing the Minister on this point.
Stopping illegal entry of people is vital, yet ensuring the smooth flow of legal trade and people through Dover is essential, too. The channel ports, Dover and the tunnel together transit around 60% of the UK’s trade with Europe. Goods come from across the whole country to Dover for export, and goods come from across the EU to Dover for import. Whether that is just-in-time manufacturing goods for the hubs of the midlands or seafood from Scotland bound for the continent, Dover plays a key role in making the midlands engine rev, in driving the northern powerhouse and in ensuring that the economy as a whole continues to hum. It is not just trade that goes through Dover. There are also the HGV drivers and a huge number of passengers—both tourists and workers—who come and go from the EU and the UK.
Last December, I secured an urgent debate here in Westminster Hall to set out my belief that we should be immediately ready for the upcoming EU entry-exit checks at the port of Dover. Those checks are part of the EU digital controls and they are now due to come into force in 2023—a matter of months. I am sorry to say that since I first raised this issue in this place, over 10 months ago, it is still not clear how the checks will work. There appear to be working groups, but we do not know if they have an implementable plan. Indeed, judging by the evidence given by the chief executive of the port of Dover to the Transport Committee last week, I fear not. If not, a delay in processing could result in miles and miles of traffic jams all along the Kent roads. The impact of that is not just traffic misery for those in Kent, Dover and those stuck for hours and hours, even days, in those traffic jams, but it would be catastrophic for UK trade and tourism. I would be grateful if my hon. Friend the Minister could tell the House what the progress has been, so as to avoid delays to the preparation for those checks.
Danger to our trade comes not simply from failure to be ready on day one for entry and exit checks, but it also comes from the failure to invest in necessary physical infrastructure too. We have long needed upgraded roads, lorry parks, check-in facilities and so on, yet these have simply not been progressed. They need to be if we want to avoid the risk of tailbacks and delays on Kent’s roads. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Huw Merriman), who so ably chairs the Transport Committee, for his and his Committee’s diligent and expert work on pressing for infrastructure investment and facilities to facilitate this important trade route. I would encourage the Minister to meet with him as well as me, as he has much information and expertise on this matter that would be of great assistance to the Department in planning for and delivering effective borders and a strong national transport and transit infrastructure.
I have explored the dangerous small boats crossings and the danger of trade disruption. I will now turn to the dangers of poisonous food and unsafe goods coming from the EU to the UK through Dover. Since leaving the EU, a new port health facility at Dover has been fitted out, fully ready for border checks. It was ready to go live, with extra staff recruited, but then it was unexpectedly mothballed in the summer by the then Brexit Opportunities Minister. That was in spite of the Cabinet Office receiving a shocking report from Dover’s port health authority in May, ahead of the decision, about poisonous food and serious biosecurity concerns. The report said,
“To not mobilise the facility would be an act of negligence that would significantly increase the risk of devastating consequences of another animal, health or food safety catastrophe.”
Further, it said that
“we cannot control what is coming through the border and ensure national food safety, public and animal health and biosecurity are maintained, as we do not have a facility to complete the escalating number of checks required”.
The evidence is that the problem with poisonous food and dangerous goods has not gone away. Indeed, the evidence from the Dover border is that the problem has got worse, if anything. At the beginning of this month, Dover Port Health Authority undertook Operation Ouzo, a multi-agency exercise designed to check the adequacy of existing controls at the border. Over a 24-hour period, from Saturday lunchtime to Sunday lunchtime, they searched some 22 vehicles of Romanian, Moldovan, Ukrainian and Polish origin. In those vehicles, they discovered raw animal products loosely stored in carrier bags and paper tissue without temperature control, refrigeration or labelled identification. The products were not separated from ready-to-eat products such as cheese, crisps and cake.
In one case, raw, unlabelled and loosely-wrapped pork had been popped in the bottom of a taped-up wheelie bin, which was filled with other products intended for free circulation within the UK. The operational report contained some 20 pages of disgusting images from this very small operation. We need to remember that it is not 22 vehicles a day entering the UK at Dover. There are up to 10,000 vehicle movements across the channel each day. It is clear that the risk of maggoty meat, meat of unknown origin, which often means horse or other illegal meat, rotting meat due to the lack of temperature controls, as well as fresh blood dripping on to other products, is of real concern.
It is not just meat. Pesticides on eastern European flax seeds, the sort that we might sprinkle on our cereal, have been found to exceed the maximum level for UK health safety—in other words, they could be dangerous to human life. None of that food meets the EU requirements, and it should not be coming in; it is illegal for the UK market. That highlights why it is wrong to outsource our food and biosecurity to the EU, and not have our own robust controls. Moreover, those are just the things we know about. What about the things that we do not know about because the Government mothballed the facility and slashed the funding for port health officers at the Dover border?
Biosecurity is also a real concern. Take African swine fever, about which the Government have said,
“The disease poses a significant risk to our pig herd and our long-term ability to export pork and pork products around the globe.”
Ministers deem the risk of African swine fever to be high, and have even put in special measures to prohibit certain types of EU pork. However, the illegal pork trade is rife at the port of Dover—so rife that around 80% of that illegal trade comes through the short straits. Without adequate checks, there is nothing to stop it. The October Dover port health report concluded,
“The exercise validated Dover Port Health Authority’s advice to Government that biosecurity at the border is not secure.”
The Port Health Authority has said that
“greater mitigation is needed to control the risk of African Swine Fever entering the UK via illegally imported EU porcine at the Short Straits.”
The port authority says that it has been left in limbo, without direction or appropriate engagement, so can the Minister say when controls, facilities and staff will be put in place to tackle the risk of more poisonous food, dangerous goods and biosecurity risks coming into the UK?
The Cabinet Office is thought to believe that due to digital borders, little or no infrastructure or extra staffing is now required. Given the unhappy history of Government with IT systems, that is inevitably a real worry, especially given the many delays to date in border-related IT systems. Those systems have been subject to scrutiny in the official reports of the expert Joint Committee in the House of Lords, and are very troubling and long delayed. Digital borders, blockchain, end-to-end invoice processing and the rest are part of a modern border and trade environment, but do the Government recognise that the digital world will not stop the real-world gaming of the system, and for that reason, physical audits will always be needed? Digital borders can absolutely improve the efficiency of physical borders, but cannot replace them.
To conclude, it is vital to end the dangerous small boats crossings, prevent the danger of trade disruption and endless traffic queues, and stop dangerous poisonous goods and other dodgy goods entering the UK. The smuggling of illegal goods and people is rife at Dover, and it is shocking. It is time for the Government to confront those dangers and bring them to an end, to restore order and effective controls. That includes a review of the decision to mothball the port health facility and reinvestment in port health staff. I look forward to hearing from the Minister how the Government intend to restore order at the border, and would be happy to meet with him to discuss the matter further.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Brendan Clarke-Smith)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Ali, and I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Mrs Elphicke) for securing today’s debate. She has been a tremendous campaigner on this issue since her election, not just in her constituency but nationally. It is something that has certainly been raised in my constituency many times, and I am grateful for the contribution she continues to make on this matter.
I will respond to the helpful contributions that my hon. Friend has made in a moment, but before I do, I would like to underline the Government’s commitment to safe, secure and—of course—efficient borders. In April, the Government announced that the remaining import controls on EU goods will no longer be introduced this year, saving British businesses up to £1 billion in annual costs. The controls introduced in January 2021 on the highest risk imports of animals, animal products, plants and plant products will continue to apply in order to safeguard the UK’s biosecurity.
The Government further recognise the negative effect traffic build-up can have on the residents of Kent. My colleagues and I are committed to working with all the relevant stakeholders and the Kent Resilience Forum, which has the statutory responsibility for planning and holds operational decision-making powers in managing any disruption in Kent if and when it occurs.
Alongside my colleagues from other Departments and on the Back Benches, I am taking the issues that will be posed by the new entry-exit system seriously. This is an EU requirement being implemented by France, which is responsible for the systems, technology and processes. We have been working with French logistics operators and others to ensure the implementation of the entry-exit system minimises any impacts on border flows and traffic build-up. We are working closely with the operators of locations with juxtaposed controls, including the port of Dover, Eurotunnel and Eurostar to support them in their engagement with the French and with implementation plans. I am encouraged by recent developments on transition arrangements that have been proposed by the EU Commission; however, we need to see more progress on implementation and transition arrangements, and we will continue to actively raise this with our EU counterparts.
We recognise that the entry-exit scheme has the potential to impact on throughput at the port of Dover, and minimising that is a priority that we share with the port. We are already engaging with the French Government on this, and will meet them again at the start of November to look at the progress implementation plans and ways of mitigating negative impacts: the port of Dover will be involved in those discussions. The UK and French Governments share commitments to determine the infrastructure requirements, processes and procedures that take place on one another’s territory through the juxtaposed control arrangements. The entry-exit scheme is to become one of those processes, as part of the EU operating a secure border. We are fully aware that requiring all passengers to exit vehicles in order to register their biometric and biographic data would be hugely challenging, and we are exploring alternatives to this with the French Government—especially given the additional safety considerations around requiring passengers to mix with traffic flows.
While it is not the direct focus of the debate, it is worth noting that EES presents similar challenges, particularly in terms of disruption to passenger flows for Eurostar services both at St. Pancras International and its continental stations. Officials are equally engaging with Eurostar and French counterparts to agree plans for installing EES kiosks at St. Pancras, albeit there are major space constraints there too. As with the short straits, we are pressing for pragmatic solutions so we alleviate pressure at the border as far as possible. The Government recognise the strategic importance of the short straits for UK trade.
The Department for Transport works closely with the Kent Resilience Forum to manage disruption in Kent. The Kent Resilience Forum has extensive traffic management plans in place, including Operation Brock, to keep traffic moving. The Kent Resilience Forum, which is operationally independent from the Government, is responsible for managing traffic disruption. The Kent Resilience Forum has well-tested traffic management plans in place in their Operation Fennel plan, which includes the option to deploy Operation Brock on the M20, allowing portal-bound freight to be stored on the coast-bound carriageway while a contraflow enables both the coast and London-bound carriageway to remain open to passenger and local freight traffic.
The Kent Resilience Forum can manage a queue of up to 5,000 HGVs while keeping the M20 open; that figure rises to 8,450 HGVs with partial or full closure of sections of the coast-bound M20. The Government recognise the strategic importance of the short straits for UK trade, and my Department works closely with the Kent Resilience Forum to support it in managing disruption in Kent whenever it comes. Operational decisions on how best to manage this therefore sit with the Kent Resilience Forum, including the deployment of Operation Brock.
The disruption at the start of the summer holidays, in the busiest period for passenger travel so far this year at the port of Dover and the Eurotunnel, was caused by a combination of fewer than expected French border officials staffing the controls at Dover and a serious road traffic accident that caused the M20 to be closed for a prolonged period. Kent Resilience Forum and local partners worked tirelessly throughout to manage the worst of the disruption and cleared it within 48 hours.
On border controls, the Government announced in April that the remaining import controls on EU goods will no longer be introduced this year, saving British businesses up to £1 billion in annual costs. The controls introduced in January 2021 on the highest-risk imports of animals, animal products, plants and plant products will continue to apply to safeguard the UK’s biosecurity.
Having left the EU, we can now put in place a new global import regime that best suits the UK’s needs, and it is important that we get that right. We will design a global regime for importing goods that is safe, secure and efficient, and that will harness innovative new technologies to streamline processes and reduce frictions.
We also want to speed up our system and get closer to frictionless trade. Our live “ecosystem of trust” pilot tests how we can use supply chain data and physical assurance technology to give border agencies confidence about goods moving in and out of the country, enabling better targeted checks at the border. If the Government can confer more trust on traders, we can start giving them benefits in return, such as fewer admin burdens, less physical intervention and delay at the border, and other policy facilitations that make it quicker and easier to move goods.
The Government have been clear that, in consultation with industry, we will publish a target operating model in the autumn. That will set out our new regime of border import controls and will target the end of 2023 as the introduction date for our controls regime, which will deliver on our promise to create the world’s best border on our shores.
The target operating model will describe the user journey for the import and export of goods across the border, explaining what must be done, by whom, and when. For traders, it will explain what must be done upstream of the border before goods arrive at it, and what must happen at the border—including border control posts—and after goods have entered free circulation. For the border industry, it will explain how policy, processes, systems and infrastructure act together to deliver that user journey, and what is required of them to implement those.
The new approach will apply equally to goods from the EU and the rest of the world. It will be based on a proper assessment of risk, with a proportionate risk-based and technologically advanced approach to controls. That includes a single trade window, which will start to deliver from 2023 the creation of an ecosystem of trust between Government and industry, and other transformational products, as part of our 2025 border strategy.
Inland border facilities were introduced to deal with customs checks at the border post-Brexit, and are constantly under review to ensure they provide value for money. A new proposed site at Dover was part of that review and, after looking into the amount of cross-channel traffic and the necessary associated checks, a decision was made in June 2022 not to progress that site. The review showed that the existing facilities had enough capacity to deal with the flow of traffic and that, therefore, a new site was not necessary. The decision saw a taxpayer saving of around £120 million, which was the anticipated cost of developing and running the Dover inland border facilities for the intended duration, and allowed the funds to be utilised elsewhere.
That decision to not build the inland border facility, however, does not mean that that asset is not required by the Government. The Department for Transport is exploring alternative options for its development to ease pressure at the border, given the issues with disruption on the strategic road network in Kent and at the ports. The Department for Transport will continue to engage with my hon. Friend the Member for Dover, local leaders, businesses and residents to ensure that any development will also benefit the local economy and the community.
Alongside Dover inland border facilities, the Government are also considering our options concerning the future of Dover sanitary and phytosanitary border control post sites. Importantly, no decision has been made at this stage about the future of the site. I reassure my hon. Friend that the Government will continue to engage with local leaders, businesses and residents before one is made.
The Government are committed to investing in towns across the country and, in Dover, we have put our money where our mouth is. The future high streets fund is providing £3.2 million for Dover town centre and waterfront, and the UK shared prosperity fund is providing £1 million for Dover as part of the £7.5 million for constituencies across Kent. For Kent as a whole, the Government are also providing £6.8 million for 10 projects as part of the community renewal fund.
Small boat crossings are dangerous and unnecessary, and scores of people have been killed attempting to cross the channel in unseaworthy vessels. Every crossing attempt is a potential tragedy. The UK remains committed to continuing to address illegal migration via France through our enduring relationship. We continue to engage with the French at all levels, political and operational, and are supporting the provision of technology and the sharing of intelligence to meet our strategic aims.
The Nationality and Borders Act 2022 includes significant new measures to increase the fairness of our system, so that we can better protect and support those in need of asylum, deter illegal entry into the UK and remove more easily from the UK those with no right to be here. Since the passage of the Act, the number arriving on small boats has passed 33,000, far exceeding the 2021 total in just nine months. We cannot continue, year on year, with the inexorable rise in the number of illegal arrivals, which adds to the pressures on our public services.
We will break the business model of the people smugglers and deter those seeking to enter the UK illegally only by putting in place a system in which it is clear to all that anyone arriving in this country illegally will not have their asylum claim considered here, and that they will instead be removed to Rwanda, or another safe country, to have their claim processed. We will be able to solve this issue only when those facilitating and attempting hazardous and potentially fatal journeys realise that their claims will not be processed. Following the decommissioning of the temporary structures at the Tug Haven site at the start of 2021, reception and processing facilities have been significantly improved, with the opening of the new premises in Dover and Manston.
Active consideration is being given to investment in the road network in Kent as part of the third road investment strategy. We are continuing to work closely with my hon. Friend and local stakeholders, who are making a strong case to improve the A2. Final decisions on the schemes will be taken in the investment plan for the road investment strategy, which is set for 2024.
In their recent joint statement, the Prime Minister and President Macron recognised the need to strengthen our co-operation, with a view to concluding some ambitious packages this autumn. We will update the House on that in due course.
The Nationality and Borders Act is a long-term solution to the long-term problems that have beset the asylum system over decades. It has three central objectives: to make the system fairer and more effective, so that we can better protect and support those in genuine need; to deter illegal entry, breaking the business model of evil criminal trafficking; and to make it easier to remove those with no right to be here. The Government remain committed to delivering the partnership between the UK and Rwanda, so that we can break the business model of the people smugglers.
The Government remain committed to all their international obligations, including the refugee convention. As we review the Bill of Rights Bill, we remain a committed party to the European convention on human rights. UK policy on migration should not be derailed by the abuse of our modern slavery laws, the Human Rights Act 1998 or orders of the Strasbourg Court. Although we will work within the bounds of international law, we cannot allow the abuse of our system to continue.
In conclusion, it is a pleasure to close the debate on behalf of the Government. I thank my hon. Friend for securing the debate, and for all the hard work she has done, and continues to do, on the issue. To be truly world leading, we need to look beyond improvements to the border that other countries have already implemented, to a radical reimagining of how Government and industry can work together to enable secure trade. That will ultimately enhance the reputation that Kent and the UK have for facilitating business and encouraging investment.
Question put and agreed to.
Cost of Living: Support for Young People
(1 year, 6 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
Fabian Hamilton (Leeds North East) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered cost of living support for young people.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship this afternoon, Ms Ali.
This debate could not come at a more important time, as everyone’s bills are skyrocketing, the cost of food and other basic items seems to be increasing exponentially, and our country’s Government are in utter turmoil. Young people across Britain, who have had to live through the pandemic, are now faced with a cost of living catastrophe. In north-east Leeds, young people are facing the huge impacts of the crisis, with 6,712 16 to 24-year-olds on universal credit. Of those, 32% are in work. It is shameful that the Government have still not committed to increasing universal credit in line with inflation.
Janet Daby (Lewisham East) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend for securing the debate. He is talking about the point that I want to mention: the Government really should be increasing universal credit in line with inflation. Many young people and children in my constituency are having to go without breakfast and, in some cases, without lunch as well. No Child Left Behind recently said that 26% of households experience food insecurity. Does my hon. Friend agree that that is absolutely wrong?
Fabian Hamilton
I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention, because I am just about to describe what a difference it makes to increase universal credit in line with inflation, rather than in line with wages. Her point is very well made indeed. If universal credit rose in line with wages, young people in my constituency and throughout the country—
Rushanara Ali (in the Chair)
Order. We have to suspend for Divisions in the House. There will be 15 minutes for the first Division, and then 10 minutes for each subsequent Division. Today’s final debate will have injury time added for those Divisions.
Fabian Hamilton
As I said earlier, it is a pleasure to serve under your chairship this afternoon, Ms Ali, in spite of the interruptions. I shall continue where I left off an hour and a quarter ago.
The fact that the Government still have not committed to increasing universal credit in line with inflation is shameful. If universal credit rose in line with wages, young people would receive just £7.42 extra per month. If, however, it rose in line with inflation, they would receive an additional £21.49 per month. Given the huge difficulties young people are facing at the moment, does the Minister think that failing to commit to an inflation-linked increase is morally acceptable?
The stark reality of this crisis could not be clearer for Jack, who attends YMCA sessions in Leeds. Jack is not his real name, of course. Jack is 10 years old and lives with his parents and two siblings. He has been quoted at YMCA sessions as saying that
“we’ve got no food at home.”
The fact that a child as young as 10 has been put in this position is unforgivable. It is a humiliation for our country not only at home but abroad. With wages squeezed more than ever, Jack’s family also receives support at school, through the uniform exchange, because they cannot afford to buy new school uniforms. The pressures of the current crisis are now causing issues between family members at home.
I commend the activists in Leeds for pioneering school uniform exchanges across the city, but it is outrageous that their brilliant work is even necessary in modern Britain. I ask the Minister what he would like to say to Jack and his family after yesterday’s day of shame for the Government, when the Prime Minister and her new Chancellor effectively gave the green light for energy bills to go up to a predicted average of £5,000 a year for most households from April.
The failure to provide cost of living support to young people often affects their parents as well. A report released by UNICEF today states that 59% of parents with children under five say that they are struggling with their mental health, and 66% have been negatively affected by the rising cost of living. That amounts to a total of more than 2 million families in the United Kingdom. The status quo is simply unacceptable, and this crisis will only deepen as we approach winter and enter the new year. Among parents feeling the pinch from the rising cost of living, the report also found that just under half have already cut back on their electricity and gas usage, with one in 10 unable to adequately heat their home as winter approaches. As we know, that will be hugely detrimental to the development and education of young people.
As I said earlier, the cost of living emergency, coupled with covid, will amount to a disaster for many families up and down the country, especially young people. Public Health England data shows that across the first three quarters of 2021-22, nearly one in three children aged between two and two and a half were assessed as having missed out on reaching their expected level of development. That contrasts with around one in six in the first three quarters of 2019. A recent YouGov poll pointed to the fact that over a quarter of people aged between 18 and 24 feel unable to cope with the cost of living crisis owing to the stress that it is causing, so I ask the Minister what plans are in place to ensure that the mental health problems in parents and elder siblings do not have a knock-on impact on younger people and children.
I turn now to university students, who have also missed out on learning because of the pandemic and are currently facing huge financial problems, but who risk being a forgotten group of people suffering from the impact of the crisis.
Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is making a powerful speech, and I am glad that he is including students. There will be mixed experiences in terms of students’ ability to fall back on family support, but is he aware that recent research conducted for Universities UK indicated that over half of students were considering whether they would be able to continue with their studies as a result of the pressures they are under? Does he recognise that university students cannot draw down the support that is generally available through the council tax system, because they do not pay council tax? Is he aware that other countries, such as Germany, are treating students in the same way as other low-income groups—for example, pensioners—by giving them additional grants? Does he recognise that the Government need to make some sort of national intervention on this issue, and not rely on a patchwork of different measures that are being introduced by some universities and some councils?
Fabian Hamilton
I thank my hon. Friend, who is a very old friend of mine and has a great reputation for standing up for students and universities—certainly in this place and before he came into the House. I was not aware of many of those facts. I did not realise that half of students were considering giving up their courses, and I can only imagine the detrimental effect that it will have not just on their futures, but on the future of our whole country.
From my time on the Foreign Affairs Committee, I recall visiting South Korea and asking people how they could account for their massive success since the second world war. That was 15 or so years ago, and since then South Korea has become even more successful and has risen higher up the scale of G20 countries to become one of the most powerful industrial nations in the world. The Korean Education Minister at the time said to me, “It is one very simple fact. We took a decision after the Korean war that the only future for our country, as a rural agrarian economy, would be to invest in our young people, and educate them to such a level that that education would follow through in terms of our industry, our scientific research, our know how and our intellectual property.” We can see that that has happened.
A country that relinquishes the potential of its young people to develop, not just themselves but the economic future of that country, is one that is in trouble. I do not want to see that happen to this great nation—it would be absolutely tragic. I think we can learn from our economic, social and geopolitical partners, in countries such as Germany, as to how we can handle a crisis like this. They have the right idea. Not everything that happens in Europe is bad, believe it or not; there are some really good policies there. I think we should learn from those, and I hope that the Minister will begin to address that question.
Those university students who have missed out on learning because of the pandemic and are currently facing financial problems risk becoming a forgotten group of people suffering from the impact of the cost of living crisis. As my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield) has said, it has serious implications for the long-term job market in the UK. Recent polls suggest that 55% of those who felt concerned about managing their living costs were worried that it might prevent them from continuing their studies. That rises sharply—up to three quarters—for those students who are severely disadvantaged or from poorer backgrounds. We simply cannot afford for more than half of our young people to drop out of university before graduation. I would be grateful if the Minister told us what support the Government are providing to universities, centrally, to tackle the issue before it is too late.
It is increasingly clear that urgent action is needed to prevent more young people from sliding into poverty. In a recent Barnardo’s report, one young person was quoted as saying that
“mentally, it’s taken a massive toll. I was thinking of seeing a counsellor, but I don’t want to because of the fear of how much it would cost. I haven’t been able to get the correct help”.
I am the president of Leeds UNICEF, and through that group I have heard first-hand about the horrific experiences of my young constituents, as well as of the many people across the city of Leeds who are struggling.
I conclude by strongly urging the Minster to look closely at extending free school meals, at improving mental health provisions for schools, and at backing the Labour party’s call for a breakfast club in every primary school in England and Wales. Those measures would at least give parents and young people some of the support they so desperately need.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Ali. I congratulate the hon. Member for Leeds North East (Fabian Hamilton) on securing this important debate. It gives us an opportunity to shine a light on young people, who are often overlooked. In my short remarks, I will focus on students.
The last decade will have a long and significant impact on the younger generation. Many entered their youth in the throes of the financial crisis, went through the pandemic in their formative years and are now experiencing the full force of the cost of living crisis. The latest economic shock is presenting a new set of challenges for young people, particularly students.
I recently met a group of students from Bath Spa University. They are hugely worried about the financial pressures that rampant inflation is placing on them, and their concerns are not unfounded. UK students have seen a 7.5% cut in their maintenance loans. That has had severe consequences: research by the National Union of Students shows that a third of UK students are being forced to live on £50 a month after paying rent and bills. Some are having to choose between feeding themselves and carrying on with their education; many are holding down multiple jobs to make ends meet. Mercy In Action, a local charity in Bath, has seen a fivefold increase in the number of young people and students who need to use its food pantry. Inevitably, students from the poorest backgrounds are disproportionately affected.
The cost of living crisis goes far beyond a purely financial hit. The Bath Spa students I spoke to described how the crisis was causing them considerable stress and anxiety. The Student Value Report showed that nearly two thirds of UK students felt their mental health had been negatively affected, while two fifths of students thought that their physical health had been affected. That is no way to go through a demanding course of study, or to sit and prepare for exams. The Government claim to view economic growth as a priority, but growth is not sustainable unless we support our young people. The students of today will shape our future, and should have ample opportunity to do so. The Prime Minister talks about equality of opportunity, yet she is not giving students the opportunity they need to achieve their potential.
Of course, failing to support students has a knock-on effect on local economies. Student spending supports over £80 billion of economic output: that is crucial for places such as Bath, where over a third of our population is made up of students. If students are struggling, the local communities in which they live will lose out too. To prevent the devastating effects of student poverty, the Government need to tie student support to inflation, as we have already heard, and deliver urgent maintenance grants and bursaries to those who need them.
Paul Blomfield
I know that the hon. Member regularly takes up student issues and is a strong advocate for her student constituents. Does she recognise that students, particularly those from poorer backgrounds, went into this crisis already at a disadvantage, not least because the salary threshold for eligibility for maximum loans in England has been frozen at £25,000 since 2008? Does she agree that a simple measure the Government could implement, and should not necessarily rule out, would be to adjust the threshold so that those from poorer backgrounds are more able to access those loans in England?
Wera Hobhouse
I thank the hon. Member for that remark—I have to admit that I was not totally aware of the detail, but I fully support what he has said about what needs to be done. It is clear that young people, including those who are now in their 30s, have already lost out because of the financial crisis. We need to support that younger generation, but we also need to support the young people who are coming through now, those who have been at a disadvantage as a result of covid. The least we can do is listen, and the Government need to listen to the recommendations that have been made today and act on them urgently.
As I said, the Government need to tie student support to inflation and deliver urgent maintenance grants and bursaries to those who need them. The cost of doing so would be low compared with other recent Government spending commitments. It would support the vital economic growth on which this Government tell us they are uniquely focused. While I applaud universities that have provided hardship funds, those institutions do not have enough means adequately to protect students in need: that is the responsibility of central Government. The Prime Minister has talked regularly about equality of opportunity and about growth. If this Government are serious about growth, they need to invest in people, especially young people.
Amy Callaghan (East Dunbartonshire) (SNP)
The cost of living crisis is hitting all our constituents hard, but today we are focusing on children and young people, the support available and what is still needed. The bottom line is that, despite ongoing interventions from the Scottish Government, too many children are still living in poverty as a result of decisions made in this place. According to the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, one in five people in the UK live in poverty. That is 4.3 million children.
I praise the incredible work of East Dunbartonshire’s food bank and all its volunteers for the support they provide, but they should not have to do so. Welfare provided by the UK Government should be uprated in line with inflation. Not to do so is a disgrace, but the Government have made their stance on support for students and workers crystal clear.
Angela Crawley (Lanark and Hamilton East) (SNP)
Are young people not being consistently left behind—whether by the benefits system, the fact that they are not paid equal wages, or the fact that the living wage is not a real wage? It is fair to say that not every young person has the support of mum and dad and can live at home, so should we not ensure that universal credit is equalised? The price of a pint of milk is the same, whether someone is over 25 or under 25.
Amy Callaghan
I welcome that intervention from my very good friend; it is correct that students and young people should be paid the same amount, because goods cost the same regardless of age.
The UK Government’s disastrous mini-budget has caused economic uncertainty and market upheaval, meaning that working families with children to support are now terrified of losing their homes. With one hand tied behind their back, the Scottish Government are doing all they can to help Scotland’s children and young people—through free university tuition, free bus travel for under 22s, free school meals for children in primary 1 to 5, free prescriptions, the young patients family fund, the young carer grant and the rent freeze. With the powers that they have, the Scottish Government are building a wealthier, happier, fairer Scotland. Successive Tory Governments in this place are getting in the way, and that is why Scotland needs independence.
Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Ms Ali. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Leeds North East (Fabian Hamilton) for introducing this important debate. When we talk about the cost of living crisis, the impact on young people and children often gets missed. They are an incredibly important group, and they will grow up with their life chances stunted and their health impacted if we do not consider their needs.
In preparation for this debate, I reached out to some youth groups in my constituency to ask how their young people are coping. The Urban Youth Project in Pollokshields got back to me with a response from one of its young people:
“As a student who lives on his own and has a part time job to keep food on the table, how much longer can I afford to juggle both these responsibilities? Sooner or later I’ll need to choose, do I continue with University or get a full time job? At my age (20) I should be able to study in university as I worked hard to get in.”
It is worrying that people are now choosing whether to continue their studies or give up and just work, because they are finding it hard to do both. Another young person said:
“It’s all very well budgeting for rising costs if you earn in the first place. How much higher will these costs rise? My parents are stressed, my brothers and sisters are feeling the change in spending, it’s not nice. My parents both work hard and they are talking about second jobs. Does anyone in parliament need to consider that option? Didn’t think so.”
There are choices made in this place that impact people. Many of the people making those decisions and choosing those policy routes never have to live with them. A piece of Barnardo’s research out today said that 49% of its frontline workers have supported children, young people and families who have had to choose between feeding themselves or paying their bills in the past year. That is nearly half of people facing that choice, and it is only going to get worse.
I will talk about some of the ways in which this is affecting people, and some of the choices that families in my constituency are having to make. In particular, I note a report from Migrant Voice about visa fees. For many families, each application costs £2,500 every two and a half years. If a family is having to bear that cost every two and half years, there are choices that they are not able to make for their children. One witness that Migrant Voice spoke to as part of its work said:
“I can’t feed my kids due to the visa fees and borrowing money.”
At the very least, the Government could suspend those fees for children and give folk a break, because it is really quite difficult. That is a choice that the Government have. They choose to add those costs for families as part of the immigration system. It means that those young people do not get the same choices as their peers at school. Furthermore, there could be two identical families with parents working identical jobs and children of exactly the same age, but the Government deliberately put one family at a disadvantage by giving them no recourse to public funds status. Those families are not entitled to the same benefits and they have to work twice or three times as hard to put food on the table as their neighbours. They deserve support. It is a system that is basically unfair, and I see many cases like that through my constituency office.
This situation is not news because the then UN special rapporteur on extreme poverty and human rights, Philip Alston, noted in 2019 that UK Government policy changes since 2010 were unravelling two decades of progress on child poverty. The UK now has the worst poverty and inequality levels in north-west Europe. In the UK, 11.7% of people are living below the poverty line. That is significantly higher than in countries such as Iceland at 4.9%, Denmark at 6.15% or Belgium at 8.2%. These are deliberate choices leading to deliberate impacts on people.
We did not hear much from the Government yesterday about what exactly they intend to do about this situation. We have the largest real-term cut to benefits in a single year. We have families struggling to get by on the national minimum wage, and young people are significantly disadvantaged by the way in which it is staged. An under-18 or an apprentice is entitled to only £4.81 an hour. In comparison, a 23-year-old starting the same job on the same day is entitled to £9.50 an hour. It is age discrimination baked into Government policy, and I would be interested to hear why the Minister thinks discriminating against young people in this way is justified. Universal credit also deliberately discriminates against young people, and the Government should explain why that is the case.
I could talk for a long time about the Government’s policies and the way in which they impact young people, but I want to highlight a few things that are happening in Scotland, where we have a choice and we are making a difference to the lives of young people. We have the young person’s guarantee, aiming to connect every 16 to 24-year-old in Scotland to an opportunity, which could be a job, apprenticeship, further or higher education, training programme, formal volunteering or enterprise opportunity, and that opens up opportunities to young people. As my hon. Friend the Member for East Dunbartonshire (Amy Callaghan) mentioned, we have a greater free school meal entitlement in Scotland. We provide free period products for everybody, not just young people, but certainly that will help young people setting out in the world.
We have launched free bus travel for under-22s, which approximately 930,000 young people in Scotland are entitled to. The scheme could be worth up to £3,000 for a child by the time they turn 18, opening up horizons for young people and making it easier for them to get to work or their studies and to live their lives. This is just the start. Scotland has a vision for how we want to see young people go ahead in the world. We want to be the best country for young people to grow up in. What is holding us back is Westminster. What will give us those opportunities is independence.
James Murray (Ealing North) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to speak in this debate with you as Chair, Ms Ali. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds North East (Fabian Hamilton) on securing this important debate and comprehensively setting out the need to support young people through the cost of living crisis. Growing up at any time brings its challenges, but young people today are living through a time of particularly great turbulence and uncertainty. We know that today’s young people will feel the impact and cost of 12 years of Conservative rule and the economic chaos of recent weeks longer than any of us. After 12 years of presiding over low economic growth and of undermining our public services, in the past few weeks the Conservatives have crashed the economy. Their unfunded tax cuts for the wealthiest and their reckless approach to public finances have caused enormous damage that will be felt well into the future. The new Chancellor’s U-turn in the past few days had become unavoidable, but the damage had already been done. That damage will be felt by working people across this country for many months and years. Let me be clear: this is a Tory crisis, made in Downing Street and being paid for by working people, many of whom are just starting out in adult life.
The former Chancellor’s disastrous mini-Budget shattered the plans of many young first-time home buyers, as the reaction to the Conservatives’ recklessness saw more than 40% of available mortgages withdrawn from the market and saw lenders begin to price in interest rates over 6% for two-year fixed rate deals. For many young people who have been able to get over the hurdle of saving for a deposit, they have fallen at a new hurdle put in their way by the Government. This follows 12 years during which home ownership rates have fallen. There are now 800,000 fewer households under 45 who own their own home, and nearly a million more people rent privately than when the Conservatives came to power in 2010. We have seen the prospect of home ownership slipping out of reach of more and more young people. In contrast, at the recent Labour party conference, we set out our plans to introduce a mortgage guarantee scheme, raise stamp duty on foreign buyers and give first-time buyers first dibs on newly built homes. Labour is the party with a plan to increase the rate of home ownership and support councils in making social housing the second tenure in our country.
Of course, many young people across the country are renting privately, often out of necessity rather than choice. They are left vulnerable to unaffordable rent rises and no-fault evictions. We are concerned by the confusion about the reports that the Government have U-turned on their commitment to scrap section 21 no-fault evictions—although they have subsequently U-turned on that apparent U-turn. As things are changing so rapidly, I would be grateful if the Minister could confirm that—assuming the current Prime Minister is still in office, which I realise is a dangerous assumption—the Government can give a cast-iron guarantee that they will introduce a rental reform Bill in this Parliament.
We know that another reality of the Conservative cost of living crisis is food poverty. A recent survey of 2,000 young people carried out by the Prince’s Trust found that a quarter said they had skipped meals to cut back on spending, and 14% had used a food bank at least once in the past 12 months. Furthermore, a third said they could not afford to turn the heating on, while a similar proportion have struggled to afford the cost of travelling to work. Just yesterday, representatives from the Trussell Trust, Independent Food Aid Network and Feeding Britain delivered a letter to the Prime Minister signed by more than 3,000 food bank volunteers, in which they called for urgent help as they face “breaking point”. The letter warned that food banks are “struggling to cope” as demand outstrips donations. The volunteers said they were “overstretched and exhausted”, and urged the Government to take action to
“end the need for charitable food aid by ensuring everyone has enough income, from work and social security, to buy the essentials.”
According to the Children’s Society, a third of children were living in poverty prior to the cost of living crisis and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds North East mentioned, that is why Labour’s commitment to breakfast clubs in every primary school in England is so important. More widely, the continued failure of the Conservative Government to commit to uprating benefits in line with inflation will leave families with children significantly worse off. Does the Minister personally agree that benefits should now rise with inflation?
Finally, we know that the cost of living crisis has had an impact on mental health, particularly the mental health of young people. I know from speaking with young people in my constituency how aware they are of the need to look after their mental health, and since I was elected I have often been struck by how clear so many young people are about what support they need. That is why I am glad that we have been able to set out our plan to use funding from closing tax loopholes for private equity fund managers, and removing the VAT exemptions from private schools, to strengthen mental health services for young people. This funding would improve mental health services, particularly those for young people—from guaranteeing mental health treatment within a month to all who need it to ensuring there is a full-time mental health professional in every secondary school and a part-time professional in every primary school.
Young people today face great uncertainty and insecurity after 12 years of the Conservatives, and never more so than after the damage caused by the economic chaos of recent weeks. Changing the Chancellor and making U-turns will not undo the damage that has been done by this Prime Minister and Conservative Government. The damage they have caused has come from Downing Street, but it will be paid for by working people, and young people will face the impact and the costs for longer than any of us. Only a Labour Government will support young people with the jobs, homes, public services and stability they need to succeed.
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Richard Fuller)
What a great pleasure it is, Ms Ali, to serve under your chairmanship. I thank the hon. Member for Leeds North East (Fabian Hamilton) for securing the debate, and I thank the hon. Members who have contributed, including the hon. Members for Bath (Wera Hobhouse) and for East Dunbartonshire (Amy Callaghan). I thank my friend, the hon. Member for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield), for a number of very useful interventions, and the SNP spokesperson, the hon. Member for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss), and my colleague on the Front Bench opposite, the hon. Member for Ealing North (James Murray), for their contributions.
It was good that the hon. Member for Leeds North East started by referring to the YMCA publication entitled “Inside the cost of living crisis: The experiences of young people living at YMCA”, which was published earlier today, along with some other reports. I would like to draw colleagues’ attention to the statement with which that report starts, with which I am sure we can all agree:
“Everyone should have a fair chance to discover who they are and what they can become.”
The YMCA does great things across the country to enable people to achieve that objective.
There are real challenges facing our economy after two decades of low inflation. The world is now confronted with a high bout of fast-growing prices and the United Kingdom is not immune. While that takes place, we should all remember that our friends in Ukraine are at war, and the United Kingdom will continue to support them in a number of ways. We recognise that Putin is using energy as a weapon of war, pushing up prices and piling pain on citizens across the free world and particularly in Europe.
We should also recognise that young people can be in a particularly precarious position, because they are still in education or just starting out in their careers. They may not have had time to build a financial safety net. Many are at a critical stage of identifying and then seeking to accelerate their potential. I want to be clear: this Government are responding to help the most vulnerable to get through these tough economic times.
I want to answer some of the questions that have been raised. Very directly, on the uprating of welfare benefits in line with inflation, I will be honest: there are difficult decisions to be made. I want to reassure people that helping the most vulnerable will continue to be central to our decisions, just as it was when we announced support of £1,200 for millions of the most vulnerable households. The Government are required to review the rates of benefits annually to determine whether they have kept pace with price inflation. The Work and Pensions Secretary is yet to conduct her annual review of benefits and more will be said in the medium-term fiscal plan.
I think I heard the hon. Member for Glasgow Central ask why the universal credit standard allowance is lower for people under 25. That is to reflect that those claimants are more likely to live in someone else’s household and to have lower living costs. However, it is acknowledged that some claimants under 25 do live independently, which is why universal credit includes separate elements to provide support to claimants for those additional costs.
I want briefly to talk about the trend of poverty since 2009-10. Between 2009-10 and 2021, 2 million fewer people were in absolute poverty after housing costs—a figure that includes 500,000 children. In 2021, 536,000 fewer children were in workless households than in 2010. The youth unemployment rate fell by 1.3 percentage points in the quarter to August 2022 and is at a record low of 9%, which is around a quarter below its pre-pandemic level.
That progress requires us to talk about economic stability, which is vital for everyone and particularly for young people who may be looking for their first jobs or next steps. Instability affects the prices of things in shops, the cost of mortgages and the value of pensions, meaning that bringing stability to the economy will ease the cost of living for everyone. As the Chancellor has said, the United Kingdom will always pay its way and we remain committed to fiscal discipline. There will be more difficult decisions to take on both tax and spending as we deliver our commitment to get debt falling as a share of the economy over the medium term. We will publish a medium-term fiscal plan to set out our responsible fiscal approach more fully at the end of the month.
The only real way to create better jobs, deliver higher wages and spread opportunity is growth. Growth is what frees us to invest in the services that ordinary people need and to give people the financial security to live their lives as they want. Stability is a prerequisite for growth.
Wera Hobhouse
I do not think anybody could disagree that we all want growth, but the question is, how do we make that growth happen? My point was that we need to invest in people, particularly young people, to make that growth happen.
Richard Fuller
Yes of course, but the hon. Lady did not answer her question. The question is, how do we tap that potential? It is important to design policies that tap that potential. I was struck by a point made by the hon. Member for Glasgow Central about migrant families coming to this country and how they start their life. It is a fact around the world that first-generation migrant families, more often than not, contribute a greater proportion to the growth of the country that they go to than the population that they join. That seems to be a fact. I have not forgotten previous discussions with her before I took this role. The hon. Member for Bath said that we have to focus on people’s potential, but we have to find that strategy to achieve growth.
I remind hon. Members that while tackling these economic challenges, the fundamentals of the UK economy remain resilient. Unemployment is at its lowest in nearly 50 years. Our growth rate since 2010 has been higher than that of Germany, France, Italy and Japan, and it is forecast to be higher than that of any G7 country this year. The Labour spokesperson, the hon. Member for Ealing North, is shaking his hands, but these are the facts.
Our need for competence and stability is not at odds with the help that we are providing to those struggling with the cost of living. That is why the Government are focused first and foremost on helping everyone with the cost of living, most notably the cost of energy. The energy price guarantee and the energy bill relief scheme are supporting millions of households and businesses with rising energy costs. The Chancellor has already made clear that they will continue to do so—
Richard Fuller
I must finish up, if I may. They will continue to do so from now until April next year. The Government have also announced £37 billion of targeted support for the cost of living this financial year.
Many young people will have benefited as their wages got a boost from the national minimum wage increase. As a result of our changes to the national minimum wage, from April 2022 people aged 21 or 22 saw a 9.8% uplift, to £9.18 an hour, while 18 to 20 year-olds received a 4.1% rise, to £6.83 an hour, and 16 to 17 year-olds had an equivalent 4.1% increase, to £4.81 an hour.
Alison Thewliss
Can the Minister explain why people of a younger age are not worth the same as someone older?
Richard Fuller
Yes I can. The fundamental point is that we are investing in young people. Many businesses wish to invest and add additional costs for training and support to tap into those skills, so that people can earn higher wages later on. It is because companies have the incentive to invest in young people that young people can then earn more. The hon. Lady shakes her head, but she should recognise that the national minimum wage is not a cap on what people can be paid but a floor. If companies invest in young people to get those skills, they can earn more.
Our youth offer provides guaranteed foundation support to young people searching for work on universal credit. That includes 13 weeks of intensive support to help new claimants into suitable opportunities and provision. Youth hubs are co-delivered by the Department for Work and Pensions and local partners, and youth employability coaches are available for those with complex needs.
We will always encourage labour market participation and make it pay to work. Through universal credit, the Government have designed a modern benefits system that ensures that it always pays to work and that withdraws support gradually as claimants move into work, replacing the old legacy system, which applied effective tax rates of more than 90% to low earners.
Questions were raised by the hon. Member for Bath about free school meals and breakfast clubs. The Government spent more than £1 billion on delivering free school meals to pupils in schools. Around 1.9 million disadvantaged pupils are eligible for free school meals, as well as an additional 1.25 million infants who receive a free meal under the universal infant school meal policy. The Government are also providing an additional £500 million toward the cost of extension, which has come via a six-month extension to the household support fund.
The hon. Member for Leeds North East talked about breakfast clubs. The Government are providing over £2 million a year to continue the holiday activities and food programme, which provides free holiday club places to children from low-income families. The Government are providing £24 million over two years for the national breakfast club programme, benefitting up to 2,500 schools.
The hon. Member for Sheffield Central and others asked questions about support for university students. He may know that the Government have increased maintenance loans every year, meaning that disadvantaged students now have access to the highest ever amounts in cash terms. He may know that the Government have made £260 million available through the Office for Students, which universities can use to boost their own hardship funds. He may know that many students also benefit from the wider package of cost of living support, and he will know that maximum tuition fees will be frozen until 2025. He mentioned one particular idea on thresholds, which I would be grateful if he could write to me about.
Paul Blomfield
I will write to the Minister on that point. It is all very well saying that the maximum loan has been increased, but people cannot access it because the threshold has not changed. I think there is some serious work to be done by the Government on that. It could make a very real difference to some of the most hard-pressed students.
Richard Fuller
I would be grateful for his insight on that issue. I want to close on the issue of mental health and young people, which is an issue close to my heart. We are all aware that the response to covid had a dramatic effect on the mental health and wellbeing of young people more than others. The Government appreciate the importance of responding to the significant demands on children and young people’s mental health. The Government are delivering record levels of investment in mental health services. These investments are part of the NHS’s long term plan and include an extra £2.3 billion per year for mental health services by 2023-24. This will give an additional 345,000 children and young people access to NHS-funded services or school-based support by 2024.
It has been an interesting and pithy debate. It is clear that we owe it to the next generation to deliver higher wages, new jobs and improved public services. We owe it to young people to deliver stability and a strong economy on which they can build their future securely. We must make sure they have the safety net they need now. The Government will help them with the cost of living today and continue to invest in them for the future; that is what young people will benefit from, and that is what the Government are focused on delivering.
Fabian Hamilton
I thank all who have contributed this afternoon, from the hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse), who made some very important points, to the hon. Member for East Dunbartonshire (Amy Callaghan), to the SNP spokesperson, the hon. Member for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss). I also thank my colleague the shadow Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing North (James Murray), as well as my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield), who is a good friend.
The debate should have been far longer in many ways, because there is so much more to say. Let me conclude by saying this: if we ignore investment in children and young people, we will pay a price, but if we invest in young people and their welfare, education and mental wellbeing, we will all benefit. Our society will be stronger. Our country will be better, and it will deliver the growth we are all after.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered cost of living support for young people.
Written Statements
(1 year, 6 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Post-16 Level 2 and below qualifications update
(1 year, 6 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Andrea Jenkyns)
Today, I am pleased to announce the next stage in the Government’s review of post-16 qualifications at level 2 and below1 in England—the publication of the response to our consultation on the review of qualifications that are approved for public funding at these levels. After confirming our reforms to level 3 qualifications last year, we are now confirming our policy on qualifications at level 2 and below following our consultation which ran from 2 March to 27 April 2022.
This is a vital next step towards reforming and revitalising technical education. Streamlining and improving post-16 education and skills is at the heart of our plan to strengthen the economy and create jobs. Students and employers will benefit from a joined-up, dynamic education system that can adapt to rapidly changing priorities.
The current qualification landscape at level 2 and below is complex, and while many of the qualifications are likely to be excellent, it is not a consistent picture. Qualifications that are funded in future should be necessary, high quality and have a distinct purpose. Crucially, these qualifications should also support progression to successful outcomes for the students who take them, whether this is into a higher level of study, or directly into skilled employment. In a fast-moving and modern economy, it is vital that we bridge the gap between what people study and the needs of employers.
To mirror the approach we have taken at level 3, we have grouped qualifications at level 2 and below according to their primary purpose. By clarifying the purpose of each qualification, we will enable students to see how their choice of qualification will lead to a positive outcome, whether this is to further study or directly into employment. Further education colleges, schools, other providers and careers advisers will play a key role in delivering information, advice and guidance to prospective students to ensure they are directed towards a qualification that will meet their needs.
I would like to thank those who took the time to respond to our consultation.2 Among the 410 responses, there was strong support for the aim of simplifying the qualification landscape and improving the quality of provision, and for the groups of qualifications we proposed to fund in future. Other themes from the consultation responses included: the importance of flexibility for students studying at these levels; the potential impact of reducing qualification choice on students from disadvantaged backgrounds and with special educational needs and/or disabilities (SEND); and the need for a phased approach to the timing and sequencing of the reforms.
The response we are publishing today confirms that we will fund all of the qualification groups proposed, proceed with setting national standards for personal, social and employability (PSE) qualifications and consulting on these, and consider updating the national standards for adult literacy and numeracy. We have made changes to allow greater flexibility, for example allowing providers to offer level 2 qualifications leading to employment to 16 to 19-year-olds in less than two years, depending on the size of the reformed qualification and how it fits alongside the other essential elements of the study programme.
As the aim of this reform is to improve qualification provision at level 2 and below, we expect students over-represented at this level such as those from disadvantaged backgrounds or with SEND to be the biggest recipients of the benefits of these changes. We will work with the sector to explore how best to support students to progress by having flexibilities in place to ensure students with SEND can access our proposed qualification groups. We will also regularly review the mix and balance of qualifications approved to ensure we are meeting the needs of all learners.
We have reviewed the implementation timeline and, while we want momentum, we also want to introduce these reforms at a manageable pace for schools and colleges, given the extent of change to the wider qualifications landscape, including at level 3. That is why we are making sure first reformed qualifications at level 2 and below will be available for teaching from September 2025 rather than 2024. Further reformed qualifications will be phased in for 2026, with final reforms in 2027.
I look forward to engaging with the sector as we implement these important reforms.
1 For definitions of levels, see https://www.gov.uk/what-different-qualification-levels-mean/list-of-qualification-levels
2 As previously set out, GCSEs, Functional Skills Qualifications (FSQs) and Essential Digital Skills Qualifications (EDSQs) were not in scope of this consultation.
[HCWS326]
Casey Review: Police Dismissals
(1 year, 6 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Home Department (Jeremy Quin)
In September we saw the very best of British policing, in the planning, handling and delivery of the operation following the death of Her late Majesty, Queen Elizabeth II. It showed that, at the top of its game, British policing is world-class and I commend all of the thousands of officers and staff who made that happen. But in recent years there have been several high-profile failings. These failings substantially diminished public trust in the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS), and undermine the incredible work of the overwhelming majority of decent, hard-working, and professional, frontline police officers.
The Metropolitan Police Service commissioned a review by Baroness Louise Casey into the culture and standards of the Metropolitan Police Service. Interim findings have now been reported to the MPS and are highly concerning. They set out a failure of the MPS to operate within the existing misconduct framework, and failures to adequately tackle instances of sexual misconduct and discrimination.
The impetus and action to deliver change must come from within the MPS first and foremost—and the Government welcome Sir Mark Rowley’s determination to take a systematic approach to act on the findings through both robust enforcement and long-term prevention. Where there is a role for Government to support this, we will not hesitate to act. That is why I am announcing an internal review into the process of police dismissals to raise standards and confidence in policing across England and Wales.
The Government will work closely with key policing stakeholders to examine evidence of the effectiveness of the system to remove those who are not fit to serve the public. As well as examining the overall effectiveness of dismissal arrangements, I expect the review to consider:
the impact of the introduction of legally qualified chairs to decide misconduct cases;
whether decisions made by misconduct panels are consistent across all 43 forces in England and Wales;
and whether forces are making effective use of their powers to dismiss officers on probation.
This focused review will be launched shortly and will be conducted swiftly. It will focus on key issues and will support those in policing who act with utmost professionalism, giving them confidence that their hard work and commitment will not be undone by those who bring their profession into disrepute.
[HCWS327]
Statement of Changes in Immigration Rule
(1 year, 6 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Home Department (Tom Pursglove)
My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is today laying before the House a statement of changes in immigration rules.
The changes include the Afghan relocations and assistance policy (ARAP) immigration rules which clarify that the Ministry of Defence decides eligibility for an Afghan citizen, before an application for entry clearance or settlement is made to the Home Office on their, or an eligible family member’s, behalf.
Additional ARAP family members, who were previously decided outside the immigration rules, have been brought under the rules, and the Afghan ex-gratia scheme, which closes on 30 November 2022, has been removed from the immigration rules from that date.
As part of the new plan for immigration, the Government have made clear for the first time in primary legislation (the Nationality and Borders Act 2022) that confirmed victims of human trafficking or slavery are eligible for temporary permission to stay in the UK, and this is supported by the introduction of the appendix “Temporary permission to stay for victims of human trafficking or slavery”.
The introduction of temporary permission to stay into the immigration rules aligns with the Government’s needs-based approach to support victims of human trafficking or slavery. Temporary permission to stay makes clear that confirmed victims, both adults and children, with psychological and physical recovery needs stemming from their human trafficking or slavery exploitation, are entitled to temporary permission to stay where it is necessary to assist with recovery from the harm caused by their exploitation, subject to the exemptions set out in section 65 of the Nationality and Borders Act 2022. These rules also specify that temporary permission to stay may be available to victims who are helping the public authorities with active investigations or criminal proceedings in the UK to bring their exploiters to justice and clarify that those seeking compensation in respect of the relevant exploitation must have made a valid application to be considered for temporary permission to stay.
Temporary permission to stay will go live on 30 January 2023. These rules will allow for clearer decision making and are intended to make decision making a simpler and quicker process.
The seasonal worker visa route is being expanded to include roles in the poultry sector, to support a genuine seasonal labour need in the lead-up to Christmas, not evident in other sectors. Poultry workers under occupation code 5431 (butcher) or 5433 (for example, processor) must be paid at least £25,600 each year. All other poultry workers must be paid £10.10 for each hour worked and receive at least 30 hours’ paid employment each week. These requirements are in place to discourage poor conditions often seen in the sector.
Changes are being made which provide for the refusal and cancellation of entry clearance where a person is subject to a travel ban imposed by the UK or the UN. This will not alter whether the person can enter the UK. It will simply make it easier to achieve the same effect administratively.
Changes are also being made in respect of the Ukraine extension scheme, which enables Ukrainian nationals who held permission to enter or stay in the UK on 18 March 2022 (or who held permission which expired on or after 1 January 2022), to continue their stay in the UK.
These changes will extend the scheme to allow Ukrainian nationals who obtain permission to enter or stay in the UK for any period between 18 March 2022 and 16 May 2023 to apply and obtain 36 months’ permission to stay in the UK. They will also introduce a new requirement to apply to the scheme by 16 November 2023.
Finally, we are also abolishing the requirement for a migrant to register with the police as the police registration scheme in its current form is outdated and no longer provides any public protection benefit to either the Home Office or the police.
Since the scheme was last amended in 1998, changes to the immigration rules and the wider immigration system now mean more individuals are screened before travel to the UK and those of concern can be identified earlier in their interaction with the Home Office. The data a migrant provides to the police on registration is already captured by the Home Office at the visa application stage, and is available to the police on request, so there is no need for it to be provided twice, or for the police to hold such vast amounts of data when they have no need to do so for the majority of law-abiding migrants.
Abolishing the requirement for a migrant to register with the police will therefore reduce the administrative burden on the police, the Home Office and migrants themselves.
These rules have also been simplified in line with the recommendations of the Law Commission report “Simplifying the Immigration Rules” to which the Government responded on 25 March 2020. The necessary changes to the immigration rules are being laid on 18 October 2022. For the changes to the seasonal worker route—inclusion of poultry sector—these will come into effect on 18 October 2022, as there is a short time frame for workers to enter the UK to undertake work in the poultry sector. The closing date for applications for poultry work is 15 November 2022 and the workers are required to leave the UK by 31 December 2022. If the implementation date was later, the concern is workers might not apply as they could consider it not worthwhile for such a short period. This policy has already been communicated to the sector in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs food strategy, so they are prepared and working toward this change.
The changes to simplify the process for giving effect to travel bans, changes to the Ukraine extension scheme and the abolition of the police registration scheme will come into effect on 9 November 2022, the amendments to the Afghan relocations and assistance policy (ARAP) on 30 November 2022 and the introduction of the new appendix “Temporary permission to stay for victims of human trafficking or slavery” on 30 January 2023.
[HCWS328]
Grand Committee
Arrangement of Business
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Pitkeathley) (Lab)
My Lords, good afternoon. I remind your Lordships that, if there is a Division in the Chamber while we are sitting, the Grand Committee will adjourn for 10 minutes as soon as the Division Bells are rung.
Digital Government (Disclosure of Information) (Amendment) Regulations 2022
Viscount Younger of Leckie
That the Grand Committee do consider the Digital Government (Disclosure of Information) (Amendment) Regulations 2022.
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
My Lords, the purpose of the regulations is to allow information sharing between specified bodies for the specific purpose of identifying and targeting funded early learning and childcare for families with eligible two year-olds in Scotland. They seek to amend the Digital Government (Disclosure of Information) Regulations 2018. The public service delivery power supports public bodies to improve or target the important public services that they provide. The power is designed to give public bodies the information needed to provide early intervention and vital support for those who need it or, where possible, to prevent the problems that reduce people’s life chances.
The regulations seek to establish a new objective for data sharing under the public service delivery power in the Digital Economy Act 2017, for identifying and targeting funded early learning and childcare for families with eligible two year-olds in Scotland. The Scottish Government identified that there was low uptake for eligible two year-olds in Scotland and seek similar data-sharing arrangements as those already in place with English and Welsh local councils. Although Section 34 of the Scotland Act 2016 allows sharing of information between the Secretary of State and the Scottish Ministers, this has to be for the purpose of their respective social security functions. Regulations can expand on what those functions are but early learning and childcare does not relate to social security. Furthermore, HMRC has neither Secretary of State nor social security functions. For this reason, the Scotland Act 2016 is not a suitable vehicle to implement these powers and we are using the data-sharing powers in Part 5 of the Digital Economy Act 2017.
The objective created through this regulation would enable data sharing from DWP and HMRC to the Scottish Government and allow for this to be forwarded to Scottish local councils. It would allow Scottish local councils access to the necessary information held by DWP and HMRC to enable them to identify households most in need, and then directly contact these families to inform them of the support that they are likely to be eligible for. To exercise the public service delivery power, the Government must set specific objectives for data sharing via regulations. Those objectives must meet specific criteria defined in the primary legislation. For the avoidance of doubt, these regulations do not create a new Henry VIII power. Instead, we are adding a new objective to the current tightly controlled Digital Economy Act powers, which make it possible to add or remove specified objectives and persons.
The current power to make amendments of this nature was subject to robust scrutiny by the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee and, as a result, the power to add this early learning and childcare objective must be scrutinised by Parliament via affirmative regulations. The territorial extent of this regulation is Great Britain and the territorial application is England and Scotland.
This regulation must be taken through the UK Parliament by the UK Government because information sharing under the proposed objective would involve disclosure and processing of data held by UK departments: HMRC and DWP. The Scottish Parliament can approve proposals only for new objectives which solely involve specified Scottish bodies permitted to make use of the public service delivery power. Legal gateways already exist in England and Wales to enable data sharing to support delivery of early learning and childcare. This draft regulation will bring Scotland parity of service provision that families in England and Wales already enjoy.
Data sharing is a vital and effective way of identifying individuals and households experiencing problems that reduce their life chances. Access to high-quality early learning and childcare is a key factor in determining life chances.
There are safeguards in place to protect personal data from misuse. The objective has already been subject to scrutiny by the Public Service Delivery Review Board, which oversees the use of the public service delivery power as set out in the underpinning code of practice. The review board comprises specialists working in the UK Government and in the devolved Administrations, as well as public representative bodies and civil society groups. Officials from the Information Commissioner’s Office also attend as observers. The board is tasked with considering proposals for new objectives for data sharing under the public service delivery power and making recommendations to Ministers. The board’s recommendation to take forward these draft regulations was approved by the relevant Minister as it meets the criteria set out in Section 35 for objectives under the public service delivery power: enabling the sharing of personal information to support “the improvement or targeting” of public services to individuals or households to improve their well-being.
Furthermore, the objective has been subject to public consultation. Respondents to the statutory public consultation have been decidedly positive, with up to 94% agreeing that the proposed data share would improve and target a service to eligible households, and 88% agreeing that the data sharing would improve well-being for these households. Some 86% also agreed that the data sharing would deliver tangible benefits to households, including early stage support to promote education, health and social equalities. Importantly, the majority of respondents, 87%, agreed that the personal data items to be shared, specifically including the customer—parent or carer—name, address and national insurance number for unique identification, as well as a child or children indicator to confirm the existence of a child or children, are appropriate for early learning and childcare service delivery.
Parliamentarians have already approved the code of practice and the previous Digital Government (Disclosure of Information) Regulations 2018, which I referred to and which established existing public service delivery objectives. Sharing personal data will, understandably, tend to attract attention and scrutiny. However, the power—as with the other data-sharing powers in Part 5 of the Digital Economy Act 2017—must be exercised in compliance with the data protection legislation and UK GDPR.
The data being shared is strictly limited to the names and addresses of parents and confirming whether they are eligible for qualifying benefits. This does not involve the sharing of data held regarding the child, nor does it involve supplying further information than is necessary or confirming which benefits the parents do or do not claim. Scottish local councils also have arrangements in place to identify children in care or with guardians who may be eligible.
There is an underpinning code of practice, which sets out how the power must be operated. This includes setting out how any data shared under this power must be processed lawfully, securely and proportionately, in line with data protection legislation. Anyone making use of any objective must have regard to the code. The code of practice also requires that information-sharing agreements are included in a public register of information-sharing activity under the powers.
I hope colleagues in this Committee will join me in supporting the regulations. I apologise for a bit of technical information but, in the meantime, I beg to move.
Lord Bruce of Bennachie (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for that introduction and explanation. There is very wide support for the extension of childcare. Indeed, I have always believed that structured play and social engagement for young children is beneficial. Very early on in my political career, I campaigned successfully for increased funding for playgroups and for the extension of nursery-year schools in my area—I might say against campaigns from other political parties that were less supportive.
The basic understanding of the consultation is that it is overwhelmingly supported because of the objective, but there are perhaps one or two wrinkles worth pointing out. First, in that context, all children and all families are different, so there should not be a presumption that every child must or should go to childcare or nursery education between the ages of two and five. It should be a choice for the family and the parents, and sometimes there is pressure that is not appreciated.
Looking at some of the responses to the consultation, they were, I accept, overwhelmingly supportive across the piece—as the Minister pointed out—but large statistics still cover small minorities of concern. Taking one section as an example, 55% of respondents said that they saw no risk of loss of benefits; that means a pretty substantial minority were concerned that there might be. Does the Minister have any information on how that could come about and what the risks were? In the same category, 64% of respondents saw no risk of a loss of access to services, but that leaves a significant minority concerned that there might be. While in no way detracting from the very targeted purpose and desirability of this overall, and the general support for it, there needs to be recognition that there will be people for whom this raises some concerns.
Coming on to the specifics of the actual data-sharing, the Minister was careful to acknowledge that, by definition, data collected for one purpose being used for another is very much of concern. When people give information, they need to know what it is for and not to find it has been used for something they did not expect. In that context, it seems that the relationship between the Government, local authorities and all the relevant agencies needs to be sensitively handled. Think of a family who are struggling: if somebody rocks up at their door saying, “We have data to suggest this”, it could create a sense of threat or concern because we are, by definition, talking about vulnerable communities. What provision is there for ensuring that there is co-ordination and the best networking to get the most sensitive application of this and the desired result? The desired result should surely be that every child whose parents wish it and who qualifies should be found and given the opportunity to benefit from the care and support that is on offer and paid for.
Finally, it is interesting that devolution lives within this instrument, and I have no problem with that. But there was a point in a debate last week, which I unfortunately could not attend because I was speaking in the Chamber, where the Scottish Government were again asking the UK Government for assistance in collecting data. Again, I have no problem with it but it raises the question of what the capacity of the Scottish Government is or should be, or, indeed, why on earth they need a separate capacity if there is a perfectly adequate UK-wide system that they can access, subject to the appropriate safeguards.
The people of Scotland have voted more than once for devolution. They have never voted for independence, but you would hardly know that when you talk to Scottish Government Ministers, who have a great reluctance to admit publicly that devolution has any merit—never mind that it applies the will of the Scottish people, while they frustrate that will by promoting something the people do not want. In the meantime, this co-operation across the UK in data-sharing for legitimate purposes seems efficient and sensible and, in that context, I am happy to support the instrument from these Benches.
Lord Jones (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his patient and courteous exposition. I rise essentially as a matter of principle, because these regulations rattle through so often when they are so important. Briefly, in the helpful explanatory pages I note that he has consulted Welsh and Scottish Ministers. The Explanatory Notes have this important Scottish example, which gives the regulations a very human form. My question to him is: how were the consultations carried out? Were they digital or personal? He might be able to give some indication of whether they were effective consultations. Might he also instance an example of an action or objective concerning Wales or England? The Scottish one was fine, but are there others that come to his mind?
Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)
My Lords, similarly, I rise to support these regulations. I congratulate my noble friend the Minister on the manner in which he introduced them. They are specific in scope, as all good statutory instruments should be; I support that specificity in them.
My question for my noble friend concerns that specificity of scope. It is underpinned by perhaps one of the most important principles for government both at Westminster and in all the devolved nations: how we optimise the potential, not inevitable, benefits that we could have from the data that exists and the sharing of that data. What more is happening across Whitehall to enable the right level of data sharing to ensure that we have robust, reliable and real-time data in all government departments and that citizens are far more engaged with the opportunities and how we all may play our part in them? Certainly, there are areas where the data is patchy; it is even non-existent in some areas. As we know, none of us fits into one simple, vertical departmental silo; we need support and services horizontally from a number of different departments, in a number of circumstances and at a number of times throughout our lives.
As I say, the underpinning nature of these regulations is probably one of the most critical elements if we are to take advantage of the opportunity that this data can bring us and deploy all the elements of the new human-led technologies for the benefit of citizens and the state alike.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
To begin, I thought that was a very interesting question from the noble Lord. It probably stretches the scope of this discussion but perhaps we could return to it in a debate because it is something we are all trying to grapple with at the moment.
The Minister knows that an SI is uncontroversial when most of the questions are about the consultation. I think there is nothing of substance to object to here. As an aside to my noble friend Lord Jones, about parental lack of choice around childcare, let me say that the issue is that the lack of choice is down to the complexity of the available schemes, the lack of support, the lack of availability and the cost. I am surprised it has taken the Scottish Government so long to get to this measure, I must say, but it is welcome. It will enable more parents to have that choice, which we very much welcome because we know about the evidence of the benefits to pre-school children of participating in learning through play and childcare more generally.
As we are here, the Minister is here and there has been a consultation, I want to ask the Minister something. He spoke about percentages in his helpful and thorough introduction. Can he give us an idea of how many people took part in the consultation? What assurances can he provide in response to the concerns raised about the sharing and handling of sensitive data?
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
My Lords, I start by thanking all noble Lords who have spoken in this short debate. I am pleased that there is broad support for the regulations, so I will start with that and endeavour to answer as many questions as I can.
I will go straight in by speaking a little more about the consultation. A letter might need to be written to give further details about this, particularly the numbers of people involved, but I will have a bash. As I said, the responses received were broadly positive. No significant issues were raised during the consultation and, as a result, no changes were made to the proposed objective or the draft regulations. That is a start to understanding.
The UK Government carried out the consultation together with the Scottish Government, who engaged with specialist learning and childcare organisations, as well as Scottish councils. That takes us a little further. Further numbers than those I have given on responses that were negative rather than positive is probably a matter for a letter, so that I can get the technical details to noble Lords. It is understandable that those questions were asked by the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Bennachie, and the noble Baroness, Lady Chapman. I have statistics in front of me that I have already read out, so I do not think they are particularly helpful.
Moving on, a question was asked about to what extent the devolved Administrations are engaged with this in general. As mentioned, the UK Government are taking this objective forward at the request of the Scottish Government. The territorial extent of the regulations is UK-wide and applies in England and Scotland only, as I mentioned. Under Section 44(4) of the DEA, the UK Government are required to consult the devolved Administrations—plural—on our proposed objectives. A formal consultation was carried out with the devolved Administrations at the time of the public consultation. Furthermore, ongoing liaison has taken place at official level to ensure that the views of Welsh and Northern Irish colleagues have been fully accounted for. I help that is helpful, particularly in answering the question from the noble Lord, Lord Jones.
A very fair question on safeguards was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Bennachie. It focused on misuse, which is a fair point. I alluded to this in my opening speech, but I will try to go a little further. The data-sharing provisions in Part 5 of the DEA include a number of robust safeguards, the most important being compatibility and strict adherence to the Data Protection Act 2018 and UK GDPR. The DEA goes further and includes a number of additional safe- guards, including sanctions for unlawful disclosure. That includes custodial sentences. Furthermore, public service delivery powers are permissive, which means that public authorities listed in Schedule 4 can choose whether or not to do so. This safeguard prevents inappropriate data sharing.
Finally, as the new public service delivery objectives are created by affirmative secondary regulations, new objectives are defined for use before data sharing can commence, following public consultation and parliamentary scrutiny.
The noble Lord, Lord Bruce, also asked what provision there was to ensure co-ordination of the desired results. I think this is more about dissemination. The Scottish Government are keen to ensure that those families who wish to take up the early childcare offer can do so. They plan to co-ordinate the update and use of the objectives, which will be reviewed after one year. It is quite important to mention that.
I listened carefully to the short speech from my noble friend Lord Holmes. If I have got it right, his focus was really on the openness and transparency of data. He also spoke of the importance of the opposite, which I have already covered. We are committed to being open and transparent by making information about data shared under the DEA easily available for all to find out and understand. This helps citizens, the Government and the Information Commissioner’s Office to understand what data sharing is taking place.
Public authorities using the public service delivery, debt, fraud and civil registration powers must add data shares to a public register. The Cabinet Office is responsible for this and for maintaining the register, and the Public Service Delivery Review Board oversees strategic consistency. All accredited research projects and researchers are published on the UK Statistics Authority’s website, along with Research Accreditation Panel meeting minutes, to uphold the transparency requirements set out in the Research Code of Practice and Accreditation Criteria.
Finally, for statistics purposes, a list of data sources is available on the ONS website to maintain transparency of the data sources that the ONS holds to support its statutory functions, including data sources obtained under the statistics powers. That was quite a long answer but I hope it helps my noble friend.
I shall try to answer two or three more questions, if I may. I was asked what more is happening to enable the right level of data sharing across the UK. I think it may also have come from my noble friend—I see he is nodding. The Cabinet Office is working with the devolved Administrations to ensure that more data sharing takes place across the UK. It is rather outside the scope of this debate, but I will consider the replies I have given and may well add to a letter that may be coming the noble Lord’s way. I shall copy in all noble Lords who have contributed to this debate.
One final response that has just come to me may be helpful to the noble Lord, Lord Bruce. It is about the responses. I can confirm that we received 69 responses. That is the only response I have. As I said, I think we should look at the full consultation details and I will furnish the noble Lord with more information, should we have it.
Lord Bruce of Bennachie (LD)
I am grateful to the Minister. I was trying to see whether I could get the detail. There is an appendix list of who has submitted, and some of them have published their submissions. My council, Aberdeenshire Council, has provided a submission, but I could not find what it was, so if the Minister is able to point us to where submissions can be sourced—if they are published or publishable—it would be helpful.
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
I will be in touch with the noble Lord outside the Committee to do so.
I finish by saying that the regulations will benefit an estimated 14,000 of Scotland’s most disadvantaged children by giving them access to a high-quality service that would cost families £5,000 a year per child if they were to purchase it themselves. I hope that, having heard the benefits spelled out, noble Lords will join me in formally supporting these draft regulations. I commend them to the Committee.
Motion agreed.
Public Sector Bodies (Websites and Mobile Applications) Accessibility (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2022
Viscount Younger of Leckie
That the Grand Committee do consider the Public Sector Bodies (Websites and Mobile Applications) Accessibility (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2022.
Relevant document: 11th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
My Lords, the main purpose of these amending regulations, laid before the House on 18 July, is to update the Public Sector Bodies (Websites and Mobile Applications) (No. 2) Accessibility Regulations 2018 so that they can continue to operate given that the UK has left the European Union. This instrument is technical. It does not introduce new policy but moves the implementation detail of the legislation from being set by the European Commission to being set in the UK. These amendments will not reduce any of the UK’s standards and support for disabled people, nor add any additional burdens to the UK’s public sector. The changes will allow the UK to be more responsive to the needs of disabled people when they use public sector websites and online services.
“Digital accessibility” refers to principles and techniques to follow when you design, build, maintain and update websites and mobile applications to make them as easy as possible for people to use. This applies in particular to making websites and apps that disabled people can use. There should be no disadvantage when using assistive technology with computers, tablets and mobile phones, such as switch controls for a computer rather than a keyboard and mouse or screen-magnification software.
I shall give some examples. A blind student should be able to access their university’s website through a screen reader, find out their timetable and download course information and lecture notes. A business owner with arthritis who uses speech recognition rather than a keyboard should be able to log on and pay their taxes. We all have access needs at some time in our lives, and we expect to be able to continue to use public services ourselves, independently.
The accessibility regulations build on existing UK legislation and commitments, such as the Equality Act 2010 in England, Scotland and Wales, and the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 in Northern Ireland, which place duties on service providers to make reasonable adjustments for disabled people when providing services and exercising public functions.
The 2018 regulations that this instrument amends were transposed from EU directive 2016/2102, which requires public sector bodies to make their websites and mobile applications accessible unless it would impose a disproportionate burden on the public sector body to do so.
The regulations can also place obligations on the Minister for the Cabinet Office, including monitoring of the public sector to ensure that the regulations are being met, and sending a report to the European Union every three years, detailing what has been found during the monitoring.
The implementation of these monitoring and reporting obligations was harmonised so that implementation was similar across EU member states and so that there could be comparison between countries. This harmonisation is no longer required, and the specified monitoring process has been inefficient to implement. These amendments move the monitoring process from being defined in a European Commission implementing decision to being set by the UK Government. The model accessibility statement that websites and mobile apps need to publish is also moved to be set by the UK Government.
Although the UK is no longer party to the discussions within the EU about best practice in implementing these policies and how the European Commission will update its monitoring and reporting process, the UK will continue to iterate the monitoring based on our research, analysis and findings. The monitoring team in the Government Digital Service continues to share experience and knowledge with other countries around the world with similar policies and will update the monitoring process as new technology becomes available.
The first report was due to be sent to the EU in December 2021. Instead, the Minister for the Cabinet Office published a report on GOV.UK, and the amendments in question alter the obligation, allowing the same procedure to be followed in the future. This ensures that the monitoring and the effectiveness of the regulations are transparent to all.
The 2018 regulations use a European technical standard as the definition of the accessibility requirements placed on the public sector. This standard is controlled by the European Commission and is subject to its funding and timeframes. Practically, this standard mainly references an international standard called the web content accessibility guidelines, created and published by the World Wide Web Consortium.
These amendments would move the technical standard to this international standard, which is far better known, used by digital accessibility experts and open for all to contribute to. Updates to this standard may be quicker to implement in the UK than when we followed the previous European process, which included updating the European standard and creation and ratification of an EC implementing decision.
These regulations are made under Section 8 of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018, which allows a Minister to make regulations to resolve any deficiencies in law that arise as a result of the UK’s departure from the European Union. The technical standard, monitoring and reporting methodology and the model accessibility statement were set through the European Commission implementing decisions. The UK no longer adopts new implementing Acts, so changes to these Acts no longer take effect in the UK. This instrument removes the links to the Commission’s implementing Acts and replaces them with UK-set implementations, as mentioned previously. Three European Commission implementing decisions will be revoked once the amendments are made.
With these explanations, I hope that noble Lords will join me in supporting these draft regulations. I commend them to the Committee.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, I have some questions and rather a strong comment. It is clearly convenient that we do not diverge too far from the existing European regulations. I should like to ask whether there is much divergence. There is a good deal of reference here to the World Wide Web Consortium, which attempts to set the standards. It is an interesting body, not entirely intergovernmental, and operates, I assume, by consensus. Are the Government entirely happy with the way in which the World Wide Web Consortium operates, or are there any problems? I know that the Government are concerned about rising Chinese influence within the World Wide Web Consortium.
Do the standards that the United States, for example, sets in this particularly technical area differ considerably from those set within the European Union? One of the challenges that we face in reshaping our regulatory patterns as we leave the European Union is how far we simply follow the United States instead or whether we continue to keep as close as possible to the European Union. I note in this area that a high proportion of British citizens who retire overseas retire within the European Union. If we are looking at something relevant to the disabled and the elderly, therefore, it would make a great deal of difference to ensure that we do not diverge too far from the European Union.
My final comment and objection draws on the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee comment that the proposals move down from legislative processes to administrative purposes. This, after all, is something that the Government are doing across a whole range of legislation: lessening the ability of Parliament to scrutinise, lessening accountability to Parliament and, indeed, as a number of the Minister’s right-wing colleagues mentioned in the Northern Ireland protocol debate earlier this week, asserting executive sovereignty against parliamentary sovereignty.
I suspect the Minister is among those unhappy with this trend. I should like him to take back to his colleagues that, given the extent of this gradual slide towards lessening parliamentary accountability and giving greater ministerial discretion across the board— something we are also dealing with in the Procurement Bill and a number of other Bills before the House—there will come a point when the House stands up and objects to SIs. I will take back to my party group whether, if it comes before the House, we should draw the attention of the House to this element of reducing parliamentary scrutiny. There is behind these technical and entirely suitable regulations a larger constitutional issue of how we maintain parliamentary democracy, rather than executive government, in this country.
Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)
My Lords, I welcome these regulations and congratulate my noble friend the Minister on the manner in which he introduced them to the Grand Committee. In essence, the regulations take us from the European standards, EAS, to the Web3 standards, IWAS. For the convenience of the Grand Committee, when my noble friend responds, perhaps he could set out some of the material differences, as he sees them, between EAS and IWAS to bring some clarity to this matter.
He rightly commented on the monitoring done by the GDS and the report published at the end of 2021. In that report, 612 public websites were sampled: 593 with a light touch, 19 more in depth. Does the Minister believe that this is the right level of scrutiny and assessment of public sector websites, and that going into only 19 in more depth is the right means of getting a clear picture of what is going on out there? Some 90% of the websites have an accessibility statement but only 7% of those sampled had what should have been in that accessibility statement. There is a clear departure there. Can he say whether the EHRC is playing a full role in this and whether he would envisage greater involvement by the EHRC in this process?
Some 19 years ago, when I was at the Disability Rights Commission, I was involved in the first formal investigation into UK websites. It was an important piece of work then but multiple times more important in 2022. In this area, we considered not just websites but mobile applications because what we get from technology is the potential inclusion, empowerment and enablement of disabled people given what the technology is capable of doing. Equally, however, technology can exclude and discriminate if it is not produced and constructed while rooted in being inclusive by design.
It is understandable why it has taken the country years to enable buildings such as Parliament—that is, a physical building—to become accessible for disabled people. It is desperately unfortunate when we see inaccessible steps, if you will, being built in cyberspace when, in many ways, we are starting from a greenfield site. If everything across the public and private sectors was predicated on inclusive design, there would be no issues here. Does my noble friend the Minister believe that more needs to be done across this area, with a greater understanding across Whitehall, to grasp what it really means to begin and run all this through that conception of “inclusive by design”? Does he agree that inclusion leads to innovation, empowerment, engagement and enablement, by which I mean human-led technology enabling all the talent that we have in this country? In many ways, there could preciously be a more important time for us to focus on this.
Baroness Uddin (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I came in just to listen to this important debate; it is a real privilege to follow the noble Lord as I had not intended to say anything. I should declare an interest: I currently co-chair the All-Party Parliamentary Group on the Metaverse and Web 3.0. I am in an almost infantile state in terms of learning to understand the huge implications for ordinary lives of the new and emerging technology.
I want to make one point about inclusion and accessibility. We must remember that we spent a great deal of hours and months debating how much access all people have to technology. We assume that all this brilliant access is going to erupt from the beautiful, advanced phones that we either get from the House of Lords or can afford to buy, but that is not the case for millions of people in this country who have a huge amount of difficulty accessing information. More and more organisations—not just government organisations and local authorities, but mental health organisations and housing associations—are going digital; indeed, everyone is. There is not enough communication with the public. There is not enough communication with—or, frankly, respect for—the users.
I speak as someone whose son has learning disabilities and lives with autism. I can tell the Committee that he has mastered the iPad but there is no way for him to navigate. As yet, nothing has been made easier for him to ensure that he can access information more easily. We must not live in a panacea of our own with governing regulations, talking about legislation and implementing it as though everything is done once it leaves this building. I urge the Government and the Minister to consider the implications for those who have no access anywhere to the internet or smart technologies. What will happen to them? Are we going to ensure that people who do not have access to their information can have the privilege of understanding all the changes we are about to agree to?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
Again, we could take this debate off in all kinds of directions. I am struck by the points just made about what we used to call digital exclusion—I do not know whether that is still what we call it. I was struck recently by news reports about people who, because of the stresses of the cost of living, have decided no longer to have access to broadband, which will clearly present a huge problem in their access to information and public services. It might be helpful if the Minister could say something about that.
My question is similar to that asked by the noble Lord, Lord Holmes. Obviously, we need this SI because of our exit from the European Union. I do not know enough about this to be fully up to speed on the differences between the EU standard and the new international web accessibility standard. It would be helpful if the Minister could let us know the key differences, if there are any, and whether there has been any discussion with disabled people’s organisations. What has been done that would lead the Government to favour that route?
I see that the Minister will be obliged to publish a report. Where will that report go? It would be helpful if there were a commitment from the Government to publish it and to alert certain specific organisations to its existence, so that they can engage with it to improve and develop the Government’s approach to this in the coming years.
I have a question about the Brexit freedoms Bill. This instrument would seem to be an ideal candidate for that legislation, but it has all gone a little quiet. It would be useful to understand whether this kind of measure would be in that Bill and what mechanics we should expect in that legislation. It seems an enormous undertaking when actually we are able to deal with these issues quite sensibly as they arise with the assistance of the dashboard, perhaps. It would be useful to know what the Government intend to do.
It has also gone a bit quiet on the Government’s disability strategy. Obviously, they have got themselves in a bit of difficulty in the way that it was initially set about. It would be helpful to know whether these issues and concerns are likely to form part of a revised strategy when it emerges.
I echo the questions others have raised on monitoring. It is all very well to have standards but if there is no assurance that they are being met and no remedies to put things right, it all becomes a bit of a Whitehall exercise. I am sure that is not what Ministers intend.
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
My Lords, I thank the Committee once again for its interest in these regulations. I thank all those who have spoken for doing so in broad support for them. The Government are committed to improving the everyday lives of disabled people, and access to public information and services is vital. I shall be touching on some themes that were raised on this issue in a moment. This instrument makes sure that the public sector remains accessible to all as it moves online.
I have no answer to give on the point raised the noble Baroness, Lady Chapman, about the Brexit freedoms Bill. I do not have any information on that, but she will probably respect that we have had a few noises off and there may have been a few distractions. If I have some information for the noble Baroness before the end of my remarks, I will certainly pass it on.
A number of questions were raised. I shall start by touching on the point about the monitoring process. The European Commission-set monitoring process was designed more for harmonisation across countries rather than effectiveness. The monitoring process will be iterated to have more impact on the least accessible websites, and on sites and services that disabled people may use more often. I think these were points raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Chapman, and my noble friend Lord Holmes.
The noble Lord, Lord Wallace, spoke about the differences between the EU and the UK. His core question was: are we deviating? The World Wide Web Consortium is an open organisation, as he knows. All can contribute and there is a process for technical experts to ratify. It is interesting that the similar US regulations use an older version of the international standard—2.0 versus 2.1. The EU also bases its standard on the international standard, so the variation is minimal and practically follows the WCAG standard.
The noble Baroness, Lady Chapman, and my noble friend Lord Holmes asked particularly about the material differences between the EAS and the IWAS—the European and international versions of the standard. I can reassure them that they are minor and are really variations on mobile accessibility. I hope that answer is of some help.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
Can I ask the Minister a question? We are concerned about how much influence we have in these international organisations. Paragraph 7.15 of the Explanatory Memorandum says:
“The UK Government can influence updates to the standard as a member of the World Wide Web Commission.”
It would be nicer if it said “does influence”. Are we happy with the influence we have in this rather odd mixed private, university and intergovernmental organisation?
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
I cannot answer that. I imagine we are but, if we are not or if there is any issue arising from that, I will write to the noble Lord. I assume that we are happy with that, but he raises a fair point.
My noble friend Lord Holmes asked about Parliament, its role and why it is not keeping responsibility for updating the version of the technical standard. I reassure him that the international standard is updated relatively frequently, with a new version due next year. The standard is open for all to contribute to and goes through extensive review by industry experts. We think it may not be the best use of parliamentary time to require further legislation every time it is updated.
My noble friend also requested a response to his concerns about the movement of power away from Parliament. We are happy to write with a response. He also asked about enforcement of the regulations. The Equality and Human Rights Commission enforces digital accessibility in England, Scotland and Wales, and the Equality Commission for Northern Ireland enforces it in Northern Ireland. Both have taken steps to make sure that public sector bodies meet these regulations.
This allows me to talk more generally about inclusion or the lack of it, perhaps. This was raised particularly by the noble Baronesses, Lady Chapman and Lady Uddin, and my noble friend Lord Holmes. I can give some reassurance: this is one of the great priorities of the Government. The UK Digital Strategy, published by the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport in June, includes plans to strengthen the digital education pipeline as well as to provide essential digital skills training. The Department for Education is delivering free learning and qualifications for adults with low digital skills.
A question was asked about the national disability strategy, which allows me to expand a little on what I just said. In January 2022, the High Court declared that the strategy was unlawful, because the UK disability survey, which informed it, was held to be a voluntary consultation that failed to comply with the legal requirements of public consultations. The Government strongly disagree with the finding and the Work and Pensions Secretary of State has sought permission to appeal the High Court’s declaration. We are awaiting the Court of Appeal’s decision on whether that permission is granted. That provides an update on what is clearly a challenging situation—that is probably the best way to put it.
I believe I have answered the majority of questions. I have an answer on the Brexit freedoms Bill which I have already given, so I will write to the noble Baroness, Lady Chapman, because there is no more information on that. I understand her concern. With that, I beg to move.
Armed Forces (Covenant) Regulations 2022
(1 year, 6 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Goldie
That the Grand Committee do consider the Armed Forces (Covenant) Regulations 2022.
Relevant document: 11th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee
The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Baroness Goldie) (Con)
My Lords, the Government have delivered on their manifesto commitment to further incorporate the Armed Forces covenant into law by introducing a new duty in the Armed Forces Act 2021. The Armed Forces (Covenant) Regulations 2022 implement key provisions of the new duty by doing two things: bringing supporting statutory guidance into force; and defining “relevant family members” of service members and former service members for the purposes of that duty.
In the 11 years since the Government put the Armed Forces covenant on a statutory footing, we have seen excellent work across the UK in support of the Armed Forces community. However, there remained concerns that some members of the Armed Forces and their families continued to experience disadvantage when accessing public services, particularly as they moved around the country. This was largely due to a disparity in the level of awareness of the covenant among local service providers. To address this issue, the Armed Forces Act 2021 introduced a legal duty on specified public bodies to have due regard to the covenant principles when exercising relevant public functions in the fields of education, healthcare and housing. These are the most commonly cited areas of concern for the Armed Forces community.
Bodies in scope of this new duty will be required to consider the needs of the Armed Forces community when developing policy and making decisions in these key areas. In this way, the duty will raise awareness of the covenant and its principles, which in turn will help to ensure that members of the Armed Forces community are treated fairly.
Regulation 2 brings into force the statutory guidance supporting the new duty. When exercising relevant public functions, the bodies in scope of the duty must have regard to this guidance, as set out in the Act. The statutory guidance will help these bodies understand what is required of them under the new duty. It does this by explaining the principles of the covenant and how and why members of the Armed Forces community may experience disadvantage, and by providing good examples of mitigating actions.
The covenant principles relate to disadvantage faced by servicepeople, including the relevant family members of service members and former service members. Regulation 3 therefore defines who is a relevant family member in respect of the new duty. Quite deliberately, a broad approach was taken in this definition, as a family group may look very different depending on circumstances, and those outside what might traditionally be defined as family may well be impacted by service life. Where family members are affected, it is usually due to their cohabitation with, or dependency on, a service member. This has, therefore, been used as the basis for the definition, which extends beyond immediate family members.
By assisting public bodies to identify groups impacted by service life, including family members, to whom they must have due regard, the guidance will be a key tool in raising awareness of issues faced by the Armed Forces community, and will help promote better outcomes for them when accessing key public services. I beg to move.
Lord Craig of Radley (CB)
My Lords, this is a very detailed piece of work, all 73 pages of it, and I commend the efforts and industry of all those involved in preparing it for publication. But this covenant concept had its origins as far back as 2000, and even before; it was very much championed in the mid-noughties by the noble Lord, Lord Dannatt, when he was Chief of the General Staff.
In 2007, the Government recognised that all three services should be considered. They produced a Command Paper, CM 7424, dated 1 July 2008, The Nation’s Commitment: Cross-Government Support to our Armed Forces, their Families and Veterans. It opened with an enthusiastic message of intentions and promises, signed by the then Prime Minister Gordon Brown. However, in spite of the Command Paper’s promising title, his Government stopped short of legislation and sought to encourage local authorities, service charities and private businesses to participate voluntarily. It took the incoming coalition Government, while encouraging the voluntary approach, to introduce a statutory mention when updating the Armed Forces Act 2006.
As someone who has tabled or supported amendments about the covenant in the relevant 2011 Act, and in subsequent quinquennial updates of the 2006 Act, I have become somewhat involved with pushing the covenant’s progress and development through statute. But one needs a surgeon’s magnifying spectacles to discern the glacial progress, over a quarter of a century, to get even as far as today’s incomplete commitment. In 2011, all that the Government proposed was a minimalist inclusion in statute. It was to add a single-line clause requiring just an annual report to Parliament under a heading “Miscellaneous” in an identically named “Miscellaneous Part”, near the back end of that 350-page Act and immediately following Section 359. That section pardoned World War I servicemen executed then for disciplinary offences, recognising these deceased veterans as victims.
As a result of my objections, and following negotiations with Ministers in the Summer Recess, a new Part 16A headed “Armed Forces covenant report” was created. This gave the covenant the greater visibility it deserves in legislation. However, the Government then resisted my suggestion at the time that the central heading should be “Armed Forces covenant” and not “Armed Forces covenant report”. I was quietly amused to note that the Government introduced that semantic change in their amendments last year.
I was also pleased to see reference in paragraph 14 of the Explanatory Memorandum to my specific amendment which ping-ponged last December, leading to the Government’s undertaking to complete a report on the operation of the covenant duty next year. In particular, it will consider whether central government and any of its functions could usefully be added. The noble Baroness will need no reminding of the importance that I attach to this aspect of the review.
I was also struck that in paragraphs 1.31 and 1.41 of the statutory guidance, in section 1J and headed “the Armed Forces community”, “veteran”, when applied to former members of the Armed Forces, meant that they were in scope of the duty only if they are ordinarily resident in the UK. I accept, as a consequence of those authorities listed to exercise this duty all being those which have no overseas function, that that is true. But at all costs it must not be turned on its head and misconstrued as suggesting that classification as a veteran depends on being ordinarily resident in the UK.
Looking to the future, if central government were to have this duty, as I hope, a veteran and former member of His Majesty’s Armed Forces who has chosen to live abroad must lie within central government scope. Attempts to define veterans by location are wrong and would be better avoided. Even the definition used in the guidance is unfortunate if it causes confusion or upset to veterans, wherever they live. There is a duty of care to those who have served in the Armed Forces and retired—in agreed language, veterans. They must never be geographically shut out of the approved scope of that duty, to which they become entitled by statute; I hope that the Minister agrees. However, I support the SI.
Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to rise after the noble and gallant Lord, who brings a wealth of expertise to this afternoon’s debate on this statutory instrument. Like him, I am pleased to see the guidance and to have this opportunity to discuss the instrument. Also like him, I note that there are still some gaps in the legislation.
As I read through this statutory instrument, my mind turned back in particular to the 2021 Act and the fact that, at various points during its passage, many of the noble Lords and noble and gallant Lords who rose to speak asked about the role of central government. Although we acknowledge the importance of imposing duties on local authorities, I believe there is still a question about what duty we put on central government. At the moment, the legislation talks only about consultations with the devolved Administrations and certain departments: the Department for Education, the Department of Health and Social Care and the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities. Obviously, that speaks to the three core aspects of the duties—education, healthcare and housing—but what thought have the Government paid to whether those duties should be widened to central government more generally? I ask this precisely because, as the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig of Radley, pointed out, to the extent that the duties and benefits of the Armed Forces covenant relate to veterans, they should not be determined by their geographical location. It is wholly wrong to give somebody rights only if they are resident in the United Kingdom. If they are veterans who have served with His Majesty’s Armed Forces, they should be within scope.
Beyond that, I have a couple of specific questions associated with this statutory instrument. It is absolutely right that the Government are taking a broad view of what it means to be part of a family, going beyond the traditional view of a spouse and children of a traditional marriage. There are now many other types of family that would be affected, so that view is clearly right, but can the Minister explain a little more about how the Government would interpret, and how service providers should be expected to interpret, Regulation 3(3), which states:
“For the purposes of this regulation, references to A’s spouse or civil partner includes … a person whose relationship with A is akin to a relationship between spouses or civil partners”?
At one level, that might seem self-evident. However, if we are looking at local authorities being requested to find housing, how established does the relationship have to be? How will it be evaluated and what guidance will be given to local authorities when looking at housing provision, for example?
Similarly, with a wide understanding of children, stepchildren and other relatives, we could see quite wide sets of family relations. To what extent will that be considered in looking at housing, for example? If stepchildren arrive every other weekend, should they be taken into consideration when looking at local housing provision? Similarly, how extensive a group of family members might be considered for education and school waiting lists? What are the implications of that?
Regulation 3(3)(b) talks about
“a former spouse or civil partner or a person whose relationship with A was formerly akin to a relationship between spouses or civil partners.”
Again, how will that be evaluated? It might seem quite clear cut if somebody was part of an established relationship for 20 years, but how will a former partner who has been divorced, remarried and has not suffered as being part of the Armed Forces family in quite the same way be evaluated when people say, “We think we should be covered under the Armed Forces covenant”?
None of this is intended to sound churlish in any way; it is to probe the Government about how service providers are meant to interpret this. It is right that we should be generous and expansive in the way that we interpret the family, but it is also important that there are no ambiguities in the proposals put forward.
Finally, I could not see anything in the points on healthcare about dentistry. Maybe I missed it, but one of the big issues at the moment is the difficulty of people finding NHS dentists. If that is true for stable members of the population who do not move very much, how much truer will it be of the Armed Forces and their families? Is dentistry included, and if not, could it be?
Lord Jones (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her usual informative and fluent explanation, and for the detail of the department’s Explanatory Memorandum. It is always a privilege to speak in any debate graced by the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig. One learned from the historical viewpoint of the emergence of the covenant. I will be brief.
Paragraph 7.4 of the Explanatory Memorandum says that the duty aims
“to address the disparity of awareness of the Covenant”.
Paragraph 7.5 talks about “former service members” and a “broad approach”, and says that
“those outside the ‘traditional’ family may well be impacted by Service life.”
Those are important statements and it is good that they are highlighted in the papers before us.
The tradition of Armed Forces Day helps to address the challenge around the covenant. I do not think we can praise Armed Forces Day too highly. It is good that it has re-emerged after Covid.
The covenant helps evoke patriotism. Professor Helen Thompson, a left-leaning professor at Cambridge, recently said in the New Statesman that Britishness is still best defined as monarchy and the military. That is not for debate now, but if one is considering patriotism, the covenant and Armed Forces Day, that is a relevant foundational statement to make.
Further, paragraph 10.2 of the Explanatory Memorandum refers to local government associations. One local government unit, Flintshire County Council in north-east Wales, has a very fine record of helping those who were in the Armed Forces. Armed Forces Day in Flintshire is always heavily subscribed by the local government. The current Armed Forces champion is county councillor David Evans OBE. He is worthy of a mention, as was his predecessor, Andrew Dunbobbin, who is now the police and crime commissioner for north Wales. The county of Flintshire has a very fine record.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
My Lords, I shall start with my noble friend Lord Jones’s remarks. He mentioned the reserves and the covenant affecting military families. My son-in-law is an active member of 4 Mercian reserve. He was recently in eastern Europe and will be away again in a couple of weeks’ time. Given that my noble friend Lord Jones mentioned the reserves, I felt I should mention that for obvious reasons.
I thank my noble friend for his remarks. The point he made about Armed Forces Day is well made and speaks for itself. I agree with everything that the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, and the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig, said, the contributions that they have made to where we are now with the covenant, and the challenging questions they have put to the Government to try to improve it.
We too welcome the regulations relating to the Armed Forces Covenant as far as they go, but before asking some questions I shall remind the Committee, as the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, and the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig, did, that there was much debate about the covenant as the Armed Forces Act 2021 passed through your Lordships’ House. Many of us called for the expansion of the covenant to all areas of public policy and for it to apply to the national Government and the devolved Administrations. Alongside that we said that having “due regard” to the covenant should include other areas of public policy as well as education, healthcare and housing, which were outlined.
The Government resisted those calls, and we therefore felt the covenant was a missed opportunity by being too narrow, particularly the failure to place a duty on the national Government in the way that they placed a duty on others. They also failed to define what “have due regard” meant, how members of the Armed Forces community can seek redress if they feel let down and how the covenant is to be enforced. The Minister knows that we welcome the regulations and the new duties they place on specified bodies and persons to have due regard to the principles of the covenant when exercising certain statutory functions in the areas of healthcare, housing and education, but it could have gone further. Having said that, these are important regulations and will make a difference.
I have some specific questions. As some of the responders to the guidance consultation asked, why does the guidance not include prescriptive actions that bodies in scope should follow to demonstrate that they are meeting the duty of having due regard? The guidance notes the value of good recording as a means of demonstrating having due regard to the covenant. However, as the Government themselves note in the guidance that they have published, it is voluntary. Why was there never a statutory requirement to record actions that show and demonstrate that a public body is having due regard to the covenant?
How, therefore, more generally—the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, in particular, alluded to this—is the covenant to be enforced? What redress is there for an individual, family or organisation if they believe that the covenant is not being properly followed or implemented? As the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig, asked—and I will come also to something else mentioned by the noble and gallant Lord—what action will the Government take to publicise their new regulations to ensure that awareness is as wide as it should be?
I completely endorse the position taken by the noble and gallant Lord, along with the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, that paragraph 14.1 in the regulations is crucial. In response to the amendments made and the ping-pong that took place on the Armed Forces Act, the Government have said—to be fair to the Minister, she will have argued this within the MoD—that they will come forward in 2023 with a report on how the covenant has operated. I say to the Minister that the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig, and I will be looking quite carefully at how paragraph 14.1 is implemented and how the Government meet their commitments. As the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig, said, it is a particularly important point.
I come to something that the Minister has explained to me before, but it is important that this is put on the record. Tucked away in regulations will often be things understood by MoD officials and so on. The regulations that we have before us cover England, Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland, the Isle of Man and the British Overseas Territories, except Gibraltar. Will the Minister explain why Gibraltar is excluded from these covenant regulations? Clearly, Gibraltar is extremely important to us as a base for our Armed Forces. It seems a little strange. I am sure there will be a good reason for it —some treaty or other that makes its inclusion unnecessary —but it is important to have it in the record to help those who read our deliberations to understand why that “except Gibraltar” is there.
These questions highlight once again the importance of paragraph 14.1, which basically says that the Government will assess how well the covenant operates with respect to due regard and whether there are other areas of public policy that could usefully be added to the scope of the Act as it is now. We all look to see what happens under paragraph 14.1. These regulations are an important step forward. We welcome them; we just wish they could have gone a bit further. The implementation will be everything.
Baroness Goldie (Con)
My Lords, I thank noble Lords for what admittedly has been a fairly short debate but not in any way lacking in quality and penetrating questions, which is entirely what I would expect from the contributors. I shall deal first with the comments of the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig. I thank him for his very useful historical context of the evolution of the covenant. It is worth remembering the journey that the covenant has travelled. I accept that progress may at times have been somewhat plodding, but I feel that, in recent years, we have got to a good place. These regulations are the manifestation of the important progress that has been made.
I pay tribute to the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig, for his perseverance in drawing attention to the role of central government and whether it should be brought within the ambit of the covenant statutory duty. I remember that we had informed and interesting exchanges at the time the Armed Forces Bill went through this House. We certainly felt that this was not an issue that should be summarily dismissed as being without merit. Our concern was that we were already biting off quite a lot in terms of what we were introducing in that Bill and in what was to be further covered by delegated legislation, and we did not want to bite off more than we could chew. The provisions now to allow for a review are meant to reassure, and I shall say a little more about them.
The review will consider the roles of the UK Government and the devolved Administrations in conducting the functions already in scope of the duty. It will also consider the extent to which they currently consider the covenant principles, as well as the benefits and costs of bringing them into scope. As the noble and gallant Lord is aware, the reason why I resisted his persuasive blandishments to include the scope of central government in the Armed Forces Act was because we did not think that it was quite within the scope of the original Bill. The Government are responsible for setting the overall strategic direction and national policy but they do not directly deliver the relevant healthcare, education and housing services to citizens.
Let me give your Lordships a little more information on the review itself. Members of Parliament will have the opportunity to assess and comment on the review in the debate on the 2022 covenant report. The Government have been working with stakeholders to establish an open and transparent evaluation process by which to investigate the evidence about whether new policy areas should be added to the scope of the duty; that point was specifically raised by the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, who was naturally interested in what criteria might be deployed to assess this. Potential additional functions will be assessed against clear and robust criteria that have been established and agreed with covenant stakeholders in order to provide advice to the Secretary of State, with whom the final decision rests.
To clarify, a blanket inclusion of all UK Government and devolved Administration bodies would not be appropriate to include within the list of specified bodies to which the duty applies because the “due regard” duty applies to specified functions that are precisely defined in law. Due to the broad-ranging work of the UK Government and the devolved Administrations, it would be impractical to seek to define precisely such functions for these bodies.
One of the questions asked by, I think, the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig, during our debates on the then Armed Forces Bill concerned why the duty was not extended to central government because it has a duty of care to the Armed Forces. However, the purpose of the covenant duty is to raise awareness among providers of public services of how service life can disadvantage the Armed Forces community in accessing key public services. That is why we have focused on these three areas of health, education and housing. As the noble and gallant Lord is aware, central government is directly responsible for the Armed Forces and the MoD has always looked after the welfare of service personnel. As he knows, there are various ways in which the Government can be held to account, from the requirement for Ministers to appear at the Dispatch Box and explain what has been happening to the facility for Members to put down Questions and seek debates. There is a variety of methods available for parliamentarians to call the MoD to account for what it has been doing.
Accompanied by the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, and the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, the noble and gallant Lord raised the issue of central government. I tried to cover the points that were made in my comments addressed to him. One other point that he mentioned concerned why the guidance refers to those who are ordinarily resident in the UK. The “ordinarily resident in the UK” restriction applies only to veterans. This restriction on veterans is in the Act, which is why it is in the guidance. The guidance clearly says that serving personnel are in scope
“wherever they are located—in the UK or abroad.”
Veterans who live overseas and are having issues accessing public services due to their service career will find that those issues are best raised with the relevant authority or embassy in the area in which they live because such services fall outside the responsibility of the UK Government.
Lord Craig of Radley (CB)
Mentioning embassies in that sense seems to bring in the possibility of central government interests and the FCDO.
Baroness Goldie (Con)
It may do so, but only tangentially, because the FCDO has a UK government responsibility to UK citizens abroad, which is a standard duty. It is why we have a diplomatic presence, and it is the role of embassies and consulates to assist these citizens. I suggest that that is different from placing a broad duty of care on central government in relation to the Armed Forces Act.
The noble Baroness, Lady Smith, specifically raised Regulations 3(3)(a) and (b) and the use of the phrases
“is akin to a relationship”
and, similarly,
“formerly akin to a relationship”.
I said in my opening remarks that the attempt to define family members had deliberately been made broad because, as a consequence of service within the Armed Forces, we often find circumstances which confront personnel that will not affect them in civilian situations. We are trying to be as flexible as possible.
The noble Baroness legitimately asks about there being a disagreement with armed service personnel; what if the veteran says, “I think that I was in what was akin to a relationship, and that is why I should get a house” or “be entitled to particular medical support”? It will be for the applicant who is seeking help or a particular service, in conjunction with the deemed provider of that service, to discuss whether they can resolve the matter. The regulations are not meant to be phrased unhelpfully—quite the opposite. They are meant to be as broad as they can be to ensure that this widespread blanket of support reaches as many people as possible.
This brings me to a point pertinently raised by the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, about enforcement—the teeth that can apply to this legal duty and how providers operate it. Enforcement is a complex area in general and I will deal with it in detail. Before I do, let me address the contribution from the noble Lord, Lord Jones, and a final point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, on dentistry. That very important issue will come under the health “due regard”, but it will not cover private dentistry, only the public service provider of dentistry services.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Jones, for a very positive contribution in which he praised Armed Forces Day. I agree it is an important opportunity to acknowledge our service personnel and veterans. Within my own area of Scotland, it is something we celebrate with great respect, pride and pleasure. I was interested to hear what happens in the noble Lord’s area of Wales, as clearly Armed Forces Day has a pan-United Kingdom appeal, which I am pleased to have confirmed.
The noble Lord particularly raised reservists, and I was interested in his observation that they are perhaps underacknowledged. If he looks at the provisions regarding Future Soldier—the new model for how we see our military, infantry and army going forward—he will see some very exciting opportunities in there.
Baroness Goldie (Con)
I think I was addressing the contribution from the noble Lord, Lord Jones, when we were summoned by Division Bells. I was talking about the role of reservists. Following the important review of reservists carried out by my noble friend Lord Lancaster, some really helpful and interesting virtues were identified. One quite simply is this: we have among our reservists skills that we might not regularly have in the regular Army. One of the desires is to ensure that we can offer reservists a more flexible career opportunity: that is, if we have need of a particular skill and a reservist possesses it, we can draw them in for a fixed period that they can work with and that their employer can cope with. That is why Future Soldier creates a template for an exciting future for our Armed Forces. Reservists will play a critical role in that.
The noble Lord, Lord Jones, also asked about engagement and consultation, specifically the matter of focus groups. The engagement that took place in drafting the guidance was comprehensive. We worked with our stakeholders to develop the statutory guidance, but we engage with a wide range of groups, including the devolved Administrations, covenant partners across government, the Armed Forces community, local authorities, relevant ombudsmen, and the service charity and welfare sectors. That gave us a very broad basis on which to frame our guidance.
Lord Jones (Lab)
That is a very broad answer. I did ask a specific question, but I know that time is of the essence.
Baroness Goldie (Con)
I looked at the Explanatory Memorandum. My understanding is that focus groups are designed specifically to encompass those groups that have an interest and have knowledge. I hope it is clear from the list that I just enunciated to the Committee that there has been very broad consultation, importantly, with the people who know about this, understand it, and have a stake in making sure that it works.
The noble Lord, Lord Coaker, raised a number of points, some of which I have already addressed, but particularly the important issue of the statutory duty of “due regard”. As a former lawyer, I well understand why he homed in on what exactly that means. The purpose of the statutory guidance is to help organisations understand and discharge their obligations. On enforcement, the duty we have created does not mandate particular outcomes. It is very important to be explicit about that. That is because it is not within the ability of the MoD to control what the deliverers do, whether they are devolved Administrations, local authorities or health boards. That is not what we want to do. It would therefore be inappropriate for the guidance to include a level of prescriptiveness that goes further than what is already set out in law.
We expect that, by raising awareness, we will reduce disadvantage. We do not seek to penalise or police public bodies because we are not in position to do so, but we do not want to do that anyway; they are autonomous and freestanding, and have their own responsibilities to discharge. If there was a disagreement or dissatisfaction, we imagine that the starting point would be that complaints would be pursued in the normal way, whatever that was for a health board, a hospital, an education facility or a housing complaint. I think that the vast majority of complaints would be resolved in that manner. Certainly in the first instance, any grievance should be pursued through the internal complaints process of the relevant local authority or public body. If the matter is still unresolved, I suggest that the relevant ombudsman would be able to consider the matter if the complainant did not think that the authority had followed its own policy correctly. In our work supporting the implementation of the new duty, we will certainly promote these mechanisms among our Armed Forces community.
As a last resort, and this would be a very heavy hammer to deploy, the opportunity to challenge an alleged failure to comply with the duty would be by way of judicial review. That would obviously be an unattractive prospect to many, but it could well be a legal option available to a class group of people if they were dissatisfied. To take the example of dentistry from the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, it might very well be that the provision of dentists is not a problem in one part of the UK but it might be a huge challenge in another. I imagine that if veterans or service personnel in that area felt aggrieved then they could very easily put pressure on, and they might very well have resource to bring a class action. Remedies are there.
It is important to remember that the duty does not require certain outcomes to be achieved, just that these public bodies need to consider the covenant. That will lead to better policy and decision-making in relation to the Armed Forces. I hope that reassures the noble Lord that thought has been given to this and that we anticipate the system being workable and, for providers, deliverable.
Finally, the noble Lord asked me about Gibraltar. I recall—no doubt he will correct me if I am wrong—writing to him about this. My recollection is that Gibraltar is outwith the scope of the Act and not within its jurisdiction. However, it can apply the Act using its own legislation: technically, if it wishes to invoke in respect of its own forces provisions that we have introduced in the Armed Forces Act, it can use its own legislative powers to achieve that. So it is a technical issue of being outwith the jurisdiction of and not encompassed by the Act.
I have tried to deal with the points that were raised. I hope that I have covered them. If I have omitted to deal with anything, I will gladly undertake to write to your Lordships, of course. In the meantime, I thank noble Lords for their contributions.
Armed Forces (Service Court Rules) (Amendment) (No. 2) Rules 2022
(1 year, 6 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Goldie
That the Grand Committee do consider the Armed Forces (Service Court Rules) (Amendment) (No. 2) Rules 2022.
Relevant document: 11th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee
The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Baroness Goldie) (Con)
I feel almost Gilbertian in this Gilbert and Sullivan-esque interchanging of roles.
My Lords, this statutory instrument consists of three changes to the rules that apply to the service courts: to provide an overriding objective for court martial, the Service Civilian Court and the Summary Appeal Court; to give the Director of Service Prosecutions responsibility for warning prosecution witnesses of trial dates; and to increase the representation of women on court martial boards.
The first of the measures in this statutory instrument implements a recommendation of His Honour Shaun Lyons’ review of the service justice system, which was published in 2020. The review recommended the introduction of an overriding objective for the court martial, based on Part 1 of the Criminal Procedure Rules for England. A similar rule has been used in the civil and criminal courts in England and Wales for some time. The overriding objective in the criminal courts is that cases are dealt with “justly”, which encompasses considerations such as the need to acquit the innocent, convict the guilty and ensure that cases are dealt with efficiently and expeditiously. The participants in the case are also subject to this duty as well as the court, which assists with active case management. This measure will mean that judge advocates and participants in proceedings in the court martial, the Service Civilian Court and the Summary Appeal Court are subject to similar duties and will assist case management in those courts.
The second measure in this instrument also implements a recommendation of His Honour Shaun Lyons’ review. The measure amends the current rules on notifying witnesses to give the Director of Service Prosecutions, rather than the Military Court Service, responsibility for warning prosecution witnesses of trial dates. This change will align practice in the service courts with the civilian criminal justice system for England and Wales, where the role is performed by the Director of Public Prosecutions.
Finally, this instrument inserts a new Rule 34A into the court martial rules, which requires the court administration officer to ensure that, if any lay members of the court are servicepersons, there is at least one man and one woman on the board. I emphasise that we are confident that the court martial, in its current form, is a fair, efficient and effective court, which delivers justice for our Armed Forces. However, due to the lower numbers of women compared to men serving in the Armed Forces, the chances of a woman being selected at random to serve on a court martial board are significantly lower than those of a woman being randomly selected to serve on a jury in the civilian system.
We want to redress that imbalance by means of this procedural adjustment, which aims to improve and enhance the representation of women on court martial boards. Rather than it being left to chance that a woman will be randomly selected, this change will ensure that there will always be at least one woman on every board. This will bring the court martial closer to the civilian criminal justice system, so that servicewomen’s voices, experiences and perspectives are part of the decision-making process.
This important change has its origins in a recommendation made in the highly regarded Defence Sub-Committee report Women in the Armed Forces: From Recruitment to Civilian Life. That sub-committee was chaired by the recently appointed Minister for Defence People and Veterans, my honourable friend Sarah Atherton. In the government response to the report, the MoD undertook to carry out work to increase women’s representation on court martial boards related to sexual offending. I am delighted to say that the Government are going further than the report recommendation, as we think it is right to ensure that women are better represented on boards dealing with all types of cases.
I reassure your Lordships that the MoD has very carefully examined the impact this will have on women who serve in our Armed Forces. It is true that this measure will mean that women are slightly more likely to be selected to sit on a court martial board than currently. The total number of women required to populate all three services’ boards is 192. This is an increase of 48 more women per year than the current 144, and is 4.2% of the population of women eligible to sit on a court martial board, due to rank and seniority requirements. The total number of men required to populate the three services’ boards would be 672, which is 1.7% of the population of men eligible to sit on a court martial board.
This difference, however, will not result in women being treated less favourably than men. Service as a lay member of a board lasts only around two weeks and is a normal part of the duties of any senior NCO or officer. It can also be useful experience for future command, as commanding officers play a key role in the service justice system. To mitigate the risk of the same women being selected repeatedly, we will also introduce an exemption of 12 months for those women who have already sat on a court martial board for more than five working days.
We believe that increasing the representation of women on court martial boards ensures that they are always part of the decision-making process in service justice. It will better reflect our society and reinforce the important role that servicewomen have, not just in our Armed Forces, but in the service justice system. I beg to move.
Lord Craig of Radley (CB)
My Lords, in supporting this draft SI and accepting that revision is not an option, I still have a couple of points to raise. The overriding objective introduced in all three types of service court seems, on first reading, to be almost entirely motherhood and apple pie, or should almost be taken for granted as sound administration. But I accept that, in the legal world, it is perhaps better to have every likely “i” dotted and every possible “t” crossed. It also follows a recommendation of his honour Shaun Lyons, whose knowledge and expertise in service law and procedure is well recognised and respected. It is right, therefore, that this new section is inserted.
However, I noted, although the accompanying memorandum does not mention it, the extra Rule 3A(2)(h)(v), which is not in the criminal court’s rules. It reads,
“the need to maintain the operational effectiveness of Her Majesty’s forces.”
I imagine some printing amendment will replace “Her” with “His”, but this raises the question of who decides. Presumably the Defence Secretary is responsible for such a judgment, but can he tell a court marital what to do? It may be so unlikely that the situation never arises; in which case, why put it in at all?
Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)
My Lords, like the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig of Radley, on reading the overriding objective as outlined in the statutory instrument, my sense was that it appears in some ways to be motherhood and apple pie. It would seem self-evident that an overriding objective should be that cases should be dealt with justly. How else should we expect the law to be administered? However, the important thing is that the intention is to bring courts martial in alignment as closely as possible with civilian courts, and that is welcome. His honour Shaun Lyons recommended that and that the Government are finally bringing that within the scope of service justice seems entirely appropriate. Similarly, the point about female representation, following from the Atherton report, is welcome, and the Minister’s explanation of why it goes beyond simply sexual crimes and the like is wholly appropriate.
Therefore, in the absence of my noble friend Lord Thomas of Gresford, I am not sure there will be any specific questions from the Liberal Democrat Benches. I realise I should have brought in reinforcements because Liberal Democrats feel that service justice is always best dealt with by my noble friend Lord Thomas of Gresford.
Lord Jones (Lab)
My Lords, I presume that prior to the very welcome rules female board members were never present. Was that the case? I am looking at Rule 3A(1). How often do these boards sit? One presumes it is as events dictate, but how many are there in the average year? What number are we dealing with? This issue is central to the rules and some numbers might help. Finally, can the Minister furnish an example of gender representation—a woman/she/they—on a given present board? Is an example available?
Lord Coaker (Lab)
My Lords, I do not wish simply to make things up. I have very little to say on this. However, the amendments to the rules that the Government have brought forward are important. I agree with the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig, the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, and my noble friend Lord Jones.
From the various reports we have seen, there seems to be a real problem of confidence in some of the service justice system. To be fair to the Government, it is good to see them coming forward to adopt the recommendations of the review that they set up to look at this. These days, being commended is probably something the Government would welcome, but this is an important step forward in this case.
I sometimes wonder about overriding objectives. The noble Baroness, Lady Smith, is right: this is not a sarcastic remark, but it is quite astounding that we have to say that a court must deal with people fairly—“justly”, according to the law—and that that needs to be written down in law. Having said that, I understand that it is something put down by Judge Lyons—fair enough.
I want to tease the Minister a bit politically here. I do not know whether she has passed this by all sections of the Government but I am absolutely delighted to see them recognising the rights of defendants, particularly under Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights. It is absolutely wonderful that the Ministry of Defence is defending the convention and using it as a way of ensuring that courts operate—
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Beith) (LD)
There is a Division in the House. The Committee will adjourn for 10 minutes.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
My Lords, I was in the process of welcoming the Armed Forces (Service Court Rules) (Amendment) (No. 2) Rules 2022, in particular their adoption of the recommendations of His Honour Shaun Lyons—we are pleased about that.
I was also congratulating the Minister on the MoD’s including the European Convention on Human Rights. I was excited to see it mentioned on page 2, but my excitement reached a crescendo when I saw it also mentioned on page 3. Then I turned over, and with just a scant look through I saw it mentioned again on page 5. That is before we get to the Explanatory Memorandum, which talks about the importance of the European Convention on Human Rights. Leo Docherty has said that the instrument is consistent with it.
It is important that the Minister outlines for the Committee how important she and the Ministry of Defence think retaining Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights is to the maintenance of the instrument before us. The Committee needs an explanation of that. She will be aware that many members of her own Government seem to think that the European Convention on Human Rights is not important, but I am pleased to see that the Minister and the Ministry of Defence have laid this instrument before us, which makes it clear through repetition that the European Convention on Human Rights is absolutely fundamental to this SI. Will the Minister ensure that all parts of the Government are aware of the importance the MoD attaches to the convention? Looking around the room, I am sure that a number of Committee Members are certainly well able to defend the Minister and help her in that respect, should she need it.
I think we would all welcome the addition of lay members to the court martial panel, and the gender balance. Can the Minister explain what a lay member is? I was speaking to the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, about this. Our understanding is that a lay member is not a member of the public, so who is a lay member who becomes a member of the court martial board?
Given that the whole purpose of the change in new rule 34A is to try to ensure that initially, there are more effective procedures with respect to sexual offending, I think we are all pleased to see that the Government have now extended that to all offending. Can the Minister say how that will be monitored, and what we mean by lay members?
With those few comments, we welcome the instrument before us. It will be an improvement, and will hopefully lead to greater confidence in the service justice system.
Baroness Goldie (Con)
My Lords, once again we have had an interesting debate. In many respects this has been a more technical SI than the earlier one, but none the less, it has generated points of interest and I will do my level best to address them.
The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig, raised the very important issue of who decides. This duty created by the instrument to consider operational effectiveness is vital, and the noble and gallant Lord was good enough to indicate to me where his area of concern lay. I have tried to do some research into it, and I will try to deal with the points that he raised.
It will be for the judge advocate alone to decide what should or should not be done to take account of the need to maintain operational effectiveness. However, it is important to put this provision in context. The overriding objective is that cases be dealt with justly. Some slight mischief was articulated about this being motherhood and apple pie. The essential components are good, but that is because we are replicating what already exists in the civilian criminal justice system, and it works. I make no apology for transporting that into our court martial procedures because I think these are virtuous and will greatly improve our court martial system.
The reference to operational effectiveness does not change the overall objective that cases be dealt with justly. Nor does it affect in any way a defendant’s right under Article 6 of the ECHR. It is there to recognise that the services courts deal with cases where defendants, board members and witnesses will generally be services persons, who will often have other important and sometimes unpredictable commitments.
The role will give judge advocates the flexibility to take this into account. The kind of scenario where we expect it to be relevant would be, for example, where the date of a trial might need to be brought forward or, indeed, delayed, or a witness might be allowed to give evidence via live link. Certainly, I reassure your Lordships that the Judge Advocate-General was consulted and agreed with the use of the phrase “operational effectiveness” in the context of this change.
I thank the noble and gallant Lord for raising an important point. I have tried to address it. The fact that the Judge Advocate-General is content with the position I think provides significant reassurance.
Lord Craig of Radley (CB)
Just to be clear, is the Minister saying to the Committee that the Judge Advocate-General has the say and, regardless of whether the Secretary of State agrees with him, the Judge Advocate- General wins?
Baroness Goldie (Con)
That is what I am saying. Indeed, I add to that by observing that it would be profoundly undesirable if the Secretary of State, as a government Minister, were getting involved in the discharge of justice under what should be an independent criminal justice system, albeit within the services justice environment. It would be most undesirable for the Secretary of State to get involved. The Judge Advocate-General alone will decide what should or should not be done to take account of the need to maintain operational effectiveness.
I think I have dealt with the commentary of the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, about why this is phrased as it is. It is not some cosy set of aspirations; it really is intended to deliver what has been working well in the civilian criminal justice system and to try to ensure that our services criminal justice system benefits from that. I thank her for her observation about the absence of her colleague, the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, who is, of course, always a welcome presence in these debates where legal issues arise. I am sure that he would have had some pithy observations to make on the technical content of the Sis, but I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, for confining her remarks to general observations.
The noble Lord, Lord Jones, asked some specific questions, including how often the board sits. Court martial boards sit in assizes of two weeks with 24 periods in any year; that is, 48 weeks a year. The noble Lord also asked whether the measure of extending female representation on the court martial board should be extended to the judge advocates. There is a mix of men and women judge advocates now; we have both men and women. The role is being introduced to align better with juries where women are represented in civilian courts, but there has been under-representation in the analogous role within the services justice system.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, for his kind remarks about the SIs and where we have got to in delivering improvements for Armed Forces personnel. I particularly noted his phrase, “commend the Government”. It is certainly not something I have been hearing very regularly in recent times, and I thank him for that. On his reference to Article 6 of the ECHR, the MoD has consistently shown a desire to comply with human rights legislation and conventions, and the convention is an important part of the framework within which we operate; hence the various references to Article 6 throughout the SIs.
The noble Lord, Lord Coaker, also asked about the composition of a court martial board in general; I think that his question related to lay personnel. This measure will have an impact only on women in the Armed Forces at ranks of OR7 and above. To help your Lordships, I asked for clarification on this. In the Royal Navy, the rank of OR7 is chief petty officer; for the Royal Marines, it is colour sergeant; for the Army, it is staff colour sergeant; and, for the Royal Air Force, it is flight sergeant/chief technician. Service persons below that rank are not eligible to sit as lay members. Eligibility is currently set at OR8 personnel but from January next year it will be OR7. We are broadening the scope in the hope that this will facilitate the presence of more women. Also, as I said, there will be a 12-month exemption for women who have already sat. That is important, because it is a sizeable chunk out of otherwise operational time. If any woman has sat on a court martial board for more than five working days, this provision will prevent them repeatedly sitting on boards.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
This is a really important point, which, as I said, the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, and I were discussing. If somebody outside this Committee read our proceedings and saw the word “lay” they would assume that these people are members of the public, even though the instrument deals with non-service personnel and the military courts. The Minister putting this on the record is quite helpful for those who read our proceedings to understand exactly what we are talking about.
Baroness Goldie (Con)
I thank the noble Lord. We are sometimes guilty of using vocabulary in the environment with which we are all familiar. These are lay members who are not legally qualified; they sit as a presence roughly comparable to a jury. The noble Lord is right that they are “lay” not in the sense of any members of the public coming in but in the sense that they are in the Armed Forces and not legally qualified.
I have tried to address the points that were raised; I hope that I have managed to do so. I thank your Lordships for your contributions. This instrument takes us another step forward in making our service justice system stronger, better and fairer.
Crime (International Co-operation) Act 2003 (Designation of Participating Countries) (England, Wales and Northern Ireland) Order 2022
(1 year, 6 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Sharpe of Epsom
That the Grand Committee do consider the Crime (International Co-operation) Act 2003 (Designation of Participating Countries) (England, Wales and Northern Ireland) Order 2022.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Sharpe of Epsom) (Con)
My Lords, in an increasingly interconnected world where crime knows no borders, international co-operation that promotes justice and helps to keep the British public safe has never been more important. The instrument before the Committee will enhance our international judicial co-operation framework, specifically in relation to mutual legal assistance.
Before I come on to the contents of this instrument, I will briefly outline the context. Mutual legal assistance is a method of co-operation between states for obtaining assistance in the investigation or prosecution of criminal offences. The UK is a party to the Council of Europe’s 1959 European Convention on Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters and its additional protocols, which form an essential part of our fight against transnational crime and our co-operation with other contracting parties in relation to criminal proceedings.
The second additional protocol to the 1959 convention widens the scope of available mutual legal assistance among contracting parties and includes specific provisions regarding requests for hearings by video or telephone conference, joint investigation teams and the temporary transfer of prisoners. The UK ratified this additional protocol in 2010.
Under our domestic framework, mutual legal assistance is governed by the Crime (International Co-operation) Act 2003, henceforth referred to as the 2003 Act. The 2003 Act states that, for the UK to request and facilitate certain types of mutual legal assistance, the country in question must be designated as a participating country as defined by Section 51(2).
Lord Paddick (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for introducing this order. As he just said, criminality is increasingly cross-border and anything that mitigates the reduction of the UK’s ability to tackle international crime as a result of the UK leaving the European Union has to be welcomed. I have only a couple of questions.
Paragraph 8.1 of the Explanatory Memorandum to the order states:
“This instrument does not relate to withdrawal from the European Union.”
Yet paragraph 6.3 explains that Switzerland is included in this order because it was previously included
“on the basis of the Cooperation Agreement between the European Community and its Member States on the one part, and the Swiss Confederation, on the other part”—
the so-called “Swiss Agreement”. Paragraph 6.5 states,
“When the UK left the European Union (“EU”), the obligations that previously applied to the UK as a member of the EU, under the Swiss Agreement, ceased to apply.”
Albeit only in relation to Switzerland, it appears that this instrument does relate to withdrawal from the European Union. Will the noble Lord explain? Will he also explain why these countries—Georgia, Lichtenstein, Luxembourg, Moldova, Switzerland and Turkey—have now been included and why now, bearing in mind that the primary legislation dates from 2003 and the 1959 convention was ratified in 2010? I am reassured that Russia is not included as part of this instrument, and we support the order.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, and the Labour Benches support the order. I have a couple of questions. Luxembourg was the latest country to ratify the second additional protocol in 2021. When did the other states in this order ratify it? Is there any reason why we have waited until now to designate them?
Brexit impacted some of the collaboration we had on criminal matters with Switzerland, as the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, mentioned, and the statutory instrument will rectify that. Were there any other consequences on international co-operation from Brexit? Have they also been rectified? Are there any other countries apart from Russia—I totally agree with what the Minister said—we wish to designate but are unable to at present? If so, which are they?
The order refers to Sections 47 and 48 regarding prisoner transfer if consent is given. What happens if consent is refused, if a prisoner does not agree? What then takes place? Is there a process or are there other ways by which a prisoner can be moved between countries? Are all the arrangements outlined in this protocol reciprocal? How many requests do we typically make under this Act each year? One of my favourite questions: this order relates to England, Wales and Northern Ireland; will the Minister explain how Scotland operates with respect to this protocol?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, I should say I thank all noble Lords, but I can be specific: I thank the noble Lords, Lord Coaker and Lord Paddick, for contributing to this debate. As I set out at the start, this instrument will enhance mutual legal assistance with these six countries and strengthen the UK’s overall ability to combat transnational crime. Mutual legal assistance is a critical tool in tackling cross-border criminality and promoting a pathway to justice here in the UK and overseas. As we have all said, this form of international co-operation has never been more important. Not only does it help to ensure that borders are not barriers to justice, but it allows us better to defend our public safety interests.
To go on to the specific points that have been raised, I am grateful to both noble Lords for supporting the non-designation of Russia at this time. I will have to come back to the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, on his question about other countries that may have been non-designated in the past, because I do not know the answer. I will find out.
The noble Lord, Lord Paddick, asked about Switzerland and the EU and why we are redesignating Switzerland. Its designations for certain sections of the 2003 Act were removed following the UK’s departure from the EU, as the co-operation agreement between the European Community and its member states on the one part, and the Swiss Confederation on the other part, to combat fraud and any other illegal activity to the detriment of their financial interests, also known as the Swiss agreement, no longer applied. However, Switzerland remains a signatory to the 1959 European Convention on Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters and its additional protocols, so it has been determined that it should be redesignated for the relevant provisions of the 2003 Act. Inasmuch as that relates to the EU, the question is correct: our departure from the EU meant that we had to redesignate Switzerland. Switzerland is obviously an important partner in the fight against cross-border crime and it is important legally and operationally for the UK to seek and provide effective assistance.
I hope I can reassure the noble Lord on whether there has been any capability gap between the UK and Switzerland in the period since the 2019 regulations and this order. We are unaware of any requests which have not been facilitated while these additional Swiss designations have not been in place.
Lord Paddick (LD)
Is it right then that what the Explanatory Memorandum says about this order being nothing to do with the UK’s withdrawal from the EU is wrong?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
I am reluctant to comment on the Explanatory Memorandum, simply because I have not read it. It sounds like it is, from what the noble Lord has said. I will seek clarification on that.
Both noble Lords asked why these countries are being grouped together. To be honest, it is in the spirit of efficiency and maximising the use of parliamentary time. It was decided that one instrument should be used to make a number of designations, rather than designating Switzerland and the other countries listed through separate instruments.
The countries that have ratified the second additional protocol to the European Convention on Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters 1959 since the previous designation in 2013 are those that we have listed. I will not run through them again, but the most recent country to ratify was Luxembourg, which did so in 2021.
The noble Lord, Lord Coaker, asked for the total number of outgoing MLA requests sent to all countries over the past few years. I can run through them in detail. In 2017, the number of outgoing requests was 346; in 2018, it was 350; in 2019, it was 320; in 2020, it was 235; and in 2021, it was 371, making a total of 1,622. I can go into much more detail on incoming requests if the noble Lord wishes me to, but I hope he does not. I will also more than happily come back to him on the reciprocal question that he asked because I do not have the information on that to hand.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
The noble Lord is quite right and is just in time. Scotland will need to make its own order as this power is delegated. Officials from the Scottish Government and the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service are in the process of preparing parallel legislation. I had forgotten that question—my apologies.
To conclude, mutual legal assistance is a key tool in the UK’s fight against international criminality. This form of judicial co-operation enables the UK to seek and provide various forms of assistance to ensure that regardless of where a crime is committed perpetrators can be bought to justice. The instrument we have considered today helps to achieve this outcome and in turn to protect the British public and the wider international community. I therefore commend the order to the Committee.
Sanctions (Damages Cap) Regulations 2022
(1 year, 6 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park
That the Grand Committee do consider the Sanctions (Damages Cap) Regulations 2022.
Relevant document: 11th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park) (Con)
My Lords, this instrument, which is subject to the affirmative procedure, was laid before Parliament in draft on 20 July 2022, under Section 55(5) of the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act 2018—the sanctions Act. It will be made once it is approved by both Houses.
The instrument represents further action to strengthen the UK’s sanctions regime in response to Vladimir Putin’s illegal and abhorrent war against the people of Ukraine. Since the invasion, the UK has worked with international partners to deliver an unprecedented package of sanctions against Putin’s regime and his allies who are complicit in its brutality.
As noble Lords will be aware, the Economic Crime (Transparency and Enforcement) Act 2022 proceeded quickly through Parliament following Russia’s invasion and received Royal Assent on 15 March. That Act amended the sanctions Act to reform how sanctions are imposed and reviewed and how challenges to them are dealt with. Those amendments received cross-party support, including across the Benches in this House.
The economic crime Act created a power for the Government to set a limit on the amount of damages that a court can award for designations made in bad faith. In exercise of that power, the instrument before us introduces a cap of £10,000. This cap will apply to any proceedings challenging the Government’s use of designation powers under the sanctions Act or to the specification of a ship issued on or after 4 March 2022. It will minimise the risks to His Majesty’s Government of spurious or vexatious litigation from deep-pocketed oligarchs, as we continue to ratchet up the pressure on Putin. It is right and proper that the Government protect public funds in this way.
To be clear, this will not affect the right of a designated person to challenge their designation in a court or, if appropriate, have the designation lifted. Furthermore, the courts will have the power to disapply the damages cap to avoid any potential breaches of human rights, where necessary, in individual cases. But the cap will send a strong signal that Putin’s oligarchs and kleptocrats cannot draw on the public purse in this country to boost their coffers, that this Government will not be distracted from the task in hand by endless litigation and that we will not be knocked off course by the risk of damages claims. Noble Lords should make no mistake: this is not about protecting the Government from acting in bad faith. It is about sending a clear message to friends of Putin who are tempted to bring claims without merit.
To conclude, the UK Government will not hesitate in bringing forward further sanctions to target those who participate in or facilitate Putin’s illegal war of choice. On 26 September, the UK announced further sanctions targeting those responsible for Putin’s sham referenda. They included four Russian Government officials, four further oligarchs, 55 state board executives, and 29 individuals and organisations working for illegitimate proxy groups in Donetsk, Luhansk and Zaporizhzhia. On 30 September, the Foreign Secretary announced a new set of sanctions that further limited Russia’s access to the foreign services on which it depends.
Taken alongside previous action, the UK is now preventing Russian access to advertising, architectural, auditing, engineering and IT consultancy services, as well as various commercial legal services. The announcement included a new ban on the export of nearly 700 goods that are crucial to Russia’s industrial and technological capabilities. It also included new sanctions on Elvira Nabiullina—with apologies for the pronunciation—the governor of the Central Bank of the Russian Federation, who has been instrumental in managing the Russian economy throughout the war and in the rouble being imposed on Ukrainian territories that have been seized by Russia.
I trust that the Committee will support this instrument, which strengthens the UK’s ability to sanction those responsible for Putin’s illegal and brutal war. I beg to move.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
I thank the Minister for introducing this statutory instrument. Yesterday, we debated other sanctions and focused particularly on Russia. Of course, around the time of that debate, 28 unmanned drones reaped further unnecessary destruction in the capital, Kyiv. A young couple, who were expecting their first child in a matter of months, were among those killed by the senseless barbarity that is driving Putin’s war effort. I know that such crimes will strengthen the resolve not only of the people and Government of Ukraine but that of our Government, this House and all Members of Parliament to ensure that we continue to support Ukraine.
Before I cover the substance of this SI, last night the Minister kindly promised to let me have sight of a letter to my honourable friend Stephen Doughty that answered several of his questions, which I had repeated. By the time I got back to my office, I had received it; I thank the Minister. I specifically raised the issue of mixers, which scramble the origins of crypto transactions to make them virtually untraceable. I asked why two of those mixers—Tornado and Blender—are not on our sanctions list, despite being targeted by the United States. Short of the letter saying that it would be wrong of the Minister to speculate about the targets of future sanctions, there was no mention of them. I will keep repeating the point I have made before: if we do not act in concert with our allies, such as the United States, these mixers will have the capacity to funnel billions to Putin and his cronies. I hope the Minister can reassure us tonight that the Government will act on this.
I turn now to the substance of today’s SIs. It is absolutely right to disincentivise oligarchs and other designated persons from pursuing the Government through the courts by capping the damages that they could receive if they prove that they were sanctioned in bad faith. For far too long, oligarchs from Russia and beyond have acted with complete impunity, their wealth a symbol of global failure to tackle the illicit finance channels which span our economy, politics and society.
Last month, it was revealed that at least 21 Russian businessmen were engaged in legal proceedings across the European Union to overturn sanctions against them, according to filings at the European Court of Justice. I absolutely agree with the noble Lord that today’s action is a welcome step in constraining their ability to tie up these designations in legal showdowns and limit our ability to act. Given that they operate within the parameters of the ECHR, Labour welcomes these changes.
However, it makes no sense to make these changes without acting against illicit Russian finance, which still pollutes the City of London. Labour welcomed the economic crime Act, but the measures it sets out are only the beginning in addressing the chronic problem of dirty money. Minimising what an oligarch can glean from a protracted legal battle is one thing but driving illicit finance out of our institutions is another matter entirely.
As I have repeatedly stated in the Chamber, we must reform Companies House, with new powers to verify information and remove corporate entities from the register once rules are broken. It is vital to ensure that our enforcement bodies are funded for the long term and are no longer outgunned by the seemingly endless resources of oligarchs that we are up against. Spotlight on Corruption highlighted that money laundering prosecutions have dropped by 35% over the last five years. The United Kingdom is by far the most frequent country of origin of SLAPPs—strategic lawsuits against public participation, also known as intimidation lawsuits—with 31% of these cases originating in the UK, according to the Anti-SLAPP Coalition.
The existing budget for economic crime law enforcement is £400 million, with only £100 million of that coming from the Treasury. Given that this is supposed to be a priority of the Government, that amount seems entirely inadequate. I hope the Minister can reassure us that we will build capacity to tackle these oligarchs.
Before I conclude, I have a couple of questions. The cap on damages appears to apply to any proceedings after 4 March. Does the Minister know how many proceedings this will apply to? When the then Minister of State at the Home Office, the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, introduced the relevant sections of the economic crime Act, she said that the cap on damages would limit the oligarchs’ claims, but it is not clear what will have been paid out before the cap comes into effect. Is there information on that amount? Can the Minister tell us exactly how the Government concluded that £10,000 is an appropriate level for a cap?
With these comments, I reiterate that we are strongly supportive of the Government’s actions, and we certainly support the adoption of this SI.
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
I thank the noble Lord for his comments and support for the measure. We have acted swiftly to hold Russia to account for its attack on Ukraine. The UK is inflicting devastating pain in areas of strategic importance to Putin and Russia following the unprovoked and illegal invasion. The Government brought forward this legislation before the Summer Recess and, as the noble Lord said, the cap will apply to all proceedings brought before 4 March.
We continue to make maximum use of our sanctions powers to ensure the strongest possible response to Putin’s illegal invasion of Ukraine. We must ensure that the measures and cases are carefully targeted on the basis of robust evidence before we sanction individuals, goods or companies. That is why we are taking it step by step but noble Lords may rest assured that we will continue to sanction where it will have maximum impact.
It is important to recall that, when this House decided to restrict damages to cases of bad faith, it also gave the Government the power to set a cap. That was done precisely to send the message that no one should benefit from massive payouts from sanctions litigation. We have concluded that £10,000 is appropriate. I am confident in the integrity of our process but this is about sending a message. By imposing a cap, we are removing incentives for deep-pocketed oligarchs or financial institutions to bring unfounded or vexatious litigation. A court cannot neglect to apply the damages cap except in specific circumstances where failure to do so would be in breach of the individual’s human rights.
The starting point will always be that the damages cap applies and will be disapplied only in those very particular circumstances. Any designated person may challenge their designation in court and have it removed if it is not justified, and has the right to receive damages where the Government have acted in bad faith. The core right remains for any designated person to challenge their designation in court and have it removed if it is not justified. This House considered the arguments and supported without objection the Government’s proposal to exclude damages for negligence during the passage of the Economic Crime (Transparency and Enforcement) Act.
I apologise that reference was not made in the letter that the noble Lord, Lord Collins, saw last night to the two mixers he mentioned in his comments yesterday. I am not able to be specific in my answer to him now other than to say that we are working in concert with our allies and will continue to act where appropriate. Absolutely no entity is off the table. We will go further to bring about an end to Putin’s war. I note the recommendation made by the noble Lord; he makes a strong argument. I will make sure that there is appropriate follow-up by government but I hope he understands why I cannot go into more detail now.
The noble Lord asked about 4 March and, I think, how many processes would pre-apply before that date. I think the answer is none. He also asked what has been paid out as a result of actions that precede these measures coming into force. I think the answer to that is also nothing. I think that is correct—I am getting a nod of agreement behind me. That is good news.
The noble Lord rightly raised the question of capacity. I hope I can reassure him by saying that, in December last year, there were 48 substantive roles in the sanctions unit, which has now become the sanctions directorate. We have doubled the number of officials focused on our response. We now have more than 100 permanent staff delivering our response. This number does not include those working across the FCDO and its overseas network, who cover sanctions as part of their wider roles.
The Office of Financial Sanctions Implementation—the OFSI—has also doubled its size this financial year and continues to grow to meet the challenges of the sanctions introduced under the Russia sanctions regime. The recruitment of new permanent staff continues following the former Chancellor’s announcement in March to double the size of the OFSI.
It is the responsibility of the UK and our allies to ensure that our sanctions regimes are maintained and updated appropriately so that we can respond at pace to the activities of malign actors around the world. I once again thank the noble Lord for his insightful contributions and support.
House of Lords
Oaths and Affirmations
Nitrate-free Bacon and Ham
(1 year, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick
To ask His Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to support the production of nitrate-free bacon and ham in England.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Benyon) (Con)
My Lords, I declare my farming interests as set out in the register.
Nitrates are approved additives for use in pork products. The Government consider that existing levels of nitrates in food products are sufficiently protective of consumers. We are keen to support innovation in the food industry. Where individual companies use authorised alternatives, it is ultimately a commercial decision. The Government’s position is that any intervention should be restricted to areas where there are potential health and safety concerns based on available evidence.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his Answer, but I ask him: will the Government consider a review of regulation surrounding the use of nitrites in food production, following action taken in the French National Assembly to bring in legislation to minimise the use of nitrites in cured meats? Given the association of nitrites with a heightened risk of bowel cancer and that risk-free alternatives are widely available, would the Minister support a ban on the use of these chemicals in food production? When he is next in Northern Ireland, will he visit and tour factories beside me in Downpatrick that use innovation to produce nitrite-free food?
Lord Benyon (Con)
I think the company to which the noble Baroness refers produces something called Better Naked, which is a very worthy product and has a lot of innovative approaches. However, we are following the evidence on this: while the IARC published a report that said that processed meats can be carcinogenic in some cases, it does not make a direct link between the consumption of nitrates and nitrites in processed meats and colorectal cancer. We must be very mindful of the fact that these products in meats inhibit the growth of conditions such as clostridium botulinum, which can of course be fatal.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, will my noble friend accept that the pig industry is suffering a crisis that is unprecedented in its history? Will he join me in regretting the closure of the Vale of Mowbray facility at Leeming Bar—a 100 year-old facility involved in world-famous pork pies—with the loss of 171 jobs? What future does he see for the pig industry in this country going forward?
Lord Benyon (Con)
We want a good future for the pig industry, which has struggled for many years. As a Government we have stepped in where we can: we introduced more visas for butchers, private storage aid and the slaughter incentive payment scheme. Over 760 tonnes of pigmeat was put into the Government’s freezer storage plan, and this has ended, to the greatest extent, the backlog of pigmeat that was on farms.
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)
My Lords, nitrates are found in many foods and can be harmless, but when used to cure bacon, which is then cooked and ingested, they can result in cancers. Nitrate-free bacon represents only about 10% of current sales. We do not need chemicals to produce delicious bacon. Why are the Government not encouraging other nitrate-free methods of production? Why would the public choose something that will harm them over a non-toxic alternative?
Lord Benyon (Con)
The public are informed about what is in their food by the labelling. Any nitrates or nitrites that are in food do appear on the label, so the public can make an informed choice. But I repeat what I said to the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, about the importance of getting a balanced view: there is not a clear scientific link between colorectal cancers and these additives. Of course, we must be mindful that these additives protect consumers from conditions such as clostridium botulinum, which, I repeat, can be fatal.
Lord Bellingham (Con)
My Lords, I declare my interests as set out in the register. Is the Minister aware that the vast majority of large pig producers in East Anglia set the highest possible standards and have also done all they possibly can to reduce run-off into watercourses? Surely, the challenge now is to make sure that smaller producers also follow these very high standards?
Lord Benyon (Con)
My noble friend is absolutely right: we want to see improved animal welfare standards, productivity and growth across the agricultural sector. In East Anglia, where the majority of our larger pork enterprises exist, huge strides have been taken. As of yesterday, the pork price was about £1.98 per kilo, which is considerably up on where it was last February, when it was around £1.37. This is a massive improvement, but many pig producers are still finding that their costs of production exceed their income. The Government are doing all we can to make sure that they are a profitable part of our farming sector.
Lord Bird (CB)
If noble Lords will forgive me, I will take this opportunity to “do a Lord West”. The noble Lord seems to be able to get ships in everywhere. Can I get poverty in here? Is the Government going to bring home the bacon for the neediest among us?
Lord Benyon (Con)
The noble Lord is a genius for how he wove that in. He is absolutely on the same page as the Government, who are doing all we can to help household income across the board. Compared with previous decades, food has been a relatively small element of household expenditure, but it is nevertheless significant and it has been affected by inflation. But just concentrating on food is not enough; we need to look at the whole area of household expenditure, which of course includes energy and other elements.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
My Lords, while we must not cause alarm by overstating any risks posed by nitrates and nitrites in bacon and other cured meats, we cannot deny that a growing body of evidence links these chemicals to various illnesses. Although we may not have an appetite for a full ban, many other countries are taking clear steps to limit the use of nitrates and nitrites in pork products. So does the Minister see any future reputational risks for UK products if other countries move forward and adopt more stringent measures and we do not?
Lord Benyon (Con)
We work very closely with the European agency that does this. It is quite wrong for Ministers to make sweeping decisions on this; it has to be on the basis of evidence. The Food Standards Agency is the lead on this, and it has given Ministers clear information. The 2015 IARC report stated that how cancer risk is increased by processed meat consumption is “not yet fully understood”. How processed meat is cooked—for example, the temperature—and some natural components in the meat itself could be contributing factors. As the noble Baroness said, other foods naturally have large amounts of nitrates: chard and broccoli are but two.
Plurilingual and Intercultural Education
(1 year, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Coussins
To ask His Majesty’s Government what steps they intend to take in response to the recommendations of the Council of Europe of 2 February (CM/Rec(2022)1) on the importance of promoting plurilingual and intercultural education to support democratic culture.
Baroness Coussins (CB)
My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper, and I remind the House of my language interests, as set out in the register.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Education (Baroness Barran) (Con)
My Lords, languages education is an important element in developing a democratic and socially just society. We are incredibly fortunate to have English as our lingua franca, but we also value familiarity with other languages and cultures. Highlighting the interconnectedness of languages and increasing the profile of community languages is part of our new language support offer from 2023. Revised GCSE content will make languages more accessible and improve uptake. New measures will increase the number of language teachers.
Baroness Coussins (CB)
My Lords, I am pleased, of course, that as one of the 47 members of the Council of Europe, the UK signed up to this recommendation and I am encouraged by the positive words from the Minister. But the Government also decided to withdraw the UK’s membership of the council’s European Centre for Modern Languages. This means that our teachers no longer have access to a wide range of valuable professional development opportunities, which, at a time of MFL teacher shortage and under-recruitment, seems perverse. Will the Minister agree to reconsider UK membership of the ECML as one of the specific measures we could take to back up our in-principle support for this recommendation?
Baroness Barran (Con)
My understanding is that the decision to withdraw from the council’s European Centre for Modern Languages was taken over a decade ago and we have no plans to rejoin at this time. We currently fund teacher continuing professional development via the National Centre for Excellence for Language Pedagogy. To encourage recruitment for the academic year 2023-24, we have increased the language bursary to £25,000 and we are also offering a prestigious scholarship worth £27,000 for French, German and Spanish trainees.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, will the Minister give us some idea of the Government’s assessment of the cost of not having sufficient people understanding other modern languages—or are the Government happy to have our heads eternally bowed to Google Translate?
Baroness Barran (Con)
I am not aware of whether those costings have been done, but if they have, I am more than happy to share them with the House.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, I congratulate the Prime Minister on attending in person the first meeting of the European Political Community, in Prague, which discussed security and energy. Will the Minister join me in encouraging the Prime Minister—whoever he or she may be, and from whichever party— to attend the Council of Europe summit to be held in Reykjavik in May next year?
Baroness Barran (Con)
I do not believe our Prime Minister needs any advice on that matter.
Baroness Hooper (Con)
My Lords, given that English is the most spoken language in the world and that Spanish, as a first language, is the second most spoken language, will my noble friend reassure me that priority will always be given to the teaching of Spanish?
Baroness Barran (Con)
I thank my noble friend for her question. I am sure she will be pleased, as I am, to note that Spanish is now the second most popular modern foreign language at GCSE with almost 110,000 entries in the academic year 2020-21.
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, does the noble Baroness agree that the BBC World Service is a major promoter of democratic culture and the English language worldwide? Does she think that, at a time when courageous protesters in Iran, especially women, are seeking reform and change in that country—over 1 million of whom listen to BBC radio on the World Service—this is a good time to be cutting and removing those services for people who are so desperate to see the promotion of democracy?
Baroness Barran (Con)
Like all Members of the House, I have the deepest respect for the courage of very young women in Iran, in particular, and the process they have led. I am sure my colleagues at the Foreign Office are listening to the noble Lord’s comments.
Lord Anderson of Swansea (Lab)
My Lords, a knowledge of foreign languages opens doors, particularly for business. What encouragement, in the form of in-service training or financial help, is given to the private sector to work with government in order to ensure that we encourage UK plc to open doors through the use of language?
Baroness Barran (Con)
Obviously, the Government support continuing professional development for people in work—this includes our commitment to a lifelong loan entitlement—so that we as an economy and as workers within that economy can stay agile to the requirements, whether languages or more broadly.
The Earl of Clancarty (CB)
My Lords, focusing on the “intercultural education” aspect of this Question, can the Minister say what assessment has been made so far of the loss of value represented by the lack of reciprocity in the Turing scheme?
Baroness Barran (Con)
I do not have a formal assessment of the impact of the lack of reciprocity, but I am very pleased to share with the House that around 38,000 young people will be funded to take part in the Turing scheme this year, going to 150 locations, and that 52% of those young people come from disadvantaged backgrounds. The noble Earl understands better than I do that you cannot make a direct comparison with the Erasmus scheme, but I remind the House that in its last year 17,000 young people took part.
Baroness Janke (LD)
My Lords, does the Minister agree that the study of a foreign language provides unique opportunities to young people and to our country, given the growing isolation that has followed Brexit? Is she concerned that the lowest take-up of languages is in the poorest communities? What action will the Government take to ensure that young people in these communities receive their proper entitlement to such important educational opportunities and are not disfranchised from the international identity by recent Brexit developments?
Baroness Barran (Con)
The Government are concerned about the level of uptake of modern foreign languages in schools generally, and specifically in the communities to which the noble Baroness refers. That is why we announced in our schools White Paper that we are setting up a network of language hubs, introducing new continual professional development courses for language teachers at both primary and secondary level, and have undertaken a review of the modern foreign languages GCSE curriculum and syllabus, which we think will improve uptake.
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon (Lab)
My Lords, I remind noble Lords of my entries in the register. The Minister mentioned some facts and figures to do with the Turing scheme. Can she assure us that all students who spend a year abroad as part of their studies at university do not have to pay any extra and that their universities do not have to subsidise them in any way as a result of the change from Erasmus to the Turing scheme?
Baroness Barran (Con)
I will need to confirm the exact details of that in writing to the noble Baroness.
Lord Geddes (Con)
Does my noble friend agree that the reciprocal to this Question is equally applicable regarding the teaching of English to speakers of other languages? I declare an interest as the non-remunerated life president of Trinity College London.
Baroness Barran (Con)
I absolutely agree with my noble friend. That remains an area of important focus for the department.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
My Lords, languages unlock so many opportunities for young people, and a weight of research suggests that they positively affect all other subjects a child is studying. In light of this, we on these Benches propose after-school clubs for every child, which schools can choose to use—and often do use—for fun, accessible language provision. Will the Government consider adopting a similar measure, especially given the raging cost of living crisis?
Baroness Barran (Con)
As I mentioned, the Government’s focus is really on trying to improve the uptake of languages, particularly at GCSE level. That is why we have piloted the new curriculum. We are optimistic that it will be much more engaging for young people. That is in no way to diminish the value of after-school clubs, but the Government’s focus is on the former.
Ukraine: NATO
(1 year, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Campbell-Savours [V]
To ask His Majesty’s Government when they next intend to meet NATO officials to discuss progress in the conflict in the Ukraine.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Baroness Goldie) (Con)
My Lords, the United Kingdom continues to engage closely and regularly with our NATO allies as a key part of our response to Russia’s illegal invasion of Ukraine. The Secretary of State for Defence met his NATO counterparts on 12 October, where allies reiterated unequivocal support for Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity. We will continue to act alongside our NATO allies to counter Russian aggression.
Lord Campbell-Savours (Lab) [V]
My Lords, Ministers repeatedly blame the war for the economic crisis, and I agree. Can we have an assurance that with rampant inflation here at home, volatility in the international money markets and millions worldwide, including in the United Kingdom, facing deprivation, there are no circumstances whatever in which the UK would dispatch in isolation, or with others in NATO, combat military forces of any nature to engage in military action in Ukraine? We need to protect the international economy and seek to restrain Russian’s infrastructural bombing campaign before it is too late.
Baroness Goldie (Con)
As the noble Lord will be aware, since the illegal invasion of Ukraine occurred the United Kingdom has been at the forefront of assisting the country in defending itself. We have been working closely in conjunction with our NATO partners and with our other bilateral partners and friends within the EU. That concerted effort is the best way, I think, to seek to reject President Putin’s illegal incursion; certainly the resolve of all countries to support the rule of law and respect the right of sovereignty is determined and resolute.
The Lord Bishop of St Albans
My Lords, will the Minister give us an update on Russia’s use of drones yesterday, which caused such devastation among civilian populations? Is there any way we can give additional support to Ukraine to shoot these down? Is it not time that we urgently seek an international treaty on the use of drones, for everybody’s sake?
Baroness Goldie (Con)
I agree with the right reverend Prelate that the consequences of the drone attack on Kyiv have been devastating. I think that everyone has watched with horror as again civilians are targeted, people are killed and others are seriously injured. The right reverend Prelate will be aware that part of the United Kingdom’s support to Ukraine has been air defence systems. NATO, plus other bilateral states, with Ukraine, have been doing their best to support Ukraine in what it needs. We are cognisant of the danger presented by this form of attack by Russia. We are also aware that the equipment supplied to date has been greatly assisting Ukraine in seeing off this kind of threat.
Lord Howell of Guildford (Con)
I think one way of discouraging the use of these murderous drone weapons supplied by Iran is to make it clear to Iran that this could have very serious and disastrous consequences for Iran itself. I want to ask my noble friend whether she would encourage at any such meeting that is going to take place a very careful examination of the changing position of China and foreign policy experts in Beijing. Has she heard reports that China is becoming increasingly worried that its control and influence over Mr Putin is diminishing, and that it is very fearful that he is going to use tactical nuclear weapons? Will she make sure that we make full use of any change of opinion in China? Without China’s support, there really is a good chance that Moscow might change direction.
Baroness Goldie (Con)
My noble friend makes a very important point. I reassure him that the UK continues to engage with China at all levels in Beijing, London and the United Nations to make clear that the world is watching what China chooses to say and do and whether its actions contribute to peace and stability or it chooses to fuel aggression. We expect China to stand up for Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity and to uphold its commitment to the United Nations charter. It has an important role to play and we want to be sure, as a sovereign state, that we keep open the lines of communication so that we can convey the very relevant points to which my noble friend refers.
Lord Morris of Aberavon (Lab)
My Lords, as a once young naval soldier in Germany and a former Defence Minister, I fully support western Governments in providing arms to Ukraine. Since membership of NATO involves mutual obligations well beyond this, will the Government publish a paper spelling out the pros and cons if NATO membership is granted to Ukraine?
Baroness Goldie (Con)
As the noble and learned Lord is aware, the United Kingdom is sympathetic to Ukraine’s desire to join NATO. We are supportive of that aspiration, in line with the 2008 Bucharest summit declaration. However, at the end of the day, any decision on membership is for NATO allies and for aspirant countries to take.
Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)
The right reverend Prelate mentioned the drone attacks yesterday. What assessment have the Government made of the impact on Ukraine of the loss of power—about 30% of power has been lost—and is the West able to support Ukraine to keep the lights on?
Baroness Goldie (Con)
As the noble Baroness will be aware, the best that we can do, along with our allies and partners, is to support Ukraine in the defence of its territory in trying to see off the barbaric and illegal attacks to which it has been subjected by Russia. The principal concern has probably been the Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant, for understandable reasons. We welcome the efforts of the IAEA and United Nations staff to be on site, and we hope that will enable a robust inspection to be concluded. We are cognisant of the risk, and we will do everything that we can to continue to help Ukraine to see off the threat.
Lord Houghton of Richmond (CB)
My Lords, the interest of the House in the progress of the military situation in Ukraine is entirely understandable, but can the Minister reassure the House that the Government recognise the two very separate objectives of conflict termination and conflict resolution, and that it is not in policy formulation that we aspire to resolve the conflict through military means alone?
Baroness Goldie (Con)
It has been clear from the outset that our desire—or mission, if you like—was to support Ukraine in its attempts to defend itself against this illegal aggression and invasion of its sovereign territory. That is our role, as it is the role of NATO and other partners. As to the future, and whether the conflict can ever be resolved and negotiations embarked on, that is absolutely for Ukraine to determine.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
Was it not one of the beliefs of Putin, following his illegal invasion of Ukraine, that the members of NATO would split and start arguing among themselves? Is not one of the Government’s prime objectives, supported by all of us, that we maintain NATO’s unity in the face of that aggression? Can the Government reassure us that, at every opportunity, they will reiterate that to all our NATO allies?
Baroness Goldie (Con)
The noble Lord’s point is well made. He will realise, from the evidence available to us, that in the actions of NATO members—not only in their regular engagements but at the summit in Madrid and the consequent developments from that, whether it was the comprehensive assistance plan or the development of DIANA, the accelerator for the north Atlantic—there is an absolutely united resolve to support countries that find themselves the victims of illegal activity, illegal aggression and illegal invasion. There is no question that the resolve of the member states of NATO is absolutely steady and stable. We are standing shoulder to shoulder to ward off evil—because that is what we are talking about.
Lord Selkirk of Douglas (Con)
My Lords, will the Minister accept that there have been very staunch attacks on civilians and a great number of attacks on hospitals, as well as attacks on schools and stations? When these are all put together, is it not very difficult to try to imagine that these are anything other than crimes against humanity?
Baroness Goldie (Con)
I have no hesitation in agreeing with my noble friend. We have all been appalled by the barbarism of Russia’s attacks in Ukraine, not least in Kyiv. It is quite clear that deliberate attacks on civilians and civilian infrastructure are war crimes, and those responsible will be held to account. The ICC, with support from countries such as the UK, is doing a remarkable job in ensuring that crimes are investigated, evidence is gathered and the basis is laid for successful prosecutions.
Lord Campbell of Pittenweem (LD)
My Lords, what concrete steps have the Government taken in their efforts to restore the stocks of missiles and other weapons which we have generously and properly supplied to the Government of Ukraine?
Baroness Goldie (Con)
As I have observed to the noble Lord before, we continually manage and analyse our stocks of weapons and munitions against commitments and threats. We also review industrial capacity and supply chains, both domestically and internationally. These considerations have informed the numbers of munitions granted in kind to the armed forces of Ukraine and their avenues of supply.
Menopause
(1 year, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Thornton
To ask His Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking (1) to support women going through menopause, and (2) to increase general awareness about the challenges it poses.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Lord Markham) (Con)
My Lords, the menopause is a priority area in the women’s health strategy. The NHS has a programme to improve clinical menopause care in England and reduce disparities in access to treatment. It is also developing an education and training package on menopause for healthcare professionals. We have appointed Professor Dame Lesley Regan as the women’s health ambassador for England. Her role includes raising awareness of women’s health issues, including menopause.
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
I thank the Minister for that Answer. Today is World Menopause Day. My Question is broader than those which concern only the medical response, so I would regard the Minister’s response as inadequate. Given the doubling of menopause-related discrimination claims in a year, showing that we are losing working women from the economy who are otherwise at the peak of their skills and experience, should the Minister not counter employer mismanagement of a transition that all women go through by requiring the HSE and the EHRC to publish advice on this urgently, as neither of them do so?
Lord Markham (Con)
I thank the noble Baroness. I agree that it is fitting that we should be having this debate today, World Menopause Day. I completely agree with the importance of this subject for employers, productivity and the economy as a whole, as well as for women’s health.
As I am sure the noble Baroness is aware, 10% of people end up leaving their job during menopause. That is a real loss to business and those individuals. That is why, through our strategy, we are appointing an employee champion in this area. Their job will be to reach out to employers and work with them to make sure that this subject is very high up on their agenda. As an employer myself, in my personal entrepreneurial life, I agree that it is an area of utmost importance.
Lord Patel (CB)
My Lords, women with post-menopausal symptoms are disadvantaged by not getting the treatment they need due to restrictions put on the treatments by local formularies. Does the Minister agree that we need a national formulary where all hormone replacement therapy treatments are available to women who need them, and that that national formulary should be made mandatory? If he does not agree, why not?
Lord Markham (Con)
I agree that we want to make sure that there is national access. I understand that, whereas we had 30% take-up as long ago as the 1990s, with the incorrect scare around some of the causes since then, that rate is only about 15% today. There is clearly a need to increase awareness and the ability for people to receive treatment.
I am aware of the issue around formularies; I have heard that they believe that it can be resolved. I will take it away and write to the noble Lord to make sure that it is properly dealt with.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
My Lords, in the initial Answer that he gave to the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, the Minister said that access to support during the menopause is vital. Does he therefore agree that, for health and economic reasons, the menopause should be added to the quality and outcomes framework to encourage doctors to investigate and treat patients who present with symptoms associated with the menopause?
Lord Markham (Con)
Yes. The noble Baroness will be aware that only 55% of women showing symptoms felt able to talk to GPs about it and another 30% felt that there were delays in diagnosis. Clearly, more work needs to be done. I know that it is part of the core curriculum—that is not the proper phrasing; please excuse me. The whole point of appointing a women’s health ambassador is to make sure that every avenue and channel is used to maximise access, whether at the level of GPs or as part of the education or formularies.
Baroness Gale (Lab)
My Lords, what consideration has been given to allow women who need treatment for the menopause to have free prescriptions, as they do in Wales, for example, where no one has to pay for any prescriptions, and in Scotland and Northern Ireland? Only in England are there prescription fees. Free prescriptions would be a great help to women and would remove a financial barrier to accessing treatment.
Lord Markham (Con)
With constraints on the public purse, I like many others believe that targeted support is probably the best form of support, and 60% of women receive it free. At the same time, as I am sure the noble Baroness is aware, to prevent it being a barrier to the others, next year we are introducing a fixed cap so that the costs should be a maximum of only £19 per year, which I believe will not act as a disincentive to the 40% who can afford to pay.
Lord Kakkar (CB)
My Lords, I draw attention to my registered interests. The menopause is associated with an increased risk of heart attacks and strokes as a result of falling oestrogen levels. Despite this, women are consistently less well represented in cardiovascular clinical research than men. Is the Minister content that the ongoing publicly funded research effort in cardiovascular disease will be able adequately to address the challenge of postmenopausal heart disease?
Lord Markham (Con)
I will not pretend to be able to give a detailed answer at this point. I am aware that part of the funding through the health and wellbeing fund is to make sure that women’s reproductive health is included in some of those research programmes, but I will look specifically at the cardiovascular point and respond in writing.
Baroness Hussein-Ece (LD)
My Lords, is the Minister aware of the report from the Fawcett Society which estimated that 900,000 women have left the workforce and countless others are reducing their hours and avoiding promotion because of their menopause symptoms? The Minister partially addressed this in response to the noble Baroness earlier, but what plans do the Government have, if any, to stem the flow of those experienced women leaving the workforce, which has an ongoing impact on equalities and the ability of women to pursue their careers in the way that men do?
Lord Markham (Con)
I again agree with the point. Helpfully, the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, pointed me towards the excellent Fawcett Society report this morning, for which I am grateful. It makes for a very interesting read. As I mentioned earlier, the statistic that 10% of women during the menopause end up leaving employment is a telling one. That is what the appointment of health ambassador for the employers is all about. I hope that noble Lords will see the seriousness with which I take this subject, because it is vital not only to women but to the economy and business as a whole. This time next year—if I am still here—I commit to doing a stocktake report on the progress that we have made on this over the year, because I think it is vital.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for the very serious tone of his response to this Question. I declare an interest which is not in the register but is self-evident from my date of birth, which is public information. Will he readdress that part of my noble friend’s question that was about the EHRC and whether that public body has a role in setting out guidance for employers? Will he, in the light of his commitment on this subject, suggest that the Equality Act needs to be at the very least enforced and possibly beefed up in this regard?
Lord Markham (Con)
I apologise if I have not answered the point on the EHRC satisfactorily and it is best that I follow it up in writing to make sure that I do so.
On the Equality Act, as I am sure everyone is aware, menopause should be covered as a protected characteristic within the terms of discrimination, be it on grounds of sex or age, and I believe there are cases where it has been shown to be used correctly in that regard, so the capability is there. However, if there is not adequate reason for redress under the Equality Act, that would obviously need to be looked at in the future.
Energy Prices Bill
Tuesday 18th October 2022
(1 year, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Energy Prices Act 2022 View all Energy Prices Act 2022 Debates Read Hansard Text Amendment Paper: Committee of the whole House Amendments as at 17 October 2022 - (17 Oct 2022)
Arrangement of Business
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
It may be for the convenience of your Lordships if I say that the House will have an opportunity to debate the Energy Prices Bill at Second Reading tomorrow. The Committee and Report stages will take place on 24 October, with Third Reading on Tuesday 25 October. If noble Lords wish to table amendments to the Bill, they may do so from this afternoon, once the Bill is printed, until 4 pm on Thursday 20 October. As noble Lords will know, amendments are tabled with the Public Bill Office in the usual way, and a message will appear on the annunciator when tabling opens today.
Looking ahead, the deadline for amendments at Report stage will be 30 minutes after the conclusion of Committee on Monday 24 October. Third Reading amendments should be tabled on Monday evening for Third Reading the following day. As usual, the Government Whips’ Office and the Public Bill Office are available to assist noble Lords with any detailed questions.
Replacement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer
(1 year, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord True) (Con)
My Lords, I think this was originally a Question asked of the Prime Minister. There has not been a Prime Minister in your Lordships’ House since 1963. I am not travelling in hope.
I will venture to make a comment on the matter. It is a central responsibility for any Government to do what is necessary for economic stability and the Prime Minister took the decision to appoint my right honourable friend Mr Jeremy Hunt, who is one of the longest-serving and most experienced parliamentarians and, I think, widely respected on all sides of your Lordships’ House, as her Chancellor. His overriding priority is to restore financial stability in the face of volatile global conditions.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
My Lords, the Minister gave a much shorter answer than the one given in the House of Commons. I entirely agree with the first paragraph of his full Answer, which may surprise noble Lords. He said that,
“it is a central responsibility of any Government to do what is necessary for economic stability”.
Yet in the last few weeks this Government announced the biggest tax cuts since 1972 and then, within a matter of weeks, the biggest tax increases since 1993—hardly stability. The answer to this fiasco is apparently to have the fourth Chancellor of the Exchequer in under a year, with a threat of—and I quote the Chancellor—“eye-watering” further tax rises and public service cuts. Given that mortgage rates are higher today than they were yesterday, what does the noble Lord say to those who, because of the instability largely created by the Government, now face monthly mortgage increases of hundreds of pounds?
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, on the question of mortgages, everyone will be sensible to the position of those seeking to buy—I have a son seeking a mortgage at the moment—in conditions where interest rates are rising, which they are internationally. On the more general question, the Chancellor is clear that the Government will need to take some very difficult decisions on spending and tax to place the public finances on a sustainable footing. Sound public finances are the bedrock on which future economic growth will be built. There is no trade-off here; the mini-Budget moved further and faster than the market expected, but this Government remain committed to growth and supporting families and the most vulnerable in society. We will continue to seek to perform that duty.
Baroness Kramer (LD)
My Lords, the change of Chancellor may have mollified the financial markets slightly and temporarily but ordinary people, frankly, are on the verge of being utterly distraught. In addition to soaring food prices, mortgages and rents, they have no idea at all what their energy costs will be after April next year. When will people know what the cost of energy will be after next spring, because they have to plan and think it through? It is also crucial for businesses to know as they sign contracts. Also, how much will the typical individual be paying in bills and additional public service cuts to cover the costs of the permanent scarring and damage that the Government’s appalling handling of the last few weeks has caused to the UK economy?
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, apart from the rhetoric, the main part of the noble Baroness’s question was on energy prices. I hope that your Lordships have heard with delight that a Bill, for which I expect the support of both parties opposite, has been presented to the House on which we will debate these matters in some detail.
On the specifics, I say that continuing with the planned level of support between now and 2023 will remain a landmark policy. It will support millions of people through a difficult winter and means that they will not have to face bills as high as they would have been. A Treasury-led review has been announced into how we support energy bills beyond April next year; its objective is to design a new approach that will cost the taxpayer significantly less than planned while ensuring enough support for those in need, which I think all noble Lords would like to see. Equally, any support for businesses will be targeted to those most affected. This new approach will better incentivise energy efficiency. However, it is important to underline that the support with energy bills that my right honourable friend the Prime Minister so swiftly announced is going ahead, and what is being provided between now and next April will not change.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)
My Lords, does my noble friend not think that this is a moment for Members of Parliament to pull together? We are facing a global crisis caused by living on printed money on an immense scale—£450 billion—to deal with Covid. Frankly, it does not matter which Benches are in power; interest rates will go up very considerably as a result. Therefore, it is necessary for us to focus on the policy changes needed to protect those who will be unable to pay their bills. Playing politics with this does no credit to Parliament and nothing to help those who will be affected.
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, my noble friend, with his enormous and widely respected knowledge as a former chairman of your Lordships’ Economic Affairs Committee, makes a very strong point about the international situation. However, His Majesty’s Government must deal with what they can do here at home. In offering protection, as we have discussed, we will also continue to seek to promote growth. We will launch investment zones—I hope that they will be widely supported by your Lordships—and shortly introduce minimum service levels for transport services in Great Britain, ensuring that militant strike action cannot derail economic growth and union bosses cannot hold working people to ransom.
The Lord Bishop of Oxford
My Lords, I welcome the new Chancellor, many of the measures announced yesterday, and the increased prospect of greater stability. I noticed that in his Statement yesterday he used the phrase “compassionate conservatism” several times. I wonder if the Minister would unpack that phrase a little, particularly on how the Chancellor will navigate to privilege the needs of the very poorest in society, perhaps especially in the outworking of the increase in benefits in line with price inflation, and in looking to see a decrease in the use of foodbanks in the coming years, which has escalated in major ways in the last decade.
Lord True (Con)
I welcome the opportunity to follow the right reverend Prelate on that point. As I tried to say in my earlier answers, the position of those in need will be at the forefront of the Government’s consideration. We know that people across the United Kingdom are worried about the cost of living; that is why the Government have announced £37 billion of support for the cost of living this financial year. In addition, the energy price guarantee and energy bill relief scheme are supporting households and businesses. We are also supporting millions of the most vulnerable households with £1,200 of on-off support. So far as specific decisions on benefits are concerned, they will have to wait for my right honourable friend’s Statement.
Lord Anderson of Swansea (Lab)
Is not the word “replacement” in the Question a euphemism for being ignominiously and publicly sacked? Was it really fair, just and moral to sack someone who was simply carrying out a jointly agreed policy with the Prime Minister?
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, I explained the reasons for the appointment of my right honourable friend, and I believe that it was a good appointment.
Lord Walney (CB)
Has not the Chancellor effectively announced a comprehensive spending review? Would it not be helpful and transparent to treat it as such across Parliament?
Lord True (Con)
There will be a Statement by my right honourable friend; I believe that 31 October is still the date suggested. Work is proceeding at pace and I assure your Lordships that they will receive full information on that in the same way as the other House.
Lord Cormack (Con)
My Lords, does my noble friend agree that we now have a wholly credible Chancellor who fully deserves our support, and that it is important that we have a wholly credible Government as well?
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, I believe that we have such a Government.
Lord Hain (Lab)
My Lords, was not the Chancellor’s Statement yesterday just a bonfire of Truss economic insanities?
Lord True (Con)
No. A number of very important steps have been taken by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister to which your Lordships are invited to assent. Yesterday, for example, I was very grateful for your Lordships’ support for the Bill that was passed that concerned reversing the national insurance levy, and I am hoping for equal support for my right honourable friend’s initiative in relation to the Energy Prices Bill.
Lord Sikka (Lab)
My Lords, the Government’s austerity policies have already caused over 334,000 deaths. Why is the Government looking for further cuts in public spending?
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, I realise the economic stable from which the noble Lord came, but the central responsibility for any Government is to do what is necessary for economic stability, and that means that there will need to be reflection on levels of both spending and taxation. As my right honourable friend has made clear, there will be difficult decisions, there will need to be spending restraint, and departments will need to find further efficiencies, but more details will be set out in the medium-term fiscal plan, as I said earlier.
Social Housing (Regulation) Bill [HL]
Tuesday 18th October 2022
(1 year, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Social Housing (Regulation) Act 2023 View all Social Housing (Regulation) Act 2023 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 54-I Marshalled list for Report - (14 Oct 2022)
17:18 - Division on Amendment 14 - Ayes: 189 / Noes: 176 - Amendment 14 agreed.
17:50 - Division on Amendment 23 - Ayes: 171 / Noes: 175 - Amendment 23 disagreed.
Baroness Pinnock
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment would require the fundamental objectives to include reference to energy efficiency.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
I draw the attention of the House to my relevant interests as a vice-president of the Local Government Association and as a local councillor. I start by reaffirming what I have said throughout our deliberations on the Bill: the Liberal Democrat Benches welcome and support the Bill’s purpose. However, there is always room for improvement, as the tabling of 31 government amendments clearly illustrates.
The purpose of Amendment 1 in my name is to ensure that the principle—and thus importance—of energy efficiency is one of the stated priorities and objectives of the regulator. In Committee, the Minister was not convinced by my argument, saying that energy efficiency is being addressed as part of a separate refurbishment programme. I am pleased to see a positive change of heart and a willingness to accept the argument, as demonstrated by the fact that the Minister has added her name to my amendment.
Adding energy efficiency as a key objective enables the regulator to influence those providers who have so far failed to bring their properties up to a C rating. One-third of social houses are in this bracket, and homes in the UK are among the worst insulated in the whole of Europe. Soaring energy prices mean that, even with the Government’s support until next April, homes will have energy bills that are on average two times higher than last winter’s. That will put a huge strain on household finances.
Now that the Government have pulled the universal support for bills after April and support will be more focused, apparently, average bills will be around £4,000 and completely unaffordable for those on lower incomes. An urgent programme to improve energy efficiency in all homes is urgently needed, but more so in homes in the social housing sector. The noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, has a detailed amendment to this effect, Amendment 14, which has been co-signed by my noble friend Lord Foster of Bath. We wholeheartedly agree with it. Will the Minister commit to an urgent programme of improving the energy efficiency of homes in the social housing sector? After all, this will contribute to the Government’s growth agenda in a positive way, and it could save each household around £800 a year.
Amendment 2 in my name relates to the ongoing scandal of fire and building safety remediation. This amendment proposes that the remediation programme in the sector should be monitored by the regulator. In her reply to the same amendment in Committee, the Minister said:
“The department is currently examining options for monitoring and reporting remediation progress in future, including cladding remediation. We strongly believe that decisions in this area should be based on thorough analysis of available options; this will ensure that the function is undertaken by those with the correct skills, expertise and capacity.”—[Official Report, 6/9/22; col. 114.]
Right. Can the Minister provide information on the progress of this proposed monitoring? What reassurance can she provide to those in shared equity arrangements, some of whom are contacting me with grave concerns that they will have a significant liability as a consequence of the arrangements that have been made?
This group includes Amendment 31 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, which seeks to put more accountability into the hands of tenants. Obviously, these Benches completely support that amendment.
Finally, I return to the important need for substantial energy-efficiency improvements in the homes of those least able to meet the enormous hike in energy prices. Both the amendment in my name and that of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, propose practical solutions. I look forward to the debate on this group and the Minister’s response. I beg to move.
Baroness Hayman (CB)
My Lords, I remind the House of my interests as set out in the register and also note that a member of my family has recently undertaken some work in this field. I thank the Minister; she has been very approachable between Committee and Report and has given a lot of time to this. I am grateful for her attempts to come to some sort of positive conclusion on this.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, said, with this group of amendments, we return to the need, which was supported around the House at all earlier stages of the Bill, for a concerted effort to improve energy efficiency in social housing and bring social housing tenants the benefits achieved in terms of warmer, safer, better-insulated and healthier homes and, of course, reduced cost. That cost reduction extends to the Government and taxpayers, who are currently spending eye-watering amounts of money to reduce bills this year, with no benefit for years to come.
I have Amendment 14 in this group, as the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, said. I am extremely grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Bourne, Lord Foster and Lord Whitty, who added their names to this amendment, demonstrating that cross-party support. I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, is still unwell and is unable to be with us.
Before focusing on my own amendment, I will say a few words about Amendment 1. I am delighted that the Minister is supporting the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock. It is always helpful to have the importance of energy efficiency made explicit in statute and I welcome that. But I have to say that even if such an addition to the duties of the regulator is technically necessary—and, of course, the Minister argued in Committee that it was not and would be only “symbolic”—it is certainly not sufficient to ensure that we make progress. I am afraid that the history of the last five years suggests that without a firm and specific legislative mandate, we will not make the step change that is necessary.
The Government first promised a consultation on improving energy-efficiency standards for social housing as part of the clean growth strategy in 2017. No such consultation emerged in the following four years, then in last year’s heat and buildings strategy, the Government diluted their commitment to one of “considering” setting a long-term regulatory standard and consulting before bringing any such standard forward. Nothing more has happened, so we are back to where we were in 2017, and social housing tenants and the taxpayer have become increasingly exposed to the costs of much higher energy bills, some of which are not down to global factors but to domestic inaction on energy efficiency.
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth (Con)
My Lords, I support the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, and in doing so declare my interest as on the register and that I am a member of Peers for the Planet. As the noble Baroness said, the amendment has also been signed by the noble Lords, Lord Foster of Bath and Lord Whitty, and I am sure that I send the best wishes of the whole House to the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, for a speedy recovery.
Let me say something first about energy efficiency before moving specifically to the amendment. In the area of energy efficiency, we are presented with a sweet spot where we can do a considerable amount for so many different areas of activity. First, on energy security, which is clearly a problem for many countries, including our own, we can ensure that we garner and use our supplies sensibly. Therefore, ensuring that energy is sensibly used seems to me to be of paramount importance.
In addition, particularly in this area of activity, by ensuring that energy is conserved we are helping those who are least able to pay for it. That has become more important since the action of the new Chancellor. I applaud the action he has taken in general, but of course it will present a potential headache in six months’ time for people who are unable to pay their energy bills. This is a way of helping in that regard.
In addition, by promoting energy efficiency we are providing jobs for people, which seems a sensible thing to do. Therefore I am unable to understand why the Government do not move to do something constructive in this area. It could be done with very little cost and would show a commitment to tackling climate change, which of course is the most important global area we are looking at.
The Government profess that they are supportive of action to combat climate change. Indeed, they are supportive of the Climate Change Committee and so on. But words are cheap. When it comes to action, we very often find the Government wanting and not providing leadership. I have the utmost respect for my noble friend the Minister. I know her well. I like her. I think she is a good Minister. But the Government are dragging their feet in this area and the lack of strategy is worrying. We have seen where a lack of strategy has led on the economy, and the same will happen in this area if we are not careful. Leadership has been left to Back-Benchers. There has been no leadership from the Government. They have not come up with their own proposals in relation to the amendment we are putting forward for a strategy. Have the Government proposed their own strategy? No. Are they against having a strategy in this area? It would seem so. I will happily give way to the Minister if she is able, at this stage, to say that she will bring forward a strategy at Third Reading —or later today, perhaps. But there is no strategy from the Government. There is a void here and that really is appalling.
We heard the Government say previously that there needed to be consultation, and this is one reason why noble Lords are being invited to vote against the amendment. The amendment provides for consultation. If the Government think it insufficient, let them say that the consultation should be carried out in a different way. But there is a practical, sensible provision for consultation here that I think has the support of the House. If it were not a whipped vote, it would probably go through nem con. I cannot understand why the Government are opposing this. It makes total sense. It is practical, pragmatic and sensible. If the Government do not like parts of the amendment, they should say what they are. As the noble Baroness said, this consultation has been on the stocks for five years. That is an awfully long time in terms of climate change. In another five years, we shall have lost Tuvalu to the world. If we sit back and do nothing, we are signing up to that.
So it is for the Government now to come forward with some leadership in this area. So far, there has been a void and it looks like that will continue. I strongly support this amendment. I invite the Government, even at this 11th hour, to say that they will support it, or come forward with an amendment of their own to ensure that we are able to do something constructive in this area. It is easy to say that you are signed up against climate change, but it is action that is needed, not just warm words.
The Lord Bishop of Chelmsford
My Lords, it is good to see this important Bill continuing its progression through this House. I begin by declaring my specific interests as the Church of England’s lead bishop for housing and as a beneficiary of the Church Commissioners.
I add my support to Amendment 1 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock. As the energy crisis unfolds, it is surely wise to address the issue of energy efficiency in the social housing sector in a systematic way, by including it as a fundamental objective. Many who live in social homes are among those with the lowest incomes, so they are already struggling to meet their energy bills right now. In addition to immediate relief and support, we also need to address energy efficiency to ensure true affordability in the long term.
Amendment 2, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, would secure continued accountability on progress to remove dangerous cladding and the remediation of fire safety work—an important part of ensuring that a tragedy such as the Grenfell tower fire cannot happen again. As the Archbishops’ commission on housing, church and community rights states in its Coming Home report:
“The Grenfell victims and bereaved families deserve a profound change of culture in the housing sector to make the safety of residential housing stock an absolute priority.”
I also support Amendment 14, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman. A government strategy setting out a plan of energy demand reduction for social housing will be a significant step towards reducing energy bill costs and meeting our net-zero targets. Our national commitment to net-zero carbon emissions by 2050 will be achieved only if we are intentional about building to high thermal efficiency standards.
I very much look forward to the Government’s response on these important amendments, and to working with noble Lords across all Benches to address this nation’s housing crisis. Clearly, there is consensus across the House on the importance of addressing the major problems we now face in our social housing sector.
Lord Foster of Bath (LD)
My Lords, I too am delighted to support Amendments 1 and 14, and the others in this group.
As we have heard from other speakers, we are in an energy crisis. Despite the welcome government support —we will be debating that in more detail tomorrow—it is the least well-off who will be hit hardest, many of whom live in social housing. As the noble Lord, Lord Bourne, has pointed out, one of the best ways of helping such people is by reducing their demand for energy in the first place, not least by improving the energy efficiency of their homes, reducing bills, reducing excess winter deaths, improving the quality of life and, as the noble Lord pointed out, increasing the number of jobs.
The Building Back Britain Commission argues that energy bills can be reduced by at least £200 every year by improving a home’s energy performance from level D to C. Many homes start at an even lower level, so the savings would be even greater. Improving the energy efficiency of social housing makes sense, so I am delighted that the Minister has agreed to support the amendment of my noble friend Lady Pinnock, which makes it a fundamental objective of the regulator to include reference to energy efficiency.
However, by itself, that does not go far enough. Amendment 14 fills the gaps, not least by requiring the Government to publish a strategy on reducing energy demand for social housing properties within 12 months of the Bill being passed, with appropriate consultation; requiring a programme to support social housing providers to encourage energy demand reduction; and, crucially, establishing in law a target which ensures that all social housing properties achieve EPC level C by 2030.
I have spoken many times in your Lordships’ House about the need to establish the Government’s own energy efficiency targets in law. I have argued that the retrofit industry that will deliver the Government’s energy efficiency targets, but which has been let down by numerous failed schemes, has lost confidence. The industry has shrunk and energy efficiency work has fallen dramatically. It is the industry itself that argues that to be persuaded to invest in research, training and equipment, it needs the confidence that putting targets into legislation would give.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
My Lords, we believe that this is a very important Bill and broadly, it has our support. Today, we are discussing areas where we think it could be improved. I thank the Minister and her officials for the attention they have provided to our amendments and for the discussions we have had; they have been extremely helpful and we very much appreciate that.
My Amendment 3 would ensure that the panel is chaired by a tenant, and my Amendment 31 would ensure that the Secretary of State introduces “tenant satisfaction measures”. I have tabled these amendments because we believe it is vital that tenants are at the centre of any changes being brought forward through this Bill, that they are consistently listened to and that their concerns taken seriously and acted upon when that needs to happen.
The Government have already committed to introducing a set of tenant satisfaction measures. We know that all stock-holding local authorities will need to be adequately funded by the Government to deliver this new statutory requirement to collect housing-related data, in line with the new burdens doctrine. I thank the Local Government Association for its support for my Amendment 31, on tenant satisfaction. Can the Minister and the Government look at these areas again as we move through the Bill?
The noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, opened our debate, and we support her Amendment 2. As the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chelmsford said, talking about the continued importance of the removal of cladding and remediation around fire safety continues to keep that accountability on the face of everything that we are doing. We must not forget why we are here with the Bill in the first place.
I am pleased that the Government support Amendment 1 from the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, but, as other noble Lords have said, the energy demand and efficiency matters raised by various amendments in Committee and on Report are critical, and we believe that the Government need to give further consideration to them. Like the noble Lord, Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth, I do not really understand the Government’s reluctance to act on this issue. We know that it can make a real difference not just to climate change and reducing energy use but to the cost of living crisis that we are facing. Given the recent warnings from the national grid about the prospect of power cuts this winter, the Government need to take this more seriously than they have.
I draw particular attention to Amendment 14, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman. As we have heard, it requires the Secretary of State to publish the social housing energy demand strategy, which she introduced extremely thoroughly. She went into some detail about how this can be achieved, why we need it and the importance of this amendment, and other noble Lords have stressed that they strongly agree with the noble Baroness. So again I urge the Minister to take this away and think about whether it is something the Government could do more on.
Like other noble Lords, we are pleased that the Minister has been able to accept Amendment 1 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, but it simply is not sufficient. I completely agreed with the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, when she said that we need a long-term strategy, a detailed plan and—as the noble Lord, Lord Bourne, also said—leadership. That is what we need to drive this forward.
I will not go into any more detail—we discussed this a lot in Committee and we have heard from noble Lords today—but, if the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, wishes to test the opinion of the House on this matter, she will have our full support.
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
My Lords, I apologise for missing my cue and interrupting the wind-ups. I will speak briefly to Amendments 2 and 14. On Amendment 2, veterans from the Building Safety Bill will recall that much of the debate focused on the impact on social housing of the costs of remediating the defects. This amendment would give the regulator a role in ensuring that this remediation was concluded satisfactorily.
Some of the information asked for in the noble Baroness’s amendment is already available. Figures from the building safety programme published last week showed that all 180 high-rise social housing buildings, bar one, have had the dangerous materials removed. Remediation has started on the final building, but the cladding has yet to be removed. The Government initially expected remediation to be completed by June 2020, so, after a slow start, it seems that real progress has been made, which is welcome. But 37 privately owned blocks still have Grenfell-style cladding five years after the fire.
Turning to funding, can my noble friend confirm that the social sector ACM cladding remediation fund has enough resources to compensate the social housing sector for the costs incurred and that there will be no impact on its development programme or rents as a result of the remediation? It appears that 17 of its buildings will not receive any money from the fund; is there a reason for this? Is it because the remediation was funded by the developers? Are the Government planning to recoup any of the costs to the fund from those responsible? In that context, can my noble friend update the House on the ongoing discussions with the private sector to get it to accept its responsibility for this debacle, with its tragic consequences?
The noble Baroness’s amendment, however, goes further than the removal of unsafe cladding and refers to
“the remediation of other fire safety defects in social housing.”
Will my noble friend say what progress has been made on that front, and in particular how much that will cost and how it will be funded without impacting on rents or development? Presumably the work was undertaken at the same time as the cladding removal, so this information is available.
While the amendment has provided a useful peg for a debate, I am not sure we need it in the Bill. The removal of cladding and fire safety defects are clearly needed to make a building safe—covered in Clause 1 —and the regulator already produces an annual report and accounts, which could include the information in the amendment, but it would be helpful to have some information about funding and the impact on the social housing sector.
Finally, turning to Amendment 14, I, along with others, am a planetary Peer—although flying at a much lower orbit than that of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman. As the noble Lord, Lord Foster, said, the amendment requires targets and the targets are important, but they require funding. Ideally, the funding to pay for these energy conservation measures should not be at the cost to the new build programme—which brings me to the social housing decarbonisation fund, mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, which was set up to improve the energy performance of social homes in England, including local authority stock.
I know that that fund is the responsibility of BEIS and not of my noble friend’s department, but it is directly relevant to the debate on energy efficiency in social housing. There was a manifesto commitment in 2019 of £3.8 billion to this fund over a 10-year period. Will my noble friend confirm that that is still the case and that the sum has not been eroded in the meantime? What has been the take-up and evaluation of that programme and what assessment has been made of the number of homes that the sum could improve the energy conservation of? If my noble friend cannot answer now, perhaps she will reply in writing.
Finally, I understand that the amendment may be unacceptable to my noble friend, but I wonder whether she can show a little bit of ankle in her reply and indicate that this is not the Government’s final word on this and that as the Bill proceeds downstream in another place there might be the opportunity for further discussion and improvement.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Levelling Up, Housing & Communities (Baroness Scott of Bybrook) (Con)
My Lords, before I turn to the amendments, I will say a few words about the Bill more generally to frame the debate for the rest of today. It is now over five years since 72 people tragically lost their lives in the Grenfell Tower fire. The situation in which the residents of Grenfell Tower were placed was unforgivable. The Bill we are debating is a key step in the department’s response to this tragedy, ensuring that social housing tenants are safe, have decent homes and receive a good service from their landlord.
I must also pay tribute to the work of Grenfell United, which has championed the Bill from the very beginning. The Bill appears before noble Lords today because of the commitment of Grenfell United to these critical issues, which affect millions of tenants up and down the country. It is right that we recognise specifically the leading role that Grenfell United has played.
I will begin with Amendments 1 and 14, and Amendments 33 and 36 in my name, which all relate to energy efficiency. Throughout the passage of the Bill, we have heard from many noble Lords about the importance of energy efficiency in social housing, and I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Pinnock and Lady Hayman, for their amendments. I turn first to the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, which advocates including energy efficiency in the Regulator of Social Housing’s fundamental objectives. Having listened to the powerful speeches made in Committee, I have added my name to her amendment and offer two further amendments—Amendments 33 and 36—which we think are necessary as consequential amendments to this.
As an aspect of housing quality, energy efficiency is already implicitly covered by the regulator’s fundamental objectives. The regulator’s home standard requires registered providers to comply with the Government’s decent home standards, which include requirements on energy efficiency. However, having considered further, we believe that these amendments would send a very strong signal to social housing providers and reinforce the broader importance of improving the energy efficiency of homes, to the benefit of communities, this country and the planet.
With the regulator having a specific objective to ensure that social housing maintains an appropriate level of energy efficiency, it will be important that government provides clarity on what standards of energy efficiency are expected of registered providers. That is why I am pleased to announce today that, following on from our 2021 Heat and Buildings Strategy—I say to my noble friend Lord Bourne that we do have a strategy—the Government will consult on energy efficiency in social housing within six months of the Bill receiving Royal Assent. I hope that answers a couple of questions from my noble friend Lord Bourne and the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock. I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, that as long as I am a Minister in the department, I will make sure that this time we deliver within the timescale we set out today—because my name is on this.
Lord Foster of Bath (LD)
Can the Minister confirm whether the Government already have their own target in relation to the number of homes that should be brought up to EPC level C, including all fuel-poor homes and those in the social housing sector?
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
I am not aware that there is a target. I will look to see whether there is one and come back to the noble Lord. As we have heard in this debate, the social housing sector is in fact better than any other sector at getting to EPC level C.
The noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, and my noble friend Lord Young asked whether we have an energy-efficiency programme and what we are doing about it. We do have an energy-efficiency programme—my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham mentioned it: the social housing decarbonisation fund. In the 2019 manifesto the Government committed £3.8 billion to this over a 10-year period. This will upgrade a significant proportion of the stock that at the moment is below EPC level C up to that standard. The latest funding round was launched in September this year, so it is continuing and ongoing. There is £3.8 billion to do just that.
I now turn to Amendment 2, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, regarding cladding remediation. Nothing is more important than keeping people safe in their homes. The department continues to work closely with registered providers to facilitate the remediation of unsafe cladding and other fire safety defects. However, we are not persuaded that the type of monitoring suggested by the noble Baroness’s amendment is necessarily appropriate for the Regulator of Social Housing. The regulator is not a specialist building safety body, nor does it collect data on hazards, safety breaches or associated remedial works. As I believe I said in Committee, the department is examining options relating to the monitoring of fire defects, including unsafe cladding. I know we are always saying this, but we will set out our plans in due course and I will keep the noble Baroness updated on those plans. As I said, I will personally keep an eye on them now that I am in the department.
The noble Baroness also asked what progress had been made on the monitoring of cladding for social homes and about shared equity. The Secretary of State made it clear that no leaseholder living in a building of above 11 metres will ever face any costs for fixing dangerous cladding, and that applies to shared ownership too. The Government will provide grant funding for the removal and replacement of unsafe cladding in buildings that are over 11 metres. We have also introduced a new model for shared ownership which will include a period during which the landlord will provide support for the cost of repairs in new-build homes as well. I hope that answers the noble Baroness’s question—I know that I am also answering a further question that she asked earlier in the week on a similar issue.
My noble friend Lord Young of Cookham asked for some details. I think I will need to write to him because he wanted quite a lot of detail. We recognise that some social landlords face significant building safety costs and that they are having to balance their existing budgets to support this. The Government committed over £400 million to fully fund the removal and replacement of unsafe ACM cladding systems on buildings over 18 metres that are owned by registered providers of social housing. The Government have also committed to meeting the costs of removing other types of unsafe cladding on social sector buildings over 18 metres where the financial viability of a registered provider would otherwise be threatened. We are working on it. My noble friend asked me a lot of other questions and I will make sure that we answer those in writing.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, has tabled two amendments relating to tenant engagement. I thank her for these because that is what the Bill is all about—tenants. I begin with Amendment 3, which seeks to require a social housing tenant to chair and set the agenda for the advisory panel. As I said in Committee, tenants are at the heart of the Bill. It is vital that we empower tenants and ensure that their voices are heard. I reiterate that the advisory panel is intended to allow a diverse range of individuals to share their knowledge and opinions with the regulator. The views of tenants are absolutely central to this objective.
However, I do not believe that requiring a social housing tenant to chair the advisory panel and set the agenda is necessary to ensure the views of tenants are heard. In line with the White Paper commitments, the panel will listen to, and balance the interests of, the full range of stakeholders, including tenants. We want all members of the advisory panel, along with the regulator, to shape its agenda and how it operates, and decide who is the best person to chair it at any one time; that might mean different chairs for different debates. The panel will provide an essential platform to give tenants a voice, which will be listened to and considered, alongside the opinions of other stakeholders. Tenants will continue to be central to the regulator’s work; it is already enabling tenants to influence the design and implementation of the new regulatory regime through a number of tenant engagement events.
I now move to Amendment 31 from the noble Baroness, which proposes that the Secretary of State introduces tenant satisfaction measures—TSMs—within 30 days of the Bill passing. The regulator has already consulted on and issued a standard for TSMs, which comes into force on 1 April 2023, alongside technical guidance to promote compliance. Tenants will be able to scrutinise the first full set of survey results in 2024 to evaluate the performance of their landlord.
The regulator developed the TSMs regime through a detailed consultation process, gathering over 1,000 responses from stakeholders, including tenants, landlords and trade bodies. Given this detailed process, and the progress that the regulator has already made in implementing TSMs, there is no need for an amendment requiring the Secretary of State to introduce them. In the light of the commitments and points I have made, I hope that noble Lords are reassured and will not press their amendments.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
My Lords, I thank everyone around the House for a good debate on the issues, particularly those of energy efficiency and the affordability of energy for heating homes. I add my thanks to the Minister for being so open about having a discussion and trying to resolve some of the issues that we have raised. She has been very generous with her time, especially when she has had this Bill put in her lap at the last minute, so to speak. I thank her for the support for Amendment 1 in my name.
On Amendment 2, it is still unclear to me why, if one of the fundamental objectives of the regulator is safety, monitoring the remediation of cladding cannot be included—but there we are. I am pursuing this issue elsewhere, as the Minister well knows, and I shall do so.
The key issue is how very disappointing it is that the Government are apparently unable to support Amendment 14 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman. We need a strategy that will work, and clearly we do not have one, otherwise one-third of houses in the social housing sector would not still be well below the EPC level C rating. I am fed up with all this bidding for money at the centre; it is very ineffective. We need a proper strategy to get this done, as Kirklees Council did when I was leader, with the Kirklees warm homes scheme.
With those final comments, I beg to move the amendment.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the amendment in the Minister’s name to insert a new clause before clause 19 inserting a new section 194ZA into the Housing and Regeneration Act 2008.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, there was an extremely important debate in Committee on the professionalisation of the social housing sector. As a Government Whip at that stage, I committed to speak to the new Minister once in post to let them know the strong views of the House on this issue. The noble Baroness will be reassured to hear that the conversation went well, even if it was a little one-sided.
Let me be clear: the Government support the professionalisation of the sector. We strongly agree that there is a need to improve the behaviours, skills and capabilities of staff in the sector. The Grenfell tragedy and our subsequent social housing Green Paper consultation highlighted that many staff did not listen to or treat residents with respect, provide a high-quality service, or deal appropriately with complaints. That is why we have brought forward Amendments 18 to 39, which address these issues. The amendments give the Secretary of State a power to direct the regulator to set regulatory standards on the competence and conduct of all staff delivering services in connection with the management of social housing. A competence and conduct standard will require landlords to ensure that their staff have the skills, knowledge, experience and behaviours they need to deliver professional services. Qualifications such as those offered by the Chartered Institute of Housing will be one part of how landlords could achieve this, as part of a holistic approach to staff training and development.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
My Lords, I shall introduce my Amendment 23. I thank the Minister for her introduction of her amendments, for listening to the debate on this in Committee and for bringing the amendments forward today. The government amendments really address competence and skills and, to my mind, the industry should already have competence and skills as part of its training and how it operates. The question I ask myself is: is this sufficient or is professionalisation needed?
We know that the Government recognised the need for a professionalised social housing sector in the White Paper back in 2020, but we all need to consider the fact that the Grenfell Tower fire back in 2017 is a stark example of exactly what can happen when we have an underregulated, unprofessional management in social housing. This is why Grenfell United and others believe that professional qualifications in part of the sector is so important. We believe there should be clear recognition of this and that the Government should be driving towards a properly trained professional sector that has ethics and values underpinning it. We know that Grenfell United has made it very clear that the bereaved and the survivors of the fire want this to be their legacy.
We know that poorly managed and maintained social housing can cause serious harm to renters’ health and well-being, yet there are no requirements to be properly qualified or to undergo professional development. As a result, too many tenants are not given a good service or treated with the care and respect they need and deserve. This is not to undermine the many good social housing operators, but unfortunately not everybody is as good. How do we professionalise the sector? This is what my amendment seeks to achieve. We believe that professional development should be mandatory for senior managers working in social housing. Other social professions have this requirement and rules for registration; they have continuous professional development as part of the way they operate while someone is a manager within their sector.
We believe that qualifications and training should aim to provide housing management staff with the skills and knowledge needed to do the job—and to do the job well—as well as instilling the right values to underpin it. If over time you have a better qualified, more professional sector, you will increase the perception of housing management as a valued profession, one that will attract dedicated individuals to a rewarding, if challenging, career.
A concern has been expressed that my amendment will mean that everybody working in social housing will have to be qualified, and that this will be too onerous for the sector to cope with. That is not what my amendment seeks to do. It is deliberately non-prescriptive, to allow for the flexibility needed in a sector where you have diverse businesses, from small almshouses to very large housing businesses. The Minister talked about the importance of flexibility and, if she looks at proposed new subsection (1), she will see that it states that:
“Regulations may provide that a person may not engage in the management of social housing … unless he or she … has appropriate professional qualifications … or satisfies specified requirements”.
Proposed new subsection (3) states:
“A requirement of regulations … may … relate to … the possession of a specified qualification or experience”
or
“participation in or completion of a specified programme or course of training, or … compliance with a specified condition”.
I am trying not to be prescriptive or make life difficult for housing associations and social housing provider but to provide a certainty that managers know what they are doing. It is as simple as that.
We think this should apply at first only to senior management because we believe that having senior staff with the appropriate skills and qualifications will ensure that the teams underneath them, those working in offices and other junior staff, would then be professionally run and deliver a quality service for residents. We believe this would not create barriers to housing associations and councils finding enough staff because the amendment requires regulations to define what types of work require qualifications. Flexibility in the amendment will lead to important change but without being overprescriptive and onerous for housing associations.
We know that housing management is no more complex than other professions that have legal requirements for training and development: for example, social work, healthcare, education—so why not include social housing? The secondary legislation regulations that guide mandatory qualifications in those fields are extensive and there are many different routes to being qualified, with many different expectations depending on the service being delivered. Why not have the same for social housing?
I turn now to some of the Minister’s arguments. Will this make housing associations into public bodies? I understand what she said about this, but I do not believe we have seen concrete evidence to suggest that my amendment on professional qualifications would bring the Government’s role in housing association business over the threshold. She referred to the review, but we have not seen that, so will this make housing association businesses technically public bodies? I am yet to be convinced of this and would like to see more evidence. We know that the economic standards in social housing have been proactively and extensively regulated for some time. Where is the tipping point? Why are the Government so concerned about this?
Finally, I come back to Grenfell. Grenfell United and Shelter, which has supported it throughout the process and the different legislation that has come through, are simply not satisfied with this. They have made it crystal clear—I have a note from them here—that it does not meet their reasonable expectations in this area. They believe that:
“Clear requirements are needed to bring social housing management on a par with other socially important professions, properly safeguard the wellbeing of tenants, and attract dedicated individuals to a meaningful, challenging career.”
It is appropriate to leave those last words to Grenfell United. I urge the Minister to revisit this at some point. However, because I think this is such an important issue for tenants and the survivors and bereaved of Grenfell Tower, I will seriously consider testing the opinion of the House on this matter.
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
My Lords, I very much welcome the Government’s response to our debate in Committee in tabling government Amendment 4, which is a very welcome step forward. It honours the undertaking my noble friend gave in Committee to
“talk to the Minister personally, whoever that may be, to reflect the views of the Committee on this important issue.”—[Official Report, 6/9/22; col. 139.]
That dialogue turned out to be a monologue.
Before coming to the substance, I will say a quick word about reclassification, mentioned by my noble friend and the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman. It has clearly acted as a brake on the Government’s proposals. I entirely agree that we do not want to see the sector’s borrowing classified as “public sector”, with all the restraint that would follow. However, without getting into the complex theology of what is and what is not public borrowing, instead of this cat-and-mouse game with the ONS, with the Government never quite sure how far they can go before the elastic snaps, why can there not be a civilised dialogue with the ONS in advance? That would give the Government some certainty on how far they could go, instead of having to wait for a retrospective judgment, which is what happened last time. It seems to me a far more sensible approach to engage in dialogue in advance.
Turning to the substance, I agree with much of what the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, has said. While I believe the general standard of management in the social housing sector is high and the movement is conscious of the need for improvement, we need a framework of professional training such as that proposed in the amendment, which exists for other professions such as education and social care.
For example, a recent article in Inside Housing said that the department had published a list of 18 social landlords against which the Housing Ombudsman had made findings of severe maladministration since September 2021. We have also read of the recent tragic case of a social housing tenant of one of the most reputable housing associations lying dead in her home for two years before she was discovered. An independent report concluded:
“What may have been designed as a service centred on the customer failed to work. Instead, the focus became the processes themselves … The culture of the organisation needs to change.”
That was said about what I believe to be a well-run body. It underlines the need for higher standards and a more professional approach.
Report is not the place to repeat the powerful arguments made in Committee, but it is worth reminding the House that, unlike private tenants, social tenants have few options to move to an alternative landlord if they do not get the service that they are entitled to.
My noble friend referred to the White Paper and the commitment to:
“Review professional training and development to ensure residents receive a high standard of customer service.”
My noble friend said in response to the debate in Committee that her department had set up a working group to review professional standards. Might we know how they are progressing, when the report will be completed, whether it will be made public and how that will feed into the work of the regulator, as proposed in the Government’s amendment? It would also be good to have confirmation that the CIH and the NHF will be involved with the regulator in drawing up standards. Finally, as the department has clearly been in dialogue with the regulator on this matter, can my noble friend in winding up give some indication of the timescale the regulator might adopt in taking this issue forward?
The Lord Bishop of Chelmsford
I rise to express very briefly my support for Amendment 23, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock. I welcome the Government’s restating at the Bill’s Committee stage their commitment to review professionalisation. However, I want to urge them to accept this amendment, which would help to ensure that appropriate professional qualifications, training and registration are upheld. The challenges we face in the social housing sector require high standards of management which, sadly, we do not always see, and this amendment will help to ensure those.
Baroness Sanderson of Welton (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Minister and the Secretary of State for the time and effort they have put into this and other issues; they should be given credit for what they have done. I declare my interest as a community adviser on Grenfell. The Minister has worked with the community in a previous role, and I know she always has their best interests at heart, as well as those of other social housing tenants across the country. However, while I appreciate that the Government’s amendment improves on the current situation, I am afraid that the lack of any professional qualification structure leaves something of a hole—a cavity, if you like—in their plan.
In essence, the Government’s proposal says that requiring the regulator to set a professional standard will drive up knowledge, skills and experience in the sector. It argues that while they are not mandatory, qualifications may be one element of how landlords could achieve this, as part of a wider approach to training and development. I agree: qualifications are not the only way to improve skills and standards, but I am struggling to see how we do it without them, particularly in an area where the need to drive out stigma is so necessary and overwhelming. In any other sector, be it social work or education, qualifications are integral—fundamental, even—to increasing knowledge and, most importantly, to providing a career path. If we want to encourage people into social housing, to take pride in that career, we must give them a way to progress. Without that infrastructure it will be so much harder to bring about meaningful change. Would it not also be a useful indicator of compliance? It is hard to see how the regulator will accurately measure competence across the sector. I welcome the checks and balances provided for in this amendment, but it is unclear on what grounds the regulator will be able to apply sanctions where necessary.
I realise that some of these questions will be for the proposed consultation, but at the moment it all feels a bit woolly. There is constant talk of driving up skills and knowledge, but not enough in practical terms on how to achieve this goal. To that end, as the Bill progresses will the Government consider including a specific request to the regulator to consult experts such as the Chartered Institute of Housing on a suitable qualifications framework?
I am pretty sure that the Minister will say to me that doing so could lead to a reclassification by the ONS. I fully understand the risks involved, as have been mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, and I appreciate that the Government have no control over the ONS’s decisions. However, at the moment we are still talking about a risk, not a certainty, so, as my noble friend Lord Young suggested, is it not possible to consult the ONS on this? Otherwise, we are in a world of “what ifs” and “maybes”, which seems absurd given what is at stake. For as it stands, we seem to be saying that tenants in social housing can expect to send their child to a school where the teacher must be qualified, and to send their parents to a care home where there must be suitably qualified staff, but that the people responsible for running their homes do not need any qualifications at all.
The Government argue that they are not ruling out qualifications, but that providers must be allowed to determine the right mix. I am sure the Minister will understand why there is nervousness about leaving this to landlords’ discretion. Do we really expect them to introduce qualifications voluntarily? This is not just about Grenfell. As I mentioned in Committee, one look at Kwajo Tweneboa’s Twitter account and the neglect and misery it chronicles will tell you all you need to know about the attitude and aptitude of some providers. They are the worst examples, but surely the least likely to equip their staff with qualifications.
Finally, I repeat one more point I made in Committee: what happens if the Grenfell Tower inquiry recommends mandatory professionalisation? Will all the same arguments apply, or will we have to find a way around this later down the line, when we should be doing it now? To that end, while I reiterate my thanks to the Minister and the Secretary of State—I understand that it is a difficult area—I cannot help feeling that on this issue, the department may need to provide us with some more answers.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
My Lords, this has been a very powerful debate on something that is pretty esoteric: the qualifications of those providing social housing. However, it seems vital for the safety of social housing tenants that the people responsible for the management of their properties know what they are doing. This group of amendments includes alternative ways forward in relation to the importance of raising standards of management and the need for professional qualifications.
On the one hand, the Minister is arguing for a light-touch approach, as set out in her Amendment 10, arguing that there is a risk of reclassification of the sector if the strategy laid out by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, in her Amendment 23 is followed. But two things come to mind. First, the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, explained that the approach she has laid out is flexible and combines that with an ambition for higher standards in the sector. Her amendment uses “may” throughout, so it is not a mandatory approach. It is trying to say, “Here is a way forward to raise standards—follow it, sector, and raise standards”. What an ambition that would be.
On the other hand, we have the Minister arguing that there is a risk of reclassification. I have to say that if there is a barrier to raising standards in the management of social housing, it needs to go. We have to find a way around it. We have heard two examples from the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, and the noble Baroness. They have both explained how we can get around this—so let us get around it.
Shelter has highlighted in the wake of the Grenfell tragedy that social housing tenants were concerned not only with safety but with maintenance, repairs and poor living conditions. Social landlords and managers are the first port of call for tenants to raise concerns about standards, so ensuring that senior managers are qualified and have the requisite knowledge and experience will have a trickle-down effect—something I am sure the Minister will approve of. So, let us professionalise the workforce.
In Committee, my noble friend Lady Thornhill—who is unfortunately unable to be here today as she is not well—made comparisons between the workforce of the health and care sector and that of the social housing sector. That comparison rightly reflects the important role of social housing in the well-being of the nation, but, like the health sector, housing and construction are facing shortages of both people and resources. Amendment 23 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, would ensure that the Government were able to prescribe mandatory qualifications—but, as I have said, in a flexible way. That would protect tenants and make sure that their homes were safe and fit for habitation, and that tenants’ voices were heard. As has already been said, one of the findings of the Grenfell inquiry was that tenants’ voices were ignored.
The Government have listened to the debate in Committee and the calls from groups such as Grenfell United and Shelter, reflected on their own commitment and brought forward a number of amendments in this group with the aim of raising standards for registered providers and social housing managers. Of course, I welcome this, but the Government’s argument that a balance needs to be struck between safety and workforce supply is, in my view, a false one. Ultimately, the safety of social housing tenants has to be paramount. We need to make sure that the situation is not made worse for tenants by exacerbating problems in the training and retention of staff, but in the end, the quality of managers is what keeps tenants safe.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, the speeches from across the House today are a tribute to the role that real scrutiny of legislation can play. I personally thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Hayman of Ullock and Lady Pinnock, my noble friend Lady Sanderson and the noble Lord, Lord Best, among others, with whom I have had extremely constructive conversations on this critical issue over recent days. I also met Grenfell United and told them what I have to do and why I have to do it.
I will start by answering a couple of questions. The noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, said that her amendment is permissive not prescriptive. Unfortunately, the existence of a power in legislation for the Government to in effect control hiring and firing decisions would still be deemed a government control by the ONS, even if it is permissive and flexible.
A number of noble Lords asked why we cannot ask the ONS about its decision before we make any further decisions—it is a question that I asked too. The ONS is the independent body statutorily responsible for making classification decisions, which includes determining whether bodies are part of the public sector. The ONS will make a formal assessment only once a new policy or regulation has been implemented; it does not classify the impact of policies still under development, so we cannot go to it until the decision is made.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
I hear what the noble Baroness says, but have the Government actually asked the ONS whether it would be prepared to give an indication of whether the level of reclassification is reached? As others have said, that would really help.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
It will not engage, as far as I understand. His Majesty’s Treasury would deal with this and it has advised that we cannot do that, as that is not what the ONS does. The ONS publishes its assessments and its decision cannot be challenged. It will review its decision only in very limited stated circumstances, including when new legislation, policy proposals or machinery of government changes impact the operations of an organisation or, in this case, a sector.
I go back to the point that, in 2015, following further legislation on the social housing sector that had tipped it over, the ONS changed the classification and we had to introduce new legislation again. We do not want to be in that position—that would not be what anybody would want—and the time involved in doing all that would be extensive.
My noble friend Lord Young asked whether the review of professionalisation would feed through to the development of standard. Yes, it will: the review will inform the Secretary of State’s direction to the regulator about the context and objectives for the standard, so it will be used in that way.
My noble friend Lady Sanderson asked whether the Secretary of State could direct the regulator to include qualifications in the standard. Again, directing the regulator to require qualifications would also risk reclassification. However, in setting standards for the competence of their staff, landlords would have to provide assurance that their staff had the requisite capabilities, and I suggest that ensuring that their staff have appropriate qualifications would be a key way of achieving that aim.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
My Lords, having looked at the classification process on the ONS website, I see that it states:
“HM Treasury may … submit policy proposals for classification advice from the Economic Statistics Classification Committee … either on its own behalf if it is the policy lead, or on behalf of another department”.
It looks to me like the issue could have been put to the ONS for advice ahead of the position that we find ourselves in.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
We have asked for an indication, but the ONS will give only an indication. As far as I understand it, the indication is that this could tip over into a reclassification.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
Could we perhaps have the official response to the Treasury, if it has put forward a request?
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
I am more than happy to provide that.
I think that I have answered all the questions. As I have said once already and as I said in Committee—although it perhaps bears repeating—the Government believe in professionalising the social housing sector. As was mentioned, we sent out an all-Peers briefing on Friday setting out the full rationale for what we are doing, why we are doing it and why we are unable to accept the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock. The qualifications, training and development needed to professionalise social housing cannot be a one-size-fits-all; we must protect landlords’ ability to determine the most appropriate qualifications and training for their staff. The regulator has deep sector expertise and a strong track record of regulating the sector for financial liability, on which it would be able to draw, to ensure that landlords raise professional standards. The introduction of tough sanctions for landlords failing to comply with the new standard will ensure that consistently high standards are achieved across the sector.
To push back against what the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, said, I say that this is not light touch, given the enforcement powers and unlimited fines and the fact that the regulator will be looking at tenant satisfaction levels in great detail. If tenants are unsatisfied with their housing provider, they will say so, and at that point the regulator can move in—and the regulator has teeth to ensure the enforcement of specially trained staff, and has unlimited fines if the provider does not comply. There are tough sanctions for failing to comply with the new standards, and I believe that the provisions will ensure that consistently high standards are achieved across the sector.
Finally, the risk of reclassification of the social housing sector is substantial. The proposal to mandate qualifications for staff risks adding £90 billion to the public balance sheet. Reclassification could limit landlords’ ability to invest in new homes and in improving the quality of existing stock and service provision. This would clearly disadvantage tenants and undermine our objective of increasing professionalism in the sector. It is likely that we would want to introduce deregulatory measures to address that. It would weaken the regulatory framework that the Bill creates, and we cannot allow that to happen.
The Government are not trying to hide on this issue. It simply comes down to how we accomplish the outcomes for which we are all looking. I believe that the Government’s approach is the right one. I hope that noble Lords have been persuaded by my arguments.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the amendment in the Minister’s name to insert a new clause after clause 15.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, this set of government amendments delivers technical changes which will ensure that measures in the Bill operate effectively and consistently.
Amendments 19, 20 and 21 to Clause 24 will ensure that both registered providers and the occupiers of premises will receive the same 48-hour notice period before the Regulator of Social Housing conducts a survey. The noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, raised the discrepancy in notice periods in Committee. We agree that there should have been no difference between the notice periods that the tenant and landlord receive. I hope that she will welcome these amendments which address this problem.
I turn to the other amendments in this group. Amendments 26 to 30 are a series of changes to Clause 26. These will enable a regulator to carry out emergency remedial action more effectively. Given the urgent nature of these remedial works, these changes are highly important. Ahead of carrying out emergency remedial action, a person authorised by the regulator is required to notify all parties.
Amendment 28 allows all parties to consent to early entry before the minimum advance notice period has elapsed. This ensures that, where all parties are content, there will be no barrier to preventing urgent works starting immediately. Amendment 28 also allows the occupier to consent to a person authorised by the regulator conducting emergency remedial works in advance of the date specified on their pre-entry notice. Amendment 27 is consequential on this change.
Amendment 29 offers greater flexibility to the regulator by making it clear that the person authorised by the regulator to notify parties that emergency remedial works are due does not have to be the same person who carries out the works. Amendment 26 clarifies that, when emergency remedial works affecting common parts are due to take place, a notice is required to be given only in respect of occupied dwellings that have use of the common parts. Amendment 30 is a minor amendment to improve the drafting.
Amendment 6 would remove the requirements for the regulator to decide on the eligibility of registration of a registered provider that has recently converted from a company to a registered society. In such an event, the registered provider’s existing registration remains in place. Amendment 5 is consequential on this change.
Amendment 7 proposes a new clause in relation to the restructuring of a registered provider that is a registered society. It removes a duty on the regulator to make a registration decision where a registered society converts into a company or transfers undertakings to another society that is also a registered provider. Registration decisions are not needed in these circumstances. In the case of a conversion, the provider’s existing registration continues. In the case of a transfer, the transferee is already registered. Where a registered society amalgamates with another or transfers its undertakings to a society that is not also a registered provider, proposed new Section 163ZA provides that the successor body should be treated as registered and designated as a non-profit organisation pending the registration decision. Amendments 8 and 9 are consequential on this change.
These amendments are largely technical in nature. Many of them will support the regulator to deliver effectively on its economic and consumer regulation objectives, while others will ensure greater clarity and consistency in the legislation. I hope that noble Lords will support their addition to the Bill. I beg to move.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for putting right what was clearly an oversight in the Bill, whereby landlords were given 48-hours’ notice before entering a property while tenants got only 24 hours.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
My Lords, I reiterate what the noble Baroness has said. It is good that what was said in Committee was listened to. We support the amendments and thank the Minister.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the amendment in the Minister’s name to insert a new clause before clause 16.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook
“Conversion of company into registered society: continuation of registrationIn section 161 of the Housing and Regeneration Act 2008 (company: conversion into registered society) omit subsections (4) to (7).”Member's explanatory statement
If a registered provider which is a company becomes a registered society the body’s registration as registered provider continues. This amendment removes the provisions requiring the regulator to decide whether the registered society is eligible for registration as a registered provider.
“Restructuring of registered societies(1) The Housing and Regeneration Act 2008 is amended as follows.(2) In section 163 (registered society: restructuring) omit subsections (5) to (8).(3) After section 163 insert— “163ZA Restructuring of registered societies: registration of successor bodies(1) This section applies where —(a) a registered provider notifies the regulator of a resolution passed by the provider for the purposes of section 109 of the Co-operative and Community Benefit Societies Act 2014 (amalgamation of societies);(b) a registered provider notifies the regulator of a resolution passed by the provider for the purposes of section 112(1)(b) of that Act (amalgamation of society and company);(c) a registered provider notifies the regulator of a resolution passed by the provider for the purposes of section 110 of that Act (transfer of engagements between societies) and the society to which engagements are transferred is not a registered provider;(d) a registered provider notifies the regulator of a resolution passed by the provider for the purposes of section 112(1)(c) of that Act (transfer of engagements between society and company) and the company to which engagements are transferred is not a registered provider.(2) When the resolution mentioned in subsection (1) (“the relevant resolution”) takes effect, the regulator must decide whether the successor body is eligible for registration under section 112.(3) “The successor body” means—(a) if the relevant resolution is a resolution described in paragraph (a) or (b) of subsection (1), the body created by virtue of that resolution or by virtue of that resolution and other resolutions described in that paragraph, and(b) if the relevant resolution is a resolution described in paragraph (c) or (d) of subsection (1), the body to which engagements are transferred by virtue of the resolution.(4) If the successor body is eligible for registration, the regulator must register it and notify it that it has done so.(5) If the successor body is not eligible for registration, the regulator must notify it of that fact.(6) Pending registration, or notification that it is not eligible for registration, the successor body is to be treated as if it were registered and designated as a non-profit organisation.””Member's explanatory statement
Where a restructuring of a registered provider which is a registered society results in the creation of a new body or in the transfer of the engagements to a body which is not a registered provider, these amendments provide that the regulator must decide whether or not to register the body and describe how the body should be treated pending that decision.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the amendment in the Minister’s name to insert a new clause before clause 16.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook
“Standards relating to competence and conductAfter section 194 of the Housing and Regeneration Act 2008 insert—“194ZA Standards relating to competence and conduct(1) The regulator may set standards for registered providers in matters relating to the competence and conduct of individuals involved in the provision of services in connection with the management of social housing.(2) Standards under subsection (1) may, in particular, require registered providers to comply with specified rules about—(a) the knowledge, skills and experience to be required of individuals involved in the provision of services in connection with the management of social housing, and(b) the conduct to be expected of such individuals in their dealings with tenants.””Member's explanatory statement
This gives the regulator power to set a standard requiring registered providers to ensure that individuals who provide services in connection with the management of social housing have the knowledge, skills and experience to do so and to set out expectations as to how the individuals conduct themselves in relation to tenants. See also the amendment to Schedule 5, page 49, line 32 in the Minister’s name.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the amendment in the Minister’s name to insert a new clause before clause 19 inserting a new section 194ZA into the Housing and Regeneration Act 2008.
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the amendment in the Minister’s name to insert a new clause before clause 19 inserting a new section 194ZA into the Housing and Regeneration Act 2008.
Member's explanatory statement
This is consequential on the amendment to Schedule 5, page 49, line 32 in the Minister’s name.
Baroness Hayman
“Standards relating to energy demand
(1) In section 193 of the Housing and Regeneration Act 2008 (standards relating to consumer matters)—(a) in subsection (2), at the end insert— “(k) energy demand.”;(b) after subsection (2) insert—“(2A) In setting standards relating to energy demand, the regulator shall have regard to the Government’s strategy on reducing energy demand for social housing properties.”(2) The Secretary of State must, before the end of the period of 12 months beginning with the day on which this Act is passed, publish a strategy on reducing energy demand for social housing properties, to include but not limited to the following—(a) achieving a low-carbon heat target, of 100% of installations of relevant heating appliances and connections to relevant heat networks in social housing properties being low-carbon from 2035;(b) achieving an energy-efficiency target, of all social housing properties attaining a minimum EPC C rating by 2030;(c) interim targets relating to the targets in paragraphs (a) and (b) at not less than three-yearly intervals;(d) a programme to support registered social housing providers in engaging with each other, the regulator and a source of advice provided by the Government to encourage energy demand reduction.(3) Before publishing their strategy, the Secretary of State must—(a) consult the Climate Change Committee and its sub-committee on adaptation;(b) publicly consult on the most practical, cost-effective and affordable way of achieving the targets in subsection (2)(a) to (2)(c), and(c) publish an assessment of the long-term impacts of the strategy on tenants of social housing and registered social housing landlords.”
Baroness Hayman (CB)
My Lords, I listened very carefully to the words of the Minister in responding to our earlier debate. I do not have a scintilla of doubt about her sincerity and integrity in offering a consultation, but the House will understand that many of us have been promised consultations and not seen them, or they have not been acted upon. In this area, we were promised the consultation in 2017. It has not happened yet. This amendment would give us a coherent and costed plan for energy efficiency in a sector that needs it very urgently. In view of the support from all Benches—I am particularly grateful to the Bishops’ Benches for joining the political parties—I would like to test the opinion of the House.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook
“(za) to set a standard under section 194ZA,”Member's explanatory statement
This enables the Secretary of State to direct the regulator to exercise the new power to set standards conferred by the new section 194ZA of the Housing and Regeneration Act 2008 (see the amendment to insert a new clause before clause 19 in the Minister’s name).
Baroness Scott of Bybrook
Member's explanatory statement
This is linked to the amendment to clause 21, page 17, line 21 in the Minister’s name and enables the Secretary of State to direct the regulator about the content of the standards set under the new section 194ZA and to direct the regulator to have regard to specified objectives when setting them.
Lord Best
“Inspections(1) The Housing and Regeneration Act 2008 is amended as follows. (2) For sections 201 (inspections) and 202 (inspections: supplemental) substitute—“201 Inspections(1) It is the duty of the regulator to carry out inspections, at such intervals as may be prescribed, of—(a) every registered provider’s performance of its functions in relation to the provision of social housing, and(b) the financial or other affairs of every registered provider.(2) Following each such inspection under subsection (1), the regulator must—(a) assess the performance of the providers, and(b) publish a report of its assessment.(3) Regulations may provide that this section does not apply to specified providers or categories of providers in prescribed circumstances.(4) The assessment of a registered provider’s performance is to be by reference to such indicators of quality as the Secretary of State may devise or approve.(5) The Secretary of State may direct the regulator to devise indicators for the purposes of subsection (4) and submit them to the Secretary of State for approval.(6) The regulator must prepare a statement describing the method that it proposes to use in assessing and evaluating the performance of a registered provider under this section, and submit the statement to the Secretary of State for approval.(7) Regulations must provide that in conducting an inspection of a registered provider under this section, the regulator must have regard to any views expressed to him or her by certain persons or classes of person which must include tenants of the provider.202 Special inspections and investigations(1) The regulator may at any time, where he or she considers it appropriate, conduct a special review or investigation, and must do so if the Secretary of State so requests.(2) A special inspection or investigation is an inspection (other than a periodic inspection) of or an investigation into—(a) the exercise of its functions by a registered provider;(b) the financial or other affairs of a registered provider;(c) the standard of accommodation provided by a registered provider;(d) other matters relating to the governance or performance of a registered provider.””
Lord Best (CB)
My Lords, Amendment 17 is in my name and those of the noble Baronesses, Lady Hayman of Ullock and Lady Thornhill, whose support is much appreciated.
This amendment, first tabled in Committee, would oblige the Regulator of Social Housing to carry out regular inspections into the affairs of all social landlords. The objective of such inspections would be to ensure that the new regime introduced by the Bill, with its emphasis on consumer protection for residents—the missing element in the current regulatory regime—was actually achieved. By visiting social landlords and talking with residents, inspections would enable the regulator to see whether its set of standards was being properly met and to take action if not.
The Government have previously mentioned Ofsted-style inspections, perhaps every four years and maybe covering providers with 1,000 or more homes. Such statements in press releases are all very well but are not a substitute for a requirement on the regulator set out in the Bill.
We have all been deeply affected by the efforts of the Grenfell survivors, represented by Grenfell United supported by Shelter, to secure real change as a lasting legacy for the 72 lives lost. They have made the case tenaciously. Without a requirement in the Bill for regular inspections, this key component in support of the Bill’s intentions could evaporate. Without a basis in law, the regulator could not be challenged in the courts if it failed to inspect an organisation large or small. The Grenfell families want to ensure that their efforts have made a difference, and this needs to be evidenced by a legal duty for the regulator to conduct regular, routine inspections.
Meetings have been held with the Minister and the Bill team. As a result, the Government devised Amendments 22 and 38, which come close to fulfilling the ambitions of Grenfell United and its supporters at Shelter. They require the regulator to make a plan for regular inspections, spelling out the basis for them, their frequency and their variations for different cases and circumstances, and they ensure proper consultation with tenants and their representatives.
The Minister has been involved with Grenfell families for many years and is clearly deeply committed to meeting their wishes in so far as she is able. The new government amendments on inspections are intended to secure the outcome sought by Grenfell United and I am extremely grateful to the Minister for bringing them forward. It may be that, on reflection, further tweaks would be helpful when the Bill moves through its Commons stages—Shelter’s excellent briefing on this theme illustrates possible additional refinements— but at this moment I am delighted to support the Government’s amendments and will not take my Amendment 17 to a vote.
In conclusion, I hope that all those who have suffered so much as a result of the disgracefully poor management of those Grenfell homes will recognise that it is their efforts that have improved the Bill in this regard. More than this, it is their perseverance, eloquence and sincerity that have led to this whole legislative change. Because of their courage and perseverance, hundreds of thousands of those living in social housing will now benefit from the significant extra dimensions to their protection from poor landlords that this Bill will accomplish.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
My Lords, my noble friend Lady Thornhill is not well and is unable to be here today. She put her name to the amendment to which the noble Lord, Lord Best, has just spoken, so I am speaking on her behalf as much as anything.
These amendments are really important, because at the heart of the debate is the safety of social housing tenants. It is a similar debate to the one we have just had about whether there should be more professional qualifications for housing managers. Like that one, it is based on the social housing White Paper, in which the Government have suggested introducing Ofsted-style inspections for social landlords. This is, in essence, what the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Best, proposes. In mandating inspections but leaving their frequency to the Secretary of State, and allowing them to exempt certain providers, Amendment 17 is robust but workable.
There was widespread support across the House for the same amendment in Committee, with organisations such as the National Housing Federation and the Chartered Institute of Housing welcoming stronger and more proactive regulation of the consumer standards. As the CIH stated in its briefing, it is vital that the regulator has the resources to undertake these inspections. Ultimately, these inspections will help not only to avoid the catastrophic lapses in safety that led to the Grenfell tragedy—among others, but obviously Grenfell is by far the worst—but to strengthen the ability of the social housing sector to provide warm, secure and affordable housing.
The Government have tabled Amendments 22 and 38, and the Minister has again shown that she is listening and seeking to respond to what was said in Committee. But in the opinion of these Benches, the government amendments do not appear as robust as the one tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Best. Inspections are not mandated; rather, the plan must outline whether they “should” take place and at what frequency. The regulator
“must take appropriate steps to implement the plan.”
Perhaps the Minister can outline what the steps could be. What are these “appropriate steps”? What teeth does the regulator have to implement inspections? Will the Government review these provisions to determine whether they have been successful or whether further steps will need to be taken to make sure that inspections are happening? What timeframe will we see for the plan? When will it be published and how often should it be reviewed? There are lots of questions, and lots of answers are needed if we are to be able to judge whether the proposals from the Government are sufficiently robust.
Given that tenants, providers and the Government all seem to agree on the need for more proactive regulation, we on these Benches hope that the government amendments will be all that is necessary for inspections to be frequent and effective. We just hope that we will not look back and wish we had used this opportunity to further strengthen the law on this issue, as the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Best, would allow us to do.
I want to end the debate in this House on this very important Bill by recognising, as others have done, the powerful commitment that Grenfell United has made to making the Government and the rest of us understand the importance of social housing being of the highest quality and safe and secure, with managers who know what they are doing and with a regulator who has teeth. None of us ever again wants to be party to a terrible tragedy like that which occurred in June 2017.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
My Lords, I shall be brief because much has been said that needs to be said, and we had quite a debate on this in Committee. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Best, for the amendments he put down in Committee and again on Report, and for all the hard work and time he has put into moving this issue forward so that we have reached a stage where the Government have recognised that more needed to be done in this area. I thank the Minister for her amendments and for recognising that inspection is a critical part of making progress on standards in social housing.
We are now reaching the end of the debate at Report, so I would just like to say a couple of things. The noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, asked a number of questions; I will not add to them but will wait to hear the Minister’s response. I thank again the Minister and her officials, as I did at the beginning of today’s debate, for her personal commitment and time on this Bill, and for her efforts where she has been able to make progress—for example, on this issue and in some other areas. It is appreciated by all of us who want this Bill to be as good as it can possibly be.
The noble Lord, Lord Best, ended in the way that we ought to end this debate, which is to recognise why we are here today. It is because of those who suffered so much during the Grenfell tragedy not giving up and keeping going and pushing us politicians and others on what needed to change in the social housing sector. This Bill is a credit to them. On that note, I thank everybody for the debate and for their time today.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Best, for his Amendment 17 relating to inspections and for the time he has given me and my officials on this issue; it was important. He knows so much about this sector, and it was really very useful to spend time with him, as it was useful to spend time with many other noble Lords on a number of issues here. I thank them so much for their time.
Lord Best (CB)
Everything that should be said has been said, and I am very glad that we have finished on the note of thanking those in Grenfell United. Over so many years such persistence has been shown in getting us to the point we are at today, and we are all very grateful to them. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the amendment in the Minister’s name to insert a new clause before clause 19 inserting a new section 194ZA into the Housing and Regeneration Act 2008.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook
(a) to the registered provider, and(b) if the premises are occupied, to the occupier (or any one of the occupiers).”Member's explanatory statement
This provides for occupiers of premises to be given 48 hours’ notice of the first exercise of the power to enter to carry out a survey (as opposed to 24 hours). This places occupiers in the same position as registered providers of the premises concerned.
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the amendment to clause 24, page 19, line 9 in the Minister’s name.
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the amendment to clause 24, page 19, line 9 in the Minister’s name.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook
“Inspection plan(1) The Housing and Regeneration Act 2008 is amended as follows.(2) After section 201 (inspections) insert—“201A Inspection plan(1) The regulator must make a plan as regards—(a) the descriptions of registered provider that should be subject to regular inspection under section 201,(b) the intervals at which regular inspections should be carried out under that section, and(c) the circumstances in which registered providers should be subject to inspections under that section other than regular inspections.(2) The plan may make different provision for different cases, circumstances or areas.(3) The regulator must take appropriate steps to implement the plan.(4) The regulator must—(a) keep the plan under review,(b) when appropriate, revise or replace the plan, and(c) publish the plan and any revised or replacement plan.”(3) In section 215 (use of intervention powers), after subsection (1) insert—“(1A) In determining whether the regulator has complied with subsection (1) in relation to its power to arrange for inspections under section 201(1), a plan published under section 201A may be taken into account.””Member's explanatory statement
This imposes a duty on the regulator to produce, publish and take appropriate steps to implement a plan relating to the carrying out of both regular and one-off inspections of registered providers of social housing. It requires the regulator to keep the plan under review and to update it as appropriate.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock
“Persons engaged in the management of social housing to have relevant professional qualificationsAfter section 217 of the Housing and Regeneration Act 2008 (accreditation), insert—“217A Professional qualifications and other requirements(1) Regulations may provide that a person may not engage in the management of social housing or in specified work in relation to the provision of social housing unless he or she—(a) has appropriate professional qualifications, or(b) satisfies specified requirements.(2) Regulations specifying work for the purpose of subsection (1) may make provision by reference to—(a) one or more specified activities, or(b) the circumstances in which activities are carried out. (3) A requirement of regulations under this section may, in particular, relate to—(a) the possession of a specified qualification or experience of a specified kind,(b) participation in or completion of a specified programme or course of training, or(c) compliance with a specified condition.(4) Regulations may make provision for any of the following matters (among others)—(a) the establishment and continuance of a regulatory body,(b) keeping a register of social housing practitioners,(c) education and training before and after qualification,(d) standards of conduct and performance,(e) discipline and fitness to practise,(f) removal or suspension from registration or the imposition of conditions on registration,(g) investigation and enforcement by or on behalf of the regulatory body, and appeals.””Member's explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to create a power for the Secretary of State to require managers of social housing to have appropriate qualifications and expertise.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
My Lords, I have listened very carefully to the Minister’s response to my amendment. However, my strong feeling—which is supported, as I said, by Grenfell United—is that professionalism is very important in the industry. I do not believe that the Government’s amendments go far enough, so I would like to test the opinion of the House.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the amendment in the Minister’s name to insert a new clause before clause 19 inserting a new section 194ZA into the Housing and Regeneration Act 2008.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the amendment in the Minister’s name to insert a new clause before clause 19 inserting a new section 194ZA into the Housing and Regeneration Act 2008.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook
Member's explanatory statement
This is to make it clear that notice of entry to carry out works on common parts needs to be given under this provision in respect of dwellings which have use of the common parts only if the dwelling is occupied.
Member's explanatory statement
This is consequential on the amendment to clause 26, page 26, line 18 in the Minister’s name.
Member's explanatory statement
This is to make it clear that the authorised person who gives the notice need not be the same authorised person who exercises the power to enter.
“(6A) An authorised person may not enter premises in reliance on a pre-entry notice—(a) before the date (or the first date) specified in the notice, or(b) within 24 hours of giving the notice,except where the relevant person in respect of the notice consents.(6B) In subsection (6A), “the relevant person” in respect of the pre-entry notice means—(a) in the case of a pre-entry notice required by subsection (2)(a) or (b), the occupier (or any one of the occupiers) of the premises or dwelling; (b) in the case of a pre-entry notice required by subsection (2)(c) or (d), the person (or each person) to whom a pre-entry notice is required to be given.”Member's explanatory statement
This enables persons who are entitled to receive a pre-entry notice to consent to early entry to premises for emergency remedial action to be taken.
Member's explanatory statement
This is to aid the reader by pointing them to the provision under which a pre-entry notice is given.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook
“(za) in paragraph (a), for “to 198B” substitute “to 198”;”Member's explanatory statement
The amends section 192 of the Housing and Regeneration Act 2008 to reflect the repeal of section 198B by clause 22 of the Bill.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook
Member's explanatory statement
This is to make it clear that the regulator’s power to set standards extends to setting standards for registered providers as to the energy efficiency of accommodation, facilities and services provided in connection with social housing.
“(c) omit subsection (3).”Member's explanatory statement
This is consequential on the amendment to Schedule 5, page 49, line 32 in the Minister’s name.
“17A In section 194 (standards relating to economic matters), omit subsection (3).”Member's explanatory statement
This is consequential on the amendment to Schedule 5, page 49, line 32 in the Minister’s name.
Member's explanatory statement
This is linked to the amendment to Schedule 5, page 49, line 25 in the Minister’s name and is to make it clear that the power of the Secretary of State to direct the regulator about the setting of standards extends to standards relating to the energy efficiency of accommodation.
“18A In section 198 (supplemental provisions about standards), after subsection (5) insert— “(6) In setting standards the regulator must have regard to the desirability of registered providers being free to choose how to provide services and conduct business.””Member's explanatory statement
This avoids repetition in the Housing and Regeneration Act 2008 by including in one place (section 198) provision which is currently included in sections 193, 194 and the new section inserted by clause 19 of the Bill. There are consequential amendments removing the provision from those sections.
“21A In section 216 (consultation), in paragraph (b), at the end insert “of social housing”.”Member's explanatory statement
This makes clear that the regulator’s duty to consult bodies appearing to represent the interests of tenants before giving guidance about the use of its intervention powers is a duty to consult bodies appearing to represent the interests of tenants of social housing.
“21B In section 217 (accreditation)—(a) in subsection (4)(b), after “193” insert “or 194ZA”;(b) in subsection (6), after “193” insert “or 194ZA”.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the amendment in the Minister’s name to insert a new clause before clause 19 inserting a new section 194ZA into the Housing and Regeneration Act 2008.
Parole Board (Amendment) Rules 2022
(1 year, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Prashar
That this House regrets that the Parole Board (Amendment) Rules 2022 introduce a “single view” procedure which (1) will prevent forensic psychologists, prison and probation officers, and other specialists working for or commissioned by His Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service from making recommendations to the Parole Board on the release or transfer of prisoners to open conditions, (2) has potentially profound implications for the sentence progression of individuals subject to Parole Board oversight, and (3) has been made by the made negative procedure, with no external consultation or parliamentary debate.
Relevant document: 10th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee
Baroness Prashar (CB)
My Lords, I declare my interest as a former executive chairman of the Parole Board of England and Wales from 1997 to 2000. This regret Motion relates to a specific part of the statutory instrument which amends Part B of Schedule 1 to the Parole Board Rules 2019 to allow the Secretary of State to give a single view on suitability for release or transfer in certain cases. The introduction of the “single view” procedure forms part of a wider series of changes to the parole system introduced by the former Justice Secretary and Lord Chancellor, Dominic Raab.
The first ground for regret is that the specific change implemented by the statutory instrument—preventing forensic psychologists, prison and probation officers and other specialists working for or commissioned by His Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service making recommendations to the Parole Board—was introduced without consultation. This meant that those with experience of the parole system had no input into the new statutory instrument. Such radical changes to how the parole system works should have been implemented only after those who work in it were consulted. The manner in which these changes were introduced, with no consultation even with the Parole Board, undermines confidence in the professionals and the system.
The second ground for regret is that the Government have simply failed to establish that there is a problem which justifies the package of changes made. In other words, there is no evidence of the problem the changes purport to solve. These changes may well result in increased risk to the public, as the Parole Board is denied the benefit of expert opinion and the opportunity to see how prisoners respond in conditions of lower security. As we know, having the benefit of expert opinion and proper risk assessment is important to ensure that prisoners are prepared for reintegration into society.
The reason for introducing the “single view” procedure was to respond to recent cases in which expert witnesses employed by the Secretary of State took a different view from that of the Minister. Parole panels hear different opinions and, after consideration, reach their own conclusions. The Secretary of State may disagree and can now insist on a reconsideration. This provides an adequate remedy in such situations. Therefore, excluding the input from expert witnesses appears extreme and ill judged.
The department expects the “single view” procedure to operate rarely, in perhaps 150 cases out of over 3,000 annually, but the rule changes go much further. They prevent witnesses employed or commissioned by the Secretary of State providing a recommendation to any parole hearing either in writing or orally. This represents a major interference with the Parole Board’s ability to operate independently and undercuts the independence of a court-like body. It also undermines the professional standing of witnesses, for whom risk assessment is a core skill.
The “single view” procedure is currently subject to an ongoing judicial review in the case of Bailey v Secretary of State for Justice. In this case, the court has provided interim relief solely to the plaintiff on the basis that the parole panel should be free to ask any questions relevant to its task and expect the witness to answer them. This includes asking an expert witness for their recommendation. This judicial review is an important test of the “single view” procedure.
My third regret is the change in the criteria by which prisoners may move to open prison. These changes were expressly opposed by the Parole Board and the National Association of Probation Officers. As we know, the period spent in open conditions is a practical aid to resettlement in the community, and considered recommendations by the Parole Board, albeit subject to the Secretary of State’s approval, are crucial for public protection. These directions had three tests: that the prisoner is assessed as having a low risk of absconding; that a period in open conditions is considered essential to inform future decisions about release and to prepare for possible release on licence into the community; and that the transfer to open conditions would not undermine public confidence in the criminal justice system.
The second test is controversial as it sets the bar for open release very high and excludes prisoners who have progressed well and for whom a move might be considered beneficial, rather than essential. It prevents the decision-makers from considering whether a move to open prison might reduce risk and improve the prospect of safe release.
The third test—that the transfer to open prison would not undermine public confidence—is completely open-ended, and no guidance has been provided as to the circumstances in which it might apply. Now, only the Secretary of State considers the public confidence criteria, a task which essentially falls on officials. This has led to a dramatic reversal in the proportion of prisoners being approved for transfer to open conditions.
The Parole Board has estimated that the consequent delays may add 800 a year to the number requiring prison places. The Prison Reform Trust has recently received data from the Parole Board showing that, prior to these changes, 94% of recommendations for open conditions made by the Parole Board were accepted; since the change in criteria, and despite a falling number of recommendations, only 87% have been accepted.
Since the Worboys case in 2018, the parole system and the Parole Board have been subject to multiple reviews; some have been independent of the ministry, but the root-and-branch review prompted by the 2019 Conservative manifesto was conducted by unnamed officials within the department. Only aspects limited in scope were subject to public consultation, but change introduced by this statutory instrument formed no part of that review, and the Parole Board was given almost no notice of it, still less consulted.
The Parole Board has an enviable record; in recent cases only one in 200 releases resulted in a person being charged with a further serious offence. Every time a prisoner absconds, or a person released on parole commits a serious further offense, public concern is wholly understandable, but it is important that the response to these cases is proportionate. The Parole Board has co-operated in an exemplary way, with some radical changes in its operation. Its willingness to provide the public with reasons for decisions in individual cases, its adoption of a reconsideration process, and its skill in undertaking the complex challenge of holding some hearings in public all show that the Parole Board is open to new ideas. But some of what has been forced upon it in recent months has clearly been ill-thought through, and I hope that the Minister might now be open to a conversation on how these aspects of reform might be adjusted.
To conclude, I ask the Minister why the Secretary of State decided not to consult before introducing the statutory instrument, and if he will do so now. Given the dramatic reversal in the proportion of prisoners now being approved for transfer to open conditions, what is the Minister’s assessment of the probable delay before those prisoners may now be safely released from prison?
On the “single view” procedure, what is the Minister’s assessment of the impact of the new procedures on public protection, particularly in cases where decisions on release or transfer are complex, and where the Parole Board will not now have the benefit of clear recommendations from officials? I beg to move.
Lord Garnier (Con)
My Lords, I support the noble Baroness, Lady Prashar. Because she set out the arguments so well and so fully, there is very little more that I need to say—save that, in standing, I want to demonstrate that this is not a party-political issue; this is a matter of constitutional propriety, and I think it is a matter of justice.
I suppose this is a smallish point, but I think that the negative procedure is the wrong way to deal with a statutory instrument of this nature. According to the notes attached to the statutory instrument, this regulation has been in law since the summer, and this is the first time that your Lordships’ House has had an opportunity to discuss it. As we have learned from the noble Baroness’s remarks, this statutory instrument carries with it matters of huge importance which should not just be lightly passed into law.
The second point I draw from her remarks is that, long ago, we got rid of political decision-making in the tariff-setting of life sentences for prisoners, and yet we are now introducing political input into questions which should be dealt with by the Parole Board by a “single view” of the Secretary of State. I suppose there was a time when the Secretary of State for Justice might be expected to know something about the law, but that is no longer the case. Therefore, it seems to me all the more extraordinary that a political Minister should have the power, passed by this little-discussed measure, to have a single view which trumps all others—indeed, shuts out all others.
In essence, I entirely support what the noble Baroness had to say, and I am reasonably certain that most other speakers will as well.
Lord Dholakia (LD)
My Lords, I am pleased to support the Motion in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Prashar, and to reinforce her concerns about recent changes to the parole process.
When it considers a prisoner’s case, the Parole Board has two decisions to make: first, whether to direct the prisoner’s release; and, secondly, whether to recommend that the prisoner should be transferred from a closed prison to an open establishment. The board carries out these functions to an extremely high standard. Its members include current and former judges, police officers, Crown prosecutors, probation officers, psychiatrists, psychologists, lawyers and members of other professions.
All Parole Board members receive thorough training on risk assessment, which is regularly reinforced by risk-focused in-service training. In every case which goes to an oral hearing, the board assesses whether a specialist member—such as a psychiatrist, a psychologist or a member with particular training in terrorism issues—should be on the panel. As a result of this strong focus on effective risk assessment, the proportion of prisoners released on parole who commit a further serious offence is less than 0.5%, which is a remarkable record of the success of the Parole Board in its work. It is difficult to see how any system based on human judgment could produce a significantly better result.
An essential part of the parole process is the provision to the board of reports from specialists working for His Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service—including prison staff, probation officers and psychologists—as well as other specialist reports commissioned by the service. These reports contain a detailed assessment of the prisoner’s risk. They include information about the prisoner’s progress in custody, their sentence plan, their risk of reoffending, their risk of serious harm and the arrangements and licence conditions which would be in place if they were released.
In the past, these reports also contained recommendations for or against release on parole and for or against a transfer to open conditions. The Parole Board was not bound to accept these recommendations, as it has a duty to make its own independent assessment of the prisoner’s suitability for release or open conditions. However, it was obviously helpful for the board to receive recommendations from professionals who had particular knowledge of the prisoner because they had worked with him or her on a regular basis during the prisoner’s sentence.
These recommendations have now been prohibited. This decision is totally illogical, since professionals who are commissioned by the prisoner’s legal representatives will not be prohibited from making recommendations. If a prison psychologist assesses the prisoner and believes that he or she is not safe to release, they are prohibited from saying so. However, if an independent psychologist is commissioned by the legal representative to assess the same prisoner and concludes that they are safe to release, they can make a recommendation for release to the Parole Board. In this case, the board would receive only one recommendation from a psychologist, a recommendation in favour of release, as even though the prison psychologist considers that the prisoner remains too dangerous to be released on licence, they are prohibited from saying so to the Parole Board.
This approach is patently nonsensical. It is difficult to see what it has to do with protecting the public or promoting sound decisions. The decision to prohibit these professionals from making recommendations seems to have arisen from the desire of the previous Secretary of State, Dominic Raab, to reject recommendations for open conditions in certain cases, specifically cases where he argued that a move to an open prison would
“undermine public confidence in the criminal justice system”.
This phrase seems to be shorthand for refusing recommendations in high-profile cases because of a fear of adverse media publicity, even when there is strong evidence of the prisoner’s suitability for open conditions.
The former Secretary of State may well have feared that it would look embarrassing if he refused a recommendation for open conditions when his own professional employees in the Prison and Probation Service recommended this. This does not seem to be a very grown-up way of making decisions. ln any organisation, senior leaders are entitled to overrule the recommendations of subordinates if they consider that there is a good reason for doing so. But no sensible leader would prohibit their staff from making recommendations in the first place in areas where the subordinate has particular knowledge and expertise.
The Secretary of State has always been able to reject recommendations for open conditions made by the Parole Board. But it makes no sense for him or his officials and the Parole Board itself to make their decisions in the absence of recommendations from those who have close knowledge of the prisoner. The new Secretary of State should review this change in the parole procedure and reverse it. This would be by far the least of the U-turns which the Government have undertaken in the last few weeks. None of us would be inclined to crow over a sensible reversal of policy of this kind. On the contrary, we would welcome a readiness to change direction after considering reasoned arguments from those with knowledge and experience of the parole system.
I believe strongly that future parole decisions should continue to be based on the accumulated experience and expertise of the Parole Board, informed by reports and recommendations from professionals with close knowledge.
Lord Garnier (Con)
I apologise for intervening. I forgot to refer to my interests in the register. I am a trustee of the Prison Reform Trust and am connected to a number of other prison welfare bodies.
Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)
My Lords, I speak in support of my noble friend’s regret Motion, which she moved with such clarity. She speaks with great experience and authority, as she told us at the beginning of her speech.
These regulations, already in force, feel like an attack on the Parole Board. I have been knocking around the legal system for decades, and I know many people who have been, and some who are, judicial members of the Parole Board. I think I reflect their feeling of the Parole Board being under attack from the Government, so I want to start by praising the Parole Board: for its fastidious care over the evidence in cases for which it is responsible; for its determined and proper independence, which is key; and, indeed, for its accepting the increased judicialisation that has made its processes more transparent and public. The Parole Board has moved with the times, and it perfectly understands its responsibilities.
Like others, I want to focus on paragraph (22), which provides that:
“Where considered appropriate, the Secretary of State will present a single view on the prisoner’s suitability for release.”
Even by statutory instrument standards, those are words of breathtaking vagueness. I suggest that this provision is a very unwise and unwelcome change for the following reasons. First, it is nothing less than an unwarranted interference by Ministers with what is clearly, now at least, a judicial process. Nobody can deny that the Parole Board is a judicial process; the issue goes, therefore, to the heart of the separation of powers. The previous Lord Chancellor knew perfectly well that he was attacking the separation of powers. I have, sneakingly, more confidence in his successor, who in my view has operated with some skill in bringing to an end quickly the justified strike by criminal barristers.
As I said a moment ago, the provision is vague. What are the terms of reference that would make it appropriate for a ministerial single view to be given? What does a “single view” mean in this context? Who is actually going to make these decisions? Who is going to prepare the papers to be put in the Minister’s red box? This is such an unclear procedure as to be wholly unacceptable.
Why on earth are report writers such as psychologists, an example already given, those with real knowledge of the prisoner concerned and, by definition, experts themselves to be banned from expressing a written opinion, which, of course, is not more than that—an opinion, not a decision, on the outcome of the case? This seems to me to presage a political reaction to media stories in an attempt to influence the Parole Board. That can have no legitimacy.
Furthermore, these ministerial decisions or recommendations are apparently not binding. What do they really mean? Well, they obviously mean that the Minister does not trust the tribunal, or at least he does not trust the media’s reaction to a decision that may be made by the Parole Board as a tribunal. But it certainly puts unacceptable pressure on the Parole Board.
With those comments in mind, please will the Minister tell us whether the Parole Board was consulted and, if so, whether the Parole Board welcomed these proposals and in what terms? Indeed, I think that we are entitled to know who else was consulted. What did they say? Did anyone support these proposals? If so, who were they and what reasons did they give?
Also, please will the Minister tell us how many cases this is expected to apply to? Is he, as a very experienced and eminent lawyer, comfortable with these changes? Do they accord with the ethical principles that separate Ministers from the courts and tribunals? He should be clear, when he answers, that most responsible commentators and respected NGOs see this as a slippery-slope provision to be deprecated.
Lord Bradley (Lab)
My Lords, I shall speak extremely briefly. I declare my interest as a trustee of the Prison Reform Trust. I fully support the views expressed in the excellent speech by the noble Baroness, Lady Prashar, in introducing this regret Motion.
I want to ask the Minister one question. Has guidance now been issued on the interpretation of the public confidence test and if not, when will it be issued? Who will be consulted on it, so that there is absolute clarity as to what public confidence means?
Lord Patten (Con)
My Lords, I rise somewhat nervously to speak, because I am not an expert in this field. I am not a lawyer. There are clearly many noble Lords in your Lordships’ Chamber tonight who are experts. Unlike some of my dafter colleagues in another place, I rather value experts. I listen carefully to what they have to say.
Whatever disagreements there may be tonight, I think we can all agree that public service on the Parole Board is one of the most challenging tasks imaginable: balancing the paramount need for public safety with the hopes of eventual reform and re-entry into society for some offenders.
It is often said that nothing seems to work in the UK criminal justice system. I do not think this is right. It is a mistake. An awful lot works pretty well. The record shows that this most specialised part of the criminal justice system, in respect of which I am an amateur—a layman is perhaps a better way of putting it—generally works quite well. But because of human nature, it does not work all the time, alas; sometimes it fails, whatever the statistics show.
While I agree with noble Lords that a bit more consultation in drawing up these regulations would not be a bad thing, I must respectfully disagree with the regret Motion, for two reasons. First, the Secretary of State, like Parole Boards, has a very challenging task regarding public safety. On reflection—again, I stress, I speak as a layman—it is surely right that he or she should be able to produce a single view in a small number of the most serious cases. In all other cases, whole dossiers of reports can be obtained from those who are experts—psychologists, psychiatrists and, of course, lawyers. I am content with that, and I want my noble friend the Minister to know that I strongly support it.
Secondly and lastly, I strongly support our manifesto commitment to have more public hearings, where possible, at the request of victims and their families, the media and the general public. This is to the public good. As a layman, I feel strongly that the parole system must be as open and transparent as possible—not some experts’ secret garden where the generality of the public should not go. As I said before, I do greatly value expertise.
It is interesting to see what happens in other jurisdictions, which are not often spoken of well in this country, such as the United States. In some states, though not all, the system is very open indeed. Some have parole boards on which ex-convicts, as they call them, serve as full members. We must not shut our eyes to trying to make our system as transparent as possible. This is a second reason why I strongly support our manifesto commitment being followed up.
Baroness Newlove (Con)
My Lords, I am here listening because I may shortly be on the Woolsack—although hopefully not—after my friend, the noble Baroness, Lady Fookes. However, I declare an interest. I am a victim, and so are my daughters, of the murder of my late husband, Garry Newlove. Having listened to Members, and with no disrespect, I cannot agree with this regret Motion.
For the last 15 years, I have attended every parole hearing and tariff review hearing and, in my role as Victims Commissioner, I have shadowed parole hearings. I also worked on the review of the Worboys case. Although an appeal system is in place, the bar is so high that it feels like a waste of time. I have been through an appeal. I have been through exactly what anybody else would have to go through, with no favours. That appeal route is not easy. You must explain why you want to do this and why you disagree with the result of the parole hearing. My appeal was sent to the then Secretary of State, Robert Buckland. His team looked at it and worked on it without knowing any of my views, except for what I had written through my victim liaison officer. His office then recommended that it be reviewed.
I want to draw the Chamber’s attention to the information victims receive. In bold letters, the Parole Board says that no matter what goes through, it does not change its mind. For a victim, it is absolutely appalling to see that in bold, even though there is a process for victims to go through. This is not to be disrespectful to the qualified people in this room, but I am speaking up for the many victims who go through a system that says one thing and delivers another. I speak as the mother of three daughters, who witnessed every kick and punch to their father, when I say that the system is broken. I totally agree that the public has no confidence in the criminal justice system where victims are concerned. I am very grateful that the media pick up these stories, because that means that I find out more information about my case than I would have been told personally by the system.
I disagree with this regret Motion. The system needs a good overhaul, and we need transparency. I hear from Parole Board members that it is a courtroom. Well, if it is a courtroom then there should be transparency, so that victims can fully understand why the decision was made. In one of the parole hearings, the Parole Board disagreed with a psychologist from the prison, a representative who knew the situation and went against that decision.
I welcome that we are discussing this, but I cannot agree with the regret Motion. We need transparency and we need public confidence. Victims have a right to know, to understand and to be treated with dignity, as I have for 15 years. They have a right to understand, to be there, to listen. More importantly, this is an opportunity to ask my noble friend the Minister: when will a draft victims Bill be presented, so that our voices can be listened to?
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
My Lords, I too thank the noble Baroness, Lady Prashar, for tabling this regret Motion, which I support. She made a powerful case. I will not repeat the points she made but, in opening, I put six questions to the Minister.
First, why was removing probation recommendations not included in the root and branch review and why was there no prior consultation with all the stakeholders before the changes were implemented? Secondly, on the removal of probation recommendations, what impact assessments have been carried out regarding black, Asian and minority ethnic prisoners and IPP prisoners?
Thirdly, the National Association of Probation Officers is concerned that removing professional recommendations in parole will lead to inappropriate releases and the non-release of those who otherwise may have been granted parole. Therefore, what impact assessment has been carried out on this issue, and did the Government seek the views of the Parole Board itself about having to make release decisions without expert witness recommendations?
Fourthly, under the changes, what protections are in place for probation staff who are required to attend a public parole hearing? I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Patten, and the noble Baroness that these hearings should be public, but the question is specifically about the protection of parole officers—and, potentially, expert witnesses—when they are taking part in these hearings.
Fifthly, how many responses were there to the root-and-branch review, and how many of those were in favour of the public parole hearings? I echo the question of the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, about whether anyone at all supported the Government’s proposals.
Sixthly, will the Government withdraw these changes if the judicial review finds against them?
In July’s Justice Questions in the other place, Kate Green MP challenged Dominic Raab on the proposed changes. He argued that
“there is a risk that separate reports, whether from psychiatrists or probation officers and those who manage risk, may give conflicting recommendations.”—[Official Report, Commons, 5/7/22; col. 711.]
Sonia Flynn, the chief probation officer, added in September’s committee session that differing recommendations would seem
“quite confusing, given that we are one HMPPS”,
and that the new change
“kind of tidies”
that up. That was the justification.
I must say that I find that explanation very surprising. I am absolutely sure that Parole Board members are well used to assessing conflicting sources of information; it is what people who sit as judges, or in a quasi-judicial capacity, do all the time. In other contexts, such as criminal courts or family courts, it is absolutely routine to get recommendations from probation officers—or in the context of family courts, recommendations from experts—which can indeed be contradictory. That is what the judges or magistrates do when they decide the merits of a case.
I hope that the Minister, who is exceptionally experienced, will bring an open mind to this situation. There have been a lot of changes on the Government and Treasury Benches over the last few months—or days. He is in a position where he can bring an open mind to this, and I hope that he will respond to the noble Baroness’s regret Motion in that spirit.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Bellamy) (Con)
My Lords, I am very grateful to all noble Lords who have contributed to this debate, and in particular to the noble Baroness, Lady Prashar, for tabling this regret Motion.
The principal concern is that the recent changes to the Parole Board Rules prevent prison and probation staff making specific recommendations in the reports that they give the Parole Board. It is said that this has implications for the sentence progression of individuals subject to parole review, and complaint is made that this was done through the negative procedure without consultation. What we are not considering today are other changes, such as changes relating to the move from closed to open prisons, which are, strictly speaking, not the subject of today’s regret Motion.
I will provide some background. The Parole Board of England and Wales is an arm’s-length body which, as has been pointed out, performs a judicial, or at least quasi-judicial, function. It is required by statute to decide whether prisoners serving eligible sentences can be safely released into the community—that is the board’s decision. The statutory test requires that the board must direct release if it is
“satisfied that it is no longer necessary for the protection of the public that the person should be confined.”
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
Is it still open for any expert to give a recommendation if they so choose?
Lord Bellamy (Con)
My understanding is that they are not to make recommendations. They can make their risk assessments and say whether there is a valid release plan; they can do all of those things. They can say this man or woman poses no risk to the public, or does pose a risk, or whatever it is, but they cannot express an opinion on the very question that the Parole Board is required to answer: whether the prisoner should be released. This is essentially a change that brings the decision on release back to where it belongs: the Parole Board, not the expert.
Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)
Is not the noble and learned Lord confusing two quite different things? The expert does not give an opinion on whether the person should be released, as the noble and learned Lord suggested has been the case; the expert gives his opinion on whether it is safe for the person to be released. That is quite different. Can the noble and learned Lord, with all of his expertise, think of another form of expert evidence in which the expert is not permitted to give his opinion on the key matter under consideration?
Lord Bellamy (Con)
My Lords, I respectfully submit that we are dealing with angels dancing on pins here. What is intended by this change is to make it clear that the responsibility for the decision rests squarely with the Parole Board, and to avoid the risk, however remote, that the expert report tends to usurp the role of the decision-maker, running the risk of them delegating their decision to the expert. This amendment brings the Parole Board process in line with the rest of the justice system. I respectfully refer your Lordships to the evidence of Professor Stephen Shute to the Science and Technology Committee of the other place on 7 September. He made this very point, saying that it is for the Parole Board to make the decision, rather than run the risk of the matter being left in the hands of the expert.
Analogy has been rightly drawn with what happens elsewhere in the justice system; for example, in relation to pre-sentence reports in the criminal process. One does not find the probation officer saying that the court should impose a community sentence. One asks the probation officer to assess whether the offender is suitable for a community sentence. This change will align the practice of the Parole Board more closely with the rest of the justice system.
Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood (CB)
Not realising that this was a high tea, rather than a dinner break, I confess that much to my regret I was not here at the start of the debate. Why, if this is designed to stop these individual experts pre-empting the Parole Board’s decision, is it left to the Secretary of State to be allowed to do so with his single view?
Lord Bellamy (Con)
If I may respectfully point this out to the noble and learned Lord, the Secretary of State with his single view does not pre-empt the decision of the Parole Board. He presents a single view to the Parole Board.
Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood (CB)
Why is that any different from the same operation being done by those who have been contributing to the background?
Lord Bellamy (Con)
In a sense, this is an inter partes procedure, with the Secretary of State on one hand and the prisoner on the other. The Secretary of State, like a party, is putting his view to the board. That is the single view that, in my submission, he is entitled to put.
While I am on the single view, this is likely to refer simply to the very top tier of cases, probably 150 to 200 cases a year out of the many thousands that the Parole Board deals with. It refers to very dangerous, highly sensitive cases of prisoners involving murder, serious violence and so forth. In those cases, it is thought right that the Secretary of State, through his representative before the Parole Board, should be able to present a single overarching view. That is a sensible approach which avoids confusion and uncertainty.
Nothing in any of these reforms prevents or limits the ability of the Parole Board to make the right decision or the ability of the relevant members of staff, whether psychologists, probation officers or whatever, to make the risk assessments or to put in whatever observations they wish within the assessment that they are required to make, except to make the relevant recommendation.
It is not a change that should in any way undermine the system. HMPPS staff will continue to provide reports to the Parole Board. Their reports will still contain the same detailed evidence and assessment of risk as before. The only omission will be a recommendation on what decision the report writer thinks the Parole Board should make. Far from undermining the Parole Board, the intention of these reforms is to draw a sharp distinction between the roles of those who provide evidence and those whose duty it is to assess the evidence and reach a decision. That is the essential background.
Lord Garnier (Con)
Does my noble and learned friend think it appropriate that a political Minister should be the conveyor of a single view—the only view—on a matter for quasi-judicial discussion?
Lord Bellamy (Con)
The Secretary of State has an overriding duty to protect the public. In that context, as the guardian of the safety of the public, he is entitled to present his view to the Parole Board, which then decides.
On the second point made by the noble Baroness in relation to the implications for the progression of offenders, the Government’s position is that there is no change. The rules by which prisoners progress through the system and their opportunity for release will continue to be assessed by the Parole Board, as they are at the moment.
On this occasion, I will not go into the open prison/closed prison issue, because that is not the subject of what we are discussing today. On the point we are discussing, this change in the rules about the recommendations, it is a very limited change and is fully in accordance with general principle. HMPPS will continue to provide comprehensive evidence to the Parole Board and factual evidence for the assessment of risk, as before.
Lord Woolf (CB)
I am really rather surprised at what the Minister says. I have sat in courts for many years. To suggest that an expert cannot give an opinion as to what should be the outcome is something I find contrary to everything I remember from my experience, which admittedly was a long time ago.
Lord Bellamy (Con)
My Lords, with respect, I have always understood it to be the case—I hope I have not got this wrong—that an expert should not normally give his opinion on the very issue on which the court is required to decide. The scope of the expert’s opinion is to provide the court with the factual details. It is the duty of the expert not to say whether X or Y is guilty or not guilty but to provide the court with the facts on which that decision is taken. At least, that is common practice.
Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)
In the jurisdiction in which the Minister is so expert, namely competition law—as he knows, I have sat with him in the Competition Appeal Tribunal—economists and other experts giving evidence before the Competition Appeal Tribunal do give an opinion as to whether the practice under consideration is competitive or anti-competitive.
I pull the Minister back to a previous point. Time and again, those of us who have been in criminal courts for a long time have heard judges say to a probation officer, for example, “If I pass a non-custodial sentence, do you think he would comply with orders A, B and C?”. That is an opinion on exactly the issue under consideration. I am completely befuddled by that part of the argument and so, I think, are many noble friends and colleagues.
Lord Bellamy (Con)
Perhaps I ought to try to bring this somewhat tetchy debate to a close. The Parole Board is required to decide that it should direct release if it is satisfied that the detention is no longer necessary for the protection of the public. The provision we are discussing makes it clear that the expert should not pronounce on the prisoner’s suitability for release. In other words, the expert should not pronounce on the principal matter on which the Parole Board is being asked to decide. Subject to that, all the other material that was there before will continue to be there.
Baroness Prashar (CB)
My Lords, I know that time is rushing on and the Front Bench is keen to close the debate. I first want to thank all the colleagues who have contributed to this debate and say that I respect the alternative views expressed by the Minister and the noble Baroness, Lady Newlove.
I found the Minister’s response rather confusing. He was trying to justify the unjustifiable. If I wanted to refute every point, it would take me about half an hour, which I do not have. This really highlights why it is important to have a consultation—a proper debate—so we are not eroding the fundamental principles on which the Parole Board actually operates. At the outset he said it was an arm’s-length body and should be respected as such. Also, if may say so, experts can give their opinion but from my experience the Parole Board hears different, conflicting views and it makes up its own mind. It does a risk assessment, which it is good at. Its record shows that.
I ask the Minister, having listened to this debate and felt the unease round the House, whether the Government will be willing to meet to see how some of these things are going to be discussed. We need clarity about what actually is intended. I am leaving this debate more confused than enlightened. But I thank the Minister for the response and everybody else for their contributions. I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
Chinese Consulate: Attack on Hong Kong Protesters
(1 year, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park) (Con)
My Lords, with the leave of the House I shall now repeat in the form of a Statement the Answer given by my right honourable friend the Minister for the Americas and the Overseas Territories to an Urgent Question in the other place on the protests at the Chinese consulate in Manchester. The Statement is as follows:
“His Majesty’s Government are extremely concerned at the apparent scenes of violence at the consulate of the People’s Republic of China in Manchester on Sunday afternoon. Greater Manchester Police had been pre-notified of the demonstration and intervened to restore order, and we are grateful to it for its action. I understand that Greater Manchester Police has launched an investigation to establish the facts of the incident.
The Foreign Secretary has issued a summons to the Chinese chargé d’affaires at the Chinese embassy in London, to express His Majesty’s Government’s deep concern at the incident and to demand an explanation for the actions of the consulate staff. It would be inappropriate to go into further detail until the investigation has concluded, but let me be clear that peaceful protest, as this House has always recognised, is a fundamental part of British society and our way of life. All those on British soil have the right to express their views peacefully without fear of violence. FCDO officials expressed that clearly to the Chinese embassy yesterday. We will continue to work with the Home Office and Greater Manchester Police colleagues to decide on appropriate next steps.”
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
I thank the Minister for repeating that Statement. I share the Government and the Minister’s concerns at the violence at the consulate. While I welcome the fact that the chargé d’affaires has been summoned and that a meeting apparently took place this afternoon, we must show that such behaviour will not be tolerated on our streets. Therefore, I was disappointed that Jesse Norman was today unable to confirm that the Foreign Secretary would immediately summon the Chinese ambassador to demand an explanation for the incident. I hope that the Minister will urge him to do so without delay.
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
I thank the noble Lord for his remarks. As was said in the Statement, the police in Manchester have launched their investigation, and a police patrol plan is in place in the area. The use of police powers and management of demonstrations are obviously operational matters for the police—but, in relation to what happened on the ground, at this stage it would be inappropriate to comment further until that investigation is completed, at which point the noble Lord’s remarks may well become more pertinent.
Lord Dholakia (LD)
My Lords, there is ample video evidence to be able to see precisely what happened in Manchester on that day. There are hundreds of Hong Kong refugees now in this country for the purpose of resettlement. Is there any way that it can be determined whether there is diplomatic immunity, on the basis that we can take no action—other than making sure that we expel those who are responsible from this country back to China?
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
The noble Lord makes an important point, but it is one to which I cannot respond with any degree of authority or detail. We have to wait until the investigation is complete before knowing for sure what took place at the protest, and whatever actions follow will result from that clearer understanding.
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, I declare my non-financial interest as vice-chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Groups on Hong Kong and on Uyghurs, and as a patron of Hong Kong Watch. This question is about grievous bodily harm, which has been done to a peaceful protester who has had to be hospitalised. It is about the Chinese Communist Party believing that it is above the law and can act with impunity on British soil. It is about the importation of CCP brutality, which has so disfigured the lives of the peoples of Hong Kong, Xinjiang, Tibet and Taiwan, and Chinese citizens who have dared to question the tyranny of the one-party state. It is also about the contagious spread of CCP cadres, whether they are intimidating students on our campuses and subverting institutions and even, as our intelligence agency has pointed out, CCP spies working in the precincts of our Parliament.
The key question for the Minister tonight is that, once this investigation has been completed—and we all welcome the work that is being done by the Greater Manchester Police force—if it shows that Consul-General Zheng Xiyuan, Consul Gao Lianjia, Counsellor Chen Wei and Deputy Consul-General Fan Yingjie, who were all directly involved in attacking peaceful protesters in Manchester, will the Government ensure that they will be treated as persona non grata forthwith and told to pack their bags? To do anything less would devalue the currency of our belief in free speech and the right to protection while peacefully expressing dissent.
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
The noble Lord makes a powerful intervention. However, it is simply not possible for me to respond in any detail until those inquiries are completed. Once they are and we know what happened, it would then be for the Government to respond appropriately.
The noble Lord makes an important point. Peaceful protest is an absolutely core part of a democratic society. It is a long-standing tradition in this country. People are free to gather to demonstrate their views, and to do so knowing that they will not be punished as a consequence. As the noble Lord knows, that is not true all around the world. However, it is very precious and we will continue to defend it.
The noble Lord has done some sterling work for those from Hong Kong fleeing persecution. I hope he will agree with me that the Government have stood by those citizens of Hong Kong who face persecution. We have been very clear that China remains in an ongoing state of non-compliance with the Sino-British joint declaration.
I was looking for the latest figure for the number of people who have come over from Hong Kong—as I say that, I find them. There have been 140,000 applications, with 133,000 granted. That is a reflection of the value that the British people and Government place on our friends in Hong Kong.
Lord Campbell of Pittenweem (LD)
My Lords, I cannot resist an observation to this effect: suppose that the roles had been reversed and representatives of the United Kingdom had behaved in this way. One can only imagine the rightful indignation that we would have heard from Beijing. Here is the question I want to address: have there been incidents of peaceful presentation at this particular location in the past that have passed without incident?
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
The noble Lord makes a useful observation on the turning of the tables. The answer is that I do not know. I suspect that there have been peaceful protests. The fact that we have not debated incidents in that venue suggests that the answer to his question is yes, but I will need to get back to him to confirm that.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My Lords, I want to come back to my original question. I totally understand that it is not the Government’s position to interfere with the operations of the police or their investigations. However, the Government felt it right to summon the chargé d’affaires to make clear our view about this incident. Why is it not right for the Foreign Secretary to summon the ambassador to make this position clear? Surely that must be done immediately.
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
My Lords, that depends on what is discovered. It may well be, as noble Lords are implying, that this was an egregious act of wrongdoing. If that is the case, the Government will respond accordingly and, at that point, our conversation and interaction with China and Chinese representatives would change. However, at this point, it would be premature for me to map out a course of action.
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, will the Minister ensure that he takes a look at the video material that is available? It shows the protester being dragged into the consulate grounds. What happened to the protester is all on film. This is not us becoming angry about what someone said might have happened; it can be seen very clearly.
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
My Lords, I have seen the images captured on video. All I would say is that there has to be a process. This is a very serious incident. If noble Lords’ fears are confirmed, obviously the situation will be escalated, as it must be. It is incumbent on the Government, before they respond, to they know absolutely the facts on the ground.