Deputy Speaker’s Statement
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
I wish to inform the House that Mr Speaker has received a letter from the hon. Member for Solihull (Julian Knight), informing Mr Speaker of his resignation as Chair of the Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee. The Chair is therefore now vacant. Mr Speaker will announce arrangements for the election of a new Chair in due course.
Oral Answers to Questions
(1 year ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Laura Trott)
You will notice, Madam Deputy Speaker, that I am not the Secretary of State. He sends his apologies as he is currently travelling back from the G7 in Japan, but we will endeavour to do a reasonable job in his absence.
Pre-1997, as the hon. Gentleman knows, occupational pension defined-benefit schemes were not required to be indexed. I emphasise that defined-contribution schemes, which most people are on today, are also, obviously, not required to be indexed.
Justin Madders
As we know, inflation is racing ahead at the moment, and more and more pensioners who are members of occupational pension schemes with pre-1997 service that has not been index linked, and those who are part of the Pension Protection Fund, are noticing the difference. Will the Department carry out an audit of how many people are being affected by those rules, and by how much?
Laura Trott
Those rules were in place for a large period of the last Labour Government, and if Labour Members were interested in changing them, I suggest they should have done so at the time.
Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall) (Lab/Co-op)
The Minister for Employment (Guy Opperman)
We have comprehensive support in place to help Department for Work and Pensions claimants to secure, stay and succeed in work, including in-work progression, youth hubs and targeted support for people of all ages. In addition, there is a comprehensive package in the Budget to assist each and every one.
Florence Eshalomi
I thank the Minister for his response. My constituents in Vauxhall have seen food prices go up by nearly 20%, their household bills go through the roof, and their already high rents going up, in some cases by up to 16.5%. That is while real-terms pay has been falling for 18 months. How does the Minister propose to give workers in Vauxhall, and those on benefits, a real pay rise?
Guy Opperman
A whole host of things are being done on in-work progression. More importantly, vacancies have fallen for nine successive quarters, employment is up, the claimant count is down, economic inactivity has fallen, and disability employment is up. All those things are helping the hon. Lady’s constituents, and all other constituents up and down the country.
Stephen Crabb (Preseli Pembrokeshire) (Con)
I strongly support the efforts that my hon. Friend is making to boost in-work progression. After all, the original vision behind universal credit was to see more people on benefits earning more and increasing their income over time. Does he agree that one key to the success of this, alongside tailored and relevant training, is better contracts? Research seems to show that a claimant on a permanent contract does significantly better with in-work progression than those on zero-hours or temporary contracts.
Guy Opperman
My right hon. Friend makes a number of very good points. He is a former Secretary of State in this Department, and has great wisdom on this issue. The main thing that the Department is doing is providing the in-work progression offer, which assists people who are in work and trying to progress to greater hours and full-time work. We are also fully in support of greater training, whether through sector-based work academies or the skills bootcamps, to allow people to have permanent long-term contracts, and enable them to thrive and survive in a better way.
Ms Karen Buck (Westminster North) (Lab)
The Department’s recently published research on sanctions, including those relating to in-work conditionality, show that sanctions have a negative impact on claimant earnings. How will the Minister take account of those findings in setting future sanctions policy?
Guy Opperman
We want to encourage claimants to comply with reasonable requirements, which are set and agreed with their work coach in the claimant commitment. That will continue on an ongoing basis, and I see no change to that.
Theresa Villiers (Chipping Barnet) (Con)
The Minister for Disabled People, Health and Work (Tom Pursglove)
Our recent White Paper sets out our ambitions to create a better experience for disabled people when applying for, and receiving, health and disability benefits. Our proposals will transform support, so more disabled people can start, stay and succeed in work.
Theresa Villiers
A disabled constituent who came to my advice surgery recently described the many hurdles she had to go through to get welfare support. She felt stigmatised by the whole process and was subjected to really frustrating delays, so I am keen to hear from the Minister what the Government are doing to reform assessments and improve the way the benefits system works to help disabled people get the support they need without it feeling like a battle.
Tom Pursglove
I really appreciate my right hon. Friend highlighting the concerns raised with her by her constituent. I know she supports the fundamental change we are determined to bring about, whereby we will focus more on what people can do. We will remove what is a structural barrier to work: the impediment that means people feel prevented from trying work because of the fear that if it does not work out they will lose their entitlement and have to go back through a re-application and reassessment processes. I hope she will welcome the steps we are taking, for example to link expert assessors with particular conditions to help us to get decisions right first time, as well as the commitment we have made to reduce the assessment burden more generally.
Sir Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)
The experiences of the constituent of the right hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Theresa Villiers) are, unfortunately, far too common. The assessments disabled people go through often go badly wrong and the great majority of appeals against refusal succeed. It all causes immense and unnecessary anxiety for disabled people. The Select Committee on Work and Pensions recommended that all assessments should be recorded to help put things right. The assessment providers all support that recommendation. Will the Minister give the House an assurance that he will give that recommendation very serious and sympathetic consideration?
Tom Pursglove
I am always grateful for the opportunity to hear from the Chairman of the Work and Pensions Committee. It is important to recognise that both the Minister for Employment, my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Guy Opperman), and I are set to appear before the Committee next week. What I will not do this afternoon is make specific commitments, but I can say—I have said this regularly now, including in the many conversations we have had with disabled people and various stakeholders that we want to work constructively to get the reforms right. This is the biggest set of welfare reforms for over a decade, so I am very willing to consider all views about how we can improve processes. Of course, people are able to make recordings of assessments at the moment, but we should look at that. I am very willing to do that, and to come back to the Committee formally.
Vicky Foxcroft (Lewisham, Deptford) (Lab)
On a recent call with stakeholders in the Department for Work and Pensions, the Department revealed that only 11 individuals had so far been included in the severe disability test group, which, as the Minister knows, is aimed at simplifying the application process for those with the most severe disabilities and health conditions. Worryingly, there also appears to be very little clarity about the definition of severe disability. Despite that, the Department signalled that it was preparing to further roll out the group. Can the Minister confirm today whether that number is correct, provide further information on which individuals qualify, and confirm when the Department will start the roll-out?
Tom Pursglove
What I am certainly very willing to do is to provide further detail to the shadow Minister, separate from this afternoon’s proceedings. I am absolutely clear that the severe disability group has an important role to play, recognising the challenging conditions people have and that, for many, those conditions will not improve. I am keen to reduce the reassessment burden on people wherever we can, streamline processes, and ensure that people feel properly supported and properly cared for during the course of those processes. That is the right step to take. I am determined that we get this right. Exactly as I said just now, I want to work collaboratively and constructively as we move forward with the White Paper reforms. We have made commitments to test and trial various things, and we will get on and do that.
Holly Lynch (Halifax) (Lab)
Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)
Samantha Dixon (City of Chester) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Laura Trott)
In 2022, there were 200,000 fewer pensioners in absolute poverty than in 2010.
Holly Lynch
Mr Brooke from my constituency is nearly 70. He contacted me when his application for pension credit was rejected on the basis that he is £2.55 over the threshold, which rules him out of not only pension credit but any other associated benefit. Mr Brooke signed off his letter to me saying:
“I just can’t afford to live. Yours, Truly Broken”.
What are this Government doing to help people such as Mr Brooke in that incredibly difficult position?
Laura Trott
I appreciate the hon. Lady’s raising that case. I encourage her—I am sure she has already—to check whether her constituent would be eligible for housing benefit in her constituency. That is not necessarily linked to pension credit, although it automatically passports. We are doing other things to support pensioners in those situations—the pensioner cost of living payment was received by 8 million pensioner households over the winter, and will be repeated this year.
Patricia Gibson
The UK already has the lowest state pension as a proportion of pre-retirement wages in north-west Europe. Independent Age has highlighted that 5% of pensioner couples and 19% of single pensioners have no source of income other than state pension or any associated potential benefits. Will the Minister finally take action to address pensioner poverty and shockingly low state pensions relative to most of Europe?
Laura Trott
We challenge those figures, as the hon. Lady knows. I point her to the record increase in state pension that we have just introduced—10.1% for both the state pension and pension credit. That will make a real difference to pensioner poverty levels, alongside the cost of living payments that are going out this year—£900 for pensioners on pension credit and £300 for all pensioner households.
Samantha Dixon
Two weeks ago I visited West Cheshire Foodbank in my constituency, where volunteers told me that for the first time a couple who were both pensioners had turned up in tears because they could not afford the cost of living and the basics. The Government have failed to fix the issues with pension credit uptake, with over a third of those entitled not claiming. Given that there are 400,000 more pensioners in poverty today than when Labour left office, why should the pensioners forced to visit the food bank in Chester trust a Government who have repeatedly let them down?
Laura Trott
I am sorry to hear about the pensioners involved. If they are eligible for pension credit and not claiming, I assume the hon. Lady is helping them. As a Department we are happy to give any assistance to those individuals. We are doing all we can to boost pension credit uptake. There was a campaign before Christmas, which I am sure she was part of, to get people to claim the cost of living payment, which we will repeat this year. We saw a 177% increase in claims just before Christmas. There will also be the pension credit week of action for the summer on 12 to 16 June, which I hope many hon. Members will take part in.
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
Ministers agitated for us all to get involved in the campaign to extend the uptake of pension credit. Has the Minister any innovative plans that will make it easier for us to do so, such as toolkits and the like?
Laura Trott
Absolutely. I am also looking at what more we can do to use data from housing benefit and from His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs to make it easier to target people for a claim. Working together, we can make a real difference in the number of pension credit claimants in this country.
Angela Richardson (Guildford) (Con)
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
The Minister for Employment (Guy Opperman)
The Government’s 50-plus plan and our offer to help older workers return to work are being rolled out. That includes more intensive tailored support for eligible jobseekers, 37 full-time 50-plus champions, delivery of the mid-life MOT in jobcentres, online and with the private sector pilot project, and multiple older worker job fairs up and down the country.
Angela Richardson
I thank the Secretary of State, who I know cannot be here today, for his visit to a mid-life MOT session for the over-50s at the brilliant jobcentre in Guildford. I was incredibly impressed with everyone I saw participating in that session. Will the Minister join me in welcoming this Government’s belief that no one is ever too old to retrain and start a new career?
Guy Opperman
In common with anybody who is over 40, which I confess to, I think we should support all older workers in whatever shape or form—I certainly want to do so. I particularly recommend the Guildford jobs fair for older workers that is taking place in May, which I know my hon. Friend will try to support and which her constituents should go along to as well.
Bob Blackman
I declare an interest in the issue of older workers.
In addition to encouraging people who are 50-plus to get into work, it is also important that employers understand that such people have immense experience and capability to add to their organisations. What more is the Minister going to do to ensure that companies, and all sorts of employers, take the opportunity to employ older workers, as they can provide great benefit to their firms?
Guy Opperman
I promised my hon. Friend I would not mention the 6-1 drubbing that his beloved Spurs received from Newcastle United yesterday, albeit that Spurs are obviously looking for a 50-plus manager of quality to go forward.
More seriously, there has been much that employers are doing. I know my hon. Friend’s two local jobcentres in Harrow East are working together with Stanmore College and local employers to try to drive forward older workers.
Carolyn Harris (Swansea East) (Lab)
Almost 700,000 women over 50 are currently on long-term sick leave. Many are recorded as having depression or anxiety, with no consideration being given to the menopause as the primary factor. What consideration has been given to offering menopause awareness training to occupational health specialists, to enable them to better support women back into work?
Guy Opperman
The hon. Lady raises a serious and important point. She will know that the Department has appointed Helen Tomlinson as its first ever menopause employment champion, and we are working on persuading employers to develop menopause-friendly policies. I know the Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Sussex (Mims Davies), is particularly working on this issue and will be delighted to work with the hon. Lady to address this very important point.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
Like the Minister, the closest I can get to 40 is No. 40, where I live.
Helping over-50s to get back into some form of employment allows them to boost their savings and increase their quality of life in retirement. I know the Minister is keen to engage with people in Northern Ireland, so what discussions has he had with the Department for Communities at the Northern Ireland Assembly, so that those who have ability, talent and energy can find employment? There are many opportunities to do just that.
Guy Opperman
I agree with everything the hon. Gentleman says. He knows I am attempting to visit Northern Ireland on 15 May, subject to Whips and slips and all that fun and games. The point has duly been noted, I am sure. The simple point is that we are engaging with the team in Northern Ireland as much as we possibly can, and trying to roll out the good work we are doing on the mainland as much as possible in Northern Ireland. I will engage with him further, hopefully when I come to see him in May.
Virginia Crosbie (Ynys Môn) (Con)
Does the Minister agree that this Government are committed to supporting over-50s, including those in Ynys Môn, into work? Will he join me in thanking Tony Potter and the brilliant Anglesey DWP team, who are working with me to host a jobs fair for over-50s in Holyhead town hall soon?
Guy Opperman
Diolch, Madam Deputy Speaker. My hon. Friend was kind enough to host me in Llangefni only a couple of weeks ago, when I met Mr Potter and all the DWP team working on the island. They are doing a fantastic job. We should be very proud of the work they are doing to address both mainstream employment and older-worker employment. I am sorry I cannot be at the jobs fair for older workers that she is hosting, but I encourage everyone on the island to go along to that.
Mark Pawsey (Rugby) (Con)
The Minister for Disabled People, Health and Work (Tom Pursglove)
The health transformation programme is modernising the entire personal independence payments service, including the application process, to improve the claimant experience and ensure the service meets the needs of claimants over the longer term.
Mark Pawsey
I thank the Minister for his answer, but my constituent Gary Thacker was diagnosed with autism later in life and, despite the assistance of a friend, it took him many hours to complete his PIP form. I know the Minister has introduced a variety of formal methods of assistance, which are provided by organisations such as Citizens Advice, but Mr Thacker was unaware of those. What steps is the Minister’s Department taking to make sure applicants know about the levels of support that are available?
Tom Pursglove
It is fair to say that the Department offers support according to ability and according to need. For the very vulnerable and in exceptional cases, we are able to refer claimants not only to visiting officers, but to the forms completion service. If my hon. Friend provides me with more details about his case, I will be happy to take a look, but I hope I can reassure him by saying that we are looking to digitalise the personal independence payment journey. That is currently in testing; it should help to provide greater signposting within the processes and towards other support for which people may be eligible, which I think is really welcome. I hope that he will welcome it, too.
Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)
In February, a survey carried out by the charity Mind and Censuswide found that 66% of people with a mental health issue who had experience of the benefits assessment system discovered that it made their mental health worse. The majority of negative decisions that make it to a tribunal are eventually overturned. When does the Minister expect an improvement in decision making and in the impact on people’s mental health?
Tom Pursglove
I certainly think that journey times are an important factor. We want to provide certainty as quickly as possible in relation to people’s claims. Waiting times for PIP claims have come down very considerably, and the PIP journey is certainly shorter than in the pre-pandemic period. As I have said, I genuinely believe that there is a significant opportunity, through the reforms that we are introducing in the White Paper, to focus on quality decision making. Reducing the assessment burden will help us to get decisions right the first time, as will matching people who have particular conditions with assessors with the right expertise.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
I call the shadow Secretary of State.
Jonathan Ashworth (Leicester South) (Lab/Co-op)
The Minister’s proposal to essentially collapse the work capability assessment into the PIP assessment means that up to 1 million people who have fluctuating health conditions, or who may be recovering from treatment, could lose out on up to £350 a month. That is causing considerable distress, and it will not actually get anyone back to work now. Why does he not adopt instead the policy that we have put forward, which is supported by the Centre for Social Justice: to change the work capability assessment rules and offer an “into work guarantee” for those with no work requirements? Is he content to leave 700,000 sick and disabled people who want to work blocked from journeying into work?
Tom Pursglove
No. What this Government are doing is making sure that we support people into work. We are removing the structural impediment to getting into the workplace. We believe that scrapping the work capability assessment is the right thing to do; we have had many debates about the issue in this House over the years, and we think that we are responding properly to the feedback we received on the Green Paper proposals. There was a strong message that people wanted to see that happening, and we will get on and deliver it. We will focus on quality decision making and on making sure that people are transitionally protected. There may, for example, be people not currently claiming the PIP who will be entitled to it; I would always encourage people to access the benefits to which they are entitled.
I must say that it is rather surprising to hear the shadow Secretary of State’s comments today, given what one newspaper has written:
“Disability benefits changes: Labour pledges to scrap reforms but shadow minister holds back details”.
Where are Labour’s plans?
David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)
I can certainly assure the House that SNP Members will not be trumpeting ideas advocated by right-wing think-tanks such as the Centre for Social Justice.
The health and disability White Paper introduces a new universal credit health element, with eligibility through PIP that could be far more restrictive than work capability assessments. Indeed, the Tories’ new in-work progression offer will inevitably mean exposure to sanctions for disabled people. Given that the Department’s own published report, which it tried to keep under wraps for many years, shows what we knew all along—that sanctions do not work—why will the Minister not finally do the right thing and just scrap them?
Tom Pursglove
May I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his marathon time yesterday? He put in an impressive effort. I know the training, commitment and dedication that go into running a marathon, so I congratulate him on it.
I do not accept the hon. Gentleman’s characterisation of the Centre for Social Justice. I think that these are genuinely common-sense reforms that reflect the feedback that we received from disabled people and from their representative bodies. We will work with them to make sure that we get this right. Replacing the work capability assessment is the right thing to do, recognising that we want to concentrate more on what people can do than on what they cannot do, and doing so on a tailored, individual basis.
Of course we know that more than 20% of disabled people could start work within the next two years, and that they want to do so and, with the right support, would. We think that the right way of dealing with that, and supporting that employment, is to work constructively with them on plans which work, meeting their circumstances and needs. That is what the Budget announcements were all about. There is good practice out there, and we want to extend it.
Gerald Jones (Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mims Davies)
The DWP does not assess the reasons why families may use food banks, but we do understand the pressures that they face as a result of the cost of living, and have therefore increased benefits by 10.1% this month. That is in addition to the increase in the national living wage to £10.42 an hour, and the provision of more than £11 billion in cost of living payments.
Gerald Jones
Food banks in my constituency and across the country are struggling to deal with demand. More than 40% of people using them are in work, and they are used by one in six children whose families receive universal credit. Meanwhile, the local housing allowance remains frozen and the five-week wait for universal credit is increasing debt. All those factors contributed to the reason why one of the food banks in my constituency nearly closed its doors last week, namely that it had no food to give out. Can the Minister tell me what else the Government will do to support families? It seems that there is very little understanding of the scale of the problem that the country is facing, let alone a willingness to do something about it.
Mims Davies
Let me draw the hon. Gentleman’s attention to the household support fund, which will provide an additional £50 million to help families in Wales through difficult times. The hon. Gentleman’s constituents who are in need will also be pleased to know that the next stage of the cost of living payments will begin tomorrow, with £301 being paid to households between then and 17 May. The DWP will be issuing further communications about those payments.
We have heard today about social tariffs and other ways in which people can obtain support and reduce their bills. The Help for Households website, which I commend to everyone, provides information about assistance with childcare, travel, energy and household costs, and about income support. It will help the hon. Gentleman’s constituents and, indeed, all our constituents.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
I call the shadow Secretary of State.
Jonathan Ashworth (Leicester South) (Lab/Co-op)
The Minister has just said that the DWP did not assess the reasons for which people are using food banks. Perhaps she will go back to her private office after this and ask her officials to look into whether people are using them because the Government cut universal credit by £20 a week, and cut it in real terms last year. Perhaps she could ask her officials whether it is because the DWP is taking deductions from universal credit payments every week. Perhaps she could ask the DWP if it is because earnings are worth less than they were in 2007. Perhaps she could ask the DWP whether it is because the Government have raised the taxes on working people. Perhaps she could ask the DWP whether it is because the Government crashed the economy and sent mortgages and rents through the roof. Perhaps she could ask the DWP whether more people are using food banks because that is the price of 13 years of economic failure.
Mims Davies
May I remind the hon. Gentleman of Labour’s 10p tax rate, and the fact that we have doubled tax-free allowances? [Interruption.] Food banks are important. They are independent charitable organisations where people in local communities can support each other. [Interruption.] This is a great example of the generosity of spirit in our communities. [Interruption.] If this mattered to the hon. Gentleman, perhaps he would listen to my response rather than chuntering from the Front Bench.
I remind the hon. Gentleman that we take the issue of food security very seriously. That is why we added the internationally used food security questions to the “Family Resources Survey: financial year 2019 to 2020”. The new statistics on usage will help the Government to understand more about the characteristics of the people who are most in need, and we will continue to do what we pledged to do and are proving to do in supporting the most vulnerable.
Hywel Williams (Arfon) (PC)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mims Davies)
This Government believe that work is the best route out of poverty for families and we are supporting parents to progress, to stay in work and to be better off. That was shown in our spring Budget, which will deliver an ambitious package of measures, across Government, to support people to enter into work, increase their working hours and extend their working lives. We have also raised benefits and benefit cap levels by 10.1% and we are providing those further cost of living payments, which commence tomorrow.
Hywel Williams
Have the two-child limit and the benefit cap increased child poverty?
Mims Davies
The reality of the policy that the hon. Gentleman mentions is about fairness for the taxpayers who support the most vulnerable and making sure that we have a welfare and benefit system that works. We will spend around £276 billion through the welfare system in 2023-24, including £124 billion on people of working age. I would again point people towards the cost of living website and the benefits calculator on gov.uk and I would ask him to note that the benefit cap was raised this year as well.
Dr Luke Evans (Bosworth) (Con)
The Minister for Disabled People, Health and Work (Tom Pursglove)
Unpaid carers can play a vital role in supporting disabled people to live active lives, including through working when they are able to do so. The White Paper sets out how we will create a better experience for disabled people, people with health conditions and their carers when applying for and receiving health and disability benefits.
Dr Evans
I am grateful for the Minister’s answers, because carers are integral to looking after people up and down the country, especially with an ageing population who are living longer and with more frequent and difficult disabilities. Will he make sure that they are at the centre of the White Paper, because if this policy is to succeed, we need to support our unpaid carers.
Tom Pursglove
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The insight and experience of carers and their feedback were invaluable through the Green Paper process in helping us to come up with our final White Paper proposals. As we move forward into the implementation stage, it is key that we continue to sustain that engagement and focus on meeting the aspirations of carers and the disabled people they care for. I also want to look at this issue from the other end of the telescope, in looking at what more we can do to support those with caring responsibilities to access employment if they want to do so, because from a health and wellbeing perspective, there is real value for them in that too.
Alexander Stafford (Rother Valley) (Con)
The Minister for Employment (Guy Opperman)
The jobcentres across Rother Valley have been doing some amazing work to fill local vacancies and bring greater employment to the local area. Our Budget package of enhanced care support for working parents and investment in people with disabilities and long-term health conditions will make a massive difference, on top of the sector-based work academies and skills boot camps that are available for further training.
Alexander Stafford
I thank the Minister for that answer. Obviously, jobs are one of the most important ways of getting people out of poverty and growing household incomes. That is why I held three job fairs last year and sent a leaflet round to every constituent telling them how to get job opportunities in Rother Valley. Another job fair is coming up next month, aimed at older people and young people coming into employment, and I would be grateful if the Minister could come along. Getting older people over the age of 50 and younger people who are just leaving school into jobs is incredibly important. What further steps are this Government taking to ensure that younger people and older people have great job opportunities?
Guy Opperman
I think my hon. Friend has the record for the most job fairs and doing the greatest amount of work I know with the local DWP. He is doing a fantastic job as a doughty champion for Rother Valley and I support the work he is doing. There is no doubt that, whether it is through the youth hubs making a massive difference to younger workers, the older persons’ jobs fairs being held up and down the country or the hundreds of jobs fairs that have been held since the Budget last year, we are massively driving things forward to ensure that in Rother Valley and across the wider country we have much greater employment.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
The Minister for Disabled People, Health and Work (Tom Pursglove)
No assessment has been made of the adequacy of PIP for people with disabilities. PIP is intended to provide a contribution towards paying for the additional costs faced by disabled people. Individuals then have a choice and flexibility in prioritising according to their needs.
Wera Hobhouse
A report by the Work and Pensions Committee found that people experience “psychological distress” due to the health assessment required as part of the PIP application process. Many of my Bath constituents feel the process does not reflect their needs and are concerned about the lack of support—some of those issues were covered by earlier questions. The Government have promised to trial the use of specialist assessors with knowledge of specific health conditions. Can the Minister please clarify which conditions are covered and how the assessors are being trained?
Tom Pursglove
When we are able, we will set out more detail of the relevant conditions and the approach we will take in delivering on this commitment. I raised the issue in my conversations with officials this morning, because I am keen to progress this as quickly as possible. I see real benefit and value in matching assessors with specialisms to people with particular conditions. It is clear from the feedback that people believe this will make a significant difference. Along the lines I set out earlier, we want to reduce PIP journey times as much as feasibly possible, and I want to make sure that we get more decisions right first time and that we focus on quality, which is precisely what the reforms will do. We will share further detail with the House when we are able to do so.
Ellie Reeves (Lewisham West and Penge) (Lab)
I have a bedbound constituent who relies on food banks and is unable to do basic tasks such as getting herself dressed and collecting food. She has two young children who are happy to take on these tasks, yet she has been told that her PIP assessment will take four months. How can the Minister justify families having to rely on food banks while they wait for a PIP assessment? What will he do to change this?
Tom Pursglove
Again, I refer to my earlier remarks on the steps we are taking to improve PIP journey times as far as possible. I am keen for the hon. Lady to share the details with me so that I can ask officials to look at this specific case. I want people to have certainty on their PIP claim as quickly as possible, as people require this important help. I would always encourage people to apply for PIP if they believe they might be eligible. If she provides me with those details, I will gladly look at them as a priority.
Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Laura Trott)
This month, pensioners received the largest ever cash increase to the state pension and pension credit. In addition, all pensioner households will receive a £300 cost of living payment. The Government are committed to helping pensioners with the cost of living.
Kevin Foster
I thank the Minister for her answer. One of the best ways to help pensioners with the cost of living is to ensure that everyone claims the pension credit to which they are entitled. What work is she doing to engage with the high street banks on their more vulnerable customers who are over the state pension age, both to identify those who might be missing out and to facilitate applications for pension credit, which can make a vital difference?
Laura Trott
My hon. Friend is right to highlight the vital role that high street banks play in interacting with vulnerable pensioners and vulnerable customers. Organisations such as Virgin Money and HSBC have worked to promote pension credit uptake. I will be working with them and a variety of other stakeholders as we build up to the cost of living payment deadline on 19 May and the inaugural DWP pension credit awareness week on 12 to 16 June.
Douglas Chapman (Dunfermline and West Fife) (SNP)
Pension credit continues to be a serious issue, with £1.7 billion going unclaimed each year. Will the Minister introduce an effective strategy in the coming year, perhaps following some of the initiatives we see in Scotland, to make sure everyone gets what they are entitled to in these very difficult times?
Laura Trott
The Department for Work and Pensions is straining every sinew because this is incredibly important to us, and to me. We need to make sure we are doing all we can to reach those vulnerable customers. We have done a nationwide advertising campaign, which the hon. Gentleman may have seen. We are doing a lot in the build-up to 19 May, and I want to work with everyone in the House to make sure we use Members of Parliament as much as possible to reach out to vulnerable pensioners in our constituencies.
Matt Rodda (Reading East) (Lab)
The price of food is rising by 30%, yet the Government are continuing to fail pensioners at this very difficult time: nearly 200,000 women in their 80s have been underpaid for years because of errors at the DWP; hundreds of thousands of pensioners are missing out on pension credit, as we have heard; and when pensioners do get their pension credit application in, it can take up to three months for officials in the Department to process a claim. When will the Government finally tackle this appalling pattern of failure?
Laura Trott
Labour put up pensions by 75p. We put them up by nearly £20. We are doing all that we can to support pensioners, and they know that we have got their backs.
Marsha De Cordova (Battersea) (Lab)
Nigel Mills (Amber Valley) (Con)
The Minister for Disabled People, Health and Work (Tom Pursglove)
Disability employment advisers have expertise on how to help disabled jobseekers into work and build work coach skills to help these claimants. That is in addition to broader support, including our increased work coach support, the Work and Health programme and intensive, personalised employment support.
Marsha De Cordova
Successive Tory Governments have failed to reduce the multiple barriers facing disabled people entering work. Research by Sense has found that disabled jobseekers say that they do not have the support and equipment they need to look for work, and it is vital that every jobcentre across this country is accessible and has essential pieces of assistive technology so that disabled people can find and apply for work. If this Government want to finally get serious about reducing the disability employment gap, which remains at about 30%, will they commit today to a jobcentre assistive technology fund to support disabled people to look for work?
Tom Pursglove
I categorically reject the initial point made in the hon. Lady’s question. The fact is that this Government set a target of getting 1 million more disabled people into work and we met it five years early, but now we must go further. That is precisely why we have brought forward the reforms in the White Paper, which we genuinely believe will remove that structural barrier to work. We will have the packages of support alongside this, which I believe people will want to engage with, because they are aspirational and want to enter the workplace. We will never ask people to do anything that is not appropriate for them. We will work on an individualised, case-by-case basis to support customers. Of course, it is absolutely right that we make sure that our services are as accessible as possible, and that is the whole thrust of the reform. The health model officers are helping us to test what works, and we will continue to work along those lines. I hope she will want to work with me, in the spirit of partnership, to make this a success.
Nigel Mills
One frustration for disabled people occurs when they have an assessment that identifies what support or adaptations they need in order to go into work and then that support is never actually available or employers cannot provide it. Is there some source of optimism to be found in the funds and the changes announced in the spring Budget that support will be lined up in advance, so that people can take a job when one is offered to them?
Tom Pursglove
It is really welcome that the whole of Government are focused on what more we can do to support disabled people and people with health conditions into work, if that is appropriate for them. That was reflected in the commitments that the Chancellor made on the Work Well programme and on universal support. Of course, we are also introducing additional work coach time into jobcentres, the latest tranche of which will go live this week in another third of jobcentres. Those are really important steps forward. Alongside initiatives such as Access to Work and Disability Confident, we have the opportunity to transform matters in our society to make our workplaces more inclusive and, on a tailored, individualised basis, not only to support people into a role, but to help them retain it.
Stephanie Peacock (Barnsley East) (Lab)
The DWP uses private company Maximus to assess benefit eligibility for a number of people in the claims process. That includes responsibility for deciding on former mineworkers’ entitlement to industrial disablement benefits. What training and qualification requirements are there for Maximus assessors making these potentially life-changing decisions that affect so many of my constituents?
Tom Pursglove
Continual quality assurance processes are in place that monitor and keep tabs on the quality of the decisions made by any of the assessment providers that work with the Department. Of course, we always keep that under constant review. If there are specific issues that the hon. Lady is keen for Ministers to look at, I would be very happy to do that. She knows that I am always willing to work collaboratively and constructively along those lines. If there is feedback about areas where she or her constituents feel that improvements could be made, including on responsiveness, I would be happy to look at that. I also go back to the point I made about the reforms earlier, where, for example, the work we are doing to try to match expert assessors with conditions will really help to improve people’s confidence in decision making, as well as build capacity and performance.
Amy Callaghan (East Dunbartonshire) (SNP)
The Minister for Employment (Guy Opperman)
Normally, the Secretary of State would make a statement at this stage, but, on behalf of the whole ministerial team, I will say just two things. First, overall, measures from the Department for Work and Pensions in the Budget represent an investment of £3.5 billion over five years to boost workforce participation. That includes: £2 billion of investment in support for disabled people and people with long-term health conditions on top of the Health and Disability White Paper; £900 million investment in support for parents; £70 million investment in support for the over-50s; and £485 million investment in support for unemployed people and people on universal credit and working fewer than full-time hours.
Secondly, DWP Ministers had the great honour of working with the amazing Len Goodman, who sadly passed away over the weekend. The pension credit video that he filmed with me last summer for the annual Pension Credit Awareness Day in June was the most successful piece of communications that we have ever done on this issue and massively boosted pension credit applications. I can tell the House that, throughout the day’s filming, he was kind, immensely professional, totally polite and a delight to work with, and he still had all the dance moves even at his age. He will be sadly missed by this House and by his many fans around the country. Our thoughts, prayers and condolences go out to his family.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
I am sure the whole House will join the Minister and others in remembering with fondness Len Goodman and in sending our good wishes to his family and friends.
Amy Callaghan
I thank the Minister for his answer. On Thursday, I and my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow East (David Linden) visited One Parent Families Scotland. The young single parents we met were outraged and upset about the young parent penalty, as they are receiving less universal credit than older parents. Does the Minister care to explain why he feels that younger parents are worth less than those who are over 25?
Guy Opperman
We do not feel that in any way whatsoever. I will write to the hon. Lady setting out the legal and statutory basis behind the policy.
Dr Luke Evans (Bosworth) (Con)
The Minister for Disabled People, Health and Work (Tom Pursglove)
My hon. Friend is a passionate advocate of the join-up between health and work, and work as a determinant of better health outcomes for people. It is important to note that a number of jobcentres and Health Model Offices have work coaches working with GP surgeries to provide employment support to customers with health conditions. That is a valuable approach, and we are determined that the Work Well partnerships programme that was announced in the Budget will build on this to design an integrated approach to work and health with that proper join-up on the ground reflective and responsive to local needs. I shall take on board his observation as we look to shape that.
Alison McGovern (Wirral South) (Lab)
We on the Labour Benches join you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and the Minister in the tribute to Len Goodman, and we think of all his loved ones today. He was not just a national treasure, but someone who helped to put money in pensioners’ pockets, which is where it belongs.
The local elections are next week, so people will be thinking of the fortunes of their towns or cities. In many places, unemployment is not low, as the Minister has said, but high. In Blackpool, for example, one constituency has unemployment at an excruciating 8%. What about that chronic poor performance should be rewarded at the ballot box next week?
Guy Opperman
We all know that unemployment is always higher when the Labour party leaves office. The hon. Lady might care to listen to a few key points: vacancies have fallen for nine successive quarters; employment is up; payroll employment is at a record high; claimant count is down; economic inactivity has fallen; disability employment is up by 1.3 million over the past five years; and, as for Blackpool, massive work is being done there. She will be aware of the intervention by the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, which has been working very hard across Government to transform the fortunes of Blackpool, with record investment—something that definitely did not happen when Labour was in Government.
Tom Hunt (Ipswich) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mims Davies)
Local charities play an important role in providing support in our communities. I look forward to visiting my hon. Friend’s constituency later this month to see what Combat2Coffee can do to support veterans and their families, and I hope to take a keen interest in Tools with a Mission too, if possible.
David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)
When he appeared before the Select Committee in November, the Secretary of State said that,
“the more transparency there is, the better. It informs public debate and allows a feedback loop for the Department. It is all part of holding us to account and that is extremely important”.
In light of that and in the spirit of the Department’s new approach to transparency, can the Minister provide me with figures on how many DWP staff are themselves reliant on universal credit?
Mims Davies
I know the hon. Gentleman takes a particular interest in transparency. I work strongly on the Department’s behalf, with the Minister in the Lords, and I will write to the hon. Gentleman with a response.
Andrew Jones (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (Con)
Guy Opperman
We are doing huge amounts of work to encourage over-50s employment. My hon. Friend refers to the pledge, and we encourage all employers up and down the country to sign up, to participate in the mid-life MOT, to embrace older workers’ fairs and generally to accept that older workers have a great deal to offer.
Ian Byrne (Liverpool, West Derby) (Lab)
Some 5,260 women in Liverpool, West Derby have been affected by the changes made to the women’s state pension age, and many have contacted me about the devastating impact it has had on their lives. What consideration has the Minister given to early-day motion 1040 by my right hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley (Sir George Howarth), which calls for an alternative dispute resolution process, including representatives of the 3.8 million women affected, to address the injustices they have been through?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Laura Trott)
The hon. Gentleman will know that state pension age equalisation has been the policy of successive Governments since 1995.
Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con)
Tom Pursglove
I am hugely appreciative of my hon. Friend, who is a passionate advocate of Disability Confident. I would hope that local authorities would want to engage with the scheme and set the example that they would like to see businesses and other organisations in their communities follow. I know he has good conversations on this question with Councillor David Thomas, the leader of the Conservative group, who I hope may be in a position in a few weeks’ time to help set the standard in the Torbay area and blaze a trail for Disability Confident at Torbay Council.
Liz Twist (Blaydon) (Lab)
Laura Trott
We have massively increased the number of people working on that at the moment. We are undertaking work against scams, we are prioritising cases in which the recipient is alive, and we will try to get that done by the end of the year. I am accelerating that as much as I can. I am very aware that it is a problem.
Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)
Laura Trott
I thank my hon. Friend for all that he is doing to encourage pension credit take-up in Crawley. The Government have undertaken a sustained communications campaign to raise awareness of pension credit and promote its take-up. The latest stats release at the start of the year shows a substantial rise in the number of claims.
Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)
My constituent had a brain injury 20 years ago and was receiving personal independence payment for care and mobility support. A recent review said that there was no change to his condition, but somehow the decision has been made to stop his benefits. The Minister has already indicated that he is considering this matter, but will he meet me to discuss that particular case?
Tom Pursglove
I am always very happy to meet colleagues from across the House to discuss such issues, and this circumstance is no different.
Dr Kieran Mullan (Crewe and Nantwich) (Con)
Mims Davies
Enforcement action is used as a last resort when a parent is failing to pay their maintenance payments and other action has failed. Home detention is a powerful deterrent and, as such, we would expect usage to be low—perhaps less than 10 cases a year on average. I know that my hon. Friend focuses on this matter. The Child Maintenance Service continues to explore how existing powers can be used to encourage compliant behaviours and facilitate constructive relationships between parents to ensure that, importantly, financial support reaches the children for whom they are responsible.
Martin Docherty-Hughes (West Dunbartonshire) (SNP)
A new Work and Pensions Committee report on the health assessments for disability benefits such as PIP and employment support allowance has found that “issues or errors” in the DWP health assessment system have, in some ways, contributed to the deaths of claimants. What assurances can the Minister give the House that those issues and errors will not continue to kill our disabled constituents?
Tom Pursglove
We take those matters incredibly seriously, which is why we have internal process reviews in the Department to look at them. We have serious case panels constituted by senior leaders from within the Department, and the independent case examiner, for example. Where there are issues and learning that must be taken on board, that must always happen. This is structured through that. We will look very carefully and closely at the Select Committee report, and we will, of course, respond appropriately in the normal way. The hon. Gentleman can be absolutely assured that these processes must always be looked at carefully, and that any learning is taken on board and acted on.
Alun Cairns (Vale of Glamorgan) (Con)
Guy Opperman
The apprenticeship levy has been a fantastic success, but as Employment Minister, I am conscious that there is widespread concern among small and medium-sized enterprises, particularly smaller businesses, that there should be greater flexibility going forward, building on what we are already doing. I am very happy to meet my right hon. Friend and Ministers in the Departments that control the policy to discuss any improvements.
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)
On 19 April last year, the Equality and Human Rights Commission informed the Government that it was issuing a section 23 agreement against them under the Equality Act 2006, in response to serious concerns regarding discrimination against sick and disabled people. Twelve months on, that agreement still has not been reached. When will it be reached and why has it taken so long?
Tom Pursglove
I cannot give the hon. Lady a definitive conclusion date, but what I can say is that we have entered into a phase of advanced discussions with the Equality and Human Rights Commission. We will come forward with further detail as soon as we are able to do that, and the process will be concluded in the proper way.
Sir Robert Buckland (South Swindon) (Con)
I welcome my hon. Friend the Minister for Disabled People, Health and Work to his place. I look forward to working closely with him on the review into autism and employment, which we have embarked upon this very month. What further measures will the Government take to close the appalling gap in employment, such that only two in 10 adults with autism are currently in work?
Tom Pursglove
It is fair to say that we have had a good debate this afternoon about the whole host of initiatives that we as a Government are determined to take forward to shift the dial and make meaningful improvements to support more disabled people and people with health conditions into work, and autism is no different. I am delighted that my right hon. and learned Friend has agreed to take on this review on behalf of the Government. I look forward to his bringing forward recommendations, suggested areas for improvement and initiatives that we might want to embark on, focusing on knowledge and responsiveness, seizing the opportunity for workplaces to unlock the talent that undoubtedly exists out there, and helping to improve people’s lives for the better.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
For the final topical question, I call Stewart Malcolm McDonald.
Stewart Malcolm McDonald (Glasgow South) (SNP)
I am grateful to you, Madam Deputy Speaker. The use and abuse of unpaid work trials continues to grow, despite the Government’s guidance published a couple of years ago urging employers not to use them. Given that the guidance clearly is not cutting through, will the Minister agree to meet me to discuss what legislation might look like?
Guy Opperman
I am not sure I totally accept the premise of the hon. Member’s argument, but if he writes to me with the details of what he is asserting, I will certainly consider it.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
That concludes questions, so we now come to the urgent question. I will pause for a moment to allow the turmoil of people leaving to settle down, but I would be grateful if Members left quickly and quietly.
List of Ministers’ Interests and Ministerial Code
(1 year 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
Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the register of ministerial interests and the ministerial code.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Alex Burghart)
I am pleased to confirm that the latest list of Ministers’ interests was published last week on 19 April by the Prime Minister’s independent adviser on Ministers’ interests, Sir Laurie Magnus. The list has been deposited in the Library of the House and is also available online on gov.uk.
I note that the hon. Lady’s question talks of a register of ministerial interests. I am afraid that I must point out, for the sake of clarity, that that is not an accurate term. It is important that I provide a little explanation about the list, what it contains and the role it performs. The ministerial code makes it clear that
“Ministers must ensure that no conflict arises, or could reasonably be perceived to arise, between their public duties and their private interests, financial or otherwise.”
It is their personal responsibility
“to decide whether and what action is needed to avoid a conflict or the perception of a conflict, taking account of advice received from their Permanent Secretary and the Independent Adviser on Ministers’ interests.”
On appointment, each Minister makes a declaration of all interests. They remain under an obligation to keep that declaration up to date throughout their time in office. Ministers are encouraged to make the fullest possible disclosure relating to themselves, their spouses and partners, and close family members, even where matters may not necessarily be relevant. The information supplied is then reviewed and advised upon by their permanent secretary and also by the independent adviser. Where needed, steps are taken to avoid or mitigate any potential conflicts of interest. That is the process by which Ministers’ interests are managed. It is thorough and ongoing, and it provides individual advice to all Ministers that reflects their circumstances and responsibilities.
Twice a year, a list is published, covering those interests that are judged by the independent adviser to be relevant to each Minister’s portfolio. The list is not a register. It is designed to be read alongside the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, which is maintained by this House, and the register of Members’ interests that operates in the other place. For that reason, the list does not generally duplicate the information that is available in the registers.
The independent adviser, Sir Laurie Magnus, makes it clear in his introduction to the list published last week that it would not be appropriate for all the information gathered as part of the ministerial interests process to be made public. He states that such a move would
“represent an excessive degree of intrusion into the private affairs of ministers that would be unreasonable, particularly in respect of”
hon. Members’ families. I am sure hon. Members will understand that the system is designed to gather the fullest amount of information, provided in confidence, so that the most effective advice can be given.
All Ministers of the Crown uphold the system that I have described. That is true for all Ministers, from the Prime Minister, who has been clear that all his interests have been declared in the usual way, all the way down to, and including, an assistant Whip. In the latest list, the independent adviser highlights the importance of Ministers and their permanent secretaries remaining alert in the context of their respective portfolios if Ministers’ interests change. That is, of course, right. Importantly, though, Sir Laurie Magnus provides his opinion as independent adviser on Ministers’ interests that
“any actual, potential and perceived conflicts have been, or are in the process of being, resolved”.
Wendy Chamberlain
When he was appointed, the Prime Minister promised that he would govern with integrity. He went inside No. 10 and his first act was to appoint Ministers. Of that cohort, three have now departed in controversy, including two in relation to allegations of bullying.
One thing the Prime Minister did not do at that time was publish an updated list of ministerial interests. It was finally released last week, 320 days after the last publication. That list does not include the interests of Ministers from the past year who have either been dismissed or resigned, such as the right hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Nadhim Zahawi). That means that, on my count, there are almost 120 missing registrations from that period. Nor is there any setting out of what is referred to by the ethics adviser in his introduction to the list as
“actual, potential and perceived conflicts”
that are
“in the process of being…resolved”.
I hope the Minister can give more clarity on that situation.
Will the Minister accept the ethics adviser’s statement that a Minister’s interests are only clear when reading the ministerial list and the MPs’ register together? That is difficult to do, with one being published monthly and the other twice a year, or—as we have found—much less frequently. Members rightly disclose their interests regularly, because transparency is essential. The Leader of the House promised swift action to strengthen the system and agreed to consider more regular reporting. The publication last week suggests that she has failed in that effort to provide more transparency, so will the Government end this undemocratic two-tier system and bring publication forward to every 28 days, and will they publish the missing interests of former Ministers? It is absurd to think that had the former Deputy Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Esher and Walton (Dominic Raab), resigned just three days earlier, we would never have been told what his interests were during his time as Justice Secretary.
Registration of ministerial interests is a key principle of the ministerial code; so, too, are behavioural standards. Last week, the former Deputy Prime Minister was found to have bullied civil servants in line with the definition under the code. According to the independent report, he acted in a way that was “intimidating” and
“involved an abuse or misuse of power in a way that undermines or humiliates”,
but Ministers have remained silent. Will the Government therefore publish any advice the Prime Minister was given on conduct before appointing the former Deputy Prime Minister? Is it the view of the Government that the former Deputy Prime Minister did breach the ministerial code? Will the Minister affirm that there is a duty on Ministers under the code to uphold the impartiality of the civil service, and will he accordingly affirm that impartiality today? Finally, does he acknowledge that the Government’s silence is deeply damaging and demoralising for hard-working officials?
Alex Burghart
I thank the hon. Lady for her question. She will be aware that Sir Laurie Magnus, who took up his post in December, has said that he will return to the regular cycle of publications. This list is his—he has oversight of it. It would be wrong if the Government were to interfere in that process, and we will obviously continue to engage fully with him to make sure that the list is up to date and reflects the ongoing interests of Ministers, so that the system can operate effectively.
On the point that the hon. Lady makes about the former Deputy Prime Minister, she will know from listening to previous statements and debates in this House that no formal allegations were made against my right hon. Friend the Member for Esher and Walton (Dominic Raab) before the Prime Minister appointed him. The moment those formal allegations were made, the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister agreed that there should be an independent investigation. Adam Tolley KC conducted his investigation, and the Deputy Prime Minister then resigned.
On the hon. Lady’s point about civil service impartiality, of course we accept and respect civil service impartiality. It is one of the things that makes government work so effectively in this country.
Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)
The Minister will agree that there is much more openness and transparency now than 13 years ago. Through him, can I put it to the Prime Minister that Sir Laurie Magnus should be asked each year whether he would like to write a public letter to the Prime Minster on how the system is working, and any changes or improvements he would like to see made?
Alex Burghart
I thank the Father of the House for his long view on these things, and I am sure that Sir Laurie will have heard his remarks.
Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab)
I thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and Mr Speaker for granting this urgent question. Last week, the Prime Minister saw a third senior Minister resign in disgrace, jumping because he was not pushed. Can the Minister confirm that the former Deputy Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Esher and Walton (Dominic Raab), did break the ministerial code? Did the Government know of or approve his statements blaming the victims, which appeared before the official findings of the report? Can the Minister say whether he agrees with the brave victims who came forward for that report, or with the former Deputy Prime Minister himself, that unacceptable bullying and misconduct took place? Does he think that the former Deputy Prime Minister should apologise to victims?
We also saw the list of ministerial interests miraculously appear just minutes before Prime Minister’s questions. Can the Minister say whether the Prime Minister declared his financial interest in Koru Kids as a Minister and as Chancellor before he became Prime Minister? Will the Minister meet his own commitment to more regular updates of the ministerial interests list and put it on the same basis as the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, which is published fortnightly while the House is sitting? The Ministers’ list seems to be annual. Will the Prime Minister finally introduce an independent adviser with the power to launch their own investigations? Have all the recommendations of the Boardman review been implemented? How many of the recommendations from the Committee on Standards in Public Life report have been implemented? A recent audit by Spotlight on Corruption revealed that, 18 months after both reviews were published, just 7% of the recommendations have been implemented.
While the Government have been preoccupied with yet more Tory psychodrama, working people are still battling the worst cost of living crisis for a generation. Labour is focused on cutting the cost of living, cutting crime and cutting waiting lists with our long-term plan to give Britain its future back. Has not this past week proved beyond doubt that it is time for a Government laser-focused on delivering for Britain, instead of one mired in misconduct?
Alex Burghart
I will take the hon. Lady’s questions in reverse. This Government are absolutely committed to tackling the cost of living crisis. It is because of that that the Prime Minister’s No. 1 preoccupation is ensuring that inflation comes down. Without inflation coming down, we cannot have growth, and without growth we cannot have more money for our public services. The Labour party would do very well to support us in that endeavour, otherwise we will fall into exactly the same trap that it fell into in the 1970s, where unions chase pay, pay chases inflation and the economy cannot grow for 10 years.
On the point that the hon. Lady made about the Prime Minister’s declarations, I draw her attention to the remarks made by the previous independent adviser Lord Geidt, who said that the Prime Minister had been “assiduous” in declaring all his relevant ministerial interests in all his roles. The Prime Minister personally asked Lord Geidt to look into that, and Lord Geidt was satisfied, as, it must be said, is Laurie Magnus likewise. On her remarks about the former Deputy Prime Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Esher and Walton (Dominic Raab), I draw her attention to the fact that in his letter to the Prime Minister last week, the Deputy Prime Minister said:
“I am genuinely sorry for any stress or offence that officials felt”.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
I call the Chair of the Select Committee.
Mr William Wragg (Hazel Grove) (Con)
It surely cannot be beyond the wit of man, notwithstanding the constitutional differences between Members of Parliament and members of the Government, that some form of co-operation might not be devised by talking to one another. Might I make the suggestion to my hon. Friend, who is one of the ablest Ministers in the Cabinet Office, that he would be just the person to reach out in such circumstances, so that some degree of co-operation and co-ordination on this issue might be found?
Alex Burghart
My hon. Friend is an assiduous student of the constitution, the workings of this place and the Cabinet Office, and he will know that, while it is very important that we have separate lists, it is also within the remit of anybody who wishes to pick up those two separate reports—the list and the register—to compare them and to draw their conclusions, as necessary.
Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
We have ministerial declarations—interests list—that are updated not timeously, if they are updated at all. Will the Minister ensure that all ministerial declarations are published, not just those of Ministers who happen to have been sitting in the hot seat when the music stopped? We have Ministers and the Prime Minister announcing policy to the press first on a regular basis. The Prime Minister has lost numerous Ministers as a result of code breaches and there are various investigations ongoing. It seems that Ministers are happy to carry on erring until the point—beyond the point, in fact—that they are caught and until the point that the investigation finally reports and they finally choose to resign. What is the point in having a ministerial code if Ministers do not abide by either the letter or the spirit of that code, and continually breach it?
Alex Burghart
I think the hon. Lady is arguing for no due process. The moment that formal allegations were made against the former Deputy Prime Minister, both he and the Prime Minister decided it would be necessary to call an independent investigation into the Deputy Prime Minister’s conduct. That was conducted by a leading KC and, following the conclusion, the Deputy Prime Minister resigned. The alternative would have been to have no investigation at all—no independent assessment—and in our opinion that would have been wrong.
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
How swiftly will the Government act to reduce the time in which complaints about ministerial behaviour can be made?
Alex Burghart
My right hon. Friend is a lover of brevity, and the truth is that he will have seen in the Prime Minister’s letter to the former Deputy Prime Minister that it is necessary to make sure any
“shortcomings in the historic process”
are addressed. He has asked the Cabinet Office to look at that and we intend to do so swiftly.
Dame Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab)
But the system that we came into this Parliament with only works if the Prime Minister has integrity and he does not keep ignoring the adviser on ministerial interests and the reports that they come up with into things like bullying by Cabinet Ministers. The fact is that we have had two of those advisers resign because their reports were not followed, and that has led to the ministerial list of interests being unavailable to the public for many, many months and many, many more changes of Government. That is completely unsatisfactory. Does the Minister not therefore agree that we need a much more rigorous, transparent system that does not rely on the honour of Prime Ministers, which can now no longer be counted upon?
Alex Burghart
I hope that the hon. Lady was not suggesting that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister was dishonourable, because I think that would have been out of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. However, I am sure she will appreciate that the former independent adviser Lord Geidt said that the Prime Minister had been “assiduous” in his reporting. The report—the list— published by Sir Laurie Magnus just a few days ago suggests that he has been likewise in this return, as have all Ministers, and that wherever any perceived conflicts of interest have been found, they are being dealt with.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Order. I want to just make absolutely certain that nothing has been said that ought not to have been said. I totally trust the hon. Member for Wallasey (Dame Angela Eagle) not to have said anything that she should not have said, but just let me make it clear to the House as a whole that, when we are discussing a sensitive subject such as this in particular, moderation is important and that reputations are important. I am sure the hon. Lady was indeed moderate in her use of words, as the Minister has been. I just want to make sure everybody else is.
Jackie Doyle-Price (Thurrock) (Con)
The ministerial code is, of course, there to regulate the broader aspects of ministerial behaviour, not just financial interests—that tends to be the issue that the House gets really concerned about, but actually it is the broader behaviours that are more important. Given that we have had such a turbulent 18 months with regard to the code, will my hon. Friend, or the Prime Minister, consider rebooting it and focus on exactly the values that we expect of Ministers? Specifically, could I invite him to clarify that the ministerial code is very important when Ministers are deploying their operational responsibilities?
Alex Burghart
The ministerial code is obviously a bedrock of the way the Government operate and, on my hon. Friend’s point about operations, she is right. One reason the code exists is in order to give guidance to Ministers in that regard.
Sir Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
Of course the Minister is defending the status quo—that’s his job—but I gently suggest that the whole system of the ministerial code is now bust. It does not fit with the parliamentary code of conduct. There are lesser rules for Ministers than there are for ordinary Back-Bench MPs. The new list, which was published only last week, is already an inaccurate list of Ministers, let alone a list of ministerial interests. It seems bizarre that a Minister would declare something to their Department and to the adviser, who would then say, “Oh yes, but we’re not going to bother telling the public about that.” Surely the time has come to have a new system for the whole ministerial code that is truly independent, so that the Prime Minister does not make the ultimate decision, others make an independent decision on when there has been a breach of the code, and we unite the two codes—the ministerial code and the code of conduct—because all Ministers have to be members of one or other House.
Alex Burghart
The hon. Gentleman is a powerful advocate for the approach he has outlined. On his point about examples of declarations of interest that might be made to a permanent secretary that may not be relevant—[Interruption.] If he gives me a moment, I will come to an example. For example, a Minister in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs may declare that their brother-in-law works in a company producing electric car parts in their declaration of interest form. That will be considered by the permanent secretary and the independent adviser. That may not be included in the published list, on the ground that it would be unlikely to present a conflict in relation to a DEFRA portfolio. It also would not be relevant to the register of the Minister’s parliamentary interests. If the Minister then moved to the Department for Transport, the Department for Business and Trade, or the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology, the interest would become more relevant and would be much more likely to be published in a list. I use that lengthy and exciting example to outline to the hon. Gentleman that the two things are not the same. The list and the register are different and are there for different reasons. They operate in different ways and consequently have different rules pertaining to them.
Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)
If we are serious about supporting and defending the independence and sagacity of our senior civil servants—I certainly am and I know my hon. Friend is—their advice on whether something should be in the public domain or not should surely be enough. Otherwise, it is a direct challenge to the authority of those senior civil servants to whom a Minister is making a declaration. Does the Minister agree with that? Does he also agree that the clue is in the title—a blind trust is just that?
Alex Burghart
Absolutely. A blind trust must be a blind trust. On my hon. Friend’s point about the integrity of official advice to Ministers, absolutely, our system requires officials to be able to give advice candidly and freely, safe in the knowledge that it will not routinely be disclosed.
Karin Smyth (Bristol South) (Lab)
In our Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee report into the Greensill affair, we suggested:
“The Government should outline the range of sanctions and indicative examples of breaches to which they might apply. Without this, the suspicion is that the only determinant of the level of sanction will be political expediency.”
In the discussions with the Deputy Prime Minister last week, was he offered a range of sanctions with regard to the breach of the ministerial code before he resigned?
Alex Burghart
I was not party to those discussions, so I am unable to say.
James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con)
The transparency provided by the list is important, which is why I welcome its publication. Does my hon. Friend agree with me that the Opposition should follow the Government’s lead on transparency, and publish details of all meetings and contacts that they had with senior civil servant Sue Gray before her appointment as Labour party chief of staff?
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)
When the new, latest Prime Minister took charge, he promised integrity, professionalism and accountability, but after yet more sleaze and scandal was exposed by investigative journalists, and just minutes before Prime Minister’s questions, the register of interests was miraculously updated to include shares in Koru Kids which is owned by the Prime Minister’s wife, who would end up benefiting significantly from her husband’s policy changes. So, does the Minister not agree—[Interruption.]
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Order. I warned Members earlier to be careful about what they say on this sensitive subject. There are certain matters which are sub judice or quasi-sub judice.
Madam Deputy Speaker
My honourable helper here tells me that they are under investigation. When I said quasi-sub judice, that is what I meant, but I suppose I should not have said it all in Latin. I will say it in English: under investigation. I would be grateful if the hon. Member for Slough (Mr Dhesi) would be general in his question.
Mr Dhesi
Thank you for that advice, Madam Deputy Speaker. Does the Minister not agree that we now have a Prime Minister who has to be forced—compelled, if not embarrassed—into showing any sort of transparency?
Ronnie Cowan (Inverclyde) (SNP)
When Sir Laurie Magnus gave evidence to PACAC on the compliance of Ministers with the ministerial code, he said:
“I think you have to rely on their honesty, their compliance with the seven principles of public life and their recognising that if they are to have the privilege of a ministerial position, they have to comply with the expected standards.”
What can we do in this place when they do not?
Alex Burghart
The hon. Gentleman, I am sure, as a member of PACAC, will have read Sir Laurie Magnus’s list, published last week, in which he outlines that Ministers are doing what they are expected to do and that permanent secretaries are helping them to do so.
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)
There are so many loopholes in the regulatory system for all the codes of conduct, but in that of the ministerial code in particular. The so-called Independent Adviser on Ministers’ Interests is anything but independent, and unable to initiate their own investigations or to decide on what sanctions are appropriate. When will the Government adopt my Elected Representatives (Codes of Conduct) Bill, which I introduced at the beginning of the year to close the existing loopholes?
Alex Burghart
With all due respect to the hon. Lady, it is completely the case that the Independent Adviser on Ministers’ Interests is independent. He is independent and he conducts his duties accordingly in that role.
Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)
The problem the Minister has is that there is a pattern with the Prime Minister: he has already been fined for not wearing a seatbelt and for breaching covid rules, and he is currently being investigated over allegations about his registering of interests. Now, in an unprecedented move, it has been reported that the investigation has been widened because of allegations that it was discussed in public. Can the Minister explain why this Prime Minister, sadly much like his predecessor but one, seems to be—[Interruption.]
Madam Deputy Speaker
Order. I made it very, very clear in the past five minutes that questions were to be general and not refer to the investigation. I said it loudly and clearly. If the hon. Lady wants to ask a very brief general question, she may do so.
Patricia Gibson
Madam Deputy Speaker, I apologise. I tried to make my comments general by simply talking about allegations. I was talking about allegations, not about any investigation.
Madam Deputy Speaker
Order. Let us make this absolutely clear. An allegation made in public in this House is a very serious matter and it has consequences. I will give the hon. Lady one more chance to ask a brief general question.
Patricia Gibson
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I was simply going to ask the Minister if he can explain why he thinks the Prime Minister seems so accident prone when it comes to running his Government?
Alex Burghart
The Prime Minister is doing an excellent job of delivering on the people’s priorities. Scottish National party Members want to be very careful before picking up rocks in their glasshouse.
Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)
We had the fast track for covid contracts, where people did not have to be a Conservative party member or donor—but it didn’t half help—to get a contract. We have had Ministers having to resign over various misconducts. We have had gaps in their declarations of interest, and now we have this investigation into the Prime Minister. That is a fact: that is happening. Does the Minister not think it is time that we had an independent ethics investigator who could look into these matters? Regardless of who is in government, the public’s view is that these things bring down our politics. Should we not all work together to clean it up and make sure that there is an independent investigator with power to independently investigate?
Alex Burghart
We have an independent adviser and a ministerial code. This Government are delivering on the Prime Minister’s commitment to integrity and professionalism.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
Thank you Madam Deputy Speaker. I thank the Minister for his clarification and the answers that he is trying to deliver. Will he further outline whether clear guidance will be issued on what constitutes a conflict of interest and how far that extends, to ensure that this House does not continue to consider these matters with the current greyness?
Alex Burghart
I refer the hon. Gentleman to Sir Laurie Magnus’s report and list published last week. The process by which it is decided what conflicts Ministers might have is in conjunction with ministerial declarations, the permanent secretary and the independent adviser.
Sir Chris Bryant
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am grateful for what you said earlier. It is important for the Standards Committee and the commissioner to be able to do their work that we do not refer—preferably anywhere but certainly not in the Chamber—to ongoing investigations by the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards.
Madam Deputy Speaker
The hon. Gentleman is right, and I am pleased that he has made that point of order. It requires no answer from me other than to agree. Members ought to act honourably when they speak in the House—and everywhere—and not try to get as close as possible to saying something that they should not say. They ought to have a higher standard than that in the drafting of their questions, speeches and responses.
Sudan
(1 year ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Mr Andrew Mitchell)
With your permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will make this further statement to the House about the situation in Sudan on behalf of the Government and the Foreign Secretary, who is attending the funeral of a close family member.
Ten days ago, fierce fighting broke out in Khartoum. It has since spread to Omdurman, Darfur and other Sudanese cities. As Members of the House will know, a violent power struggle is ongoing between the Sudanese army and the paramilitary Rapid Support Forces.
The situation in Sudan is extremely grave. More than 427 people have been killed, including five aid workers, and over 3,700 people have been injured. Before this violence began, the humanitarian situation in Sudan was already deteriorating. We now estimate that approximately 16 million people—a third of the Sudanese population—are in need of humanitarian assistance. These numbers, I regret to inform the House, are likely to rise significantly.
Although the paramilitary Rapid Support Forces announced a 72-hour ceasefire from 0500 hours London time on 21 April to the mark the holy festival of Eid, it did not hold. Given the rapidly deteriorating security situation, the Government took the difficult decision to evacuate all British embassy staff and their dependants to fulfil our duty as their employer to protect our staff. This highly complex operation was completed yesterday. The operation involved more than 1,200 personnel from 16 Air Assault Brigade, the Royal Marines and the Royal Air Force. I know the House will join me in commending the brilliant work of our colleagues in the Ministry of Defence, as well as the bravery of our servicemen and women for completing the operation successfully, in extremely dangerous circumstances.
I also pay tribute to our international partners for their ongoing co-operation in aligning our rescue responses, and I express my admiration for the work of the crisis centre in the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, where more than 200 officials are working 24/7 and seamlessly across Government to co-ordinate the UK response.
The safety and security of British nationals continues to be our utmost priority. Our ability to support British nationals has not been impacted by the relocation of British embassy staff. The evacuated team will continue to operate from a neighbouring country, alongside the Foreign Office in London, which is working throughout the day and night to support British nationals and push for a ceasefire in Sudan.
We are asking all British nationals in Sudan to register their presence with us. The roughly 2,000 British nationals registered with us already are being sent, sometimes with great difficulty, at least daily updates by text and email. This step helps enable us to remain in contact with them while we find a safe passage from Sudan. Movement around the capital remains extremely dangerous and no evacuation option comes without grave risk to life. Khartoum airport is out of action. Energy supplies are disrupted. Food and water are becoming increasingly scarce. Internet and telephone networks are becoming difficult to access. We continue to advise all British nationals in Sudan to stay indoors wherever possible. We recognise that circumstances will vary in different locations across Sudan, so we are now asking British nationals to exercise their own judgment about their circumstances, including whether to relocate, but they do so at their own risk.
Ending the violence is the single most important action we can take to guarantee the safety of British nationals and everyone in Sudan. The Prime Minister, the Foreign Secretary, the Secretary of State for Defence and I have been in continuous contact with allies and key regional partners since the outbreak of violence to agree a joint approach to both evacuation and de-escalation of violence. Over the weekend, the Prime Minister spoke to his counterparts, including Egyptian President Sisi and the President of Djibouti. The Foreign Secretary was in contact with the Kenyan President, the US Secretary of State and the Foreign Ministers of France, Germany, the United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia, Djibouti, Sweden, Turkey, Cyprus and the European Union High Representative for Foreign and Security Policy. The Defence Secretary engaged with counterparts in Djibouti, the United States, France and Egypt. I have spoken to the African Union and the Prime Minister in exile of Sudan, upon whom so many hopes rested. Further escalation of this conflict, particularly if it spills over into neighbouring countries, would be disastrous. As we continue to make clear, there must be a genuine and lasting ceasefire.
We undertake to keep the House informed as the situation develops. Today, all MPs will receive a second “Dear colleague” letter from the Foreign Secretary and me. This will hopefully help to answer a number of frequently asked questions to assist right hon. and hon. Members in supporting their constituents.
I will continue to be in close contact with the House and provide updates where possible in the coming days. I commend this statement to the House.
Ms Lyn Brown (West Ham) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for advance sight of his statement and for keeping me informed over the weekend. The shadow Foreign Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy), is returning from Kenya this evening; he continues to discuss developments with African leaders there.
I join the Minister in paying tribute to the bravery and professionalism of our armed forces involved in the operation to evacuate British diplomats and their families from Sudan. On behalf of the Labour party, I thank the 1,200 UK personnel involved in that very difficult mission, including those from 16 Air Assault Brigade, the Royal Marines and the RAF.
Our relief at the success of the mission does not alleviate our concern for the several thousand British nationals who are still trapped in Sudan amid growing violence. Many will be frightened and desperate to leave, but uncertain of their next move and of the assistance that the Government will be able to offer. What they need to hear is a clear plan for how and when the Government will support those who are still in danger and communicate with them.
While we maintain the unified international pressure for a permanent ceasefire, we are clear that the Government should be evacuating as many British nationals as possible, as quickly as possible. None of us is any doubt as to the complexity of the task or the difficulty of the situation on the ground, yet we know that our partner countries have evacuated significant numbers of their nationals already: 700 have been evacuated by France and Germany, 500 by Indonesia, 350 by Jordan, 150 each by Italy and Saudi Arabia, and 100 by Spain. African partners, including Nigeria, Ghana and Kenya, are also planning action, and France included UK nationals in its airlift. We thank it for that, but it raises some serious questions.
Can the Minister address why partner countries have been able to evacuate sizeable numbers of their nationals so far, as well as diplomats and their dependants, but the UK has not? Can he confirm whether the Government have evacuated any UK nationals who were not employees of the embassy or their dependants? Can he confirm how many UK nationals have been evacuated by our international partners? Were the embassy staff able to complete a full and proper shutdown, including dealing with any sensitive material? Given the communication difficulties, how can we effectively co-ordinate a second phase of the evacuation?
Naturally, questions will be asked about whether the Government have learned the lessons of the chaotic Afghanistan withdrawal. We need to understand why the international community and the UK Government as Security Council penholder were seemingly wrong-footed by a conflict that we know was a clear and recognised risk. Can the Government give us a current assessment of Wagner’s role in supporting the RSF?
The immediate priority, however, must be to give our nationals a way to escape violence that is not of their making. We should remember that this conflict is not of the Sudanese people’s making, either; the responsibility for it lies squarely with a few generals who are putting personal interests and ambition above the lives of fellow citizens. The resistance committees are organising mutual aid despite terrible risks. People fleeing Khartoum by road are being sheltered and supported in the villages they pass. People who only want peace, justice and democracy are showing again their solidarity and extraordinary resilience.
Will the Minister detail the steps that the UK will be taking with partners to address the looming humanitarian crisis that this conflict is driving? The international community, including all our partners, needs to send a clear and united message. The generals cannot secure any future that they would want through violence. The fighting needs to stop, and it needs to stop now.
Mr Mitchell
I thank the hon. Lady very much for her comments, particularly about the work of the armed forces. She is entirely right about the bravery with which they executed this operation so well, and about its incredible difficulty.
The hon. Lady asked about the British nationals who are trapped in Khartoum and in Sudan more widely, and I can tell her that we are looking at every single possible option for extracting them. She acknowledged that this had been a complex area, and I can only say to her that it certainly was.
The hon. Lady referred to our partner countries. As we know, when the French were seeking to evacuate their diplomats and some people from the wider French Government platform, to whom she referred, they were shot at as they came out through the embassy gateway, and I understand that a member of their special forces is gravely ill.
The hon. Lady asked why the UK diplomats were evacuated. That was because we believed they were in extreme danger. Fighting was taking place on both sides of the embassy, which was why the Government decided that it was essential to bring them out. We have a duty to all British citizens, of course, but we have a particular duty of care to our own staff and diplomats.
The hon. Lady asked about the destruction of material, and I can tell her that there was time for all the normal procedures to be adopted in that respect. She asked about our role as the penholder at the United Nations. As she will know, we have already called a meeting and will call further meetings as appropriate, and we are discharging our duties as penholder in every possible way.
The hon. Lady mentioned the comparison with Afghanistan, and asked whether we had learned lessons. We most certainly have learned lessons from Afghanistan, but the position in Sudan is completely different. First, in Afghanistan there were British troops on the ground; there are no British troops on the ground in Khartoum, or in Sudan as a whole. Secondly, in Afghanistan the airport was open and working, whereas the airport in Khartoum is entirely out of action. Thirdly, there was a permissive environment in Afghanistan. We had the permission of the Taliban to take people out. There is no such permissive environment in Sudan and its capital city.
Finally, the hon. Lady asked about the humanitarian crisis. She is right: humanitarian workers have been shot at, five of them have been killed, and, prudently, those involved in the humanitarian effort are withdrawing their people. This is a total and absolute nightmare of a crisis, in which 60 million people are already short of food and support, and—as the hon. Lady implied—it will only get worse unless there is a ceasefire and the generals lay down their arms and ensure that their troops go back to barracks.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
I call the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee.
Alicia Kearns (Rutland and Melton) (Con)
I echo the thanks that have been expressed to the staff from the Foreign Office and the Ministry of Defence who evacuated our diplomats and their families.
The central tenet of the contract between British nationals and their Government, or indeed the nation state, is trust, and at this point trust is being stretched: trust that we will evacuate those people and convey them to a place of safety when they are in need. I recognise the complexity and risk, I recognise that we have thousands of nationals in Sudan while others have just hundreds, and I recognise there is reportedly a military reconnaissance team on the ground—perhaps the Minister can confirm that—but I urge my right hon. Friend, who is very honourable, to get our people home, because that is what the Foreign Office and the Ministry of Defence train our people to do.
If, however, we are following the United States policy of non-evacuation or limited evacuation, we must have the moral courage to tell our British nationals that that is the case, because they are running out of food, water, electricity and internet signal, and some are killing their pets because they know that they can no longer feed them. We have a duty to empower them with the information that they need in order to make the right decisions for themselves and their families, but I urge the Minister to accept that time is running out and we need to do the evacuation now.
Mr Mitchell
I thank the Chair of the Select Committee for her comments, and I am grateful to her for thanking the crisis centre, which is working night and day. I can assure her that while the United States made it clear that it was taking its diplomats out in the early operation that both it and we conducted, it has also made it clear that, as things stand, it is not planning to take any of its citizens out. We have not made that clear. Indeed, we made it clear that we are working at all levels to try to ensure that we can do so. We are looking at every single conceivable option, and we will—as my hon. Friend has suggested—do everything we possibly can to help in every way we can.
Dave Doogan (Angus) (SNP)
It is very welcome to have our civil servants evacuated, and all credit goes to the men and women in uniform who delivered that operation, but the political decision to evacuate an embassy in these circumstances should be neither complex nor lengthy, so the Government might wish to cease congratulating themselves on that, especially as, in terms of deploying our military professionals to support ordinary citizens trapped in Sudan, the UK is trailing as usual, just as it did at the start of the covid crisis. When other nations stepped up to repatriate their people, as is expected in such circumstances, the UK dithered and mithered.
Can the Minister explain to the House the root cause of this unfathomable inertia? Is there a tension between the Foreign Office and the Ministry of Defence? If so, is the Foreign Office saying go and the MOD saying no, or is it the other way around? The official UK Government advice is that a ceasefire is the answer to this crisis, but what comfort is that to the thousands of UK nationals still on the ground? We might as well tell them to hold their breath while they wait for the food and water to run out.
Meanwhile, this weekend France evacuated 388 citizens, including Dutch citizens; Germany airlifted 101 citizens to Jordan; Italy and Spain have evacuated their citizens and those of Argentina, Colombia, Portugal, Poland, Mexico, Venezuela and Sudan; Turkey has evacuated 640, including people from Azerbaijan, Japan, China, Mexico and Yemen; and Ireland, without a tactical airlifter to its name, has evacuated Irish nationals and is evacuating 140 more today. What it is to have friends in the world. On Radio 4 this morning, the Minister said that UK nationals in Sudan would be frustrated. They are terrified, not frustrated. He also said no fewer than three times that if UK nationals chose to flee independently, they would do so at their own risk, which rather exposes Foreign Office priorities in this crisis. The risk assessment taken by Ministers advises UK nationals to stay put. Did they factor in any assessment of access to food and water, of failing sanitation or of escalating violence making future evacuations even harder?
Mr Mitchell
I do not agree with the early part of the hon. Gentleman’s comments. This was done because diplomats were specifically being targeted. He will have seen that the European Union representative was held up at gunpoint, and I have already mentioned that the British embassy was caught between the two sides in this. This was extremely dangerous, and I have already mentioned what happened to the French. It was the decision that our diplomats were in extreme jeopardy that led to the operation I have described.
As I said earlier, we of course have a duty of care to all our citizens. That is why we are doing everything possible, within the art of the possible, to bring them home, but we have a specific duty of care to our staff and our diplomats. Because of the extreme danger they were in, the Prime Minister took the decision to launch the operation that was fortunately so successful.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I call the Chair of the Defence Committee.
Mr Tobias Ellwood (Bournemouth East) (Con)
I too welcome the statement and pay tribute to our military for executing this evacuation of our embassy personnel, but as has been said, that duty of care must now extend to British passport holders who are still caught up in Sudan, including my constituent Rita Abdel-Raman, who went to visit her father and is now caught up in what is going on. I am grateful for the communication with the Minister over the weekend but I hope he recognises that while the capital, Khartoum, is very dangerous, the rest of that vast country is desolate. If we add together the elite forces of the United States, Britain, France, Germany, Italy and Sweden, that formidable elite force could mimic what the United Nations is doing in using and protecting a land corridor to get thousands of expats and internationals from the capital to Port Sudan and to safety. When the Minister considers the options, will he consider that as a possibility?
Mr Mitchell
My right hon. Friend is a distinguished former soldier and he understands the difficulties that we face on the ground. I can tell him that there is no reason to regard any of Sudan as safe. He will have seen what is happening, for example, in Darfur, where the RSF is a successor body to the Janjaweed who wrought such havoc in what President George Bush described at the time as a genocide. My right hon. Friend will therefore understand that, when speaking about safety, that is not an easy concept, but the option he mentioned—indeed, every option—is being carefully considered and we will resolve those options and move on them just as soon as we possibly can.
Sir Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
I, too, congratulate our armed forces, which have done an amazing job so far, and commend the work of our diplomats. The Minister has said that there are 2,000 British citizens in Sudan, but does he think the number is more like 4,000, as has been cited elsewhere? What is the best figure he can put to the number of British citizens in Sudan?
My memory of the Afghanistan situation is that MPs’ communication with Ministers was a complete and utter shambles. Some of us, particularly on the Opposition side of the House, felt that we had a very difficult time trying to get proper advice for our constituents. Will the Minister make sure that the second letter, which is meant to be coming to all of us, has a clearly identifiable number that we can ring and an email address to which we can send things? Having to communicate with lots of Departments ends up being a complete and utter mess for everybody.
Mr Mitchell
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments. The number of people who have replied to the Foreign Office’s request for information and registered themselves is of the order of 2,000. There is public speculation that there are about 4,000 British nationals and dual nationals—a person with a British passport is effectively in the same category.
I know the hon. Gentleman will expect me to say that lessons have, indeed, been learned from what happened in Afghanistan. The second “Dear colleague” letter, which I hope is in his inbox—if it is not, it will be shortly—sets out exactly how to get hold of the Foreign Office. We hope the word “shambles” will not be applied to our seamless work across Government to make sure we achieve the aims that are common on both sides of the House.
Vicky Ford (Chelmsford) (Con)
I thank everyone in the FCDO, the MOD and our armed forces. I have visited Khartoum and absolutely understand how difficult and dangerous any evacuation is and could be. The violent fighting was started by General Hemedti’s RSF, which is really worrying, especially considering its historical links with Wagner. I have met General Hemedti, and I will never forget the overwhelming sense of evil. The longer the violence continues, the more that people will face acute shortages of food and water, which could precipitate even more violence. Can my right hon. Friend tell us whether any food is getting into Khartoum?
Mr Mitchell
I thank my right hon. Friend for her comments. She knows Sudan extremely well, and the whole House will have heard what she says about General Hemedti. She is right to fasten on the fact that humanitarian relief is enormously needed but, because humanitarian workers have been attacked and five have been murdered, the whole issue of supply is extremely difficult and, as of now, very little food is getting into Khartoum. We are acutely aware of this, and it is yet another reason why we are pressing with our international and regional friends and partners, through the United Nations and its agencies, for an urgent ceasefire that holds—none of the ceasefires has yet held—so that the humanitarian issues, and all the other issues, can be addressed.
Brendan O’Hara (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
My constituent Jennifer McLellan and her four young children, aged between two and 15, are currently hiding in Khartoum. Yesterday Jennifer reported a significant lull in the fighting just as other foreign nationals were being airlifted out of the city by their Governments. She wants to know whether that lull was coincidental or whether the UK has missed a critical window in which to get its nationals out. She has been back in touch in the last couple of hours, having heard rumours that the Royal Navy could be heading to Port Sudan. She wants to know whether those rumours are true. In the absence of consular staff, how will she and her family, and others, be evacuated from Khartoum to Port Sudan?
Mr Mitchell
I cannot comment on rumours about the Royal Navy and Port Sudan. Obviously, the hon. Gentleman’s constituent and her family should make sure that they are registered with the Foreign Office. We will keep in touch and everyone should be receiving at least one communication per day. I am advised that today the internet has been only 2% available and so there are real issues with that, but we will do everything we can. He talks about a lull in the fighting yesterday. The Turks had a convoy with three muster points and when they were seeking to congregate their people there, two of those muster points were shot up. So the situation is extremely dangerous and it would not be possible to say that at any point yesterday, or on any of the days since this awful event took place, Khartoum was in any way safe.
Sir James Duddridge (Rochford and Southend East) (Con)
It is always a tricky decision whether to evacuate staff. I have always felt that the Foreign Office has been a little too keen to evacuate staff rather than protect British citizens, but the EU embassy was shot at and it is directly opposite the UK compound, which shows a clear and present danger to our embassy. My question follows on from the one from the hon. Member for Rhondda (Sir Chris Bryant). Will the Minister be more specific about numbers, including on the 2,000 figure? How many dual nationals and how many mono nationals are we talking about? Although we will treat the dual nationals equally, will the Sudanese Government treat them similarly? How many of those people actually want to stay? In previous situations, dual nationals have often been safer and have wanted to stay hunkered down with their families and second communities.
Mr Mitchell
I thank my hon. Friend for his comments. I assure him, having spent quite a lot of time with the men and women who are manning the crisis centre at the Foreign Office, that it would be wrong to suggest that their concern was for evacuating staff and not the wider public. The absolute commitment from the Foreign Office is to do everything we can for all those caught in this way, although, as I have mentioned, we have a special duty in respect of our own staff. He asked me to be more specific about numbers. I think I have been quite specific, but let me say that the published figures are about 400 for mono nationals and about 4,000 for dual citizens. He will appreciate that if someone has a British passport, they would expect to be treated in the same way whichever group they belong to. As for how many people want to leave Sudan, as I said, the Foreign Office has received registered communications from 2,000.
Dan Jarvis (Barnsley Central) (Lab)
May I associate myself with the comments made by the Minister and the shadow Minister about the professionalism and bravery of those members of our armed forces who have been involved with this operation? I know from my own time at PJHQ—permanent joint headquarters—that non-combatant evacuation operations can be particularly complex, so well done to everybody who has been involved. As we have heard from the Minister, the situation on the ground is that 2,000 British nationals are registered with the FCDO, potentially out of a total of 4,000. Given that Sudanese telecommunications are collapsing, can the Minister set out a bit more about what his Department is doing to explore contact with those British nationals who do not have access to either a reliable phone signal or the internet?
Mr Mitchell
First, I thank the hon. and gallant Gentleman for his comments, which come from very considerable experience. When I say that the published figure for dual nationals is 4,000, we may be talking about more or less than that—I am only giving him the published figure. On how we communicate with people in very difficult circumstances, we are indeed extremely resourceful, but he himself set out the limitations for what is possible. We work within those, but I hope we do so creatively.
Dr Liam Fox (North Somerset) (Con)
I, too, congratulate our armed forces on their success thus far. At a more strategic level, given that the removal of Bashir was key to stemming the threat of Islamist extremism in the region, what conversations has my right hon. Friend had with colleagues in like-minded countries such as the United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia to ensure that whatever the political outcome is in Sudan, it does not rekindle the threat of Islamist extremism, which would have an impact on regional security and, potentially, our own?
Mr Mitchell
My right hon. Friend, the former Defence Secretary, is absolutely right in what he says. There is a real danger of the cross-border spread of terrorism that he describes. He asked me specifically about conversations with the UAE and the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. I can assure him that those conversations go on at all levels of Government, and, indeed, went on over the weekend.
Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)
When the Minister came to the House last week, I asked him what reassurance he could give to those Sudanese nationals who are already here in the UK. This morning, I got an email from my constituent, Mohamed, who applied for asylum 16 months ago because he was being persecuted in Sudan. He is still waiting for some kind of decision from the Home Office, so can the Minister speak to his colleagues to offer some reassurance to those who have sought sanctuary here that they will not be returned to a country in conflict?
Mr Mitchell
I thank the hon. Lady for her comment. I do indeed recall what she said last week. I will refer the matter that she has raised to the Home Office, but I can assure her that no one will be sent home to Sudan at the moment.
Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)
May I add my thanks to all those involved in this crisis?
Last week, I thought that the Minister rather swerved my question when I asked how much the overseas development assistance budget had been reduced in Sudan, so I looked online and saw that, starting at the beginning of the 2021-22 financial year, it had virtually disappeared. Does the Minister, who was in the same Lobby as me when we voted on 0.7%, continue to believe that spending in these fragile and conflict-afflicted countries is a really powerful way of preventing conflict across the region?
Mr Mitchell
I would never purposefully try to swerve my hon. Friend’s questions. She and I were indeed in the same Lobby, and I just point out to her that collective responsibility, as I have mentioned to the House previously, is not retrospective. In respect of the funding in Sudan, she will know that the one area of the budget where there is a degree of flexibility, even in these straitened times, is in the humanitarian area. Clearly, what is happening in Sudan now will inform the decisions that we make in that respect.
Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP)
May I, on behalf of the Democratic Unionists, commend our armed forces for their significant efforts in what is a most challenging and complex situation? I invite the Minister to recognise that it may be a stretch to suggest that having no diplomatic or military footprint in Sudan has no effect on our ability to rescue and evacuate British citizens. Having listened to a Northern Ireland resident last Wednesday who was doing an interview ensconced in his basement with his family in Sudan, highlighting that he was having to siphon water from a tap in his neighbour’s home and had little recourse to food at that point, how do we assure him that he has not just been left alone?
Mr Mitchell
I thank the hon. Member for his comments about the armed forces. As I mentioned in the statement, we do not think that our diplomatic reach is diminished in these circumstances by diplomats being withdrawn. That is because, when they were holed up in great jeopardy in Khartoum, they were not able to operate, and most of the work was being done from the crisis centre in London, and that is the position today. I can tell him that our teams in surrounding states are moving to the point where they can help anyone who comes in across the border, and the diplomatic mission that was resident in Khartoum will be relocating shortly to a neighbouring country.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
According to the Ministry of Defence, the Sudanese armed forces have been reasonably helpful on evacuation issues, but surely the best possible protection for any future evacuation would be under the auspices of the United Nations where blue berets still count for a lot. Can my right hon. Friend assure the House that the Government are in the closest contact with the UN to see whether that extra degree of protection can be obtained for any future extraction operation?
Mr Mitchell
I can assure my right hon. Friend that not only is the role of the UN under constant examination, to be progressed in any way we possibly can, but that, as Britain holds the pen—in the jargon of these things—at the UN on Sudan, we are leading the efforts to ensure that all possible opportunities through the United Nations are pursued.
Ms Karen Buck (Westminster North) (Lab)
With a large Sudanese community in Westminster, it is no surprise that I have a number of constituents currently trapped, terrified, in Khartoum. I must tell the Minister that at least one of them says that he has registered but has yet to hear anything from the Foreign Office. I appreciate the difficulties with the internet and I recognise that the Minister might not want to be too specific about what the future communications might be as the hours and days unfold. However, can he tell us whether he will be able to advise MPs such as me, and my constituents, that they will receive guidance on how any future evacuation plans will be communicated to them, so they are not left in this interim period worried that the minute the internet goes down, they are totally abandoned?
Mr Mitchell
The hon. Lady is entirely right about the importance of communication. I hope my second “Dear Colleague” letter will be of assistance to her and her office in handling those extremely difficult cases. On the communications difficulties she cited, which I mentioned in response to other hon. Members, we are looking at all possible ways of delivering guidance. I hope we are extremely creative in working out ways of doing so, but she may rest assured that the full intellect and abilities of the Foreign Office are engaged in exactly that.
Chris Grayling (Epsom and Ewell) (Con)
There was already a significant humanitarian issue in east Africa, which I know the Government have been working to help to address, but this situation will significantly increase the humanitarian pressures on the region as well as being potentially disastrous for the people of Sudan. Can the Minister set out what resources we already have in east Africa dealing with humanitarian issues, and what ability we have to scale them up to meet the inevitable challenge that will follow this dreadful conflict?
Mr Mitchell
My right hon. Friend is right about the scale of issues that we face in east Africa, with something like 72 million people already in need of substantial help because of them. What is happening in Sudan will make that infinitely worse, not least because there are 16 million people who, before this awful crisis struck, were profoundly food insecure and in need of assistance. We will scale up when there is a ceasefire and we are able to do so, as he will understand. The United Nations agencies, which are extremely good at moving quickly to do that when the opportunity arises, will certainly come into play, with organisations such as the World Food Programme and many others, but he will realise that the indubitable requirement is that there should be a ceasefire so that they can operate on the ground. As I have said, five humanitarian workers have been murdered during the last week.
Richard Foord (Tiverton and Honiton) (LD)
I add my congratulations to those involved in this NEO, or non-combatant evacuation operation, and I would like to pursue the question from the hon. Member for West Worcestershire (Harriett Baldwin) a little further. The British Government have supported many Governments in developing countries over the years with education in the civil oversight of defence, which includes educating senior military personnel in developing countries as part of our programme of defence diplomacy. Last year, a Liberal Democrat question served to find that no training has been provided by the MOD to counterparts in Sudan since 2020 because it would be regarded as military aid. Does the Minister think that education of the civil oversight of defence is worth categorising separately from military aid in those cases where a partner Government might be considering receiving it?
Mr Mitchell
The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting case. Of course, through the pooled funding arrangements that we have, often that sort of work with the military can take place. I can tell him why he got that answer about Sudan last year: because all our efforts were bent towards trying to support the peace process and the negotiations that were going on to achieve a return to civilian rule. Sadly, all that is now very much on the back foot. But the aim, if we can get a ceasefire, is that those political negotiations should start so that there can be a civilian Government in Sudan.
John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)
The Government advise nationals in difficulties to stay indoors, but what if they run out of food, what if there is no power, water or other utilities, or what if there is fire in the local area? What is the advice and message of hope for them then?
Mr Mitchell
My right hon. Friend makes an extremely good point. The only advice that we can give through the Foreign Office—the only advice—is to stay indoors, because of all the reasons that I have given during the statement about the jeopardy on the streets outside. We have changed the advice today to say that although we think that people should undoubtedly remain indoors if they can, if they do not, it is at their own risk. But they must make their decisions on the ground. Of course, there are those who know the situation around where they live extremely well and may well be able to exercise their judgment, but they do so at their own risk.
Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall) (Lab/Co-op)
I also pay tribute to the hard-working staff at the crisis centre. Last night, a constituent’s father, who had been shot at by armed militia in Khartoum, was evacuated thanks to the generosity of the French armed forces. My office spoke to his family this morning, and they are overwhelmed with grief. They said:
“While Dad has managed to get out of the country down to sheer luck, one of our friends remains in his apartment, just three buildings down from where Dad was. The information trickling down from the UK government remains minimal, and the announcement of European countries evacuating citizens makes this even tougher.”
Given reports that more than 4,000 British nationals could be in Sudan facing great danger, will the Minister update us on how many FCDO staff are currently responding to the current crisis, and why does the UK appear to have been slower in helping our citizens who are caught up in this grave danger?
Mr Mitchell
The hon. Lady will know that we were, along with the Americans, the first to intervene in terms of any extraction whatever. She asks how many civil servants are engaged. The crisis centre has 200 staff working there. They are working on shift, but they have been working throughout the night and day, every day, more or less since this started a week ago.
James Gray (North Wiltshire) (Con)
May I ask a particular question that might have a more general application? My young constituent, aged 24, has taken refuge in a central official building in Khartoum, along with a great many others, but her passport has been locked up in the building of her non-governmental organisation, which is now locked and sealed. Will the Minister therefore ensure that when any evacuation eventually occurs, some kind of official travel documents are available for those who do not have theirs with them?
Mr Mitchell
My hon. Friend makes an important point. Obviously, it is essential that his constituent does their best to contact the Foreign Office team so that we are able to make a note of what he says. I thank him very much for informing us about that specific problem.
Martin Docherty-Hughes (West Dunbartonshire) (SNP)
The proposition that war and conflict do not happen during high days and holy days is a ridiculous one. Therefore, because of woefully inadequate intelligence on the ground it seems—maybe the Minister will correct me if I am wrong—that the British ambassador to Sudan decided to go on holiday. Can the Minister confirm whether that is true, and if so, who was in charge on the ground?
Mr Mitchell
The ambassador is entitled to return to the UK either on diplomatic business or, indeed, on leave if that is appropriate. I can tell the hon. Gentleman that the second most senior person in the embassy in Khartoum—the development director—was in post when the disaster struck.
James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con)
Given that there can be no guarantee of de-escalation, can my right hon. Friend confirm that Cobra is meeting regularly and urgently to consider all evacuation options and will be prepared to take risks in evacuating, using the strength of the UK armed forces if needed?
Mr Mitchell
I can indeed confirm what my hon. Friend asks. Cobra is meeting as we speak. It has met six times so far—five times chaired by the Prime Minister—and that includes one Cobra that we attended at 3.15 am on Saturday.
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)
May I extend my thanks to the armed forces and everyone involved in trying to resolve this crisis? I am still a little unclear, from what the Minister has said, about what the plan is. I appreciate that he cannot provide operational details that might put people at risk, but will he at least give a step-by-step outline of, for example, what the plan is for international relations on a ceasefire or an evacuation that should be being planned?
Mr Mitchell
I thank the hon. Member very much for her comments about the armed forces. She asked me what the plan is; my answer is very clear. There is a wide range of options—I hope fully comprehensive—that are being pursued with vigour, for every possible opportunity and circumstance. As soon as we are able to say more than that, we will of course tell the House.
Rob Butler (Aylesbury) (Con)
May I join other hon. and right hon. Members in congratulating our armed forces on their very successful operation over the weekend? A significant number of NHS doctors come from Sudan, and I understand from a consultant at Stoke Mandeville Hospital in my constituency that around 50 of those doctors from various locations in the country are currently trapped in or near Khartoum. I thank my right hon. Friend for the advice that his staff at the FCDO, and indeed my hon. Friend the Member for South West Hertfordshire (Mr Mohindra), provided at the weekend, at the earlier stage of this process, to me and my constituent who works there. Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is incumbent upon those fighting in Sudan to do all that is necessary to enable those who wish to leave to do so? It is incumbent upon them to call a ceasefire and then to provide safe passage.
Mr Mitchell
I thank my hon. Friend for what he has said, particularly about the doctors he mentioned. The position in respect of humanitarian law is extremely clear, and it is clear that humanitarian law is being breached on all occasions in Sudan, so he is right to make that point. I also thank him for what he said about the armed forces. Just because the operation was an outstanding success, we should not forget the brave men and women who put their lives on the line and put themselves in harm’s way to protect the British cohort in Khartoum.
Kirsten Oswald (East Renfrewshire) (SNP)
I have constituents who are trapped in Khartoum. They are NHS doctors, their colleagues are gravely worried for them, and they are stuck with two very small children. I have listened carefully to what the Minister has said today. He said that there is a grave risk to life, that food and water are scarce, that the internet is sparse, and that people may wish to relocate at their own risk, but that that is very risky and that they have to exercise their own judgment. None of those statements is of any practical help to my constituents, who need concrete support to get them and their children out of this perilously dangerous situation. What more can he tell us about the practical efforts being made to ensure food and water supplies on the ground? What more can he tell us, that our constituents can take some comfort from, about the efforts being made to get people back? Nothing that I have heard today has given me any comfort that my constituents should hope to be back home where they belong any time soon.
Mr Mitchell
I completely understand the frustration that the hon. Lady and particularly her constituents will feel at these events. I have to be absolutely frank with the House and ensure that no one is misled: the position is extremely difficult. As I have outlined in both my statement and my answers to questions, we operate within the art of the possible, but she may rest assured that we will do everything we can, and are doing everything we can—and have been doing so since the start of this crisis—to ensure that her constituents get home safely.
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)
Just as it was with the repatriation of British nationals during the covid pandemic, so it seems that once again we are well behind the curve compared with other countries. The thousands of British nationals still stranded in Sudan will now be facing food and water shortages, along with other dangers to their lives, but according to media reports, it is apparent that both the ambassador and the deputy ambassador were out of Sudan as early as 14 April. Can the Minister confirm if that is correct, and if so, why was there no senior leadership present to help the British nationals in Sudan when they most needed them?
Mr Mitchell
I do not think there is a particular comparison with the covid pandemic. This is a very different situation; indeed, it is very different from the situation in Afghanistan, as I explained to the House a little earlier.
The hon. Gentleman outlines what he will understand is an exceedingly complex and difficult situation. On the issue of staffing, the ambassador was indeed out of the country, and the deputy head of mission was not the second most senior person in the embassy; that was the development director, as I explained in answer to an earlier question.
Ronnie Cowan (Inverclyde) (SNP)
To echo the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for East Renfrewshire (Kirsten Oswald), I have been contacted by a constituent of mine who is gravely concerned for her family members who are stuck in Khartoum, including her great-grandchildren, the youngest of whom is approaching three years of age. As the Minister said in his statement, food and water are becoming increasingly scarce. I get the complexity of the situation, but what are we doing specifically to get food and water to those people who are doing as they were requested to do and staying in their houses?
Mr Mitchell
Once again, I hope that the “Dear colleague” letter will be of assistance in informing the hon. Gentleman’s constituents on these matters. On food and water, the position is deteriorating even more because the humanitarian workers are not able to carry out their normal activities, but the hon. Gentleman will understand that we are operating within the art of the possible. Therefore, what we have to do is to make sure that all options are explored as rapidly as possible, so that we can bring help to those people who are caught up in the dreadful jeopardy that he has so eloquently described.
Samantha Dixon (City of Chester) (Lab)
The Minister has very kindly set out the arrangements in the crisis centre run by the FCDO. It is clear from listening to colleagues across the House that the FCDO and Members of Parliament are going to be inundated with requests for help, so will the Minister consider stepping up and adding further support to the crisis centre? It clearly seems to be needed.
Mr Mitchell
The hon. Lady is right to identify the considerable amount of work that is being done through, and by, the crisis centre. As I mentioned earlier, there are 200 people engaged in that work, working night and day. I assure her unequivocally that if any more people are required, we will provide them.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I thank the Minister for his statement.
Point of Order
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I apologise that I have not given you notice of this point of order, which follows on from Work and Pensions questions, at which I asked the Minister for Disabled People, Health and Work why it has been 12 months since the Equality and Human Rights Commission issued a section 23 agreement to the Department for Work and Pensions for breaches and discrimination against disabled claimants. This shows that the Government have been unlawful, yet we still have not had a reply and an agreement has not been reached. How can I get the Government to produce a reply that complies with the Equality Act 2010 and restores confidence that the Act will be followed by all organisations, including this Government?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I thank the hon. Lady for her point of order. She did not say what response the Minister gave during questions; she might like to do so.
Debbie Abrahams
The Minister said exactly the same thing that Ministers, including the Secretary of State, have said to me over the past 12 months: “It is being looked into. We are meeting with them.” There has been no clarity about when that agreement will be completed, which gives licence to any business or organisation—to anyone—to break the law, because the Government are not following their own laws.
Madam Deputy Speaker
I thank the hon. Lady for that clarification. She is a very experienced Member of this House, and I am sure that she will be aware of the various routes that she can continue to pursue, whether through oral or written questions. In the meantime, she has made clear her disquiet about the amount of time it is taking for this to be responded to. I look to the Treasury Bench; the Whip, the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Scott Mann), is nodding his head, so I am sure he is going to feed back the fact that the hon. Lady has raised this issue, and I am sure she will continue to do so. She will, I am sure, have an opportunity later this week to raise it again—in business questions, perhaps—but we will feed back that it has been a matter of some concern.
Non-Domestic Rating Bill
Monday 24th April 2023
(1 year ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Non-Domestic Rating Act 2023 View all Non-Domestic Rating Act 2023 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Victoria Atkins)
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
The House may have spotted that I am not in as full voice as I normally like to be. I promise that is not because I have been participating in the activities that I understand are going on outside in Parliament Square. I hope the House will understand if I do not take quite the number of interventions that I generally like to when opening a debate.
I believe that all of us across the House recognise how important business rates are to council budgets and the funding of core services. This year alone, business rates are set to raise more than £20 billion to fund vital services, from adult and children’s social care to refuse collection. However, business owners have raised concerns about the impact of this tax on their ability to stay competitive. That is why the Government have delivered and will continue to deliver on our commitment to reform business rates.
In the autumn statement, we announced substantial immediate support to help businesses adapt to the 2023 business rates revaluation. Today, we take another major step forward, turning our attention towards longer-term reform with the Non-Domestic Rating Bill. It will ensure a business rates system that is more flexible, transparent and fair.
Before I set out what the Bill delivers, I remind the House of the steps we have already taken to improve the business rates system. From April 2023, we have updated all rateable values for non-domestic properties, reflecting changes in the property market. The revaluation ensured a fairer distribution of bills between online and physical retail. On average, bricks-and-mortar retailers saw decreases of around 20%, but we did not stop there.
In the autumn statement, we announced a support package worth almost £14 billion over the next five years to support businesses. We have frozen the business rates multiplier this year—a £9.3 billion tax cut over the next five years—we have increased the retail, hospitality and leisure relief scheme from 50% to 75%, supporting around 230,000 properties, and we have removed unpopular downwards caps from the transitional relief scheme, ensuring that businesses immediately see the benefit of falling bills.
Turning to the Bill, business owners have been clear that a more frequent revaluation cycle would be extremely helpful. In place of the current five-yearly cycle, the Bill will implement a three-yearly cycle. The most recent revaluation took effect from this April, so the next will take place in 2026 and it will happen every three years thereafter. I understand that colleagues will ask, “Hang on a minute. Why every three years, rather than annually or every two years?”. The reason is that this single measure is a significant shake-up of the business rates system. An initial three-yearly cycle ensures that the Valuation Office Agency has the capacity to deliver these important reforms. I reassure the House that we will of course keep the system under review, with the aim of going even further if we can.
We are implementing a new duty for ratepayers to provide the VOA with information that supports valuation. That will be submitted through a new, simple online service. It brings business rates in line with wider tax practice, and it is a crucial first step towards going further on the frequency of revaluations in the future. We will make the valuation process clearer by increasing the transparency of the VOA’s work. The VOA has already delivered some improvements, but the Bill will allow it to go even further and provide more accessible information to ratepayers on how individual valuations have been reached.
Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)
The Minister is speaking about the Valuation Office Agency, which gave evidence to the Treasury Committee last week. It reassured us that it was ready for these changes and on track for its computer system changes. Is that consistent with what she has been told?
Victoria Atkins
Yes, it is. Indeed, the VOA is very keen to get moving with this because, while it does a good job under the current system, it understands the difficulties that less frequent revaluations have posed for businesses, particularly given recent history with the pandemic. This is very much part of trying to sew the system together even more tightly, so that the VOA is able to fulfil its obligations to ratepayers.
We are going to clarify what sort of changes or events should lead to changes in rateable values between revaluations, with reforms to material changes of circumstances. Another key reform involves rethinking the way that the two multipliers or tax rates are calculated. We are making the recent practice of uprating the multipliers by the consumer prices index a permanent feature. Defaulting to this lower measure of inflation will help businesses struggling with rising costs. The Bill will also allow the Government to adjust either multiplier to a rate lower than inflation, and to prescribe which properties pay the lower or smaller multiplier, keeping business support adaptable to the fast-moving fiscal environment.
The key driver for all of these changes is to help businesses grow, and in so doing we want to remove barriers to investment and to incentivise growth. We are therefore creating an entirely new 100% relief for ratepayers making eligible improvements to their property. They will not face higher bills as a result of those investments for 12 months. I know that that is something for which businesses, and indeed colleagues, have been asking for some time. We will also enshrine in law the 100% relief for low-carbon heat networks that have their own rates bill. That is something we recently brought in with the support of local authorities, and it has been warmly welcomed by the business community.
The Bill shows that the Government are honouring our promise to British businesses that we will be there for them no matter what, so that they can continue to innovate, expand and thrive in a globally competitive economy. In the last six months, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor has announced almost £14 billion of support to the business rates system, and now through the Bill we are going even further. The Bill creates a modern system that can adapt to the ebb and flow of market tides. It delivers a fairer system that provides greater transparency for ratepayers and a business-friendly system that helps, not hinders, growth and rewards companies that invest. I commend it to the House.
Sarah Owen (Luton North) (Lab)
There is no getting around it: this has been an incredibly tough time for businesses across the UK. There was the pandemic, of course, but before and after it, they have had this Government’s mismanagement of Brexit to contend with, the Government’s failure to manage rising energy costs, the highest inflation for a generation and the unforgivable mess of the Government’s mini-Budget in October.
With this Bill reaching its Second Reading still inadequate in many areas, business owners are concerned about what further challenges await them. While businesses have welcomed some elements of this legislation, it is clear across the board that supportive measures such as improvement relief are being delivered far too late. The most glaring omission from the Bill continues to be the lack of any substantial improvements to our outdated, dysfunctional business rates system. Labour is committed to scrapping business rates root and branch, but the Government continue to tinker around the edges, buying time with short-term measures, rather than addressing the depth of the problems they have caused.
The last thing businesses need is more short-term sticking-plaster fixes. Maybe they are waiting for a Labour Government in the next 18 months to come and fix it for good. Our proposed reforms to business rates are what small and medium-sized enterprises have spent years lobbying for. All of us will know a high street that was prosperous 15 years ago and is now in miserable decline, along with libraries, nurseries and leisure centres. The Tories’ commitment to austerity policies has led to the death of a devastating number of high street businesses. They sat by and watched business after business go bust and the hearts of our high streets gutted. Office for National Statistics figures show that, even at the height of the recession, business deaths under the last Labour Government never rose above 277,000. In stark contrast, this Tory Government oversaw a staggering peak of 331,000 business deaths in 2017—years before the pandemic, before the war and any other factors that they may try to draw on.
While the Tories tread water, Labour has a plan for British business. We will support entrepreneurs to turn their ideas into reality. We will ensure that bricks and mortar businesses stay on our high street by making their tax contributions proportionate. Labour will make online tech giants finally pay their fair share of tax—something the Conservatives have never had the will to do. By raising the digital services tax paid by the likes of Amazon, we will be able to raise the threshold for small business rates relief, helping more homegrown small and medium-sized businesses to thrive in our retail sector. Sadly, among other common-sense reforms suggested by Labour, the Tories have refused to provide short-term support through raising the threshold for small business rates relief this financial year. Our estimates suggest that raising the threshold to £25,000 would save our high streets more than £1 billion. Instead, SMEs will continue to wade through bills and fight for their survival. Corner shops and cash and carries are essential staples of our neighbourhood and many families rely on them to meet daily need.
Although some measures in the Bill have been welcomed by small shop owners, worry continues over the administrative burdens of meeting the new “duty to notify” requirements. The Association of Convenience Stores told me that, despite representations to Ministers, its concerns about clause 13 have not been addressed. Forcing ratepayers to submit taxpayer reference numbers to the Valuation Office Agency will create more work for all retailers, but have a particular impact on convenience store chains. Has the Minister considered the difficulties facing businesses in that situation: those that may need to spend more to safely report sensitive tax information for multiple sites? There are also valid fears that fines will be incurred through small businesses not knowing when or what to update the VOA with regarding changes to their premises. Can the Minister update me on what consultations the Government are conducting to bring clarity to that process?
The Shopkeepers’ Campaign rightly notes that the clause allowing fines for retailers to notify the VOA within 60 days represents a “stealth tax”. Surely Ministers do not intend to find new ways to make small businesses worse off. Can they please commit to reviewing that policy?
Many convenience stores are owned and frequented by first, second and third generation migrant communities and those on lower incomes. Have Ministers carried out an equality impact assessment of the unintended consequences that these costs will have on the owners and, therefore, their customers? I would be grateful to know whether any such assessment has also investigated regional differences in the impact of the Bill. Recent analysis by Savills estate agents found strong disparity between the new rateable value for city centre retail units and those in small towns. Surely the Government are not proposing yet more policy that will make a mockery of their central promise to level up.
The hospitality sector was at the sharp end of the pandemic restrictions and slow economic recovery. Most recently, it has suffered a severe workforce shortage due to post-Brexit limitations on migrant workers. UKHospitality has joined other business advocacy groups in questioning the new proposals regarding expanding the VOA’s remit and powers. What is the Minister’s response to businesses facing extensive administrative time and costs to provide the VOA with more information than it reasonably requires? We welcome the commitment to revaluate rates more frequently, but every three years is still not enough to keep up with the sudden changes that businesses can experience during economic turmoil. A Labour Government will introduce annual revaluations, delivering the up-to-date monitoring and support that businesses are crying out for.
As I have raised with the Minister before, there is still no explanation from the Government on how they will support local authorities that have the huge task of processing tens of thousands of new business rate forms. Local authorities, as we all know and appreciate, are already understaffed and under-resourced. I do not need to remind the Minister that councils still do not have a long-term sustainable funding model, so each year brings more financial insecurity than the last. With yet another new administrative responsibility dumped on their desks, how does the Minister expect councils to be able to afford the time and staffing to adjust? Have the Government conducted any sort of consultation with local authority leaders to assist with the burden?
We will not be voting against the Bill today. We know some improvements have been made and we will work towards further improvements in the next stages. What will not change between this version of the Bill and the next is that Labour remains the party of business. We are committed to ensuring that every business, every entrepreneur, every high street, every worker and every customer gets what they need from government to live well and see our economy thrive in return.
Sally-Ann Hart (Hastings and Rye) (Con)
I would like to focus my remarks on our retail sector. The last few years have seen an acceleration in shop closures and job losses. The Centre for Retail Research found that more than 17,000 shops closed in 2022, equivalent to 47 a day and the highest total in five years. More than 5% of retail staff lost their jobs last year through insolvencies and store closures arising from rationalisation.
Retail, especially independent shops, is hugely important in beautiful Hastings and Rye, where over 30% of the local economy depends on the hospitality and tourism sectors. I know many local outlets have ceased to trade, and the town centre in Hastings is punctuated with empty or shuttered shop windows. Even key areas such as Robertson Street, which has seen something of a revival since the pandemic, now has prominent outlets closed and empty. Sadly, some businesses we lost were Hastings institutions, such as the fishmongers in Queens Arcade, which had been there for more than half a century. Others include the large Argos near Breeds Place, which remained empty for several years prior to the pandemic, and big names such as Game, in Priory Meadow. Several cafés across the town have also closed.
It would be unfair to say that all those business closures relate to the business rates system. Some are due to an increase in rent, on top of the increase in supply chain and energy costs caused by the pandemic and Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, but I have no doubt that business rates is a significant contributory factor to many business closures across the country. The business rates system has become disconnected from the realities of modern retail and retail real estate, which is why I am pleased the Government have decided to modernise it.
There are several positive measures in the Bill which will help our retail sector. A more frequent cycle of three years for revaluations will allow changes in economic conditions to feed through more rapidly into businesses’ liabilities. As long-term changes in the economy continue to manifest, accelerated by the aftermath of the pandemic, that will ensure the business rates system is more agile and responsive to change, while also improving fairness for ratepayers. However, it has been argued that annual revaluations would be most ideal, ensuring a highly responsive and up-to-date system. Perhaps the Minister can explain a bit more about that in her response.
The digitalising business rates project will, I hope, modernise the business rates system, improve the targeting of rates relief, generate better data for central Government and local government and help to improve business rates compliance. Measures to support de-carbonisation and investment, including a relief for low-carbon heat networks and a new improvement relief, will ensure that, from April 2024, ratepayers will not see an increase in their rates bill for 12 months from qualifying improvements made to their property. That is important because businesses that improve their properties should not be penalised for it.
However, I have some concerns that the Bill does not go far enough to help small businesses. The move to the three-yearly valuations has a cost to the ratepayer. The Valuation Office Agency has imposed a corresponding duty to notify, which requires ratepayers to inform it of any changes made to a property within 60 days of the change. This new duty represents a significant administrative burden for businesses, particularly the small ones. Whenever a change is made to the property, the occupier must inform the VOA within 60 days, or be met, it seems, with punitive fines.
The VOA’s job is to determine a property’s rateable value. It appears that the imposition of the new duty is simply the VOA asking the ratepayer to do its job for it. Many small businesses will struggle with that additional burden. Perhaps most concerning is the lack of a corresponding duty for the VOA to respond to ratepayers’ requests. Although the ratepayer must notify the VOA within 60 days—with the threat of financial sanctions—the VOA may respond to the ratepayer at its leisure. That hardly seems fair.
I am concerned that the uniform business rate multiplier has risen to 51p, which is a significant increase from the 43p that it stood at on its introduction in 1990—admittedly, that is quite a long time ago. Although freezing the UBR is welcome, it is temporary and contrary to our promise in the 2019 Conservative manifesto to cut the burden of tax on businesses by reducing business rates. The Bill means there may be annual increases in the UBR by linking it to the consumer prices index. I would be grateful if the Minister could explain a bit more about that. We need to keep in mind that in 2019 voters were promised reduced business rates bills on SMEs. Can the Minister outline what has been done to lower the UBR? Can she explain how linking the UBR to inflation through the consumer prices index will help to reduce the tax burden on businesses?
Overall, the Bill is welcome as a positive step in the right direction. We must do all we can to protect our retail sector. The Conservative party is always the party for small businesses. I would like a business rates system that flexes with profit rather than one based on the value of a property—that would be fairer.
Helen Morgan (North Shropshire) (LD)
I have been looking forward to this legislation, partly because I am passionate about any measures that will revive the fortunes of the high street in North Shropshire’s historic and beautiful market towns, and partly because, from my previous role as an accountant and financial controller, I have first-hand experience of dealing with the business rates system.
Businesses are facing tough conditions. Every ingredient, nut and bolt and widget purchased is more expensive. Many businesses are finding it impossible to pass on those additional costs to consumers. On top of that, energy costs have been historically high. Many businesses were forced to sign up to fixed-price energy contracts when prices were stratospheric. The Government left those businesses facing a cliff edge when support was withdrawn at the beginning of this month. Many pubs, cafés and restaurants have seen a 90% cut in Government help. In my constituency, they are reporting to me that they are looking at closure. Businesses have it really tough right now and they need a break. They need a Government who will
“cut the burden of tax on business by reducing business rates…via a fundamental review of the system.”
Those are not my words but the commitment that the Conservatives made in their 2019 manifesto.
The Bill before us today is a disappointment. It tinkers around the edge of an outdated tax that does not work for the modern economy. Our high street shops are competing with online retailers that do not have the same overheads as the physical shops that form the backbone of our communities’ common spaces. Business rates increase those costs further, making it even harder to compete. The Treasury Committee’s 2019 report, “Impact of business rates on business” confirmed that view.
In market towns such as Oswestry in my constituency, the smaller independent stores benefit from small business rates relief. They are not paying anything, so more frequent revaluations will not help them because they pay nothing in the first place. The opportunity was to make the difference for the larger retailers—the anchor tenants and the drivers of footfall that are needed to bring people back to town centres in person. I think that opportunity has been missed.
Turning to the detail of the Bill, there are some steps in the right direction. The increase in the frequency of revaluations, from every five years to every three years, is clearly welcome. It is also right to enable businesses to use business rates improvement relief to encourage businesses to improve and upgrade their properties. We would hope that the relief might encourage businesses to look towards ways in which they can embrace decarbonisation.
It also seems sensible to link business rates to a unique taxpayer reference. The provisions around notification of completion of works look to be a welcome measure to reduce the possibility of fraud in relation to buildings being removed from the rating list while being refurbished. From experience, that struck me as a potential weak spot for fraud, so that measure is welcome.
However, I want to expand on the onerous nature of placing a responsibility on businesses to keep the Valuation Office Agency informed about market value and changes to the lease or ownership. Businesses already receive a notification to inform the Valuation Office Agency when something material changes at a premises—primarily, ownership or the registration of a lease—and they must provide detailed information to confirm that the rating value is still appropriate. Moving to an annual notification, even in the event of no change, would mean yet another form to fill in for the beleaguered financial controller, with whom I have huge sympathy, who is already bogged down in seemingly endless monthly and quarterly ONS returns, on top of their monthly and quarterly financial reporting requirements. It is estimated that around 700,000 small businesses that currently do not pay rates at all will be included in this annual form-filling exercise, with significant penalties in place if they get it wrong.
Speaking from my own experience, the VOA is not quick to decide and respond when changes are notified. I spent a year persuading the VOA to put a new office building on the rating register and to record other alternations to a mixed-use site, including inviting the officers on a personal visit to assess the site at first hand. This was after the pandemic restrictions had been removed. Changes in case manager, records lost, confusion, and lack of interaction between the valuation for business rates and council tax meant that it was an administrative nightmare, as well as a business planning nightmare.
Businesses need to know what their rates liability is going to be. Cash-flow planning is critical to staying afloat, particularly at a time when businesses are struggling with soaring energy costs and rocketing inflation. Businesses cannot do that if they do not know what their rates bill will be; we should remember that the rates bill is backdated to the point circumstances change, not to the point that the Valuation Office Agency makes its decision.
I am extremely nervous about imposing a further administrative burden on small and medium-sized businesses, complete with harsh fines and penalties, when there is no acknowledgement of the importance of a swift response from the VOA. Surely some timetable could be put in place, at least for interim assessments, to help businesses to plan. I would be grateful if the Minister could consider corresponding reliefs or an appeals system, with remedies provided, when the VOA has taken an unreasonable amount of time to reach a decision, or got its decision wrong or in a state that requires challenge.
The current business rates system is broken. The Federation of Small Businesses said:
“these changes do not amount to the fundamental overhaul the system needs, to reduce the chilling impact of a regressive tax that you pay before even earning a penny in turnover, let alone profit.”
Fundamentally, Liberal Democrats disagree with business rates. They are harmful to high streets and our wider economy, and the current framework is a huge burden for small businesses. They tax productive business investment in structures and equipment, rather than taxing profits and land value.
The Liberal Democrats would abolish the broken business rates system and replace it with a commercial landowner levy. That levy would be paid initially by the landlords of commercial properties, not the businesses occupying them, and it would feature annual revaluations, which Netherlands has proved are possible administratively. It would tax only the land value of commercial sites, not productive investment. Removing buildings, utilities and other physical capital from taxation would boost business investment, in turn increasing productivity and wages.
Liberal Democrat plans would improve our high streets by boosting investment and helping shops that struggle. None of that will be achieved by today’s Bill.
Peter Aldous (Waveney) (Con)
The Bill is welcome as it was a 2019 Conservative manifesto commitment to carry out a fundamental review of business rates, the final report for which was published alongside the 2021 autumn Budget.
I support the Bill generally, but I have two concerns. First, the Bill should be seen not as the endgame but as the start of the process to radically reform business rates. The ultimate objective should be to reduce the uniform business rate multiplier to something in the order of 30p in the pound; to carry out annual revaluations; to abolish the multitude of complicated reliefs; and to digitalise the Valuation Office Agency. If we do so, business rates will be reduced to an affordable level, the system will be put on a long-term and more easily understood footing and we shall be able to get on with so-called levelling up—removing barriers that impede regional growth. That will enable businesses to know where they stand and to make long-term investment decisions. The message I continually get from the Suffolk Chamber of Commerce, which carries out quarterly economic surveys, is that the No. 1 concern for businesses in Suffolk is always business rates.
My second worry is that the Bill will increase rather than ease the bureaucratic and administrative burden on businesses. I urge the Government to introduce amendments to prevent that. I shall set out my concerns in more detail later.
Before I came to this place, I was a chartered surveyor; I did not specialise in business rates, but I carried out appeals from time to time. Business rates are a tax with certain inherent advantages for the Treasury: they yield approximately £25 billion per annum, they are relatively easy to collect and they are difficult to avoid. However, if the system is not administered properly, they can have a significant negative impact on businesses generally, on specific sectors—we have heard about the challenges facing hospitality and retail—and on local economies.
Business rates are in effect a tax on existence rather than on profitability, so it is important that they be kept as low as possible. High business rates not only discourage occupation, but disincentivise investment in innovation, improvement and expansion—and if you will forgive a quick commercial interlude while I am on that subject, Madam Deputy Speaker, I must congratulate PCE Automation of Beccles, which has just received the King’s award for enterprise in recognition of excellence in innovation.
At a time of high inflation, high utility costs and stubbornly high rents, business rates are a fixed cost that occupiers cannot escape. The Chancellor made some significant and welcome announcements in his autumn statement, including the revaluation that is now coming into effect, the reform of the transitional relief scheme and the freezing of the uniform business rates multiplier. The Bill provides the necessary legislative framework for some of those changes and for others that arise from the Government’s review, as well as making some minor legislative adjustments and correcting some anomalies. I shall not go through the Bill’s provisions in detail at this stage, but I repeat that I applaud the Chancellor for the undertakings that he made in November, which are much needed in these challenging times. As I say, however, the Bill must be seen as the start, not the conclusion, of the process of radical reform.
It is also necessary to guard against some unintended consequences. As drafted, the Bill will add to the regulatory burden on businesses at a time when we should be seeking to ease and reduce it. The new duty to notify set out in clause 13, which the VOA has justified as necessary to facilitate the move to a review every three years, will result in a mountain of paperwork for ratepayers. Businesses will now have to notify the VOA of any changes to their properties within 60 days, or find themselves facing punitive fines or even imprisonment. It is not right for us to expect businesses which are already facing an extraordinarily challenging regulatory environment to put up with that.
This obligation was formerly the VOA’s, but has now been transferred to the ratepayer. The VOA has no corresponding obligation, and is able to respond to requests for information at its leisure. Ideally, the duty to notify should be removed from the Bill in its entirety, but if the Government wish to impose this new duty, they must do so with the principle of reciprocation in mind. The VOA must have a corresponding duty to respond within 60 days, giving the ratepayers rebates on their business rates bills equivalent to the penalties imposed on them if there is a failure to respond within that time.
My second concern relates to clause 14, which proposes changes in the circumstances in which rateable values may be altered outside the regular cycle of revaluations. I am concerned about the consequences of this clause, and I believe that it should be removed. Let me explain the background. A “material change in circumstances” allows ratepayers recourse to pursue relief on their business rates bills when factors outside their control have an impact on their ability to do business and to operate. To my mind, that is logical natural justice, but the VOA seems to dislike the paperwork associated with these claims, as is evidenced by its mass rejection of 400,000 covid-related appeals. It appears that to prevent the repetition of such circumstances, it is now proposed to exempt any Government legislation as qualifying grounds for a challenge. In practice, this means that the Government would be able to act with impunity and enact policies that could hamper businesses without allowing them the legal recourse to challenge them. That is fundamentally unjust.
As I have mentioned, the move to three-yearly revaluations should not be the endgame, but should be a stepping stone towards annual revaluations. The advantage of that approach is that there would no longer be a need for the current complex system of reliefs; businesses would in effect be paying a tax that moved with the market, and that would lead to greater long-term certainty which would then encourage private sector investment. At first glance, annual revaluations might seem too complicated and challenging, but, as we have heard, such a system operates in the Netherlands, and there is no reason why we should not have it here.
It is regrettable that, for many businesses, discussions and negotiations with the VOA are conducted in accordance with the philosophy of “one rule for us and another for them”. The proposed duty to notify embeds this sentiment still further. It must be removed, and the system must become more transparent. The VOA’s processes are notoriously opaque, and leave many ratepayers scratching their heads when they receive their revaluation figures. As it stands, a business’s only recourse when it comes to understanding its rateable value is to go through the VOA’s complex “check, challenge and appeal” process, which many feel is deliberately designed to discourage people from—dare I say it—peering behind the curtain.
The Bill, as currently drafted, does provide the VOA with the power to give more information to ratepayers, but only at its discretion, if it considers it “reasonable to do so”. This provision is set out in clause 10, but it is vague and undefined, and some might say that it provides the VOA with the ability to reveal information to no one while appearing to be forthcoming. If clause 13 requires businesses to provide reams of information to the VOA, it is only right that it should reciprocate. Ratepayers must be given the option to understand the process that defines the tax that they will be paying for the next three years, and to reasonably expect an answer within 60 days of submitting their request, thereby mirroring the duty to notify.
My final concern relates to another unintended consequence of the duty to notify, as currently drafted in the Bill, which is the wave of predatory, unqualified and unscrupulous rating advisers that I fear it may spawn. The ramifications of financial advice, whether good or bad, can be huge for individuals and businesses. Most financial advisers in most settings require a licence to give advice from a sanctioning body. One therefore has to ask why this does not also apply to rating advisers.
Helen Morgan
The hon. Gentleman is making an excellent speech. On his point about advice, financial controllers are inundated daily by people cold calling them and offering to challenge their rates bills. They have no idea who they are, yet they take a cut of any saving that might be made. This indicates two things to me: first, that the system is not fit for purpose; and secondly, that the rating values are inadequate in the first place. Does he agree with me on those points?
Peter Aldous
I agree with the hon. Lady. This is a specialist area of valuation. When I was practising as a chartered surveyor, I quite often got called in because the client, the business owner, had gone down the line of paying money upfront to someone who had sent them a circular—they may have paid them £1,000 or £2,000—and that person had suddenly disappeared. I often got called in to try to sort out that type of situation.
At the current time, with the publication of the new rating list, thousands of businesses are being flooded by solicitations from charlatan rating advisers who are taking advantage of the confusion created by the complicated rating system. There is a significant risk that many businesses, particularly SMEs, will have neither the understanding nor the capacity to meet the duty to notify. They will increasingly fall prey to such bad advice, and this could have a devastating impact. The Government should therefore consider some sort of licensing to protect businesses from the scourge of cowboys looking to take advantage of the duty to notify.
Madam Deputy Speaker, you will be pleased to hear that I have now reached my conclusion. Taking into account that we have been awaiting legislation on the reform of business rates for the whole of the 13 years that I have been an MP, this legislation is indeed welcome. For too long we have been carrying out reviews and searching for holy grail solutions that involve the abolition of business rates, but my personal view is that those do not exist. As I have said, the Chancellor should be commended for the positive announcements he made in his autumn statement, some of which are included in this Bill. The Bill should be viewed as a step in the right direction. However, as currently drafted, it contains a number of false steps that are likely to have unintended consequences. It is also vital to recognise that this is not the end of the reform of business rates, but it is the end of the beginning. I am happy to support the Bill this afternoon, but it has defects that need to be addressed as it progresses through this and the other place, and I hope that the Government will take on board the concerns that I and my colleagues across the Chamber have highlighted.
James Murray (Ealing North) (Lab/Co-op)
As we have heard today, this Bill makes a number of changes to the system of business rates, with most of these changes arising from the Government’s business rates review, which was first announced in March 2020. My colleagues and I will not oppose the Bill today, as any support it offers to businesses is welcome. However, as we know, some business organisations are concerned that the Bill will increase the overall administrative burden on businesses, and I will address that point in a moment.
First, it is worth putting this package of measures in the context of Government promises on businesses rates in recent years. The review that led to many of these measures was first launched by the Prime Minister when he was Chancellor at the Budget of March 2020. He called this project a
“fundamental review…of the long-term future of business rates.”—[Official Report, 11 March 2020; Vol. 673, c. 281.]
When the final report was published alongside the autumn Budget of October 2021, however, the verdict was clear. As the British Retail Consortium concluded at the time, it
“falls far short of the truly fundamental reform that is needed and was promised in the government’s 2019 manifesto.”
The truth is that the changes before us, now more than three years in the making, miss the opportunity to begin replacing the current system of business rates with one that understands the needs of British businesses and that is fit for the modern day.
What is more, right now, we know that many smaller businesses, particularly those on high streets, that are already struggling after the pandemic and a difficult winter of high energy bills are worried about the impact of the current revaluation, which is why we called for an immediate cut in business rates for small firms this year by raising the threshold for small business rates relief in 2023-24. This would be funded by an increase in the rate of the digital services tax that is charged on the global revenues of global tech giants. We were disappointed that the Government failed to adopt our plans, although we welcome their having heeded our call to ensure that firms are immediately given any discount they are owed through the current revaluation, thanks to the Bill’s changes to transitional relief.
It is clear, however, that businesses need a Government who are ready to go further. In the Government’s own press release on the Bill, a quote from the British Retail Consortium’s chief executive makes it clear that
“the job is not done.”
That is, of course, right, and members of the Government may well accept that the job is not done but, after 13 years in power, how much longer can Conservative Members get away with the excuse that they have not yet got round to the urgent and fundamental reforms our country needs?
We know that fundamental reform is needed, which is why Labour has said that if we win the next general election, we will replace the business rates system with one that shifts the burden of tax away from the high street and on to online giants, that moves towards annual revaluations and that truly supports entrepreneurship. Businesses across the country want the Government to transform the system of business rates to meet the needs of the modern economy, which is what Labour will do in power.
There are measures in the Bill that we hope will give at least some support to struggling businesses. As I mentioned, we have been calling on the Government to remove downward caps on transitional relief, so we welcome the measures in the Bill to make that so. We are also glad to see the revaluation cycle being moved to every three years, rather than every five years, although we are concerned that the Government have kicked the prospect of annual revaluations far into the long grass.
The importance of annual revaluations was, again, made clear in the Government’s own press release on the Bill, in a quote from the chief executive of the British Property Federation, who made it clear that her organisation
“would like to see Government continuing to strive towards even more frequent revaluations in due course.”
We are therefore concerned that, in the final report of the business rates review, the Government said only that they will
“consider the case for…annual revaluations…in the longer-term.”
We do not have to read between the lines very hard to conclude that annual revaluations are off the table under this Government.
Furthermore, alongside the reservations that many businesses and their representative bodies hold about how the Government’s reforms do not go far enough, we know that others, such as the Shopkeepers’ Campaign, have raised important concerns that the Bill will increase the overall administrative burden on businesses. As we have heard, the Bill introduces a new legal duty on business rate payers to provide annual confirmation of the information held on their property and to inform the Valuation Office Agency of any changes made to the property within 60 days of the change or face a fine.
The new requirements will have an impact on business rate payers and on the billing authorities—indeed, the impacts are referred to in the information and impact note on the new duty, published by the Treasury and the VOA. I wish to press the Minister on two points in particular on the impact of the new duty. First, the note makes it clear that the average annual cost for each ratepayer will more than double as a result of the new duty and that in the first year the cost for each ratepayer of complying with the new system will be more than three times that of doing so under the current system. Will he confirm whether that is correct? The note goes on to accept that the 309 billing authorities in England with responsibility for business rates will be impacted by the measures too, but it says that the
“costs are yet to be quantified.”
Will the Minister confirm when the Government will publish the detail of what those costs are? I look forward to hearing his response to those points in his closing remarks.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Luton North (Sarah Owen), the shadow local government Minister, and I have made clear, we will not be opposing this Bill today. However, although any support for businesses that are struggling may be welcome, it is clear that promises of fundamental reform of the business rates system under this Government are gone. As businesses and their representative bodies have been making clear, even as we debate the Bill, much more needs to be done. Yet it is also clear that after 13 years of economic failure, and with a party now chronically divided by infighting, the Conservatives are incapable of delivering the reform that businesses need. Our country needs a new Government, who are ready to replace business rates with a system fit for the future, ready to work hand in hand with British businesses to succeed, and ready to get our economy growing in every part of the country, making everyone better off.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (Lee Rowley)
It is a pleasure to close this short but constructive debate on the future of the business rates system. As we have heard, our consumer habits are changing faster than ever before and with that come challenges for high-street businesses. The Government have conducted a review of business rates, as promised, and now, through this Bill, we will continue to reform them to better meet the needs of our economy, while sustaining vital taxpayer subsidy for local government.
In the time available, I wish to address some of today’s contributions. I was grateful for the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye (Sally-Ann Hart), who raised the important issue of smaller businesses and those in the hospitality and retail sector. I know, as do many of us across the Chamber, that there have been challenges in the past few years. I have seen that in my constituency, as will every Member in their constituency. That is precisely why the combination of what the Government have outlined in the autumn statement and in this Bill seeks to support businesses that are smaller or in those sectors, along with a wider group of businesses from across the economy. We are talking about 75% relief for retail, hospitality and leisure businesses; the removal of downward caps so that there is immediate relief when business rates reduce; and more than £14 billion-worth of relief. I hope that that goes some way to assuaging her concern.
My hon. Friend also rightly raised the issue of annualised revaluations, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous), the Opposition Front-Benchers and the hon. Member for North Shropshire (Helen Morgan). As the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, my hon. Friend the Member for Louth and Horncastle (Victoria Atkins), outlined when opening the debate, we absolutely want to see more frequent revaluations. That is exactly why we have brought forward the proposals to move from a five-year revaluation cycle to a three-year one. We think that is a big step forward in making business rates more effective and closer to the businesses that pay them. We also recognise that this will take time and we need to do it in steps. As has been outlined by colleagues, we will continue to look at it and we hope we will be able to make further progress in the years ahead. The British Retail Consortium was mentioned in a number of speeches. Organisations such as the BRC have welcomed this approach, and I hope that Members from across the House will welcome the move to a three-year revaluation cycle.
Hon. Members have raised a point about data. It is always challenging to make the decision about where to request data and where to require it, and how to get the right balance between ensuring that the tax system is effective—we need data in order to make sure of that—and not creating an undue burden on businesses.
The purpose behind the collection of this data is to ensure both that we have the best information possible to make decisions in the future and that we balance proportionately the information that we collect to make sure that the tax is collected in the right way. I say to my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney that, with regard to the administrative questions, we are committed to a soft launch of the collection of this data. We will not activate the compliance regime until we are satisfied that it works, and we will be piloting it further with a range of users. We accept that we need to get this right, but the principles behind ensuring that we have the most up-to-date system, which requires data to achieve, are sound. It will be through the pilot and the review process, following the Bill hopefully becoming law, that we will be able to review the changes to make sure that they work for businesses in the best way possible.
Briefly, my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney also touched on clause 14, which recognises the particular challenge visible during covid. Of course everybody in this House will have hoped that highly unusual and atypical events such as covid could never happen, but because they have, it is incumbent on us all in this place to make sure that we have considered the situation should—hopefully it will never happen—such atypical events happen again in the future. We are trying through clause 14 to recognise that such things may happen, while hoping that they never will. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his constructive comments. He says that the Bill is a step in the right direction, and we agree. I hope that my comments now have reassured him about those other steps that he is not yet sure about.
The hon. Member for North Shropshire made a number of important points about the burden of business rates, about ensuring that they are proportionate, and about the challenge of taxation in general. She is absolutely right to do so, but it would have made more sense had the Leader of the Liberal Democrats, the right hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Ed Davey), not been out on the airwaves just a few days ago committing himself to spending more money, which the country does not have, and which taxes such as this have to pay for. There is a consistency problem with the Liberal Democrats. For those of us who are not in the Liberal Democrats, we recognise that consistency is something that they have never shown.
Finally, I welcome the fact that those on the Opposition Front Bench will not be opposing the Bill tonight. I also welcome their generally constructive comments, and I hope that I have been able to answer them, but—there is always a but with the Opposition Front Bench—the hon. Member for Luton North (Sarah Owen) suggested that we were waiting for a Labour Government to fix this issue. The question is what the fix would be, because we have put forward a plan that ensures relief for businesses up and down the land. Was she talking about the fix of 2021, when the right hon. Member for Leeds West (Rachel Reeves) was going to scrap business rates? Is it the fix a few days later, after 2021, when it was to significantly change business rates, but not to scrap them? Or is it the fix of 2022 when business rates were to be modernised but without any clarity as to how that would happen. The Labour party says what it needs to say, but it has no plan on issues such as this.
In front of us today is a Bill that improves and modernises our business rates and makes them more efficient and effective, on top of £14 billion of relief for all businessmen and women and all businesses across the country. It makes sure that those rates are as effective and efficient as they can be and that businesses in this country thrive in the future.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read a Second time.
Non-Domestic Rating Bill (Programme)
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83A(7)),
That the following provisions shall apply to the Non-Domestic Rating Bill:
Committal
(1) The Bill shall be committed to a Committee of the whole House.
Proceedings in Committee, on Consideration and on Third Reading
(2) Proceedings in Committee of the whole House shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion three hours after their commencement.
(3) Any proceedings on Consideration and proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion four hours after the commencement of proceedings in Committee of the whole House.
(4) Standing Order No. 83B (Programming committees) shall not apply to proceedings in Committee of the whole House, to any proceedings on Consideration or to proceedings on Third Reading.
Other proceedings
(5) Any other proceedings on the Bill may be programmed.—(Andrew Stephenson.)
Question agreed to.
Non-Domestic Rating Bill (Money)
King’s recommendation signified.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 52(1)(a)),
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Non-Domestic Rating Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any increase attributable to the Act in the sums payable under any other Act out of money so provided.—(Andrew Stephenson.)
Question agreed to.
Non-Domestic Rating Bill (Ways and Means)
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 52(1)(a)),
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Non-Domestic Rating Bill, it is expedient to authorise:
(1) the payment of sums to the Secretary of State in respect of non-domestic rating,
(2) the payment of those and other sums into the Consolidated Fund.—(Andrew Stephenson.)
Question agreed to.
Public Order Bill
Monday 24th April 2023
(1 year ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Public Order Act 2023 View all Public Order Act 2023 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Commons Consideration of Lords Message as at 24 April 2023 - (24 Apr 2023)
18:27 - The House divided: - Ayes: 270 / Noes: 200 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Minister for Crime, Policing and Fire (Chris Philp)
I beg to move,
That this House disagrees with Lords amendments 6H and 6J.
The Public Order Bill is about giving the police the tools they need to tackle the highly disruptive protest tactics we have seen in recent months, and indeed today, which have blocked ambulances, delayed passengers making important journeys, prevented children from getting to school and patients from getting to hospital, and at times held the capital city to ransom. I do not wish to detain the House for any longer than necessary, because we have debated this Bill numerous times in recent months and it has undoubtedly been given the scrutiny the British people want and expect. It is time for that delay to end and for this Bill to become law.
The other place has once more voted to amend clause 11, the power to stop and search without suspicion—although it is worth saying that that power can only be used if a police officer reasonably believes that certain protest-related offences will happen in the very near future, so it is not a power that can be used wholly arbitrarily. It is most disappointing to see that vote after this elected Chamber disagreed with their Lordships in their last amendments.
As my noble colleague explained in the other place, it is our view that the changes are unnecessary. First, a legal framework already exists for all stop-and-search powers. Under section 3.8 of Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 code A, the code of practice for powers to stop and search, police officers have to give their name or identification number, the police station to which they are attached and grounds for every single stop and search, essentially replicating the proposal in their Lordships’ motion 6H. Those criteria are covered in the GOWISELY mnemonic drilled into every police officer.
Secondly, it is our view that the requirement for police forces to establish a charter on the use of powers would cause unnecessary burdens on police forces and officers, something the Opposition have been concerned about throughout this Bill’s passage. Plenty of long-established safeguards already exist for stop-and-search powers. Additionally, we have supported the National Police Chiefs’ Council in its publication of national guidance on the use of body-worn video, which includes encouraging forces to share footage with external scrutiny groups to support transparency and reflective practice and learning.
On reporting on the use of stop-and-search powers, I would like to reassure the House that the Home Office already publishes an annual statistical bulletin, which outlines in detail the information gathered during each stop-and-search incident. That reporting will be conducted for the use of the new stop-and-search powers, both suspicion-led and suspicionless.
Finally, on publishing a statement giving reasons for the use of powers, as the Government reiterated in the other place, we recognise that communication on the use of these powers is a fundamental element of building trust and confidence between a force and the community it serves. The majority of forces, including the Metropolitan Police Service, already communicate their section 60 authorisations, and I know that communities appreciate knowing the details of the geographical area, time limits and justification for the authorisation. Those forces will continue that practice for these new powers.
Nevertheless, as the noble Lord Sharpe of Epsom committed to in the other place, the Government will amend PACE code A to require that, where it is operationally practical to do so, forces must communicate the extent of the area authorised for the suspicionless stop and search, the duration of an order and the reasons for that order. This Government commit to the spirit of what their Lordships are asking for, in their proposed new subsection (9D) of clause 11, through amendments to PACE code A. We will also amend PACE code A to place data collection within the legislative framework. It will include a breakdown of both suspicion-led and suspicionless searches cross referenced with protected characteristics such as age, sex and ethnicity.
I hope that those clear commitments—made in this House and in the other place, and reiterated here today—will satisfy hon. Members. Making changes to PACE code A is the right way to address those issues. The amendments to PACE code A will ensure consistency across all stop-and-search powers and allow for a full and robust consultation with external stakeholders, providing the right balance between tackling disruptive protesters and protecting the rights of each citizen where the powers are used. For those reasons, I hope that the House will agree with the Home Secretary in respectfully disagreeing with their Lordships’ amendments 6H and 6J.
Sarah Jones (Croydon Central) (Lab)
I rise to speak against the Government’s motion to disagree with Lords amendments 6H and 6J, which we support.
The amendments seek to do two things: first, to instruct officers to give their name, badge number and reason for stopping anyone they search under the new suspicionless stop-and-search powers, and secondly, to compel all police forces to set up a charter—which they would have to consult on, publish and independently evaluate—on the use of their suspicionless stop-and-search powers. To be clear, the amendments have nothing to do with patients not getting to hospital; nothing to do with blocking roads; nothing to do with whether stop and search without suspicion actually takes place. They are to do with the manner in which suspicionless stop and search is conducted.
The amendments are direct recommendations from Louise Casey’s report—although she would go further and apply them to all stop and searches. Baroness Casey’s review of the standards of behaviour and internal culture of the Metropolitan Police Service is a 300-page tour de force. The Home secretary welcomed the review and said:
“Accepting Baroness Casey’s findings is not incompatible with supporting the institution of policing and the vast majority of brave men and women who uphold the highest professional standards.”—[Official Report, 21 March 2023; Vol. 730, c. 165.]
The Prime Minister said:
“There needs to be a change in culture and leadership, and I know that the new Metropolitan commissioner will no doubt reflect on the findings of Louise’s report, but is already making changes and that's right, because what was happening before is simply shocking and unacceptable.”
He is right. Officers right across the Met are desperate to see those improvements put in place and action taken to rebuild the confidence of Londoners.
Labour tabled Lords amendments 6H and 6J to clause 11 to help put into legislation some of the improvements recommended by Baroness Casey, and it is very disappointing and surprising that the Government have tabled a motion to disagree. Clause 11 brings wide-ranging powers for the police to stop and search anyone in the vicinity of a protest, including anyone who happens to be walking through the area. The Government’s proposals risk further damaging the delicate relationship between the police and the public by significantly expanding stop-and-search powers to a protest context.
We agree that stop and search is a really important tool. The Minister has said on many occasions that stop and search is important for looking for weapons, and of course, we absolutely support that. We support suspicionless stop and searches—or section 60s—when serious violence, or terrorism, has occurred. But it is important to reflect that we are talking about using the suspicionless stop-and-search power not for terrorism or serious violence, but for protests—it is about searching for glue, a padlock, a microphone or a speaker. That will not have been agreed by the chief superintendent but by an inspector, because the Government rejected our amendment to make that change. Really, clause 11 should have been removed from the Bill, but we are not here to debate whether we should have suspicionless stop and search because that debate has concluded. Today, we are debating sensible, important changes to the Government’s clause to insert some safeguards into a wide-ranging power and mitigate some of its potential adverse impacts.
Chris Philp
Why do the Opposition object to implementing some of the key elements of the Lords amendments in PACE code A, where most regulations relating to this issue already sit? They can be updated relatively easily if necessary, so is not PACE code A the right place to do this? In relation to Louise Casey’s recommendation, she did not specify that these changes should happen in primary legislation. We are doing these things, just in PACE code A.
Sarah Jones
My understanding is that the agreement to include some aspects of the amendments in PACE code A does not go the whole way towards what we are suggesting in this legislation. The attitude from the Government—that plenty of long-established safeguards already exist, as the Minister said at the start of his contribution—is wrong. We have lots of regulations in PACE code A and other places that are clearly not always adhered to. Louise Casey has identified this as a problem, she has made a suggestion and we suggest putting it in the Bill, which I think is a reasonable response.
We know that stop and searches can go wrong when there is a communication failure from the officers carrying out the search. We welcome the changes announced in the Lords, although we do not know exactly what the changes to PACE code A will be, or how or when they will happen. Our colleagues in the other place tried to add points about communication into the Bill and suggested increasing the seniority of the officer allowing a suspicionless stop and search, but both amendments were rejected. Baroness Casey suggests as a minimum that Met officers should be required to give their name, their shoulder number, the grounds for the stop and a receipt confirming the details of the stop. Lords motion A1 built on Louise Casey’s recommendations and attempted to add them to the legislation.
It is worth remembering that a recent report by Crest Advisory examining the experience of black communities nationally of stop and search found that 77% of black adults support the use of stop and search in relation to suspicion of carrying a weapon, but that less than half of those who have been stopped and searched felt that the police had communicated well with them or explained what would happen.
It would be helpful to understand whether the Minister agrees with Baroness Casey’s recommendations in full and, if he does not, whether he thinks she is wrong or believes that something else should be done instead. The Casey report was devastating, and Ministers have so far been unable to offer any solutions to make the reforms we need in policing. Here is an opportunity for the Minister to signal the Government’s intent to make those reforms. We have heard the warnings from former police officers that some of the powers in the Bill risk diminishing trust in public institutions. The Peel principles on policing by consent said that
“the police are the public and the public are the police”.
The Home Secretary said in her statement to the House on the Casey review:
“When it comes to changing the law or introducing any frameworks that are necessary, we in the Home Office will do that”.—[Official Report, 21 March 2023; Vol. 730, c. 167.]
Here is a chance for the Home Secretary to keep her word. It will not change anything in terms of who can be stopped; it will just make the process more transparent and better for everyone. On the 30th anniversary of the murder of Stephen Lawrence, wouldn’t that be a good thing to do? I urge Members across the House to back the Lords amendments and reject the Government’s motion tonight.
Mr David Davis (Haltemprice and Howden) (Con)
I find myself, I am afraid, in agreement with the Opposition spokesperson. I also support the Casey recommendations, based as they were on a horrifying report about the behaviour of the Met over the years. Let us be clear: no Government of any persuasion have managed to get the Met to behave—and not just the Met; other police forces, too—in a manner that is acceptable to the public, bearing in mind that there have been Governments of both orientations since Stephen Lawrence.
The second point I would make very quickly is that when the Home Secretary in 2010—my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May), for those who do not remember—limited stop and search, she did not do so out of an excess of liberal sympathy. She did so because, at that point in time, stop and search was being used in such a way that it caused serious race relations problems in several parts of the country. That was because stop and search was largely targeted at stopping violence, and at that point—it may well still be true today—the perpetrators of knife crime and the victims of knife crime mostly came from minority communities. Although minority communities themselves were not happy about the operation of the system, they understood why it was there. That was a different order of magnitude from using suspicionless stop and search to control demonstrations.
Don’t get me wrong: I think that we should have some fairly fierce legislation—which we do have now—for dealing with people who deliberately destroy the lives of the public, or uproot and disrupt the lives of the public. I am a great believer in the right of demonstration, but I do not think it should go beyond a certain level. That is why I support the Lords amendment to put this provision on the face of the Bill.
To respond to the Minister’s question to the Opposition spokeswoman, we should turn the question on its head: why should it not be on the face of the Bill? After all, that would broadcast in clear terms what we want to happen. We want the police to behave in a respectful and careful manner when they use this power. Indeed, I am slightly surprised that the Lords amendments did not also include making sure that video footage from the body cameras was available, including to the lawyers of the people who were stopped and searched after the event, if need be.
I think this is a worthwhile amendment. As has been said, I think it is very much in line with the Casey report, and we as a Government have to set our minds to ensuring that every recommendation of the Casey report is put in place and to returning the Metropolitan police and other police forces to the level of public respect that we wish they had now.
Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP)
I, too, rise to speak in support of the Lords amendments. These are amendments about suspicionless stop and search, and we need to draw a breath and remind ourselves that suspicionless stop and search really is a significant power. It is a hugely invasive, intrusive and arbitrary police tactic that causes incredible inconvenience for those who are impacted, and that is something that has not seemed to register at all with the Government throughout the entire process of discussing clause 11.
From the Casey report, we also know of the hugely significant impact that these powers can have on black and minority ethnic communities in particular, so it is plain wrong to be pressing on when trust has been undermined by a series of horrendous stories, particularly regarding the Metropolitan police, but far from exclusively. Nobody in this Chamber is saying that suspicionless stop and search powers are never, ever appropriate, but there must be serious justifications for them. Of course, there are serious justifications when it comes to terrorism or serious violence, but the powers in the Bill apply in circumstances that do not come remotely close to justifying their use. In some circumstances, we are talking about an inspector having a suspicion that somebody somewhere might commit a public nuisance. That is absolutely no basis for setting up a suspicionless stop and search regime, so this is an appallingly inappropriate expansion of such powers at a time when Casey has called for a reset of practice with regard to them.
As such, we support these Lords amendments. The arguments in favour of them have been set out comprehensively in the last two speeches that we have heard. If anything, the amendments are very limited and do not go anywhere near far enough, but they are just about better than nothing, and they may provide some reassurance for those who are going to be at the sharp end of such searches. We therefore support them and disagree with the Government motion.
Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)
I return to trust, which is the basis of policing by consent. We need trust in the police, not just so that when people pick up the phone they get assistance, but from an intelligence perspective as well. One concern that I have had consistently throughout the debate on the Bill is that, in eroding that trust, we will fail to get the intelligence that we need in order to prevent some of the offences that the Government are attempting to stop via the Bill.
The Minister has pointed out the additions to the PACE code, but I wonder whether, if those in the other place had not persisted in their course in relation to suspicionless stop and search, we would have got that climbdown from the Government. I agree with the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis) that we need this provision on the face of the Bill. The reality is that when we look separately at section 60 searches—again, this is from the Casey report—it does not appear that a sudden surge in use had any effect on the underlying trend.
I have deep concerns that if the Government are successful in disagreeing with the Lords amendments today, which I suspect they might be, we will miss the opportunity of the Casey report and, several years from now, we will be standing in this place debating the fact that—we told the House so—stop and search does not work.
Chris Philp
I do not want to rehearse at great length points I have made previously, but I reiterate in response to the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Croydon Central (Sarah Jones), that the Government believe that these powers, which are to be used in limited circumstances, are necessary pre-emptively to prevent people who are going equipped to disrupt the day-to-day lives of fellow citizens, whether it is with equipment to allow them to lock on to pieces of critical national infrastructure, to glue themselves to roads or to climb up gantries and attach themselves to equipment over the M25. They go equipped—it is an intentional, planned activity—and there are occasions when it will be necessary for the police to conduct stop and searches where they reasonably believe that a crime may be committed, even when no suspicion attaches to a particular individual.
I reiterate my point that the substance or key points of the amendments either are covered or will be covered by PACE code A. In relation to Lords amendment 6H, as I said, the officer giving their name and their badge number, the details of the stop they consider relevant and the grounds for the search are already covered by paragraph 3.8 of PACE code A. It is in there already, and officers do it already. In relation to issuing a statement giving the reasons for these particular powers, we will make sure that PACE code A sets that out even more clearly. The amendments have either been implemented already, or we are committed to implementing their substance and spirit using PACE code A.
Why are we using PACE code A, rather than putting the amendments in the Bill? First, it is for consistency. These sorts of conditions are set already in PACE code A, and we want to be consistent with how things operate already. Furthermore, when setting out guidelines, it is generally better to use instruments such as PACE code A or regulations, because where changes or updates are needed, it is much easier to do that by amending secondary legislation, guidelines or codes of practice, rather than by going back and amending primary legislation, which can happen only infrequently.
Those are the reasons we have taken the approach we are taking. There is a good rationale for that, and I therefore urge the House to join the Home Secretary in respectfully disagreeing with their lordships on Lords amendments 6H and 6J.
Question put, That this House disagrees with Lords amendments 6H and 6J.
Mental Health Support: Wirral
(1 year ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Alison McGovern (Wirral South) (Lab)
I thank the Speaker, through you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for the opportunity to raise a number of issues relating to mental health care in the Wirral. I thank my constituents, a number of whom have come to see me to share their experience, which is why I requested this debate. I also thank the many community groups across the Wirral that do incredible work to support people with mental health conditions to try to change and improve our borough, to make it a better, more supportive place for all our mental health.
As I said, the need for this debate has arisen because more and more constituents have come to see me in recent years about mental health challenges. I assume that that is common to many of us across the House. More commonly, constituents come to see me about something else, but in the process of the discussion about whatever the problem is—be it social security, education or their life at work—it has come to light that they have an unmet mental health need. I have asked them about the support and care available to them through our NHS, and it has become apparent that the services provided through our NHS in the Wirral—and I am sure across the country—are not sufficient.
It is difficult to unpick this issue sometimes because the shame and stigma that still exist around mental health mean that we are much less likely to hear from our constituents about their mental health problems. Yet if there is a problem with getting through the front door of A&E at Arrowe Park Hospital, I will hear about it almost immediately. If there is a problem with cancer waiting times, or hips and knees treatment, I am convinced that I would know about that. I worry that the problems with mental health treatment services in this country are not brought to our constituency surgeries in the same way. That made me want to have this debate—to shine a light on what is happening.
Margaret Greenwood (Wirral West) (Lab)
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way so early in her speech. I recently met a number of local school leaders in my constituency, who are concerned about children having gone through covid, not having the opportunity to play out, to be with their friends and to have regular schooling in the way that children normally do; not being able to play outside, do homework together and have sleepovers—all those bonding situations that are important in childhood. They are concerned about the mental health of their pupils. Does she agree that we need the Government to step up to the challenge, provide more sports for schools and follow Labour’s lead by committing to specialist support for mental health issues in every single school?
Alison McGovern
I thank my hon. Friend and constituency neighbour for making that point. We could have another Adjournment debate on mental health support services for children and the role that education should play. I will not focus on children and young people today, but I share her concerns and I thank her for putting them on the record.
When trying to find out more about exactly what is going on in the Wirral, it was pretty frustrating and challenging to get clarity on mental health waiting times. That is a big inequality with physical health, partly because our traditional way of measuring waiting times in the NHS is referral to a consultant for treatment. But in mental health, the big focus is on services in which someone, hopefully, will not need to see a consultant. Expanding access to talking therapies, which were previously known as the improving access to psychological therapies service, is not about getting a referral to see a consultant, so I do not think there is the same political eye on mental health waiting times. Will the Minister say what plans the Government have to structurally change that and to try to figure out a way for us to track mental health waiting times more effectively? As constituency MPs, we need to be much more aware of what services are being provided to our constituents and in what timeframe.
I mentioned the NHS focus on talking therapies and the IAPT service. Having prepared for the debate, the Minister may know that unfortunately in the Wirral we have a significant backlog in waiting times for the IAPT service. Through asking questions, I have discovered a significant failure against one of the key measures. As of December 2022, the
“number of individuals accessing IAPT services as a percentage of prevalence in the borough”
was just less than 10%, but the national target is 25%. In my view, that is a big failure. It represents a significant number of people who ought to be accessing talking therapies who are not. What more can the Minister tell me about the oversight that central Government have of that?
The talking therapies staff in the Wirral are brilliant. Having inherited the backlog as a new provider, they have worked incredibly hard to try to get on top of the situation. They are doing significant and important work, but the delays have big consequences for my constituents. Some people who have come to my constituency surgeries have experienced challenging situations but not had the kind of support they needed.
Looking at the figures from NHS Cheshire and Merseyside more closely shows that unfortunately the issues get worse. Within the talking therapies service, the waiting time for the more significant level of counselling support can be up to eight to nine months, and there are nearly 700 people waiting for that counselling support. If I needed counselling and I was told that the waiting time was nine months, I would be really desperate. How is anybody supposed to deal with that wait, when they already know that they need help and support to face a life challenge? That is not fair. If the waiting time related to physical rather than mental health, I think a lot more attention would be paid to it.
Unfortunately, things are even worse in the Wirral. We know that early intervention is important, but the backlog and what was historically going on within our talking therapies service has been mirrored in the community mental health scheme. I have spoken to constituents whose loved ones have experienced significant mental health problems, and they have asked me what is going on with our community mental health team. Unfortunately, there are long waits there, too.
This is really problematic because those people may have experienced in-patient care and may need support after that. The aim may even be to prevent in-patient care. Those people should be supported in the community, but there is an average wait of 11 weeks. I worry that that situation will escalate. We know that we have real problems across our NHS, whether that is access to A&E or other parts of primary care. If people with a mental health condition are not supported as would be expected and given the care they need to improve their situation, they will end up in crisis. That is just how it is, and it will mean a knock-on for our A&E staff. It is a really frustrating situation, and I ask the Minister what the Government’s plans are for resolving it. Do they have a strategy that could support improvement in the Wirral?
As my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral West (Margaret Greenwood) said, we could have the same debate all over again—I will not suggest we do so tonight, because our staff may be hoping for a bit of an early night—about services for children and young people. Waiting times for them in the Wirral and across the rest of the country are really bad. The consequences of not getting support early are often worse for children and young people, who may be realising for the first time that they have a mental health condition. We need a strategy from the Government that includes children and young people, for all the reasons that I am sure the Minister is well aware of.
The gaps in performance and the poor quality of service across the Wirral and, I am sure, across the rest of the country are exacerbating inequality. Somebody who realises how long the wait on the NHS is for talking therapies or counselling, and who is in a well-paid or well-supported job may be able to access support almost immediately through their work plan, particularly if their job comes with an employee assistance programme. That is a good thing, because those people need help, but someone in a less secure job—on a zero-hours contract, perhaps, or on the minimum wage, as many social care staff and other key workers are—cannot access that support, so the situation is exacerbating inequality in our borough. I could say as much again about the structural causes of mental ill health, poor employment, poverty and other things, but I am sure the Minister is as concerned as I am about the exacerbation of structural inequality.
Margaret Greenwood
The Royal College of Psychiatrists published a report last year on the number of patients who are receiving support out of area, sometimes hundreds of miles from home. Anecdotally, I have heard about that happening in the Wirral. Does my hon. Friend share my concern about that? May I press the Minister today for an assurance that the Government will tackle the issue as a matter of urgency?
Alison McGovern
I thank my hon. Friend and constituency neighbour for that intervention, which I am sure the Minister has heard and will respond to.
There are three points on which I would really appreciate a response from the Minister. Having met providers of the talking therapies service and having listened to a whole host of professionals and constituents, I have come to the conclusion that one simple thing is needed to improve our mental health service in the Wirral: we need more staff. We need more people in primary care, especially because it will help to free up our secondary and specialist care. We have to get to people early. At the moment there is a false economy: people cannot be seen when they first present themselves to their GP, so their conditions end up getting worse. We need much more community mental health care in the Wirral. I would love to hear from the Minister what the workforce plan is. How can we get people into counselling and therapeutic roles, so we can get them quickly into a place where they can tackle the problems that people face?
We also need much smarter targets. As I have said to the Minister, I have found it exasperating how hard it is to work out what is going on. I know that targets can sometimes create a perverse culture, and we do not want to impose targets that are unhelpful, but it should be a basic feature of our NHS that people who need care are able to know roughly how long they will wait, and that we as politicians are able to judge whether that is appropriate. That is what we do, as constituency MPs, when it comes to every other aspect of the NHS. I am simply asking the Minister for smarter and more visible targets which will help us to improve the quality of mental health support in the Wirral. As I said earlier, most people do not need to see a consultant, so I do not think that the traditional way of doing things in the NHS works. Can we not have a simpler, basic access-to-service mental health target that will work?
Finally, let me say something about staff targets in respect of treatments and pathways. The Wirral is a very innovative place for mental health care. We are doing great things with social prescribing, which I invite the Minister to investigate if she does not know about them already. We have developed new partnerships with a host of organisations, targeting young people in particular, and considering how we can use the voluntary and community sectors in much better ways. The Minister may be aware of “Open Door”, which has delivered some particularly innovative ways of providing peer-to-peer support. Thinking more about the different kinds of support that are available, how they can help and how they can be delivered in the most cost-efficient way possible is, in my view, an urgent job of analysis for the Department, and I would love to hear more from the Minister about the Government’s plans for putting the various different treatments and pathways in place.
Ultimately, it comes down to this simple fact about the Wirral: we are not where we should be when it comes to giving people access to support. We need more counselling, and we need more therapeutic staff. I am keen to work with the Minister to try to deliver that.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Maria Caulfield)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Wirral South (Alison McGovern) on securing this important debate. I am always pleased to have the opportunity to talk about the progress that we are making with mental health services, not only locally but throughout England.
Mental health affects us all, and for those of us who experience poor mental health, its impacts can be detrimental to the ability to live well, thrive and achieve personal goals. That is why improving mental health outcomes, particularly for those who experience worse outcomes than the general population, is a top priority for me and, in particular, for the Government. As the hon. Lady said, mental health still has some way to go before it is put on a par with physical health in terms of expectations, help, support and treatment, but we are making progress, in the Wirral and across the country.
The NHS long-term plan commits an additional £2.3 billion a year to the expansion and transformation of mental health services in England by 2024, which means that that 2 million more people will be able to receive NHS-funded mental health support than were able to receive it in 2018-19. For instance, we will have invested nearly £1 billion every year in community mental health care for adults with severe mental illnesses by the end of the current financial year, which will give 370,000 adults with such illnesses—including older adults—more choice and control over their care and support.
Let us not be under any illusion. We have seen a tsunami of referrals as older adults, children and young people have sought help and asked to be referred. In a way we have been successful in breaking some of the taboos and stereotypes related to mental health, which means that people are willing to come forward and ask for help, but our challenge now is to ensure that the services are able to meet that growing demand.
The hon. Lady mentioned targets as a way of being able to give people an indication of how long they should be waiting. Until fairly recently, mental health did not involve any waiting time standards, but we have introduced targets for children and young people with eating disorders. Let me give an example to illustrate the sheer scale of the current demand. The number of children and young people entering urgent treatment for eating disorders has increased by 11% in the last two years, and in the previous year it increased by 73%. A record number of people now need help, and our challenge is to provide the services that will provide it.
NHS England is currently consulting on the introduction of five new access waiting time standards for mental health services, which we hope will address some of the concerns expressed by the hon. Lady. They include introducing a target for urgent referral to a community-based mental health crisis service that patients across all ages should be seen within 24 hours of referral. For very urgent referrals to a community-based mental health crisis service, a patient should be seen within four hours of referral across all ages. Patients referred from A&E should be seen face to face within one hour by a mental health liaison or equivalent children and young people’s service. Children, young people and their families presenting to community-based mental health services should start to receive care within four weeks. Those are the standards we are trying to introduce, and I will commit to updating the House on the progress we are making, because the standards in the Wirral that the hon. Lady has talked about in her speech are the standards that we would like to see across the country.
Alison McGovern
All those targets are about emergencies, which is important, but I hope that the Government will also be looking at targets for non-urgent care, because that is the way we prevent people from getting to the urgent bit in the first place.
Maria Caulfield
I absolutely agree and I will come on to talk about some of the work we are doing in that space in a moment.
We know that the number of children and young people experiencing mental health problems is rising, and that many of them risk continuing to experience mental health problems throughout their life as a result. This has been exacerbated by the pandemic, which is why there is a further £79 million to address the impact of covid on children’s and young people’s mental health. That has allowed around 22,500 more children and young people to access community health services in order to support them as early as possible.
One of the most exciting things we are doing relates to getting in at an earlier stage, as the hon. Lady has just suggested, and talking about mental health rather than just talking about mental illness. This involves our programme of mental health support teams that have been rolled out in schools and colleges. As of spring last year, there were 287 mental health support teams in place in around 4,700 schools and colleges across the country. The type of support they are able to provide to the young people and the teachers in those schools means that children who need help through early intervention can be signposted to it and that those with more complex needs can get into the system a lot quicker.
Our challenge now is to roll that out across all schools, and we are hoping to be able to do that as quickly as possible. In the hon. Lady’s patch, there are 25 mental health support teams in place or planned in the area covering Cheshire and Merseyside, four of which are in the Wirral. I am hoping that she will start to see them being rolled out and that she will feel they make a difference. Mental health support teams now cover 26% of pupils a year earlier than originally planned, but we fully recognise that that is still a long way off 100%.
We know that there is more to do in terms of capital investment in mental health services so that local communities can have the infrastructure to see people earlier, rather than waiting until they are in crisis and need to be seen in A&E or in-patient facilities. That is why recently we provided £150 million of capital investment to be rolled over in the next two years via NHS England. From that fund, £408,000 is being invested in improvements in NHS 111 and crisis line infrastructure at the Cheshire and Wirral Partnership NHS Foundation Trust, to try to start that process of getting early intervention to people as quickly as possible.
The hon. Lady has pointed out that waiting times for some mental health services are longer than we would like, and I am happy to put my hands up and admit that that is the case. I can assure her that both locally and nationally we are doing all we can to ensure that people are getting the support they need as quickly as possible. Her local foundation trust has implemented a series of measures to help reduce those waiting times, and the number of young people waiting for appointments has been reduced by 68% since March last year. Her trust has also recruited 13.4 whole-time equivalent roles and made provision for additional sessions of consultant psychiatry. Again, there is lots more to do, but we are starting to make inroads into some of those long waits.
I have already pointed out that NHS England is consulting on five new waiting time standards, and I will update the House as soon I have the information on when they are likely to be rolled out in practice. It is also important to note that many patients with mental health needs also suffer poorer physical health outcomes, which is why we announced in January that mental health will be part of the major conditions strategy so that we deal with both issues for people who are struggling with mental illness.
It is important that we talk about the local issues in Cheshire, Merseyside and the Wirral, and the hon. Lady’s local integrated care board is currently undertaking a transformation programme within its mental health services. I understand from NHS England that local services in the Wirral are establishing a community model of mental health as part of their long-term plan ambition, with the aim of removing the gap between primary and secondary mental health services.
We want people to be seen much earlier when they go into crisis. Nationally, we are already seeing fewer people turning up to A&E because crisis teams are able to see them in the community much quicker and much earlier, with better outcomes for managing their symptoms. Talking Together Wirral has achieved the national target of 50% recovering through talking services since January 2023, and the Every Mind Matters website enables people to self-refer to talking therapies. We are doing quite well in getting first appointments, but our challenge is where people need further sessions, which is often where the long waits occur. I reassure the hon. Lady that we want to make it as easy as possible for people to self-refer into the system and, locally, the Wirral is starting to recover the waiting times for such services, but of course I am happy to work with her to see what more can be done.
The hon. Lady mentioned the fantastic, proactive work of her local health system. Cafe Create is a pilot programme launched in April 2022 as a joint commissioning venture between health services and Wirral Borough Council, and it provides an informal place for young people at risk of mental health crisis to drop in and access support from professionals and peers, counselling and drug and alcohol support. We want to support more programmes like that.
The myHappymind programme is rolling out in the Wirral, reaching 22 primary schools by the end of last year. Plans, including a business case, are now in place to bring the programme to every primary school in the Wirral by 2024, and I am happy to work with the hon. Lady on that because it is important to establish in every school that mental health is on a par with physical health. We teach young people and children about the importance of a good diet and exercise, and it is equally important to teach them about what mental wellbeing looks like and when to reach out for help.
There is a lot of work to do, and I do not dismiss in any way the hon. Lady’s point about the significant number of people who want help and the sometimes long waits to access services, but we are making progress on trying to deal with the large number of cases coming forward and on supporting local communities such as the Wirral to roll out services.
I hope I have been able to reassure the hon. Lady of our commitment to improving mental health services, to introducing some of the standards she mentioned—I take her point that it needs to be about more than just urgent care standards—and to supporting local communities to address crises in the community rather than waiting for a person to need admission, sectioning or in-patient care. I hope we will be able to demonstrate the progress we have made.
Let me touch on one final point about staff. We have an ambition to recruit 27,000 more mental health workers and we are on track to meet that. That covers a wide range of mental health practitioners, from mental health nurses to psychiatrists, counsellors and psychologists. They are working in a wide range of roles, and I wish to reassure the hon. Lady that we are on track to meet that target. It is the key to providing these extra services; without the staff, we will not be able to provide the services we need. I hope I will be able to update the House fairly soon on further work we are doing, not only on recruitment, but on the retention of our fantastic staff, who do a really hard job. When we hear news about the health service being under pressure, we often hear about accident and emergency, intensive care units and hospital beds, but mental health workers do some of the hardest jobs in health and social care, and I pay tribute to them
I hope that I have reassured the hon. Lady that we are working hard. I absolutely identify with the points she has made and look forward to working with her to improve mental health services in the Wirral.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Register of Overseas Entities (Definition of Foreign Limited Partner, Protection and Rectification) Regulations 2023
(1 year ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Kevin Hollinrake)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Register of Overseas Entities (Definition of Foreign Limited Partner, Protection and Rectification) Regulations 2023.
It is a pleasure to speak with you in the Chair, Ms Fovargue.
The regulations were laid before the House on 15 March 2023. They form part of a series of secondary legislation that is needed to implement effectively the register of overseas entities. The register was created under part 1 of the Economic Crime (Transparency and Enforcement) Act 2022, which gained Royal Assent last year.
The register will crack down on dirty Russian money in the UK and other foreign corporate elites abusing our open economy. The register requires overseas entities owning or buying property in the UK to give information about their beneficial owners and/or managing officers to Companies House. The register provides more information for law enforcement to help it to track down those using UK property as a money laundering vehicle.
The register went live on 1 August 2022, and the deadline for registration was set for 31 January this year. There has been a relatively high rate of compliance, with more than 27,500 overseas entities registered so far. Over 700 have provided details to Companies House as they had disposed all their interests in land before the end of the transitional period. That means that over 28,000 entities have complied with the requirements. While that leaves probably a few thousand entities still to register, some of the unregistered entities are believed to have been dissolved or struck off, and others have not kept their address details up to date with the Land Registry. Companies House continues to work to increase compliance even further and is now also assessing cases for compliance action.
The first tranche of regulations was laid last year. Today we are considering the first regulations in the latest tranche that are subject to the affirmative procedure. Other instruments are in preparation, and they will ensure that the register can function even more effectively. The regulations we are considering have three main elements: they prescribe the characteristics of a foreign limited partner for the purposes of the 2022 Act; they allow for information held on the register to be removed on application under certain circumstances; and they amend the protection element of the Register of Overseas Entities (Verification and Provision of Information) Regulations 2022.
The first part of the instrument sets out the characteristics of a foreign limited partner for the purposes of the register. The regulations require that such individuals must participate in a foreign limited partnership, or hold shares or an interest, either directly or indirectly, in a legal entity that participates in a foreign limited partnership. The regulations also define exactly what is meant by a foreign limited partnership and how an individual would qualify as a participant in a limited liability partnership. These provisions will assist overseas entities to decide who are registrable and beneficial owners under the legislation for the register of overseas entities.
Regulation 4 of the instrument sets out the grounds for rectification of the register. There may be occasions when information submitted to the registrar and visible on the register is factually incorrect, forged, or submitted without the consent of the overseas entities. It therefore allows for rectification of the register through the removal of such information.
Regulation 5 establishes the criteria for those entitled to receive notice on an application for rectification. In addition, the regulation specifies the information that must be included in the notice. The regulation also covers particulars of recipients’ rights and obligations under the provision. Accordingly, regulation 6 lays down the grounds for interested parties objecting to such an application. It also confirms how an objection should be made and the time limit for making one. Without these regulations, it would be impossible to know how to make an application to remove inaccurate or false information from the register, which would affect the register’s utility and accuracy.
Regulation 7 sets out the details of an amendment to the existing protection regime, which covers protecting personal information from public inspection. However, as things stand, protection can be granted only on an application subject to strict criteria. Applicants must provide evidence that they or a person they live with are at risk of serious violence or intimidation if their details are publicly disclosed. Such a disclosure must result directly from their link with the overseas entity.
The amending provision will remove the requirement to demonstrate the risk of violence or intimidation arising directly from the individual’s association with the overseas entity. The measure will subsequently allow applications for protection that are necessary because an individual is at serious risk. They would still need to demonstrate the risk before protection is granted, but the risk would no longer need to be linked to the overseas entity.
The amendment will also allow for a relevant individual’s usual residential address to be protected. For example, if the individual provided their usual address as a service address, not realising that it would be displayed on the public register, the person would have to provide an alternative address to protect their usual residential address. Protected information must still be provided to Companies House and will be available to law enforcement. The changes are being made because it has become apparent that the current criteria are not flexible enough. Without these changes, there is a real risk that some people will be in danger of serious violence or intimidation following the public disclosure of their details, given the ease with which that link could potentially be made to their usual address.
I emphasise that the regulations are crucial for the effective operation of the register of overseas entities. I hope that Members will support the measures and their objectives. I commend the draft regulations to the Committee.
Seema Malhotra (Feltham and Heston) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship today, Ms Fovargue.
I thank the Minister for his opening remarks, but the statutory instrument reflects the Government’s response to economic crime and corporate transparency. The Minister may or may not agree that it has been too slow and very reactive, but for years we have seen a blind eye turned to corruption and dirty money.
The Foreign Affairs Committee stated in 2020 that the Government had allowed the UK to become a “laundromat” for dirty money, and estimates suggest that economic crime could cost our economy hundreds of billions of pounds a year. In 2016, the then Prime Minister, David Cameron—that seems like a very long time ago—made what would turn out to be the first of many promises to introduce a register of overseas owners of UK property, saying that
“foreign companies that already hold or want to buy property in the UK will be forced to reveal who really owns them”.
Yet here we are, seven years later, finally taking the steps to implement the register.
The SI defines the characteristics of a foreign limited partner and allows for the removal of incorrect or fraudulent information from the register, as well as making changes to protected information. The changes are common sense and, as the Minister will know from our previous debates, the Opposition will support them, but the changes are also long overdue. It took the devastating Russian invasion of Ukraine to force the Government into action. As a result, last year’s legislation to provide a basis for a register of overseas entities had to be rushed through on an expedited timetable, and questions remain about the effectiveness of the register in preventing economic crime.
I turn to the specific measures in the SI. As the Minister noted, they amend the register of overseas entities created by the Economic Crime (Transparency and Enforcement) Act 2022. In 2016, the UK implemented a register of beneficial ownership of UK companies called the “people with significant control” register, which provides information to Companies House about who holds significant control of UK companies. However, there was still the issue of overseas entities owning property in the UK to obscure their identities when concealing illicit funds or laundering money through UK property. The register was therefore introduced last year to provide a means by which overseas entities owning or buying property in the UK provide prescribed information to Companies House, specifically about their beneficial owners. The aim of the register is to increase transparency and deter crime; deter money laundering; preserve the integrity of the financial system; and require the same transparency of overseas entities as is required from UK companies.
The SI makes certain technical changes to the operation of the register. First, as the Minister has outlined, it defines the meaning of “foreign limited partner”. Under the 2022 Act, if a foreign limited partner meets certain criteria, they qualify as a beneficial owner needing to provide information to the registrar, but the Act does not provide a complete definition of what constitutes a foreign limited partner. Has the Department made any estimate of the number of foreign limited partners who up to this point have not provided information on the register due to this missing definition? Have overseas entities faced any repercussions for not providing information on foreign limited partners in the time when there has been no definition?
The SI additionally introduces new provisions allowing for the rectification of the register through the removal of any inaccurate or misleading information from the register. That is a welcome provision, but will the Minister expand on whether already false or fraudulent information has been supplied to the register? If so, has any action been taken against the entities responsible? Finally, the SI amends the requirements for the protection of personal information from public inspection in particular circumstances of serious risk and the need to demonstrate that risk. We support that change.
To sum up, this SI reflects years of delay and inaction from successive Conservative Governments on economic crime. It is disappointing that we are still debating and amending legislation a year after it came before the House. It is important to put on the record the fact that there are still issues with the register of overseas entities not covered by this SI. Some 32,000 overseas companies were required to register with Companies House by 31 January. The Minister said that a majority have done so, but according to a written ministerial statement of 1 February, as of the 31 January deadline, around 7,000 companies required to register had not done so. The Minister told us that that might relate to companies that had been struck off and said that there may be other reasons why companies had not registered, but it would be helpful to know whether the figure has come down since the written ministerial statement of 1 February. How many companies do the Government feel still need to register? Will the Minister confirm whether companies have faced penalties for not registering by the legal deadline if they have not given a clear reason why?
I would also welcome clarity on further issues with the register. The Chartered Institute of Taxation has also argued that setting a beneficial ownership registration threshold of ownership of at least 25% of the shares in an overseas entity could easily be avoided—for example, by having a family of six say that they each own 16.67% of the shares in a company. Do the Government have any plans to re-evaluate the threshold?
The SI also does nothing to address a major loophole in the register: the use of opaque offshore trusts, which offer overseas entities a layer of protection, enabling them to access UK property and financial markets from behind a cloak of anonymity. A recent Transparency International report found that almost 52,000 UK properties are still owned anonymously, despite the register of overseas entities. That represents over half—56%—of the estimated foreign ownership of UK assets. Can the Minister explain why the Government are not doing more to ensure that overseas entities cannot hide behind trusts?
It is vital that the Government get their act together on dealing with economic crime, the scale of it, and the means by which it is happening. While the Opposition support the changes introduced by the SI, it is important that we continue to work at speed and that loopholes are closed, because continuing loopholes will make a mockery of the aims of the register, which we have spoken about today.
Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)
I do not claim to be an expert in this quite complicated area, but I would like to ask a very basic and fundamental question. We all support clamping down on money laundering, and we all know the stories about London being the capital for Russian money laundering and illicit activity, but I wonder whether the Minister can explain what exactly is meant by “protection”. As I understand the explanatory memorandum, protection is the withholding of personal information from public inspection—but surely we would all agree that there is a need for as much public inspection and transparency as possible.
Will the Minister explain why the SI will allow applications for so-called protection, needed because an individual is at serious risk but the risk would no longer need to be linked to the overseas entity? What exactly is the risk, and who would make the determination? Would it be a civil servant, or would there be ministerial oversight or intervention involved in assessing whether the with- holding of information is appropriate and justified?
Kevin Hollinrake
I thank members of the Committee for their valuable contributions to the debate. As the Committee knows, the Government are committed to ensuring that the register of overseas entities is robust and effective at tackling the illicit use of UK property to launder money. The draft regulations provide the mechanics that ensure the effective operation of the register.
The hon. Member for Caerphilly made a very good point. Clearly, sometimes individuals are under threat from other people for a variety of reasons. For example, a celebrity or public figure may not want their identity to be public because of potential risks posed by individuals to them or their families. That might be the case for a host of reasons—stalkers, for example. Where there is serious risk of violence or intimidation of that nature, which has to be proven to the registrar, the person is allowed not to disclose their address, particularly when it is a residential address, although the information is still held by Companies House and is available to law enforcement agencies. The protection regime is not a way of circumventing the purpose of the legislation; it applies in situations where there is proven potential for harm to the individual.
I think the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Feltham and Heston, was a little unfair in some of her comments. The Government have certainly never turned a blind eye to some of the corruption that goes on in society. She says the Government have not acted, but as someone who has often spoken out about the need for stronger measures to deal with economic crime, I would say that Governments of all persuasions have not dealt with this issue in the past. She points to the fact that David Cameron stood up in 2015 and talked about the need for these kinds of measures. I agree with both him and her, but this country has failed to introduce appropriate measures for decades, and now we are doing so.
The hon. Lady points to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine bringing this issue into public consciousness. We parliamentarians react to public concern and we have concerns in the House about the invasion, which brought these kinds of issues into stark relief and provided the impetus to deal with them. We should all welcome the fact that we are dealing with them now. This SI is one of a number of measures we are taking forward that will make it much more difficult to use either properties or companies to launder ill-gotten gains through our society.
Seema Malhotra
The Minister has a track record in Parliament on this, but I think it is important to say that over the last seven years things have not been moving as quickly as they should have done. It is important to put on the record that various Committees in Parliament have raised this issue. We welcome things moving forward more quickly, but we have to keep our foot on the accelerator. That is extremely important.
Kevin Hollinrake
We are in violent agreement on moving things forward more quickly. I absolutely agree that we should have moved more quickly, but we are where we find ourselves. We have the momentum to act now, so let us make the best use of that opportunity.
The hon. Lady asks what Companies House is doing. As far as I am aware, 7,000 entities have not complied with the legislation. Some of them will no longer be entities that we need to worry about—they may well have closed down, and an address may have changed because there is no more purpose to an entity—but we are clearly keen to find out such information. Companies House has written to tens of thousands of organisations to ask them to register and to point out that there are now restrictions on being able to rent or sell land. There are meaningful measures in place to restrict the use of land and property, which is important. Companies House is also preparing cases for enforcement, which is another important message that we send to people who have not complied with the legislation. I am keen to make sure that the measures are taken forward as quickly as possible, and I am prepared to take personal oversight of making sure they are properly implemented.
The hon. Lady asked about how the measures can be avoided, such as by sharing ownership between a family of six. A beneficial owner is a beneficial owner regardless of how the ownership is distributed, and even if there are proxies. We had this discussion on the economic crime legislation, too. I think it is fair to say that if somebody is determined to avoid the rules by giving false evidence, they will do so, but there are significant penalties for doing that, which are a key part of the legislation.
The register of overseas entities provides a novel approach, and it is important to recognise that we are setting a new global standard. By setting up a register and introducing transparency, we are at the front of the pack with the legislation, so although the Opposition constantly put forward a fair challenge by saying that we are not going far enough, we are going further than any other jurisdiction I am aware of.
Seema Malhotra
It is not just the Opposition who are raising this issue. The Minister will know that many of the organisations with which he has worked in the past have also raised concerns about the threshold. I want to probe him on the threshold being 25%. It was not clear from his answer whether he was saying that any threshold, even a low one, would have people working around it. It feels fairly high for this purpose.
Kevin Hollinrake
We think it is at the appropriate level. We can perhaps have a discussion about it at length on another occasion, but as I say, the idea behind this is that the beneficial owner is disclosed. I will probably write to the hon. Lady to clarify this, but as I understand it, even if somebody put a proxy or nominee in place for the ownership of a property, it would still not get them off the hook in terms of whether they are actually the beneficial owner of the property. Perhaps I can write to her to confirm that.
The register is a crucial part of the Government’s fight against illicit finance. The Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Bill, which is before Parliament, features substantial changes to UK company and partnership law, and complements the Economic Crime (Transparency and Enforcement) Act 2022. The Bill will introduce amendments to the Act that provide further operational detail to the register of overseas entities. For example, new measures in the Bill will require more information about overseas entities, including the title numbers of the properties held by overseas entities, and put in place minimum age limits for managing officers, to ensure that details of a person over 16 years of age must always be provided. The Bill will also make further provisions for registrable beneficial owners in cases involving trusts, and it includes an anti-avoidance mechanism to ensure that those in scope of the register at the time that the Act was first published as a Bill to Parliament cannot circumvent the requirements. The laying of the draft regulations complements the measures in the Bill to ensure that the register is as effective as possible, and I commend them to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Code of Practice on the Recording and Retention of Personal Data in relation to Non-Crime Hate Incidents
(1 year ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Miss Sarah Dines)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Code of Practice on the Recording and Retention of Personal Data in relation to Non-crime Hate Incidents.
It is a pleasure, as always, to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Robert. The draft code was laid before the House on 13 March. Non-crime hate incidents have attracted a significant amount of debate and controversy, particularly focused on concerns relating to free speech. The topic attracted attention during the passage of the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022. The strength of feeling on this matter, both in the House and among the public, is entirely understandable, and that is why we laid this code before Parliament.
The collection of non-crime hate incident information is a key legacy of the Macpherson inquiry into the murder of Stephen Lawrence. The information pertains to incidents that are not crimes, and provides the police with the means of understanding tensions in communities, or cases involving particular individuals, before they can escalate to serious harm. In that respect, the data is important in helping the police to build intelligence, so that they can understand where they must target resources to prevent serious crimes or harms.
The Government are absolutely clear that vulnerable individuals and communities must continue to be protected, and the police must be supported in that crucial work. However, non-crime hate incidents must never be used to inhibit lawful debate, and we must also be careful about what information is kept on an individual’s record—a point that both the Home Secretary and I have made clear. That balance has unfortunately not always been struck, and that is precisely what the code was designed to address. The police should be focusing on tackling violent crime, neighbourhood crime, antisocial behaviour and the other crimes that matter to the public. Good old-fashioned common-sense policing must be the watchword.
The UK is an open and diverse country, and freedom of speech is one of the values that defines us as a society. There have been concerns that those who express views that some may consider offensive, but that are not against the law, were at risk of becoming the subject of a non-crime hate incident report, which might have resulted in their personal data being stored on a policing record. The code addresses those concerns by introducing new safeguards that ensure that personal data may be included on a non-crime hate incident record only if the event is clearly motivated by intentional hostility, and where there is a real risk of escalation causing significant harm or a criminal offence.
To be recorded as a non-crime hate incident, or NCHI, the police must judge that any perception of hostility is valid; the complaint must not be irrational, trivial or malicious. That will ensure that the police record NCHIs only when it is absolutely necessary and proportionate to do so, and not simply because someone is offended. The code also provides detailed guidance on freedom of expression, and clear case studies to illustrate how that fundamental right should be considered in practice by the police.
We are confident that the code fully reflects the Court of Appeal judgment handed down in December 2021 on the Harry Miller v. the College of Policing case. The Court found that the recording of NCHIs was lawful, but must be subject to more robust safeguards to ensure that such recording is proportionate and protects free speech. As I have set out, that is exactly what the code provides for.
The new code will also ensure that the police can prioritise areas where help is really needed. In practice, that means focusing on serious crimes, including burglary, violent offences, rape and other sexual offences. I am sure that hon. Members will appreciate that the introduction of the code is another positive step towards embedding the important notion of common-sense policing across the system.
I put on record my gratitude, and the Home Secretary’s gratitude, to the College of Policing, the National Police Chiefs’ Council and senior police officers, who engaged substantially with Home Office officials throughout the drafting process to ensure that the code will work from an operational perspective. The College of Policing is updating operational guidance for police on the recording of such incidents, to ensure that their guidance aligns with the code. The college will also roll out the requisite training for police officers, to ensure that the principles in the code are fully embedded in everyday policing practice. That will ensure that the code is applied consistently by forces across England and Wales.
The Government have listened to the concerns raised in Parliament, and have acted on them. The code will better protect people’s fundamental right to freedom of expression, as well as their personal data, while ensuring that vulnerable individuals and communities are safeguarded. That is a balance. A lot of thought has been put into the code. We are absolutely committed to supporting the police in fulfilling their vital role of keeping the public safe, and are clear that their focus must remain catching dangerous criminals and bringing them to justice. That is why we are taking action to ensure that a clear threshold must be met before incidents of this type are recorded. By bringing forward the code, we have also ensured that the process is subject to much-needed democratic scrutiny. I commend the draft code to the Committee.
Holly Lynch (Halifax) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Robert, and I thank the Minister for her opening contribution. I think that she, like me, has been impacted by the scheduling of the Public Order Bill, which has meant last-minute changes to the Front-Bench line-up on this important Delegated Legislation Committee.
As the Minister outlined, the new code of practice aims to establish a proportionate and common-sense approach to the recording of non-crime hate incidents. Following the ruling by the Court of Appeal in the Miller case, and the new guidance produced by the College of Policing, we agree that there is a need to strike the right balance between protecting freedom of expression and responding to incidents of hate. There is an obvious difference between hate crimes that target people on the basis of their characteristics and unpleasant behaviour that does not cross the criminal threshold. The College of Policing has already published guidance on how police forces should deal with the latter, and that guidance is incorporated in the code of practice.
We will not oppose the code, and we urge the Government to work closely with the college to deliver on it. However, there is a real need to lower the temperature around conversations on this issue, as inflammatory rhetoric helps nobody. We are concerned about some of the language used in the Government’s framing of this issue. The Home Secretary has described non-crime hate incidents as “Orwellian and wrongheaded”, and talked of “politically correct distractions”. The idea that the police are focused on anything other than preventing crime, catching criminals and keeping people safe is grossly unfair to the officers whom we all work with, day in, day out.
The Policing Minister has said that the
“focus must remain on catching dangerous criminals”,
while the Home Secretary noted that
“The new code will ensure the police are prioritising their efforts…focusing on tackling serious crimes”.
If the Government’s motivation is truly to free up police time, so that the police can focus on tackling crime, may I suggest that we thoroughly consider the primary role that policing is having to play in providing mental health support, locating missing people, or providing social care? I could go on.
I am interested to see the differing cost analyses produced by the Home Office, which expects the cost of implementation to be around £9,000, but it concedes that it could be up to £400,000. That higher estimate is based on the assumption that there is a slightly longer code of conduct being read by more officers at chief inspector level. I suggest to the Minister that the general public may prefer a greater proportion of senior officers to have read and acquainted themselves with the new code of practice. That seems a reasonable request, given the sensitivities around the topic. I suspect that the costs are likely to be on the higher side, given how important it is that we get this right.
I have looked at the examples from page 14 onwards. A great deal of emphasis is placed on taking a common-sense approach, as the Minister said, but the phrase lacks clarity. What is common sense to me might not be common sense to the Minister, and what is common sense to her might not be to individual officers. If there is a degree of mitigation in someone’s rationale for their conduct, that may result in an incident not being recorded. What happens if someone becomes a repeat offender on that basis? How do we monitor that, and ensure that no one abuses that ambiguity? We agree that striking a balance between protecting freedom of speech and responding to hate incidents is right and proper, and the documentation certainly sets out a much clearer rationale than the Home Secretary did, but the code of practice will come unstuck if clarity is not provided to the officers who have to work with it at operational level.
We will continue to support frontline officers and the College of Policing on getting this right, but I ask the Government to be thoughtful and respectful in further discussions on this important matter.
Miss Dines
I am most grateful for the co-operation of the Opposition, because we all hold dear free speech and the need to protect communities. The need for balance has meant that there has been a lot of careful thought about this issue from senior police officers, the National Police Chiefs’ Council and the College of Policing. It is unusual to give worked-through examples; a lot of thought was put into the examples given. Of course, in all aspects of life, there is an element of subjectivity. That is why the code is quite well defined and detailed. We must be thoughtful in striking a balance. I reassure the Opposition spokesman that it will be specialist officers recording this data; it will not be new recruits, or those without proper training or teaching.
The point was raised that the police deal with mental health, missing persons and social care. The police have always, to some extent, had a wider community role; their role has not solely been about policing. That is what we expect from well-rounded police officers. However, having provided 20,000 extra police officers, the Government are confident that there will be more time for a focus on stopping crime.
Producing the draft code has been a detailed exercise that has taken some time, and has involved careful thought. Again, I am grateful for the Opposition’s co-operation; we are working together. The hon. Lady and I both want to lower the temperature. We want to get this right in order to protect free speech and our communities. I am grateful to hon. Members for coming along, including those who have not spoken, and to the Opposition for agreeing not to oppose the code. On behalf of the Home Secretary and the Government, I again thank the College of Policing, the National Police Chiefs’ Council, senior officers, and civil servants who have assisted in this exercise. The code’s introduction will further progress the Government’s work on promoting and embedding common-sense policing across the system.
To sum up, the code will better protect personal data and the fundamental right to free speech. I therefore commend it to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Ministerial Correction
Prime Minister
(1 year ago)
Ministerial CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Keir Starmer
He is living in another world to the rest of us. People waiting more than two days for an ambulance because they broke the NHS. Only one in 100 rapists going to court because they broke the criminal justice system. A record number of small boats crossing the channel because they broke the asylum system. People can’t afford their bills, can’t get the police to investigate crimes, can’t get a doctor’s appointment. Does that really sound like pretty good shape to him?
The Prime Minister
What is the record since 2010? Since 2010, crime is down by 50% under the Conservative Government. There are 20,000 more police officers, we have given them more powers, and we have toughened up sentencing—all opposed by Sir Softie over there.
[Official Report, 19 April 2023, Vol. 731, c. 237.]
Letter of correction from the Prime Minister.
An error has been identified in the response I gave to the right hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer).
The correct response should have been:
The Prime Minister
What is the record since 2010? Since 2010, crime is down by 50% under the Conservative Government. We are confident that we will have had 20,000 more police officers by the end of March, we have given them more powers, and we have toughened up sentencing—all opposed by Sir Softie over there.
Westminster Hall
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
UK’s Exit from the European Union
(1 year 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
Steve McCabe (in the Chair)
Before we start, Mr Speaker has asked me to say that Members who are able to bob to indicate that they wish to speak during the debate should do so. Obviously, if you cannot, we will take that into account. I should also say that about 13 Back Benchers are down on the list to speak in the debate. I know we have about three hours, but that probably means we will have to impose a time limit. At the moment, as guidance, Members might want to look to take about seven minutes, or something like that, given there are likely to be some interventions.
Martyn Day (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (SNP)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered e-petition 628226, relating to the impact of the UK’s exit from the European Union.
It is, as always, a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr McCabe.
The petition, as at 11 am today, had attracted more than 178,000 signatories. The number was changing by the minute, so it will be even higher now. I highlight that it remains open until 18 May and I urge anyone who agrees with its premise to add to the significant support it has already received.
I am delighted to be leading the debate, not least because I wholeheartedly agree with the grounds of the petition and its request:
“The benefits that were promised if the UK exited the European Union have not been delivered, so we call upon the Government to hold a Public Inquiry to assess the impact that Brexit has had on this country and its citizens.
It is time that the people of this country were told the truth about Brexit, good or bad. We deserve to know how Brexit is impacting on trade, the economy, opportunities for young people and how it has affected the rights of individuals. This can only be done by an independent Public Inquiry, free from ideology and the opinions of vested interests.”
Last week, I had the pleasure of meeting Peter Packham, the man who started the petition. An elected member of the European Movement’s national council and a manager of one of its local branches, Leeds for Europe, Peter is a passionate pro-European campaigner, and I am delighted that he is able to join us in the Public Gallery today. I thank Peter and Leeds for Europe for their petition urging the UK Government to hold a public inquiry into the impact of Brexit, as well as everyone who signed it, because those actions brought us here for what I am sure will be an informative debate.
Concerns have been expressed that no impact assessment has been carried out to assess the damage that Brexit has created, despite the chairman of the Office for Budget Responsibility saying:
“In the long term, it is the case that Brexit has a bigger impact than the pandemic.”
Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab)
The hon. Member is making a very good start to this important debate. Does he agree that one of the worst-affected sectors is the creative sector? Many musicians across the UK have been in touch with us as their representatives to say how they have been negatively affected by the lack of agreement between countries. I hope that he and others will refer to that in their speeches.
Martyn Day
That is a good point well made. The problem we have with the debate is that so many areas have been adversely affected that even with the best part of 20 minutes, I will struggle to touch on them all. I look forward to other Members extrapolating from the points we start with.
A public inquiry has been set up to look into the UK’s pandemic response, so it is reasonable—I would suggest sensible—to also hold one on the impact of Brexit. The public have a right to know. Putting aside the fact that support for Brexit is at its lowest since the referendum, the impact of leaving the EU on the UK needs to become common knowledge. We need to know where we are before we can plot our way forward to where we want to be.
Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)
Some of those who felt the impact of Brexit most keenly were not old enough to vote. Children and young people have lost access to schemes such as Erasmus. Schoolchildren were stuck for many hours on coaches at Dover over the Easter holidays, and we had Conservative Ministers telling us that that had absolutely nothing to do with Brexit. Furthermore, the Tourism Alliance tells us that the number of schoolchildren coming from the European Union on school trips has halved because of bureaucracy around group visas and the inability to travel without a passport, whereas it used to be possible to travel on an ID card. Does the hon. Member agree that children and young people have fared the worst and that many people were not aware of that when the decision went through?
Martyn Day
I thank the hon. Member for that point. I agree that young people have lost the most, but I hope that we can regain some of that for them in the future.
To put it simply, can we make Brexit work? I very much doubt it, but can we move on without knowing what the foundation is? The UK Government opened its response to petitioners by saying:
“The UK’s departure from the EU is the result of a democratic choice”.
For that reason, at the outset of the debate, it would be remiss of me not to point out that 62% of those who voted in Scotland did not want to leave the EU, with every Scottish council returning a remain majority. Just under 56% of those who voted in Northern Ireland did not want to leave the EU either.
Tonia Antoniazzi (Gower) (Lab)
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that transparency is the key to all good governance and that, without knowing the impact of leaving the European Union, we will never be able to resolve the issues we have at present?
Martyn Day
That is a very good point and one that I will also make.
It will come as no surprise to anyone that, as a citizen of one of those nations, those figures do not seem very democratic to me. It is not my place to comment on the Northern Ireland situation—
Martyn Day
I am sure the hon. Gentleman will.
It is not my place to comment on the Northern Ireland situation, particularly pertaining to the added complexities of what was the Northern Ireland protocol. However, I can say that the whole Brexit saga lays bare why Westminster is unfit to govern in Scotland’s interests. Indeed, not only has the Brexit debacle blown apart the case for Westminster control, but the ensuing debate has shown beyond doubt that the two major Westminster parties are committed to the damage that leaving the EU is having on trade and the economy across the UK, as well as on opportunities for our young people and the rights of individuals.
Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)
I apologise for jumping in on the hon. Gentleman quite so quickly, but he is making lots of really important points. Does he agree that one of the most valuable features of a democracy is that it has the potential for error correction? In other words, does he agree that, if people change their minds—as is increasingly the case with Brexit—the only logical thing to do is to change the decision that caused people to change their minds?
Martyn Day
The hon. Lady makes a very good point. In a democracy, people always have the right to change their minds and we should bear that in mind at all times.
Before moving on to some of the evidence of the negative impact of Brexit, I want to mention that the UK Government’s response also said that
“the UK-EU institutions are functioning as intended.”
If that is the case, considering that the democratic will of the people of Northern Ireland was not met, it prompts the question of why it took so long for the UK-EU institutions to reach agreement on the Windsor framework. That breakthrough was surely not “intended” to take nearly seven years.
It is disappointing that a similar deal to Northern Ireland’s has not been afforded to Scotland, but that is not for this debate. I am sure that we can have fun with that issue in months to come. However, given the length of time it took to negotiate such a critical agreement, can the Minister tell us what progress has been made on negotiating re-entry to European projects that all four nations were removed from, such as Horizon Europe, Copernicus, Euratom, the European arrest warrant, Europol and the Schengen information system? It would be helpful if the Minister could also take the opportunity to explain why both the European Scrutiny Committee and the Lords European Affairs Committee are currently holding inquiries on the new UK-EU relationship. Perhaps he could suggest when those findings will be published to evidence the UK Government’s claim that UK-EU institutions are indeed functioning as intended.
Moving on to how Brexit is affecting trade and the economy, the Trade Secretary recently announced that the UK had reached agreement to join the comprehensive and progressive agreement for trans-Pacific partnership—sometimes referred to under the acronym CPTPP or otherwise known as the Pacific rim trade deal—which will allow zero tariffs for 99% of goods exported to the bloc. Although the agreement has not yet been signed, the Trade Secretary claimed, in her excitement, that it would “open up our economy”. Good news, we might think—but, in the course of the announcement, she also said that we should “not keep talking” about Brexit. Well, this debate might disappoint her, as it shows that Brexit remains a live political issue. I align with the opinion of the petitioners that it will continue to be so at least until the facts are known, and probably for some time to come afterwards.
Marsha De Cordova (Battersea) (Lab)
On the subject of Brexit being on everyone’s minds, for my constituents in Battersea it remains an issue and, for them, it has been an unmitigated disaster. Our economy is not growing, our rights and protections are being infringed and, more importantly, Britain’s standing in the world is also challenged. I have called on the Government to produce a cumulative impact assessment on the impact of Brexit. Does the hon. Member agree that any public inquiry must look at the cumulative impact of Brexit on our constituents?
Martyn Day
I am happy to agree with that. The more I learn, the more I realise that there is no such thing as a good Brexit. I think we are all seeing that clearly.
The Trade Secretary’s reason for saying what she did could be that, according to the UK Government’s own scoping assessment, the shiny new CPTPP trade bloc deal will bring an increase of only 0.08% in GDP over a lengthy 15 years. The House of Commons Library reports that the economic benefits of CPTPP membership “appear to be small.”
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
The hon. Gentleman mentions the 0.08% boost to GDP promised by access to the CPTPP. Surely, in all honesty, for the sake of our economy the time has come to stop burying our heads in the sand. We cannot just multiply excuses; we have got to face the reality that Brexit is part of the problem. With that, from Plaid Cymru’s point of view, we should be looking to move towards rejoining the single market, but the first part is to recognise that there are multiple causes and that Brexit is a critical one of them.
Martyn Day
I thank the right hon. Member for that intervention. It is fair to say that the economic impact of Brexit falls well short of the benefits that the UK enjoyed with EU membership; the OBR expects our withdrawal from that to reduce the overall trade intensity of the UK economy by 15% in the long term. The OBR’s latest Brexit analysis assumes that the trade and co-operation agreement, which sets the terms of the post-Brexit trading relationship between the UK and the EU, will reduce the potential productivity of the UK economy by 4%, largely due to the increase in non-tariff barriers.
In rebutting those figures during the CPTPP announcement, the Trade Secretary pointed out that the OBR’s forecasting was speculative. However, the OBR’s economic and fiscal outlook last month highlighted that it had been reviewing and refining its assumptions about the economic impact of Brexit as new evidence arrived and that, two years into the trade and co-operation agreement, the trends on UK trade volumes remained consistent with its assumptions. Additionally, the OBR forecasts stem from out-turn data published by the Office for National Statistics. The latest data from the third quarter of 2022 suggested that UK trade volumes remain 3% below their 2019 level, while there has been an average increase of 5.5% across other G7 countries. Similarly, trade intensity is 2.6% lower than its pre-pandemic level in the UK, yet it is 3.6% higher in the rest of the G7.
A recent study estimates that UK goods trade was 7% lower in June 2022 than it would have been were we still in the EU. All in all, in terms of trading, the Pacific rim trade deal, along with the already-signed agreements with Australia and New Zealand, which have yet to come into force, has limited positive economic impact to compensate for what we have lost due to the UK Government pushing through a hard Brexit deal outside the EU single market and customs union.
In December 2021, the National Audit Office predicted that the macroeconomic benefits of free trade agreement negotiations being carried out by the UK Government at the time would only increase the UK’s GDP by between 0.33%, at best, and 0.17%, at worst, after 50 years. From those projections, the USA was the biggest potential FTA partner. However, although negotiations started nearly three years ago, there is no trade agreement with the USA, and neither is one expected any time soon. The relatively modest economic benefits projected from the secured and proposed agreements by the Department for International Trade have therefore further decreased.
Compare that with where we were: part of the second largest and most-integrated world trading blocs, which also happens to lead the way in global standards and regulations. Maybe the Prime Minister’s idea about mandatory maths for everyone up to the age of 18 holds some credence after all, as the sums certainly do not add up. The Pacific rim trade deal also has wider negative impacts, such as its inclusion of investor-state dispute settlement clauses, which I am totally against, and environmental costs. For example, the UK Government’s own analysis stated that joining CPTPP is estimated to increase the UK’s domestic greenhouse gas emissions. How that complies with the UK Government’s net zero ambitions escapes me; perhaps the Minister can enlighten us on that point, too.
Like the Pacific rim trade deal, Brexit is causing damage on multiple levels, but I will try to confine my remarks to the specific issues that the petition mentions, and move on to how Brexit is impacting on opportunities for young people and on the rights of individuals. Before doing so, let me point out the obvious: the damaging impact of Brexit on trade and the economy undoubtedly has ripple effects on opportunities and rights. That said, I will start with the removal of the right to free movement—not just for work purposes—which puts barriers in place for both UK and EU citizens and causes workforce shortages in key sectors, including the crucial health and care sector, due to the simple matter of travel, which is now much less straightforward and flexible.
We have only to look back a couple of weeks to see the delays at Dover over the Easter break, which were caused by new passport stamping requirements, and we can look forward to worse delays to come when the EU’s post-Brexit entry-exit system, or EES, comes into effect next year. This new border control for non-EU travellers, which Brexit has made us, has been described as “anticipated chaos”—another Brexit benefit for us all to look forward to. Delays at customs are also a major headache for manufacturers, with 31% predicting that owing to new trading rules, customs delays will be the biggest risk to their company’s competitiveness in 2023, and 36% of small and medium-sized businesses are still struggling with the new customs procedures and paperwork.
There are also privacy rights, with the EU’s general data protections regulations thus far serving us well in protecting our personal data. To replace them, the Science Secretary has recently put forward the new Data Protection and Digital Information (No. 2) Bill to supersede its predecessor, which was repeatedly delayed. However, I have serious concerns that the Bill will, first, erode the high standards of data protection rights that UK citizens held as part of the EU GDPR and, secondly, further negatively impact on any review of the UK-EU trade deal if it fails to protect EU citizens. I want to see a commitment to robust data privacy protections and world-beating data protection regulations being maintained. However, on the Bill’s Second Reading last week, my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North West (Carol Monaghan) put on the record that, with regards to how this piece of post-Brexit legislation will affect individuals’ rights, the Open Rights Group has said:
“The government has an opportunity to strengthen the UK’s data protection regime post Brexit. However, it is instead setting the country on a dangerous path that undermines trust, furthers economic instability, and erodes fundamental rights.”
Back in 2016, the Vote Leave campaign described EU regulations as excessive red tape. Like it or not, regulation is essential not just for the EU single market to function, but to protect workers. The UK Government’s Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill, which was brought forward despite it not being known exactly how many regulations it would affect, will enable the UK Government to abandon vital legislation that has protected people’s rights for almost 50 years. In Committee in the House of Commons, my hon. Friend the Member for Argyll and Bute (Brendan O’Hara) tabled many amendments that targeted multiple issues in that Bill, including about workers’ rights, food standards, consumer safety and the uncertainty facing businesses. It is a disgrace that those concerns were ignored by the UK Government and that all SNP amendments were voted down by Conservative MPs.
On the impact of Brexit on opportunities for young people, it is no exaggeration to say that it has removed their access to a European, if not global, labour market. Instead of prioritising young people, enhancing their opportunities and widening access to positive destinations to ensure that they get the best possible start in life, Brexit has stolen those prospects for success.
Catherine West
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the particular impact on school trips has been enormous and that that does not just have a knock-on effect on our local economy here in London and across the UK, but tends to narrow the horizons in terms of friendship forming and all those other important and intangible benefits of doing school trips abroad?
Martyn Day
I agree wholeheartedly with that. As a person who has benefited from town twinning and sister city deals over the course of my life, I can say that it weakens our soft power and our influence in other countries as well.
On top of all that, removing freedom of movement means that our young people can no longer study in EU countries without a visa, never mind gain experience of travelling or working in Europe. Additionally, there has been the UK Government’s decision to leave the Erasmus programme and all its related benefits, which have not been replaced by its UK replacement, the Turing scheme. Likewise, there has been a sharp drop in the number of new EU students enrolling in universities across the UK. Indeed, it was reported in January that the numbers had “more than halved”, with Brexit seen as the “primary deterrent”. Universities UK said that the increase in students from outside the EU had failed to
“offset the exodus of EU students at undergraduate level, weakening financial stability in some third-level education and reducing diversity across some subject areas.”
The head of global mobility policy at Universities UK said that the figures show
“very clearly the impact of the sort of loss of freedom of movement”.
This is impacting on research talent for the UK. My hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian (Owen Thompson) raised concerns just last week in a debate entitled “Research and Development Funding and Horizon Europe”, pointing out that since 2014
“Scottish and UK universities have lost almost £1 billion in structural EU funds for research”.—[Official Report, Westminster Hall, 18 April 2023; Vol. 731, c. 105WH.]
The manufacturers’ organisation, Make UK, has advised that Horizon Europe is a key area of funding for innovation in the UK manufacturing sector and will be important for growth in areas such as advanced manufacturing and digital processes. Yet, due to discussions still ongoing, UK-based researchers have been unable to access Horizon Europe funds.
I will conclude my opening remarks by saying that nearly seven years on from the Brexit referendum, the UK public are still waiting for the elusive “Brexit benefits” that were promised. It seems to me, having raised just some of the areas where leaving the EU has impacted on the UK, that the benefits of Brexit are pure fantasy. The economic fallout from Brexit is stark and it has been made starker by the current cost of living crisis that is being inflicted on households up and down the country. From my perspective, Brexit has been an unmitigated disaster—politically, economically and socially, for Scotland and the rest of the UK. The UK Government, of course, have a means to refute this. When major events occur, public inquiries can be held into matters of public concern to establish facts, to learn lessons so that mistakes are not repeated, to restore public confidence and to determine accountability. I do not think anyone here can deny that Brexit was a major event, and this petition shows that it is still a matter of public concern and that we will not stop talking about it—despite the Trade Secretary’s request. I am sure that I have barely scratched the surface of this matter. I look forward to hearing the other contributions to the debate, particularly the Minister’s response to the points that are made. I am sure we are all interested to hear about how the Government do not believe the UK’s departure from the EU is a subject for a public inquiry, which it clearly is.
Steve McCabe (in the Chair)
Given the number of people who want to speak, we will opt for a time limit, starting with eight minutes. I call Adam Holloway.
Adam Holloway (Gravesham) (Con)
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr McCabe.
When 65% of the people in my constituency of Gravesham voted in the 2016 referendum, they cast their votes in favour of leaving the EU. They did so in the expectation that their views would be respected and in the hope that the Government would have the guts to make a success of it. In those ambitions, my constituents have not been well served. Their clear instructions to us here in Parliament were not respected. For years the Government, with the collusion of the civil service, treated Brexit as a gigantic, strategic mistake by the people of the United Kingdom, and they saw their role as one of damage limitation. But in 2019 the electorate had the chance to speak again, returning my right hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Boris Johnson) with a huge majority, and he respected that mandate and was finally able to deliver Brexit.
It is faintly depressing to be here again ostensibly debating whether the benefits of Brexit have been delivered and whether there should be a public inquiry. In reality, we are arguing today about whether we should have voted to leave the EU or whether we should rejoin. For me, the single most important benefit of Brexit has been realised, leaving aside some slightly unhappy compromises in the Windsor framework, because our sovereignty has been repatriated. Many remainers seem to view our desire to govern ourselves as at best an outmoded and abstract concept, and at worst a front for baser impulses.
Adam Holloway
I will not. I came in here earlier, took one look at all the articulate advocates of remain or rejoin, and I thought that in the interests of my blood pressure, which I tested this morning, I would not give way—[Interruption.] I am sure the hon. Lady can address that in her speech: we have heard a lot from her on the subject already.
It is easy to undervalue sovereignty if the areas in which it was surrendered to the EU do not actually impact one’s life. It is easy to disdain patriotism if someone is economically and socially mobile and derives their self-worth from a well-paid job, or if their life is made easier by cheap labour as a result of free movement. In my constituency, EU membership has brought social problems, pressures on housing in the social and private sectors, enormous stress on public services and a sense of disenfranchisement. My constituents are not crazed nationalists. They are hard-working people who voted to take back control over the laws that directly affect their quality of life, and to have the right to vote out politicians who make laws that do not work for them. That power is important to them, and it is important to me that we deliver on that promise.
On the economic benefits of Brexit, we should have the courage of our convictions and stop being so cautious. It was encouraging to hear the Chancellor of the Exchequer, my right hon. Friend the Member for South West Surrey (Jeremy Hunt), unveil his post-Brexit reform of financial services, which aims to give us a regulatory framework that meets the needs of our financial services industry and can respond effectively to emerging trends. With the freedom to diverge from EU law, we can now make substantial changes in many areas—for example, in the regulation of insurance firms. The risk margin, the capital buffer that insurance companies must hold, will be cut by 65% for life insurers and 30% for general insurers. The eligibility of assets that life insurers can use to match their liabilities will therefore be broadened. That will free up capital for investment in the UK economy and improve the competitiveness of the important financial services industry, bringing benefits to consumers.
The Government must stick to their promise to make substantial legislative progress in this area during 2023. Reform of the financial services regulations is just one area where we now have the freedom to extricate ourselves from a regime that was not designed with our best interests in mind.
There are a host of opportunities we must now seize. We must make progress with the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill, and we must take advantage of our freedom from EU control of state aid. We must make sure that our immigration system works for the people of this country. It is a difficult task to disentangle ourselves from a heap of legislation that we did not choose, but it is a vital job. We should be bold and move quickly.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
I congratulate those who have made sure this petition has come to this House for debate today. I also congratulate the hon. Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk (Martyn Day) on his excellent opening speech.
In Bath, 70% of my constituents voted to remain, and we remain proudly pro-European. Bath is an open, welcoming and international city. We understand that in our modern, interconnected world, wanting to just cut ourselves off and float into the Atlantic ocean is entirely unrealistic and, indeed, undesirable. Most of my constituents feel a deep sense of loss at our exit from the European Union, and many in our community are now paying the price.
Discussing Brexit has become a bit of a political taboo, shall we say. An inquiry into Brexit’s impact would help us face up to reality and it would give a true picture of the impact on people, business and the whole economy. We need evidence, not Government propaganda. There is now a large amount of data on the damage Brexit is inflicting on our economy, however it needs to be put out into the open, and that is why an inquiry into the impact of Brexit is so important.
We are the only G7 nation with an economy smaller than it was before the pandemic. The OBR has said that leaving the EU will reduce the UK’s long-term GDP by about 4%. The OBR assumes that UK imports and exports will both be 15% lower in the long run than had we remained in the EU. It will leave a larger scar on the economy than the pandemic.
We should be making it easier for British small businesses to trade abroad, but instead they are now tangled up in red tape. Supply chains are drying up as EU businesses are voting with their feet. Why bother with the UK when other businesses across the EU are happy to take over? Brexit was always going to restructure our economy. The blunt reality is that fine-tuning and tinkering on the edges of our trading relationship with Europe will not be enough. Without a relationship based on trust and respect, we cannot provide long-term stability for businesses or the economy. That is at the heart of our debate today. Not only do we need an inquiry to show the evidence of the impact of Brexit, but we also need to restore our relationship with the EU.
Brexit has made this Government’s hostile environment even more hostile. EU citizens who had built their lives here were made to feel unwelcome. It is no wonder that so many have left. Among those were vital NHS workers, and the Government must face up to their role in forcing out the staff we desperately need. I am a European migrant who became a British citizen in 2007. No Minister can reassure me that Brexit was not meant to make citizens who were born in the EU feel unwelcome. I do feel that. It has had this effect, and it still does, and no amount of reassurance from the Government will change this.
Vital workers in vital professions are leaving. The Nuffield Trust has argued that EU-trained medics now face extra bureaucracy and higher costs. If pre-Brexit recruitment patterns had continued, the NHS would have 165 more psychiatrists, 288 more paediatricians and 394 more anaesthetists.
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)
My hon. Friend is making a powerful case. Does she agree, however, that we are seeing that gap appear in employment across the board, because we have lost so many European members of our workforce? Before Brexit, in my city of Edinburgh, 50% of the workforce in hospitality—a vital industry—came from other European countries. Week after week, those same employers tell me that they now cannot fill those jobs. Does she agree that we are suffering that cost?
Wera Hobhouse
I am happy to agree. I could fill hours and hours with examples, but we have only a limited amount of time, so I am picking up on the NHS. Yes, absolutely, that is the picture across the board.
Each vacancy is hurting communities, as NHS patients face painful delays and waiting lists. Only one in three adults in Bath has been able to secure an appointment with an NHS dentist, and yet the Government refuse to recognise EU dentists’ qualifications.
Brexit is also destroying our cultural links with the European Union—that is one of the most painful things that I can talk about in a city such as Bath, where not only hospitality but entertainment and culture are such vital sectors. The UK music industry is world-renowned, deservedly so, and we should be proud of that, and do everything possible to promote it. That vibrant sector, however, is hamstrung at every step, with both EU and UK artists struggling to tour.
Visa and work-permit rules often vary between EU member states. Musicians are now forced to spend much of their time and money figuring out how to meet different standards for different EU countries. It is a devastating setback for artists who want to perform, not to battle bureaucracy.
Cabotage rules restrict UK hauliers over 3.5 tonnes from going to more than three different EU countries. The Association of British Orchestras says that those rules are increasing tour costs by up to £16,000 per day for orchestras using their own vehicles. That seriously restricts the viability of touring.
Another consequence of Brexit is more complicated customs rules. The ATA carnet required for moving unaccompanied instruments from the UK to the EU costs up to £310 plus VAT, plus a deposit of 30% to 40% of the value of the items. The carnets are also time-consuming to prepare and cause customs delays and concert cancellations.
Such barriers limit our cultural reach and stunt our £5.8 billion music industry. An Encore Musicians survey shows that 76% of musicians agree that it is likely that Brexit travel restrictions will stop them performing in Europe. We must establish exactly what difficulties our arts sector is facing.
I could point out more industries and more difficulties, as I said, but there is no time. Those are the realities that everyone in this country now faces. An inquiry would not be intended to go over old ground from the years of Brexit debates; it should focus on the here and now, without prejudice. The Government want to ignore the many difficulties created by Brexit and concentrate on what they class as our Brexit freedoms, but let us compare what was promised and what has not been delivered. Covering up problems will not make them disappear. We urgently need an inquiry to establish the truth about our exit from the EU. If we are going to solve the problems, we first have to acknowledge that they exist.
Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab)
I thank the hon. Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk (Martyn Day) for introducing this hugely important debate, and Peter Packham for starting the petition and organising it across the country.
More than 180,000 people have signed the petition, including 439 in my constituency. The numbers are rising all the time. That is a clear indication that the public’s patience with this Government’s botched Brexit deal has evaporated. The public want answers. Last week, an online poll of 1,340 voters by Omnisis showed that 59% thought that an inquiry should probably or definitely be launched, with just 25% against. We know why—because the Government are not giving answers to the questions. It should not take an inquiry to get the answers. Week in, week out, Labour has been raising the issues of the impact of Brexit. I understand the frustration of the public and why an inquiry is being called for.
An inquiry would be hugely expensive and it would take a long time, but people want answers now so that we can mitigate the damage being caused by Brexit. If, as the hon. Member for Gravesham (Adam Holloway) said, it is so wonderful, there has been a Brexit dividend and we are seeing the success, we would love to know where it is. Whatever people think about Brexit—whether they think it has been good for the country or not, and whether a Brexit dividend may come in time but just not yet—everyone should support an assessment being made of the outcome so far. Brexit has been such a defining political moment of our time and we need answers about what the result has been—importantly, to mitigate any damage being caused.
In December 2021, I called for a debate on the impact of Brexit and a region-by-region report. The then Leader of the House, the right hon. Member for North East Somerset (Mr Rees-Mogg), gave me this response:
“We can start Prayers every morning…with a celebration of Brexit. We should have the Brexit prayer and perhaps even the Brexit song…because it has been a triumph for this nation in reasserting its freedom.”
I am not doing a very good impression of his accent. He said that we now have “happy fish” and that across the country
“there is general celebrating and rejoicing”.—[Official Report, 9 December 2021; Vol. 705, c. 591.]
That level of delusion, flippancy and not taking the issue seriously is very frustrating for people across the country, and it is why they signed the petition in such large numbers. This cannot be the last word—just writing it off and saying that Brexit has been a success without giving evidence.
We need to know the impact because of the enormous political cost to our country of the Brexit debate. Big promises were made to voters before the referendum. Are those promises being delivered? We need to disentangle the impact of Brexit from that of covid, the energy crisis, the cost of living crisis and Ukraine, so that any problems that we face as a country cannot be written off as consequences of them. We need to find out the cost of Brexit and who is being impacted by region, age and sector. So many different places within our country are impacted—environmental standards, food standards, financial services, agriculture, fishing, the construction industry and the creative industries, including musicians. There is the impact on the workforce, especially in the NHS and health services; on education, educational opportunities, scientific research and school trips; on security and the loss of businesses—all those things are never brought together by the Government, so we cannot see the cumulative impact in all those areas.
Many different think-tanks and researchers are giving us the costs of Brexit, but we are not hearing definitive answers, despite Labour asking for them again and again. Bloomberg says that it costs the UK economy £100 billion a year. The International Monetary Fund forecasts that ours will be the only leading economy to shrink. The Office for Budget Responsibility concludes that Brexit will reduce long-run productivity by 4%. The Centre for European Reform said that by the end of last year the economy was 5%, or £31 billion, smaller than it would have been had we stayed in the EU. Surely with those figures, we need a better, clearer independent assessment of the facts.
The red tape faced by businesses is at a record high. Export declarations that businesses must fill in when moving goods from the UK more than tripled after the UK left the single market and customs union, while import declarations have increased by 50% during this time. Several businesses in my constituency of Putney have reported exactly that. We have lost 300 businesses in Putney, Roehampton and Southfields since 2021. I would like to know why, what part of it is owing to the impact of Brexit, and how we can course-correct right now to stop the damage.
The music industry has been mentioned already. The failure to secure ease of access for touring bands across the EU is embarrassing and ludicrous. Surely that can be changed. School trips from and to the European Union have been reduced. The School Travel Forum reported a reduction from 13,000 overseas trips in 2019 to just 2,500 in the first eight months of last year. Obviously, part of that is the impact of covid, but a huge part is the change in passport requirements and the increase in visa costs for parents, which has increased the administrative burden. That can also be changed right now.
Then there is the impact on the workforce. Many EU citizens who have left were key workers, and the backbone of our public services. All working people deserve to know the impact on our healthcare facilities. Every healthcare facility I visit tells me that Brexit has a clear impact on recruitment and the delivery of healthcare. Labour keeps asking about and exposing the impact on working people, and the Government must answer our questions.
I hope that the Minister shows more humility in his response to this debate than the former Leader of the House, the right hon. Member for North East Somerset, who I quoted at the beginning of my speech. The Government cannot run from scrutiny on Brexit forever. The public deserve answers. They deserve honest reflection, hard facts and figures, and a plan to put right some of the worst damage of Brexit. I hope to hear that from the Minister.
Amy Callaghan (East Dunbartonshire) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr McCabe. The people of East Dunbartonshire voted overwhelmingly—71.4%, to be precise—to remain in the European Union, as did people right across Scotland. The desire to remain in—now to rejoin—the EU has only risen in the years since Brexit, as each impact has cut deeper. A public inquiry into those impacts is not an unreasonable request; I support it. If the Government truly believe in their Brexit benefits, they should put them to the test with a public inquiry.
The impacts of Brexit—everything that the people of Scotland have lost out on—have not been inflicted in our name, nor apparently under the banner of Brexit. This Government have been taking great pleasure in denying that much of what we are debating today has anything to do with Brexit. In their response to the petition, the Government stated that leaving the EU was a “democratic choice”. Yes, the Government exercised a referendum and put the decision to the people, but leaving the EU was not the democratic will of the people of Scotland. If the democratic will of the people is the Government’s trump card in this debate, why do they continue to deny the people of Scotland the right to hold an independence referendum? This is not a British Government that we voted for. To be clear, the impact of this Government’s policies, from Brexit to austerity, is not representative of the progressive values of the majority of people in Scotland.
Let us think back to all we were promised if the UK left the European Union: increased trade with the whole world, saving £350 million a week to spend on public services, and controlling immigration and our borders. In the years since Brexit, Britain has become far more insular; trade is down across the board, and neither of the Government’s plans to turn that around will have much impact, even by their own assessment. That is all while trade has soared across Europe. England’s public services are a mess, and they are underfunded.
A hostile environment to immigration has left us with significant skills gaps and certain sectors with large-scale recruitment issues. Those include, but are not confined to, the culture sector, the hospitality sector and our public health services across the UK. Others have expounded on some of those issues; I will focus on the NHS. Staff shortages in the NHS are one of the biggest issues we are facing at the moment, due to people from European countries being unable to live and work here with ease. Participation in Erasmus+ was ended when EU membership was not a barrier to that opportunity, and Scotland has certainly not seen any of the money that was going to be saved.
This Government will continue to deny most or all of what we are debating, but the long and short of it is cold, hard facts, with an evidence base that cannot and should not be denied. Take the UK’s economy as an example; it is the slowest growing economy in the G7. The former deputy governor of the Bank of England, Sir Howard Davies, stated that Brexit is
“one of the reasons why we are now at the bottom of the growth table in the major industrialised countries.”
That is on Brexit, and it is on the Tories. The OBR chair, Richard Hughes, has said that the UK’s economy is 4% smaller in GDP terms because of Brexit. The Government deflect and try to blame our shrinking economy on the war in Ukraine. It is shameful to blame that illegal war instead of acknowledging that it is a mess of their own making. Again, that is on Brexit, and on the Tories.
There is now unnecessary red tape when travelling to the EU. Those wanting to visit for 90 days or longer must apply for a full, long-term immigration visa, with associated costs and hassle. UK travellers have lost the automatic right to fast-track passport and customs queues in EU member states, and may be asked for proof of funds and a return ticket when entering an EU country. To what benefit? Again, that is on Brexit and the Tories.
Leaving the European Union is not what Scotland wanted, and the impact of being dragged out shows exactly why. Life is hard enough, and leaving the EU has only made it harder. Life post Brexit has only been made worse by our Government denying what was promised to the people across these four nations who voted to leave in good faith. There is a shrinking economy, understaffed public services and no freedom of movement —stick that on the side of a bus. Where Westminster continues to fail us, the people of Scotland will look ahead to a bright future, one without this place, without austerity and without a Tory Government we did not vote for—we will be an independent nation within the European Union.
Stephen Farry (North Down) (Alliance)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr McCabe. I will make some specific comments in relation to Northern Ireland shortly, but I will first make some common points that apply UK-wide. Before getting to those, outside the Northern Ireland issue, which has been prominent in recent months and years, it is rare that we have a more general debate in this place about Brexit itself. Brexit has fundamentally changed so much in relation to the UK economy and our ability to influence transnational issues, such as crime and the environment. It has diminished the UK’s international standing. The UK is not as powerful a voice on the world stage as it was previously, when the European Union served to amplify that voice.
It is useful to drill down into the notion of sovereignty. For me, sovereignty is about the ability to do things, rather than some abstract concept. But even if we look at the abstract concept of sovereignty, that the UK was able to enter the European Union and also leave it proves that the UK had sovereignty all along. It was through pooling that sovereignty within the European Union that we were able to deliver collective outcomes for people right across Europe and, crucially, for people within the UK.
Layla Moran (Oxford West and Abingdon) (LD)
On that point, the hon. Member for Gravesham (Adam Holloway) mentioned that the laws that the EU created were not ones we chose. The fact is that we had MEPs who were on those commissions and the committees that decided those laws. Actually, the British voice was a leading light in many of the changes that were enacted. There were certainly changes that needed to be made in regards to the processes, but we had a seat at the table.
Stephen Farry
I agree. We will soon discover that in many respects, by design the UK will have to be a rule taker. It is in the fundamental interest of the UK economy to follow rules that are essentially set at the European level, but we will not have the important say that we had previously.
Like the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Layla Moran) and many other colleagues in today’s debate, including the right hon. Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn), I sit on the UK Trade and Business Commission. Almost every week we hear evidence from a range of experts and other stakeholders who set out huge concerns about the impact of Brexit on their sectors. It is accurate to say that the UK economy has seen seriously constrained growth as a consequence of Brexit. Of course, there are other issues, but Brexit is by far the major stand-out factor that differentiates the UK from its main competitor nations in the developed world.
The trade deals that are happening around the world will never compensate for the increased trade barriers that we have erected with our closest and biggest external trading partner. It is one thing to say that the European Union is not growing at the same rate in terms of international trade; having a trading partner that represents 30% to 40% of our international market compared with a partner that grows from 0.1% to 0.2%, while maybe a radical change in the level of trade on the surface, does not amount to the same impact on UK business. Also, we have discovered that freedom of movement applies in two directions. Who knew? Constraints on the ability of others to come here applies to UK citizens seeking to move overseas.
I want to focus on the impact on Northern Ireland. In some ways, I feel slightly humbled in this respect because we have had, at the very least, the benefit of the Windsor framework. I put on the record again my appreciation for those who were involved in reaching that agreement, both on the UK side and in the European Commission. At best, the Windsor framework is a soft landing for Northern Ireland, but Northern Ireland will still suffer many of the same problems that the UK as a whole is facing from Brexit, as well as some further particular challenges that are unique to our own geographical situation on the island of Ireland.
Perhaps the most apparent consequence is seen in our governance. I have no doubt that my colleague, the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), will express a different view on this when he speaks, but for me our governance worked based on sharing and interdependence. It relied upon the joint membership of the UK and Ireland within the single market and customs union, and that in turn allowed us to have those interlocking relationships, within Northern Ireland, on the island of Ireland and within the UK, allowing a balance of different identities to be expressed without that much encumbrance. Brexit—particularly a hard Brexit—will threaten some people’s sense of identity and create some degree of economic friction. The Windsor framework has gone a long way to mitigate some of that, but it only applies to goods and not to the other fundamental freedoms around services, capital and the freedom of movement.
Stella Creasy
The hon. Gentleman is making a powerful point about how important the Windsor agreement is. Does he therefore agree that one of the egregious things about Brexit is pushing things such as the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill, which, in and of itself, fundamentally undermines the Windsor agreement by removing all those alignments of laws around goods and indeed services on which the Windsor agreement is based? It just reflects how Brexit has blinded people to what is in the best interests of people, whether in Northern Ireland or the rest of the United Kingdom.
Stephen Farry
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for those comments. I had hoped that wisdom would eventually prevail in relation to that piece of legislation. It is not just pointless but needlessly self-destructive, and it will pose particular problems to Northern Ireland, given that we do currently do not have a functioning Assembly, and if the current sunset clause—at the end of this year—still applies, we do not actually have the space to put in place successor pieces of regulation to cover for all the gaps that may or may not emerge. There is also a very particular challenge to the fundamental freedoms that are set out in the Good Friday agreement, and transposed in terms of article 2 of the protocol, which has now itself become the Windsor framework.
It is important to recognise that we are making these comments today in the context of the 25th anniversary of the Good Friday agreement, which happened earlier this month. Last week, there was a major conference at Queen’s University in Belfast. We had the Prime Minister over there, pledging his ongoing support for the agreement and praising all those who have got us to this particular point, without at the same time recognising that some of the policies that the Government are pursuing in relation to Brexit, including retained EU law, pose a major threat to people’s rights in Northern Ireland.
Beyond the issue around the movement of goods, there are issues in terms of access to labour and skills, which are particularly problematic in our economy. Like everywhere else in the UK, services are by far the largest aspect of our economy. The contrast on the island of Ireland is now becoming incredibly stark. Northern Ireland is going through major difficulties, not least due to our lack of a functioning Assembly and Executive. We are also facing into a budget crisis and we have very sluggish economic indicators. By contrast, our friends on the other part of the island are actually expecting a massive surplus, potentially as much as €20 billion, over the next couple of financial years. They have much higher growth than Northern Ireland; their productivity levels are much higher. And that is creating a major tension for an economy that competes in that all-Ireland context as well as in a pan-UK context.
I want to put another point on the record, Mr McCabe. I have no doubt that other Members will wish to pick up the loss of European Union funding, which was so crucial for some of the more marginalised parts of the UK. I appreciate it is a particular factor in Wales, but also in places such as Merseyside and Cornwall. What has replaced it through the shared prosperity fund simply cannot compensate for what has been lost. It is undoing what the Government are notionally trying to do in terms of levelling up because the money simply is not there.
The same applies to research funding. The UK is internationally renowned for the quality of our research and development, our universities and how we innovate. Again, through not being part of Horizon Europe, we are losing opportunities. It is a matter not simply of funding, as important as funding is, but of the international collaboration and the networks. Speak to any scientist—they will say that all this has to happen at scale, and we have to be part of those networks. The UK is going through a process of needlessly marginalising itself. I very much welcome this petition and would embrace an inquiry. It is only through proper discussion of these issues and having an honest conversation that we can begin to undo the damage that has been done over the past few years. I look forward to a mature reflection on what needs to happen to restore the UK’s place in the world.
Sarah Green (Chesham and Amersham) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr McCabe. For many of us, the impact of our exit from the European Union is painfully clear: business owners have struggled to navigate a new and confusing trade landscape; holidaymakers have been met with queues at Dover; and shoppers have struggled to cobble together the produce to create a salad. Yet the Government continue to deny that these issues have anything to do with their Brexit deal. Their insistence on avoiding the obvious is deeply frustrating, and it is undoubtedly this sense of frustration that has led so many people to demand the inquiry we are here to discuss today.
I want to focus on areas where there can be little doubt that Brexit has had a negative impact: on businesses, artists and musicians, and the care sector. Business owners are facing additional costs directly because of Brexit. Many have made their feelings on this clear to me, with one expressing his frustration at the amount of time and money he now spends specifically on completing additional paperwork that did not exist prior to our exit from the European Union—and he was not the only one to describe the heavy bureaucratic load imposed on him by Brexit.
The quarterly Buckinghamshire Business Barometer shows that a significant number of businesses in my area are facing these increased costs. One of its reports states that 42% of businesses in Bucks face higher costs as a result of increased red tape, nearly a third are paying extra tariffs or taxes and a quarter are paying the price for changes to their supply chain. For small businesses who cannot afford to outsource or employ someone to deal with the additional red tape, the strain can be immense. More than one small business owner locally told me that they were on the brink.
Chesham and Amersham is also home to a significant number of artists and musicians who previously drew a chunk of their income from touring in Europe. As other Members have alluded to, in sharp contrast to the freedom these artists previously had to tour, they now have to apply for visas and work permits, and the instruments and equipment they need also often require additional paperwork and permissions. One constituent who works for a prominent opera company told me that the extra burden they now face makes it much harder to put on a show—potentially prohibitively so.
I will finish by sharing the experience of a care company that serves my constituents. Its owner told me recently in emotional terms how most days he has to tell someone that he cannot provide the care they are seeking for a loved one because he just cannot find the staff. The loss of skilled workers from the EU is having a direct impact on our ability to care for the sick, elderly and vulnerable. Our health and social care sector needs more staff, and while we should certainly invest in training more workers here in the UK, that will not address the immediate shortages we are facing today.
The impact of our exit from the European Union has been wide-ranging, and the many members of the public it has affected both personally and financially deserve honesty and accountability from the Government. We cannot begin to fix things until we have an honest appraisal of Brexit’s impact, which is why we need an independent inquiry.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I am not sure whether everybody on this side of the Chamber will be cheering as much when I am finished, but that is by the way. We hope to have an engaging debate; hopefully, we can agree to disagree on some things. There are probably some outstanding things to mention, but I thank the hon. Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk (Martyn Day) for introducing the debate, which he did in a very balanced way. We have some differences of opinion in relation to where we are, but I am a strong believer in democracy and the democratic process. Whatever the process and whatever the outcome, I believe in democracy. It is the foundation that my party, the DUP, was built on, so I wholeheartedly believe in the result of the Brexit vote.
I voted for Brexit and, just for the record, my constituency of Strangford voted 56% to leave and 44% to stay. Over 90% of people in the fishing village of Portavogie endorsed Brexit, so there is a wish in my constituency to see Brexit delivered. I am the first to say that my full support lay with exiting the EU and the repercussions that have come from it. Unfortunately, we are seven years on from the referendum, yet there is still outstanding work to be done on how we can make the best out of the cards we have been dealt.
Why did Portavogie, in my constituency, vote so wholeheartedly for Brexit, as I and many others did? It was because they saw opportunities for a sector that would not be restricted by Brussels when it came to fishing issues. They saw job opportunities and the potential to invest, and they wanted the total allowable catch to be in the hands of Westminster rather than Brussels. All the red tape over the years is an issue that we felt particularly strong about. For that reason, Portavogie and my constituency felt that it was important to move forward.
I am conscious of the time, and I will probably have to curtail some of my speech. The agricultural sector—not just the factories we have, but the farmers who sell their dairy produce—is so important to my constituency of Strangford. An example is Lakeland Dairies, which has somewhere between 5,000 and 6,000 workers in factories and on farms. Brexit gave Lakeland Dairies the opportunity to gain other markets across the world. The company has advanced that with zest, enthusiasm and energy, and I am very supportive of it, as I know others are. It has the opportunity to sell its products in the far east, South Africa and South America, and its European markets have still been retained.
I do not think it is possible to have a discussion about the UK’s exit from the European Union and not discuss Northern Ireland. We all have different opinions—rightly so—and today we will have to agree to differ about what is best for the UK and, more importantly, for our constituents. I am no stranger to saying how wonderful my Strangford constituency is; I think it is the most beautiful constituency in the world, which is just the way I feel. I will maintain that as long as I can. It is so important to me. I will always work to ensure the best for my constituents, including single-parent families, local dairy farmers, working-class families of four, local business owners and many more.
It became blatantly clear to me and many of my constituents that the many plans and policies that the UK Government had set out for Northern Ireland—whether that devised by the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May) at Chequers, the Northern Ireland protocol Bill or, indeed, the Windsor framework, which the hon. Member for North Down (Stephen Farry) referred to—were simply not going to work. We have a difference of opinion, but we are still friends. There is no harm in having a difference of opinion.
Northern Ireland is still not where it needs to be. For me and my constituents, that is simply not good enough and there is still work to deliver. When the protocol was introduced in 2021, it meant a significant change in the constitutional status of Northern Ireland, because article 6 of the Act of Union (Ireland) 1800 was suspended. For me and my constituents, the constitutional position is really important. We may have a difference of opinion on that here, but it is really important for the constituents I represent. It was supposed to protect the integrity of a new regime in Northern Ireland.
The burden on local businesses in my constituency has proven to be instrumentally damaging to them, and it often still feels as if we are no further forward. On paper, the Windsor framework did sort out some of the green lane issues, but it has not sorted out all the outstanding issues. For example, I make the point about the agricultural sector. In my constituency of Strangford, as well in the Mid Down, North Down and South Down, in Stirling across the water and in north-west England, cattle sales are so important, yet we are still subject to some of those rules under the Windsor framework. Indeed, if people do not sell their cattle, they have to put them under quarantine for three months. That is just one example.
The other outstanding issue, which again is not a Brexit issue but is certainly a framework issue, is the legal opinion of the Stormont brake. All the legal opinion that we have gotten back tells us that the Stormont brake is not binding. The legal opinion that others have gotten back—be it the Orange Order individually, the Loyalist Communities Council across the water or even the European Research Group here—is not binding. One classic example of how it is still not good enough was released in the News Letter just last weekend. A haulier from Randalstown spoke to News Letter on the impacts the so-called green and red lanes are having on Northern Ireland trade. He stated:
“The notion of a red and green lane is very binary. As far as haulage is concerned, there is no green lane between GB and Northern Ireland—none whatsoever. The only green lane is actually between the EU and Northern Ireland via the Republic.”
This is the reality for Northern Ireland, and it must be recognised by the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister. The haulier added:
“in many cases, it could mean the business asking ‘can I actually do this work’”
and that
“It could ultimately come to, ‘can I actually survive’”.
That is a question on the lips of Northern Ireland hauliers. They are not seeing the benefits yet.
We have witnessed other impacts, such as on visa holders and on young people, especially regarding UK participation in the Erasmus programme. There is no doubt that constituents from across the entirety of the United Kingdom have felt some impact from Brexit, but, as a Strangford MP, I stand here in defence of my local business owners and constituents who simply say, “It is not good enough.” While the decision of any vote must be respected regardless of the outcome, we must not allow the people who voted to get us here in the first place to be under any kind of pressure, hence my frustration at this process.
I hope these conversations do not end and that reassurance can be provided to our electorate that, no matter what the outcome of a vote is, we will always do right by them. At the moment, Northern Ireland has not had the Brexit that it voted for, and that has to be addressed.
Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)
The question in this debate is a simple one: what has been the impact of leaving the European Union? I was much struck reading the Government’s response to the petition, which was quite dismissive and defensive. In essence, they said, “It was a democratic decision so there is nothing to look into here. Nothing is happening.” Of course, a democratic decision has been made and we remainers—with the exception of the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and the Minister—lost.
The hon. Member for Gravesham (Adam Holloway) made the point about sovereignty. I met many people during the campaign who made that argument. Indeed, they said, “I don’t care about the economic impact. My sovereignty is more important.” I respect people’s right to hold that view; I fundamentally disagree with it. But what was unforgiveable was to claim that we could have all our sovereignty, keep all the benefits of being a member of the European Union and get further benefits on top of that. It simply was not true, and we now know it was not true. Therefore, those who argued for us to leave the European Union are now in a state of confusion and denial. That is what is going on, particularly around the economic consequences. If we do not understand what those are, how on earth are we going to build a different relationship with our European colleagues over the months and years ahead?
It is interesting that a number of hon. Members present have been on the UK Trade and Business Commission, reference to which has already been made, and I have had the pleasure of serving with them. We felt it was important to ask the question and then let the evidence speak for itself. If people want to come before the commission and say, “It’s wonderful—look at these opportunities”, I would love to hear from them. Not many have done that.
The truth is that Brexit has had a bad impact on the economy. I was really struck by the statistic that showed that the number of small businesses trading goods with the European Union declined by one third between 2020 and 2021. That is not entirely surprising, because it is small businesses that find it most difficult to cope with the burden of cost, bureaucracy and red tape. Brexit was sold as getting rid of cost, bureaucracy and red tape, but it has dumped the biggest load of those three things on British businesses that we have seen in our lifetime.
We will be the worst-performing large economy in the world this year, and business investment as a percentage of GDP has stalled since the referendum in the UK. It is worth reminding ourselves that the Office for Budget Responsibility said that Brexit
“will result in the UK’s trade intensity being 15 per cent lower in the long run than if the UK had remained in the EU. The latest evidence suggests that Brexit has had a significant adverse impact on UK trade, via reducing both overall trade volumes and the number of trading relationships between UK and EU firms”
Ironically, while all these costs have been imposed on British companies exporting, the Government have not yet introduced full checks on goods coming into the United Kingdom from the European Union. Why? Because they are afraid of shortages and delays. So the sovereignty that has been gained is not being used to apply the same checks going one way as we are facing the other way.
The trade deals have been referred to. I was struck when the former Environment Secretary, the right hon. Member for Camborne and Redruth (George Eustice), described the Australia agreement as being
“not actually a very good deal”—[Official Report, 14 November 2022; Vol. 722, c. 424.]
because we had given far too much away. We all know that is the case. What of the promised trade deal with the United States of America, which was the biggest argument we heard? It is absolutely nowhere to be seen. It is not happening; it is not coming. The fundamental truth is that if we make trade with our biggest trading partner more difficult—that is what we have done—we should not be surprised if it has an adverse effect on the British economy, at a time when we need all the growth we can get to help our constituents.
We have heard about employers finding it hard to get workers. When the commission met people at a fruit farm in Kent, I was struck when the owner said, “Last year, I couldn’t pick 8% of my crop because I couldn’t find enough workers. Do you know what I am doing this year? I am planting less crop and I am going to import more fruit from the rest of the world.” What a wonderful advert for British economic growth if that is the conclusion that farmer came to!
Alex Sobel (Leeds North West) (Lab/Co-op)
As I look at these issues as a member of the shadow Environment, Food and Rural Affairs team, it is really ironic that we are finding less UK production and more imported directly from the EU. That is a negative impact of Brexit, rather than a positive impact of us being able to trade out. That is exactly the opposite of the claims made and exactly why we need something like the petition suggests.
Hilary Benn
Indeed, that is the case. We want as much export opportunity as possible, but if we make it more difficult for our businesses, we should not be surprised if it damages people.
The other irony about sovereignty is that the Government said, “We will use our sovereignty to introduce a British version of the REACH chemicals regulation,” but they have just postponed that for the second time, not least because the British chemical industry has said, “You know it’s going to cost us about £2 billion for absolutely no purpose whatsoever—to get us back to where we were when we originally got our chemicals assessed under REACH.” The UK conformity assessed mark, which is meant to replace the CE mark that we find on the bottom of many goods, has been postponed by the Government again because a lot of British businesses say, “What is the point of doing this?”
On the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill, which is an artificial mechanism to try to force through changes to retained EU law, I remain of the view, despite the concerns expressed, that by the end of the year we will still be in alignment with a lot of EU law. That is partly because we argued for a lot of it in the first place—it was not imposed upon us; we were part of the decision-making process—as well as because a cost comes to the economy from diverging from the rules applied by our biggest trading partners. Every company that exports to Europe will make their goods to the standards set by Europe, whatever the British Government think, because that is what they will do if they want to continue to trade.
It is striking that for those who argued so strongly for the benefits—no “downside”, only “upsides”—all those quotes have come back to haunt them. They find it difficult to know what to say, so they try to blame remainers. It is like all revolutionaries, if I may use the analogy. When the revolution does not quite work out, they say, “But comrade, it was not applied with sufficient vigour and purity”—an argument that some Members in the Chamber might be more familiar with than others.
The truth is, and this is the hard part of the debate, that we cannot simply reverse what has happened. When I look not at the governing party, but at the other major parties represented in the House—with the exception of the SNP, which wants another referendum for another purpose—none of those parties is saying we should have a referendum after the next election to see whether the British people want to change their minds. We know that we cannot reverse it just like that.
The Green party wants to rejoin
“as soon as the political situation is favourable and the right terms are available.”
That is interesting. I understand the Lib Dems want to rejoin the single market once
“the ties of trust and friendship are renewed.”
The truth is that we will have to build a new but different relationship with the European Union, which will take time. Who knows what it will look like or what this country will look like in 10, 20 or 30 years? We have to be honest about the effect that the change has had on our country and our economy. That is why the question needs to be asked.
Hywel Williams (Arfon) (PC)
It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn), who chaired the Brexit Select Committee so effectively when I was a member. As we have heard, 178,000 people signed the petition. I thank each and every one of them, and I thank the hon. Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk (Martyn Day) for presenting the debate.
It appears the UK Government do not believe that Brexit is an appropriate subject for debate. People watching at home will have realised that we are holding the debate in Westminster Hall, not in the main Chamber. We are not holding it in Government time. It seems the Government do not believe that Brexit is a subject for a public inquiry. I appreciate that many Government supporters will want to leave the division of the Brexit years behind. They say, “Brexit is done and dusted, so let us put the tensions of the past few years behind us and get on with reaping the benefits of Brexit.”
I opposed Brexit, as did my right hon. Friend the Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Liz Saville Roberts) and my hon. Friend the Member for Ceredigion (Ben Lake), as well as my party and my constituents. I concede that not everyone in Wales did—we lost by a short head—but a recent poll by Focaldata shows that people who regret their decision to leave outnumber remaining Brexit supporters in every constituency in Wales. Apparently, every constituency in Wales is now of that opinion.
As to Brexit’s benefits, I would dearly love to see some benefits. They would suit the people of Wales just fine, but as yet the benefits are singularly elusive. The Government face at least two ways on this. They say that Brexit is an event that is over and done with, setting us upon the sunlit uplands, so let us get on with it. Or they say it is an ongoing process, and at some undefined point in future the benefits will appear. Well, they cannot have it both ways. They cannot have a process and an event. It is one or the other and, quite obviously, Brexit is a process that, at the very best, is bogged down and not delivering or, at worst, a process that will deliver nothing but further chaos, decline and poverty.
With trust in the Government at such a low, the Conservatives and their friends continue peddling the patent myth that the UK’s economic malaise is the result of the war in Ukraine or the aftershocks of the pandemic, and so on. The facts of international comparisons on inflation, growth and a host of other measures are against them. As we heard from the hon. Member for Gravesham (Adam Holloway), who is now inexplicably absent from his seat, finance is being favoured ahead of other sectors—certainly ahead of manufacturing. A practical example is the decline of the Welsh steel industry, which is being accelerated by a trade policy that deliberately strains supply chains.
At the other end of the scale, in my own constituency the Menai mussel industry, which was thriving—thriving on the basis of exports, mainly to Belgium—has seen its business model wrecked by post-Brexit rules and it has more or less disappeared, in the short term at least. Welsh businesses are struggling to cope with mountains of Brexit red tape just to trade with our nearest neighbours. Many have simply given up.
One example that will interest the House is that of Seiont Nurseries, which I referred to in the Chamber last week. Seiont Nurseries, which is in my constituency, exports live plants to Ireland. In my constituency, and in that of my right hon. Friend the Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd, we can actually see Ireland in the uplands—it is just over there. We can see the lovely green hills of Wicklow, which is where the plants go. However, Neil, who runs Seiont Nurseries, has found that the only practical way of exporting his plants is not directly through Ireland, which is just over there, but rather through England, Belgium and France, down to Normandy or Brittany and over the long sea crossing to Ireland.
I raised that with the Secretary of State for Business and Trade last week, and her eventual response was that Neil could always use the green lanes. Either she does not understand that the green lanes go only to Northern Ireland—perhaps she does not understand the difference between the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland—or possibly she had no answer and, in desperation, reached for the first thing that came to mind, which was green lanes. That is completely useless for my friend at Seiont Nurseries. That is just one small, practical example of a small business that is struggling with the effects of Brexit.
[Peter Dowd in the Chair]
The first step towards understanding the Brexit debacle and what needs to be done would be an independent public inquiry into the Brexit campaigns: what was said, what was promised, what was delivered, what will never be delivered, who has benefited and who has lost out—not least, as was referred to earlier, in Wales losing out on EU funding in the universities sector, which is very close to my heart. We have seen only this weekend the problems around rejoining Horizon. The Government are apparently demanding a rebate for the two years when we were unable to join it. Why were we unable to do so? I will allow hon. Members to guess, but apparently we need a rebate for those two years when we were not members of Horizon.
We can reckon up only when we have some answers to those questions. If this Government and their campaigning friends are as confident of the propriety, wisdom and value of Brexit as they seem to be, they have nothing to fear.
Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Dowd. I congratulate Peter Packham on starting the petition and the hon. Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk (Martyn Day) on introducing it with such customary eloquence.
My Brighton, Pavilion constituency has the second highest number of signatures to this petition, with 655 of my constituents signing it. I know very well that many more than that support it, so I am pleased to be able to represent them here today. One of that number wrote in an email about the debate:
“I firmly believe that the public were misled systematically by campaigners for Brexit before the referendum. Although it is unlikely that the decision will be reversed, I believe that the record should show the truth, not a fantasy.”
That short, simple message encapsulates many of the important reasons why I think we need an inquiry and why I back the call in the petition. I believe that if a sufficient number of people over time choose it, there is a way back into the European Union. That is the virtue and beauty of democracy.
The referendum campaign and the subsequent narrative about Brexit have been a litany of misinformation and disinformation. The infamous words on the side of the bus are just the tip of the iceberg, but let us start there, with whether £350 million a week has been diverted from the EU to the NHS. As we have heard several times this afternoon, the simple answer is no. The NHS budget in England alone has risen by more than £350 million a week since 2016, but that money has come from taxes, borrowing and squeezing other Departments. It most certainly has not come from savings arising from Brexit, for the simple reason that those savings did not materialise because the overall economic impact has been so severe. If the public hoped for a transformative sum for the NHS post Brexit, they most certainly have not received it.
Turning to the economy, during the Chancellor’s recent autumn statement, he spoke for almost an hour without once acknowledging the economic catastrophe of Brexit. There was no reference to the OBR’s warning that Brexit will slash productivity by 4% and lead to a 15% drop in trade intensity and an 11% drop in investment, or that it will increase food prices and deliver lower wages, workforce shortages and the highest inflation in the G7.
I, too, am a member of the UK Trade and Business Commission, which is expertly chaired by the right hon. Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn). Since July 2021, we have been taking evidence about the impacts of Brexit, and, as the hon. Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk has pointed out, we have not heard of the positive impacts that were promised. To the contrary, we have heard time and again all the evidence of pain, particularly for small businesses. We have also been examining why Brexit is seen as the primary reason why we are the only G7 country that is still not reaching post-pandemic levels of growth.
While the Government keep their head firmly in the sand and continue to deny the existence of anything other than positive outcomes, they cannot begin to adapt to and resolve some of the many problems that we are hearing are caused by Brexit. Misleading the public includes wishful thinking. Who can forget the endless conjuring of sunlit uplands, the ignoring of reality, the telling of only half the story, the cherry picking and, frankly, the plain lying? It all happened during the Brexit campaign, and it has been happening since. Independent scrutiny and inquiry would help set the record straight.
The vilification of free movement by the leaders of the Leave campaign was one of the most pernicious examples of disinformation. They wilfully perpetuated a hostile narrative about immigration, deliberately conflating asylum seekers, economic migrants and refugees, and whipping up hatred and racism in the process. This was disinformation at its most destructive. No wonder they are now so afraid of light being shone on those impacts.
That brings me to democracy. In the wake of the referendum, I set up an initiative called Dear Leavers. We went around the country visiting the places that had registered some of the highest numbers of leave votes and listened to people who voted leave. The overwhelming message was that people voted for Brexit because they felt powerless. They felt unheard by a political establishment that had not listened for decades. The tragedy is that the political establishment is still not listening, and people still feel powerless.
Democracy, scrutiny, accountability and responsiveness have all been victims of Brexit. Evidence and experts were derided, Parliament was illegally prorogued and international law was trashed. We had unsettled constitutional questions and opposition to a ratification referendum. There has been an impact on the incredibly precious Good Friday Agreement, and we now have the dangerous Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill. Opposing a public inquiry into these matters only adds insult to injury.
To return to my constituent’s view that the Brexit decision will probably not be reversed, it is with great sadness that I see that the Labour leadership has capitulated to the tyranny where even to talk about rejoining is somehow judged to be anti-democratic. I want to talk about it. The Green party wants to talk about it. I think the public deserve for us to talk about it. If rejoining the EU is the right thing—for our economy, our environment, workers’ rights, young people, our public services, trade and more—we should take that step when the time and conditions are right. We should be preparing for that possibility by taking a step-by-step approach, with steps such as negotiating membership of the customs union now; full engagement with Horizon; regular adjustments to the trade and co-operation agreement to ensure that our interests are best supported; a general approach of maintaining alignment with EU regulation—that means seeing the back of the deeply dangerous Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill—and the ongoing rebuilding of diplomacy and, I hope, of our reputation as a trustworthy partner, which has frankly been trashed.
I want to talk also about the status quo in this country, because the leave vote was a howl of rage about legitimate concerns, which have still not been addressed. The social contract remains broken, and the power game remains rigged. We did not leave the EU because of anything that had happened in Brussels or Strasbourg; we left primarily because of what had happened in England, because outside the capital, every single region of England voted to leave the EU. It is meant as no disrespect to Wales—which voted by a majority of only about 80,000 to leave—to say that it was an English vote that drove Brexit.
Hywel Williams
It is significant that the highest vote in favour of leaving the European Union was recorded in Blaenau Gwent. Blaenau Gwent is the constituency that received the highest level of European funding, but it is also the poorest constituency in Wales. That reinforces the point that the hon. Member is making: it was a howl of rage against poverty, marginalisation and all the rest of it.
Caroline Lucas
I agree with the hon. Gentleman very much. I believe that one reason why there was such a howl of rage in England was that, while devolution has given powers to Scotland and Wales—not enough, but some powers—there are no political institutions that represent England. There is nothing to give political expression to our complex, rich reality, and nothing to bring power to the regions of England. It is no wonder that people voted to take back control, but they want control from Westminster, so that they have the right to make decisions about their own lives here. Rethinking our constitutional settlement more fundamentally is also key to mending some of the divisions in the UK. Brexit was the result of a divided UK, and it threatens to divide us still further unless we build a democratic consensus about changing that, together, for good.
Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to have you join us to chair this afternoon’s debate, Mr Dowd. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Gravesham (Adam Holloway) is no longer in his place, because in his contribution he embodied the challenge that we face in this debate. Indeed, it might be argued that in what he said, he reflected Oscar Wilde’s very famous statement that “patriotism is the virtue of the vicious”.
In the absence of the hon. Member, let us correct the record on what he said about insurance and use that as an example of why we need better information in this debate. He said that leaving the European Union would somehow mean that we could deal with the level of risk that insurance companies have to account for. Actually, the European Commission is already looking at and reforming those rules, so we could have done that work with it. As ever with the idea that the benefits of Brexit will appear, the benefit that he talked about with the matching adjustment is something that those in the financial sector have expressed caution about. Although it may benefit the shareholders of insurance companies and lead to higher fees, those policyholders and pensioners who are dependent on insurance policies may well face higher charges. That in itself embodies the difficulties that we face in this debate—the messy reality of what Brexit is doing.
I have no desire to rerun 2016, when the damage in 2023 is so apparent. The hon. Member for Gravesham talked about parliamentary sovereignty and mentioned the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill. My right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn) will be pleased to hear that I absolutely agree with him about the reality of what will happen to the laws, but I’ll be damned if I will take lectures about who is more patriotic! Who is better at standing up for parliamentary sovereignty than those of us who are fighting a piece of legislation that will lead to 5,000 areas of law being transferred not back to this Parliament to make decisions on them, but to the Executive behind closed doors in No. 10?
The truth is that we know what damage Brexit is doing to our country, and we have seen it for years. Members have already talked about many of the impacts, including the shortages of people working in our hospitality industry and in health and social care; the blunt economic damage; the thousands of small businesses in constituencies across this country that have just given up trading—one of the truisms here is that people can fight many battles in life, but they cannot fight geography—because being able to trade just as easily with 500 million consumers on our doorstep does make a difference; the supply chains that have been severed by our leaving the European Union; the wealth of paperwork that so many people now face; and the impact that it has had on the cost of living.
That is the second truth in this debate. The public know when they are being gaslighted. They can see that other countries have experienced the impact of Vladimir Putin but are not facing the same challenges as we are. We have higher food costs because, oddly enough, there are longer queues at the border to get things here. There are problems with production lines, as the hon. Member for Arfon (Hywel Williams) articulated so well. People can see that their kids are sitting in coaches at the border for hours on end and they know that that is not going to stop any time soon.
The London School of Economics estimates that leaving the European Union added £210 to household food bills, costing UK consumers a total of £5.8 billion pounds, so we cannot be a world-beating international leader if we are only doing it in our own backyard. We cannot do competitive trade deals when we are a smaller nation—not part of a bigger conglomerate—negotiating with others. That is why the Americans are not going to put us first in the queue. Every single industry, whether insurance or manufacturing, is facing a choice between following UK regulations or European regulations if it wants to be able to trade with the bigger market.
The damage is clear. People can see the disruption. They can see the disruption in Northern Ireland. That is why I am not surprised that fewer than one in 10 among the British public claim to see a personal benefit to Brexit. When asked what that benefit is, only a third felt they could actually name something. It is the same for the national interest. We know that this is not going well, and we cannot see how it will get any better. We also know that time is of the essence and that the damage being done grows every day. Jobs that were here are going overseas. Businesses are relocating. They are retraining people in Belgium, Germany and France so that they can continue trading.
Why, then, am I frankly ambivalent about this petition and the idea of a public inquiry? First, there is no formal mechanism for following up on an inquiry. We have seen the track record of this Government when it comes to public inquiries and listening and learning, and it is not great. As of last November, there are 14 open statutory public inquires, covering everything from covid to Grenfell to the Edinburgh tram system. The inquiry into undercover policing has gone on for eight years and cost £60 million, and we still have no idea when it will make recommendations. For me, politics has always been about priorities. I cannot ask the people in my community, who are struggling with the cost of living rises that have been fuelled by Brexit and can see opportunities slipping from their hands, to wait any longer to see the benefits of Brexit.
I am a patriot. I love my country, and that is why I will fight for its future, for those jobs and for those industries. That means being ruthless about what we spend our time and effort on now, and it means absolutely holding this Government to account for their failure to recognise that Brexit cannot work; it is just a series of problems to be sorted. The sooner they are sorted, the sooner we will stand a chance of offering our kids a future.
How do we do that? We must work out how to get direct access to the single market. We must work out how we deal with the paperwork. Whether as part of the pan-Euro-Mediterranean convention or a bespoke customs union, we have got to get on and start talking to the Europeans about it rather than questioning whether they are friends or foes.
We must get on with getting the visa system sorted out, so that the creative and touring industries and our healthcare and hospitality sectors do not fall apart and so that young people do not lose opportunities. Those who work for businesses are being told, “Look, do you have a European passport? If you don’t, forget about it; we’ll go to someone else in the business.”
I will now turn to the importance of the freedom to work to our economy. Brexit will already reduce long-run productivity by 4%, according to the Office for Budget Responsibility. The truth is that this country was struggling before Brexit, but Brexit is like going on holiday and setting fire to the hotel room because you realised on the first day that there is no pool in the complex. It is making things fundamentally worse. The honest truth—for those of us who care about the truth and who care about this country—is that we should not let the Government get away with spending hours talking about whether the last seven years have been any good. We have to be focused on what can happen in the next seven years.
I will hold every Government to account for what they are doing to sort out access to those jobs and to that trade, and to help the small businesses that are looking at the pile of paperwork and thinking, “I just cannot cope with it any more.” It is too important not to. We can have a public inquiry—we can go down that alley—but, frankly, I would much rather solve the problems that Brexit has created. The people in this country—those of us who are real patriots—need and deserve nothing less.
Layla Moran (Oxford West and Abingdon) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd. I am grateful for the opportunity to debate this issue and for the petition, which has given us the time to do so. This Government may not be interested in the damage that they are causing to so many, but the public clearly are. Unsurprisingly, that includes Oxford West and Abingdon, and it is no great surprise that we were in the top 10 for numbers of signatures—I can fully understand why.
Whichever way we cut it, this Government’s botched deal with Europe has been an unmitigated disaster for this country. It has made the cost of living worse for every household in Britain. It is the reason why we are in the relegation zone in the global growth league tables for developed economies, behind Russia. It has made all of us poorer. We see it on our supermarket shelves, which have been empty at points. When I asked the Prime Minister about that he blamed the weather and the war, but he could not answer why they have not had the same problems in the European Union. There is an obvious answer for that. The fisherman and farmers who are tangled in red tape used to only have to complete one step in order to export their produce to the EU. Now, some face 21 stages. We see the effects in the NHS and social care, with doctors, nurses, care workers, and dentists. In Oxfordshire, 10% of our workforce came from the European Union and countless numbers of them have left. That has been repeated around the country.
Above all, it is small businesses that have been affected. I am also a member of the UK Trade and Business Commission—a poor member, as I do not go as often as I would like. Every time I go, or when I read the reports, it is small businesses that are hit the most. It is obvious to see why. The British Chambers of Commerce membership survey shows that more than half of respondents were facing difficulties in adapting to the new rules, because they are complex and changing and businesses do not have the resources to do it.
As important as the economy is—and it is desperately important now—the impacts are not just economic. Brexit has also stopped collaboration. That was what the European Union was always about; it was about pooling our resources, collaborating with others and sharing ideas. Nowhere was that more important than in science—I say that as a former science teacher.
It was never just about the money. Brexit has stopped crucial collaboration with European partners to do the research to beat cancer, for example. That is because the Government did not seek associate membership of the Horizon scheme at the point of the deal. Students are also missing out in that formative exchange year, with the Government’s bargain basement replacement being underfunded by more than £20 million when compared with the final year that we were in Erasmus. To the punters who were looking forward to watching German punk band Trigger Cut, I can only apologise. That band was turned away at Calais, thanks to the Government’s red tape and not having the right paperwork.
The Government’s fingers are in their ears. Despite all the extraordinary damage, this issue has become the elephant in the room of British politics. They do not want to talk about it. That is why a public inquiry is important. No one here is trying to prosecute the arguments of the past. We are where we are—regrettably. If we do not cool-headedly look at what has happened, then how on earth are we going to repair it?
Rather than trying to repair it, this Government seem intent on making it worse. We thought that the Windsor framework was a moment of pragmatism from the Government, which until that point had used Brexit as a stick to revive their dwindling poll ratings, trying to sow division when they should be looking for pragmatic solutions. It gave me some hope that we were moving on and that the Government were leading from the front—well, that seems not to have happened.
Since then, the road to Horizon Europe has been open, but Ministers are now stalling. I sincerely hope that the Minister present addresses the point: why are our Government stalling, when there is no reason at all why we cannot rejoin Horizon Europe? Time is of the essence. I have spoken to researchers who are looking at where we are now and making decisions about the next academic year—it is happening now, and we need answers immediately.
There is also the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill, which is frankly a monstrous piece of legislation, not only one that threatens comprehensively trash this country’s standards on everything from sewage to workers’ rights, but one that trashes our reputation on the world stage. I was heartened when the Government delayed the Bill in the Lords, but reportedly it is now back on the agenda. I give notice that the Liberal Democrat peers stand ready and willing to undo as much as possible of the damage that it will cause.
However, why are we still in damage mitigation? It feels like groundhog day. The tragedy is, at a time when we desperately need the economy to grow, Ministers refuse to play our trump card, which is fixing our broken relationship with Europe. That starts with getting real about the downsides.
The Liberal Democrats have a plan. Yes, we do want to seek being at the heart of Europe again. That will surprise no one, but we recognise—as many in the Chamber do—that we are nowhere near that. We have so much work that we need to do before we get to that point. Our plan has four steps. The first is the low-hanging fruit, the immediate action that we need to take. Earlier, we heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson), who made the point about schoolchildren, which has been echoed across the Chamber: why on earth can we not have a bespoke deal for schoolchildren on buses? How many of them will be an issue for either economy? They are just not an issue. Let us get on with the obvious, common-sense things that we need to do, which will start to rebuild our relationship.
Secondly, we need to go further, seeking co-operation agreements and, for example, a full return to Erasmus-plus or an agreement on asylum, which would make a huge difference to one of the Prime Minister’s priorities: small boats. Thirdly, we need to negotiate greater access to the single market for our world-leading food and animal products—also known as a veterinary agreement. We need to secure deals on sector-specific work visas, which would benefit the NHS in particular, and we need to re-establish mutual recognition of professional qualifications. Finally, as mentioned earlier by the right hon. Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn), yes, we should be seeking membership of the single market. It might be the single market with its customs union—things will have changed slightly by then, and we would have our own deal—but we need full, unfettered access. That is the only thing that will help our small businesses and our economy in the future.
That is the future that I want to see in this country: working together, slashing red tape, boosting the economy, easing the cost of living crisis, pooling research to beat cancer, tackling international crime and trafficking, and giving young people the opportunity to study where they want. All that is on offer, so I urge the Minister and the Government to take it.
John Nicolson (Ochil and South Perthshire) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd.
Historians will write in amazement about Brexit: the swagger of its proponents, the vanity, the false promises and the lies; the salutary sight of focused Brussels negotiators sitting, well briefed, at the negotiating table opposite a series of hapless, unbriefed Tory Ministers; the laughable suggestion that other EU countries would be so envious of Brexit that they would rush to emulate it; the sage advice of our friends ignored; the Brexit enthusiasts, Trump, Farage and Putin, whose malign presence alone should have served as a warning; the campaign tinged with racism and attacks on foreigners; the misplaced triumphalism; the sheer, vulgar philistinism; and the disdain shown for the people of Scotland—if you are in the European Union, you can leave, but if you are in this Union, your voice does not count.
I was on the BBC’s “Debate Night” programme recently. I was up against a Scottish Tory MSP and a member of the audience asked her what benefits she thought Brexit had brought. Do you know what she said? She said, “None at all”—full marks for honesty. However, the Scottish Tory press office went into meltdown, of course, and I am not sure that she has been since.
We all know the truth about Brexit, but we do not expect for a moment that the Tory UK Government will do as today’s petitioners demand. The embarrassment would be too much even for this apparently unembarrassable Administration. And what of my Labour friends? Alas, they are leaderless and sinking on Europe; they are now a party tethered to the anchor of a failing Brexit. There are honourable exceptions; I am talking about the party leadership.
I know that Brexit leaders have not suffered. Some were rewarded with seats for life in the Lords as unelected legislators. We know that many of them, having searched family histories or exploited the generosity of the Irish Government for passports, can skip past fellow Britons who are queuing for many hours at EU borders.
However, what of our constituents who suffer from Brexit? My constituency, Ochil and South Perthshire, straddles rural and urban areas. Brexit, which was rejected emphatically by the Scottish electorate, has impacted every single part of it. Young people have lost access to the incredible Erasmus scheme. Previously, medical students and young social workers could go on a long work placement in Germany and bring their experience back. Students from all backgrounds could spend a year in France or Spain or Romania, to improve their language skills and widen their horizons.
The replacement for Erasmus is the so-called “Turing scheme”—poor Alan Turing; how sad that his name should be associated with it. It promised worldwide advantages, but not for my constituent who travelled to Singapore via the Turing scheme. Once he was there, he was told that there was no money left in the pot to fund his continued stay. He was offered no alternatives or assistance—typical, bungling Brexit chaos. My amazing office team had to work with him to find all sorts of odd and unexpected allowances, bursaries and funds that would plug the gap.
I have the oldest distillery in the country, Glenturret, in my constituency. The boss told me last week that pre-Brexit they delivered, without impediment, all across Europe, sharing lorries with other companies for cost and environmental reasons. Now, if any other firm on the shared transport has made the slightest paperwork mistake, all their goods collectively are sent back with export and other duties. One consignment was sent back twice, the first time because the whisky was labelled “From Scotland” and the second time because it was labelled “From Britain”. The rules that we have negotiated mean that neither name is recognised. “Global Britain” is ironic, eh?.
According to the distillery boss, now it sometimes takes longer to get whisky to Paris than to Japan. That is not because it is becoming quicker to get to Japan; getting to Paris has simply become a nightmare. Glenturret has now had to design new labels for every single market within the EU—seven different labels, with all the added cost of switching a machine and switching the labels. It has had to abandon smaller markets in the Baltic states and elsewhere—
Peter Dowd (in the Chair)
Order. There is a Division. We will be back in 15 minutes. Is that okay?
John Nicolson
If only there was some way of voting electronically, Mr Dowd, that would not require us to dash backwards and forwards. Before I was interrupted, I was talking about a wonderful company in my constituency, the distillery Glenturret, and how it has had to design new labels for every market within the European Union—seven different labels—with all the added cost. It has had to abandon smaller markets in the Baltic states and elsewhere because the added costs wipe out any profits.
Then, there are firms in my constituency crying out for labour. We have heard about this before, with fruit rotting in fields across the country because EU workers cannot get visas. In my constituency, hotels cannot open to full capacity for the very same reason. One owner implored me to hand-deliver a letter to UK Ministers. “If only they knew what was happening on the ground,” he said, “they would do something!” I said: “They know. They don’t care.” Brexit zealots would have us living in caves if it meant delivering the pure Brexit isolation that so many of them crave.
So, as we wait—perhaps forever—for Brexiter Tories and Labour Front Benchers wearing Brexiter clothes that fit so badly, I suspect we can offer petitioners little hope today of a Brexit apology from Westminster. It is those of us on the SNP Benches who offer the only unambiguous pro-EU vision. We want to rejoin the EU at the first possible opportunity. Scotland, independent and within the European Union, will enjoy excellent access to trade, like our long-term ally and near neighbour, Denmark. Our ancient and modern universities and networks of colleges will reconnect with thousands of institutions across the EU to share research, opportunities and students. Young people will once more be able to live, love and work across the EU, as my generation did. We will thrive as part of a co-operative team of nations, small and large. We know we have friends across the Union—the European Union. As my hon. Friend the Member for Stirling (Alyn Smith) would say, keep a light on for us. We are coming back soon.
Steven Bonnar (Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill) (SNP)
It is good to see you in the Chair, Mr Dowd. I place on record my thanks to constituents in Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill who signed e-petition 628226. They did so because Brexit was sold to so many as an opportunity for the UK to “take back control” and become a stronger, more independent state.
However, we are not in a better position in any single area of life in the United Kingdom as a result of leaving the European Union. The economy, trade, fishing, labour force, environmental standards, structural funding, inward investment, immigration, the peace process and much more have all been harmed thanks to the realities of Brexit. The Secretary of State for Business and Trade opined recently that Tory MPs and the media should “not keep talking” about Brexit. Yet here we are, petitioned to debate the matter by a UK public already sick and tired of Brexit and its implications, and their reasons for being so are plentiful.
Scotland’s economy will be hit hardest by Brexit. Estimates suggest that it could result in a loss of £12.7 billion per year by 2030. Exports of goods from Scotland to the EU fell by over 11% in the first quarter of 2021 compared with the same period in 2020. The OBR has said that Brexit has had a “significant adverse impact” on UK trade. The latest figures show that, since Brexit, the EU’s trade intensity has increased since Brexit while the UK’s has fallen by 2.8%, and yet the UK Government are so desperately trying to convince themselves that they have the rest of the world to trade with.
The depressing reality is that the reduction in tariffs as part of our UK-Australia deal, for example, will save each UK household a pathetic £1.20. That is not even enough to buy as much as a stick of butter with today’s sky-high food prices, which are largely caused by Brexit itself. Let us remember that our economy was also recklessly decimated by the previous Tory Prime Minister and Chancellor not so long ago. They would also like us to not keep talking about that.
Analysis by the University of Sussex’s UK Trade Policy Observatory shows that Brexit losses are more than 178 times greater than any of the new trade deal gains. Each one of those losses is felt by communities across the length and breadth of Scotland. What can we do about it? The reality is that only full membership would restore all that we have lost, including our credibility. However, along with the Tories, the Labour party wants no part in that. It is just as committed to a hard Brexit as the Tories in this place, regardless of what a few Back Bench MPs have said in the debate today. The damage that Brexit has caused to Scotland will be long lasting, and it is being endorsed by the UK Labour party.
Most people in Scotland were proud remainers, and we are now proud rejoiners, because Scotland’s focus should rightly be on rejoining the European Union. Post independence, Scotland’s markets will transform and expand to be able to take advantage of a EU market seven times larger than that of the UK. The UK Labour party does not want that for Scotland. Even though its parliamentarians in Holyrood know it is right, the party leaders here in England say no. Put bluntly, they are willing to throw Scotland under that big, red Brexit bus to get the keys to Downing Street. The people of Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill do not want the same old Labour—a party that they view as a pale imitation of the Tory party today. They want people who are in touch with public opinion and who understand the impact of Brexit within and on our communities. They want people who will protect and enhance their interests; they do not want people who will barter them off.
In 2014, Labour dragged Alistair Darling and Gordon Brown out of political graves to tell Scotland that independence would threaten our membership of the European Union, imperil people’s pensions and cause a currency crisis. Look where we are right now. We are out of the European Union, UK pension plans were on the brink of collapse within hours last year, the NHS has lost a quarter of its workforce, the cost of food is up 18%, 4% has been knocked off our GDP and sterling has lost a third of its value. These are the consequences, and people are paying the price right now. Brexit has only served to decimate our economy and damage our standing on the international stage.
Further hated policies of this Government such as the Nationality and Borders Act 2022 and the Rwanda policy cause Scottish people great anguish and embarrassment. Remaining in this isolated and insular UK Union is strangling Scotland’s ambition and potential. Scotland’s home is unquestionably in Europe. To coin a Labour phrase, the only road to Europe now runs through an independent Scotland.
Alyn Smith (Stirling) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to wind up the debate for the SNP. I do feel for our Minister today—he has been the thinnest of blue lines, and I look forward to hearing his response. As much as I do not necessarily have a great deal of hope for the substance of it, I do have much respect for him personally for the position he finds himself in today.
I pay tribute to the organisers of the petition and the 178,000 people who have signed it. My hon. Friends the Members for East Dunbartonshire (Amy Callaghan), for Ochil and South Perthshire (John Nicolson), for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill (Steven Bonnar) and for Linlithgow and East Falkirk (Martyn Day) all made very solid contributions to the debate, as did a number of colleagues from all parts of the House, except perhaps those on the Government Benches, though we look forward to hearing from the Minister.
On brass tacks, the SNP supports this petition. We want to see evidence-based policymaking. If we are to plot a way forward to a solution, it is important to find out how we got here. However, I voice that support with a wee note of caution. I hope I can gently express some reservation over the perspective that the petition’s wording reveals. It refers to
“the impact that Brexit has had on this country and its citizens.”
For the avoidance of doubt, my country is Scotland. The United Kingdom is not my country. The United Kingdom is a state. It is a Union comprised of four countries. Perspective is not a synonym for difference of opinion. We see this from a different place. Scotland has a very clear European perspective. My party is the most pro-European party in this Parliament.
I also have a particular neuralgia with the phrase,
“this country and its citizens.”
To my mind, the people who were most affected by leaving the EU in the way that we did were EU nationals resident in these islands. They had their lives turned upside down. They had the right to come to these islands to live, work, study and marry into our communities. They had those rights taken away and they did not even get a vote in it. I am deeply proud of my party’s ethos that if someone is in Scotland, they are one of us. It is not obligatory but people are very welcome to be one of us if they want to be.
I am deeply proud of the fact that the Scottish Parliament has legislated to ensure that voting eligibility in Scottish elections— the ones we control—is based on residency rather than nationality. That is a queer sort of nationalism in a continental, historical, European sense, but Scotland’s tragedy for 250 years was that we exported our people. It was freedom of movement from the European Union that started to get it back up again. I am deeply proud that anyone who lives in Scotland is one of us, as far as the Scottish Government are concerned. That was not the case in the EU referendum.
In the independence referendum of 2014, the Scottish Government quite specifically chose the European franchise for voting entitlement in order to broaden eligibility as much as we legally could at the time. We have since broadened it further. In the EU referendum, however, despite SNP amendments proposing to broaden the franchise, the UK Government chose quite specifically to say to 2.6 million people living in these islands, who are a part of our communities and our families, and who pay taxes here—it is demonstrably true that EU immigrants pay far more in taxes to the UK Exchequer than they take back in services—“The UK had a debate about your place in our community, your position in our economy and your role here, but you’re not getting a say in that because you’re foreign. You’re not one of us.” That is a deeply ugly, exclusive politics, which I hate. I am sure that the petition’s wording is unintentional, but I think there should be a wider perspective than
“this country and its citizens.”
I would also have liked to have seen mention of the fact that the UK’s exit from the European Union has damaged European solidarity. It has damaged sincere co-operation. The arguments for exit were based on the exclusive idea that, somehow, the UK was subjected to EU laws that we had every part in producing. I therefore support the petition, but with some reservations about the wording.
The SNP is the most pro-EU party in Parliament. I am the party’s Europe and EU accession spokesperson. Those words were chosen deliberately because it is our mission to get an independent Scotland back into the European Union. We have a clear constitutional agenda and I believe that we will thrive as an independent state in the European Union. I also say to our UK audience and those taking part in pro-European campaigns in every community up and down these islands that the SNP also wants the UK to do well. I do not want to see the UK have a bad time. I believe that the UK should be as close as possible to the EU, if not part of it, with all its programmes and all its forms. I want the UK to have a functioning relationship with the EU that secures peace in Northern Ireland and that secures trade. The UK should also be part of the EU’s research intensive industrial policy, but it risks losing out. The UK will be our closest friend and our closest market—and vice versa. I want to see the UK do well. To those who do not believe me, I say that it would make our independence project easier because the EU we seek to join would, I hope, have a deep and relationship with the UK. I am not saying that just for its own sake.
I have been struck by how backward-looking some of today’s contributions have been. I do not think that the question how anyone’s constituency voted is relevant any more. Of course, Scotland voted massively to remain—that is a matter of fact. The UK as a whole voted to leave—that is also a fact. I think we need to talk about the democratic deficit implicit in the UK right now, which is demonstrated by how Scotland was removed, against our will, from the European Union. That is not about the battles of the past; it is about the discussions of the future. A backward-looking attitude impedes us from finding solutions to the problems that we are now experiencing. I have said repeatedly in debates in this House that I want to see the UK have a close relationship with the EU, and I will work towards that with anyone who wants to do so. The Windsor framework, which I pay tribute to, is a pragmatic step in that sort of direction. Let us, for goodness’ sake, see more of that rather than backward-looking attitudes.
For the avoidance of doubt, I am also not interested in rerunning the EU referendum. That was a long time ago; the world has changed. I am not interested in overturning the result. I respect everyone who voted leave, wherever they voted and for whatever reason. People who voted leave were entitled to believe the promises that were made to them. They were entitled to believe the good faith of the politicians and others who made those promises. However, to be frank, the reality is that the promises made have not been delivered. There may be reasons why they have not been delivered, so an inquiry would be useful in ventilating discussion.
Who can forget the greatest hits? We had:
“There will be no downside…only a considerable upside”,
and:
“Nobody is talking about leaving the single market”,
We were told that we would keep Erasmus and that
“we hold all the cards”.
In addition to all those things, we heard that the NHS would get £350 million a week. Who would not vote for that? It is remarkable that the numbers were not higher.
That needs to be ventilated, and that is why I support the aims of the petition. The vote was presented essentially as being risk free and consequence free. People were told, “Everything you like, you’ll keep. Everything you don’t like or don’t understand will recede from your life.” The reality has been really very different. I would expand the scope of the inquiry sought by the petition so that it also covers the techniques used by the leave campaign. I am concerned that we have an ongoing vulnerability to such recklessness. I would like to see a proper review of electoral law, data protection, campaign finance—in particular, the role of dark money—and the remarkable lack of a single leave campaign manifesto to hold the leave campaign to account. A variety of promises were made—some in good faith, some perhaps less so—but they have not been delivered. We also need a proper look at the powers of the Electoral Commission, and the role of broadcasters and internet providers in public information in future campaigns, because I think we have an ongoing vulnerability to recklessness.
We support this petition, but I add a word of caution. An inquiry of this sort would deliver a degree of truth, if it happens, and I would have to say that it is at the top end of expectation that it might. However, the people out there need answers, progress and solutions right now. We should establish truth—that is a good thing to do, in and of itself. We should also ensure that we fix any ongoing and future vulnerabilities. But people need answers now and I am not interested in a blame game.
The people struggling in my district, Stirling—an area bigger than Luxembourg that is the heart of Scotland—are suffering right now as a consequence of leaving the European Union. My farmers cannot get their crops planted or harvested, as we have a crippling shortage of agricultural labour; we have a crippling labour shortage in the hospitality industry, which is deeply relevant to my community; the NHS is short of staff; we have a lively music scene, but creative touring people are struggling; and young people on student exchanges are finding the process more difficult, more complicated and more expensive. Let us have specific sectoral visas for freedom of movement in and out of individual sectors to give them solutions to these problems right now.
For universities up and down Scotland and the UK that are suffering from the uncertainty over continued engagement in Horizon Europe, let us join Horizon Europe. It is on the table in Brussels right now. The Windsor framework has gone a way to building trust. Let us build it further, to everyone’s mutual advantage. I am not talking about reversing Brexit; I am talking about dealing with the problems that we have right now.
For our food importers and exporters, we need a veterinary agreement to make sure that the flow across the borders is as frictionless as it can be, and for our small and medium-sized enterprises we need single market membership to remove the barriers that have been put up by the recent events that we have suffered.
The SNP supports this petition. We support EU membership for Scotland as an independent state, but we also want to see the UK have a close relationship with the EU, because that will go a way towards not apportioning blame for how we got here, but fixing the problems that we are all experiencing. I view that as a common endeavour and will engage with anybody from all points of the compass to see it happen. We support this petition and I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.
Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure, Mr Dowd, to serve under your chairmanship, as it was to have served under Mr McCabe before.
I thank the hon. Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk (Martyn Day) for presenting the petition today, and acknowledge the people who have signed it—over 180,000 people in total—including a number in my own constituency.
I am profoundly aware that this is an issue about which there are passionately and sincerely held views. I thank colleagues from across the House for their contributions to the debate, although I note the stark absence of Conservative Members, with one exception; they are clearly not willing to defend their record.
In contrast, we in Labour will not shy away from engaging constructively in debates about the impact of the Government’s handling of Brexit on people, communities and businesses across the UK. Many of those effects have rightly been highlighted and exposed today, including by my hon. Friends the Members for Hornsey and Wood Green (Catherine West), for Gower (Tonia Antoniazzi), for Battersea (Marsha De Cordova), for Putney (Fleur Anderson), for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy) and for Leeds North West (Alex Sobel), and by my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn).
We want to focus on some of the most important tasks today: making our relationship with the EU work; growing our economy; defending our security; and tackling common challenges, from energy to climate change. We will not seek to rejoin the EU, the single market or the customs union, but it is imperative that we make our future relationship with the EU work, fix the holes in the Government’s deal, deliver stability, trust and mutual benefit in our relationships with partners across Europe—both in and out of the EU—and make use of new forums, such as the European Political Community. Indeed, I had fruitful discussions today with friends from Norway, as I know the Minister did too.
I must say from the outset that we do not believe that expending scarce financial resources on a public inquiry that would take years to complete would be the right step forward. We already expose the many impacts and failures of the Government’s policy in this area on a weekly basis in this place, and this is a topic that should rightly be the focus of robust and democratic parliamentary scrutiny, as we have seen today, whether or not we agree with all the points that have been made. I would far rather see the millions that could be spent on an inquiry being used instead to address practically some of the many flaws and holes that we have been exposed today, but this is not just about cost; it is about bringing people together and looking forward rather than dividing them once again by looking back.
We are now almost seven years on from the referendum, and the world and our country have both changed considerably since the day of that vote. The impact of our departure from the EU is, of course, a contributing factor to where we stand today. Indeed, there is consensus among economists that the Government’s poorly negotiated deal with the EU, compounded by 13 years of economic stagnation, has contributed to the UK lagging behind the rest of the G7, as we have heard today.
For seven years, we have watched the Government pick fights with our closest European allies, allowing dogma to override pragmatism. All the while, we have seen investment down, growth sluggish, 45% of businesses saying they have difficulties trading with the EU, and, as we have heard, exports down by a third. We have seen an approach that has often left us isolated, less secure and stuck in the binaries of the past at a time when co-operation was needed more than ever: on security when we face war in Europe; on energy when we face an energy price crisis and the challenge of climate change; and on economic co-operation as we face inflation, the cost of living crisis and the challenge of responding to geopolitical competition and threats to the resilience of our supply chains.
We would completely change the tone and tenor of our relationship with the EU and form the basis for an ambitious partnership based on common interests and mutual respect—clear about our position outside the EU but optimistic about what we can do together in a critical strategic partnership. Fundamentally, that is something the Conservatives are inherently incapable of delivering. Let us take the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill as an example. The Conservatives are doubling down to appease the hard-line fringes by introducing an irresponsible piece of legislation that will only prolong uncertainty for businesses nationwide. The Bill is opposed by business organisations, trade unions and environmental groups, and it undermines the proper role of Parliament by handing Ministers, as we have heard, yet more unaccountable powers, placing hard-won rights at work, environmental standards and consumer protections at the whim of power-hungry Ministers. Frankly, we do not need an inquiry to tell us that this is a grave error or to expose the wider impacts of Tory Brexit policy.
Across the country today, the questions people are asking are, “How do I pay the bills?”, “How do I secure cheaper and greener energy?”, “How do I put food on the table when prices are going up?”, “What jobs and opportunities are there for my children?” and “How do we keep our country safe?” We do not need an inquiry to answer those questions; we need a Labour UK Government. Labour has a clear plan to make our relationship with Europe work and to address the broader concerns that have been raised in the context of the petition. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer) has set out a clear plan to secure this: securing a deal on the Northern Ireland protocol, which we called for and then supported; tearing down unnecessary trade barriers; supporting world-leading services and scientists; keeping Britain safe; and investing in Britain. Looking forward not back, let me touch on some of those points and address some issues that have been raised in the debate.
Starting with trade, let me be frank: this Government have no clear trade strategy. It is little wonder that the OBR forecasts that UK exports are due to fall by 6.6% this year, which is a more than £51 billion hit to the UK economy. The Government’s last manifesto promised that by the end of 2022, 80% of UK trade would be covered by free trade agreements, including an agreement with the US, but the reality is that these deals are far from complete. Indeed, the UK’s trade deficit with the EU widened to a record high in the final quarter of 2022 as imports from the bloc jumped. The shortfall in the balance of trade and goods ballooned to £32.9 billion in the three months to December—the largest gap since records began in 1997.
The trade barriers put in place by the Tory Brexit deal are accentuating the economic burden being shouldered by our businesses and constituents, and toning them down would be a priority for a Labour Government. Outside of the single market and the customs union, we need to be candid and frank that we will not be able to deliver completely frictionless trade with the EU, but there are things we could do to make trade easier, and we have heard many of them today.
We should build on the positive elements in the Windsor framework. We would expand agrifood and veterinary agreements to cover all of the UK, seeking to build on agreements and mechanisms already in place between the EU and other countries. We would negotiate a long-term deal for UK hauliers to ease the supply chain problems that are holding us back. We would put forward a supply chain working group within the G7 and use the 2025 TCA review to increase the UK’s prosperity. We would seek to agree mutual recognition of conformity assessments across specified sectors so that our producers no longer need to complete two sets of tests or two processes of certification. We would seek mutual recognition of professional qualifications to bolster our world-leading services industry and would sort out data adequacy to allow our digital services companies to properly compete.
Although we do not support the return of freedom of movement, we will seek to find flexible labour mobility arrangements for those making short-term work trips and, as has been mentioned by a number of colleagues, musicians and artists seeking short-term visas to tour within the EU.
On science and research, I want to discuss the opportunity that has been squandered by the Tory Government, about which we heard time and again during the debate. Many of our constituents feel that departure from the EU has restricted them from pursuing education and employment opportunities to which they otherwise would have had access. Of course, departure from the EU did not need to mean an end to Erasmus+ or, indeed, to Horizon. I recently met representatives from Universities Wales who told me of a triple whammy: the end of Horizon and European structural funds and the failure to replace Horizon has meant that 1,000 jobs are now at risk in crucial high-tech, high-skilled jobs across Wales.
The Conservatives made a manifesto promise that they would associate with Horizon. They have repeated that 50 times since, but we have seen instead years of delay and uncertainty, with jobs, projects and inward investment lost, and still no deal, despite the resolution of issues around the Northern Ireland protocol. We would unblock the UK’s participation in Horizon and bring about the co-operation that we need when it comes to science, technology, education and skills across the UK—in key regions and of course our nations.
Let me turn to security. Strong and smart British foreign policy has always started with secure alliances in Europe, but since 2016 our relations with Europe have been characterised by bluster, bombast and brinkmanship by the Conservative party at a time when the security of our country has faced some of its most severe threats. We would negotiate a UK-EU security pact, predicated on the defence of democracy and ensuring, with NATO as our bedrock, that we also see close co-operation and co-ordination with our European allies on foreign, defence, development and security policy, whether on sanctions, our energy resilience, our support for Ukraine, our co-ordination on cross-border crime, our efforts against terrorism, our response to instability on our own continent and near neighbourhood, or indeed our approach to China. We could have had a security pact when we left the EU, but the Tories failed to agree one. We would seek arrangements to share data, intelligence where appropriate, and best practice with our closest allies.
I understand calls from the many petitioners for a rigorous assessment into the Government’s failings when it comes to the Brexit deal that they secured and the impact that it has had on this country. The Labour party will not shirk from addressing those failings or denying their existence, but relitigating old arguments does not build a plan on which to base the future or set a new course for an ambitious partnership with our closest neighbours and allies. We have a plan to move the country forward, resetting our relationship with the European Union, and taking common-sense and practical steps to redefine that relationship to withstand the challenges of the present and the years and decades to come.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Leo Docherty)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk (Martyn Day) for presenting this debate, and to all right hon. and hon. Members for their contributions. It has been an interesting and thought-provoking debate, and I will seek to cover the main points raised.
The UK and the EU are still hugely important allies. We are trading partners and old friends. We have left the European Union but not Europe. We want our friends to thrive, and I know—from my personal visits and many ministerial visits—that they wish the same for us. We must respect the democratic decision of our own people. The UK’s departure from the EU was a result, as has been described today, of a democratic choice by people across the nation to restore our sovereignty; and I pay tribute to the eloquent speech made by my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham (Adam Holloway).
In 2015 the Government were elected with a mandate to hold a referendum. In that referendum, the British public voted to leave the EU. We must remember that the Government have since been re-elected twice with a clear mandate to pass the necessary legislation to leave the EU and negotiate a trade agreement. The resounding endorsement of that proposition in 2019, with a significant majority, is a case in point.
Parliament approved the withdrawal agreement—the terms for the UK’s withdrawal from the EU—in January 2020 and the trade and co-operation agreement in December of the same year. The Government’s policies on our new relationship with the EU are therefore subject to robust parliamentary scrutiny. We have agreed arrangements with the European Scrutiny Committee, the European Affairs Committee and the Protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland Sub-Committee. We have regular and extensive correspondence with those Committees, with which I am personally familiar. Under the terms of the arrangement, Ministers must regularly appear before them. Indeed, I appeared before the European Affairs Committee on 7 March, and the Foreign Secretary will appear before the Protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland Sub-Committee on 10 May.
Of course, we are grateful to those Committees for their ongoing scrutiny. Both the European Scrutiny Committee and the European Affairs Committee are holding inquiries into the new UK-EU relationship, to which the Government have provided evidence that can be read online. The inquiries will be published in due course. For all those reasons, the Government do not believe that it would be appropriate to hold an inquiry into the impact of Brexit.
Let me dwell on the theme of seizing the opportunities of Brexit, which has been raised this afternoon. Restoring our sovereignty was just the start of what the British public voted for in the referendum. Britain left the EU to do things differently and make our own laws, but this was not just political theory: our laws and tax framework and the way we spend our money all make a real difference to people’s lives. The Government are committed to capitalising on the opportunities of Brexit, which is why we intend to end retained EU law as a legal category by December 2023, which will ensure that the UK’s rules and regulations best serve the interests of our country as a whole and support workers and businesses to build a thriving economy.
Stella Creasy
The Minister talks very passionately about parliamentary sovereignty and raises the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill. Whatever the whys and wherefores of how we thought the European Union listened to the UK public through its democratic processes, can the Minister explain how transferring direct power over 5,000 areas of legislation not to this place but to Ministers through the use of statutory instruments—or Henry VIII powers, as we might call them—is taking back control? I see the opposition to those measures from those who supported Brexit in the other place or this place. It does not look to me like this did what it said on the side of the bus.
Leo Docherty
The Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill will be yet another expression of our renewed democratic sovereignty. The hon. Lady’s constituents should be reassured by that, because colleagues in this House will decide which laws stand, which are absorbed and which are repealed. The hon. Lady should be reassured by this more direct expression of our democratic sovereignty.
A range of major reforms are therefore already under way, including to data protection, artificial intelligence and life sciences regimes. We are capitalising on our new-found freedoms outside the EU to attract investment, drive innovation and boost growth and recently announced the Edinburgh reforms to drive growth and competitiveness in the financial services sector. However, laws will not be abolished for the sake of it. We will not jeopardise our strong record on workers’ rights, for example, which is among the best in the world, nor will we roll back maternity rights or threaten the high environmental standards we maintain.
Turning to trade, it is worth remembering that the trade and co-operation agreement agreed in 2020 is the world’s largest zero-tariff, zero-quota deal. It is the first time the EU has ever agreed access like this in a free trade agreement. The TCA also guards the rights of both the EU and the UK to determine their own policies while not regressing in ways that affect trade between the two sides. The UK remains committed to being a global leader in those areas.
As the Office for National Statistics has previously noted, there are a number of factors beyond Brexit that have influenced global trading patterns, including the war in Ukraine, most recently, global economic forces and continued strain on supply chains. Despite this, we must remember that the UK remains an attractive place to invest and grow a business as a low-tax, high-skilled economy.
Layla Moran
The Minister has referred yet again to the pandemic and the war, but can he explain why we are languishing at the bottom of the league table of growing economies for developed countries, behind Russia? All those countries are facing the same things, yet we are at the bottom. Why could that be?
Leo Docherty
The hon. Lady should take encouragement from looking to foreign direct investment. FDI stock in the UK increased from $2.2 trillion in 2020 to $2.6 trillion in 2021. That is the highest foreign direct investment stock in Europe and the second highest in the world, behind only the United States, up from our ranking in 2020. That is just one measure of the expression of confidence in the future. Of course, there have been headwinds, but taken in the round the economic future of the UK is one of terrific dynamism and confidence. The hon. Lady should share that confidence, and be confident in the future prospects of the British economy.
Outside the EU, we are creating the best regulatory environment to drive economic growth and develop a competitive advantage in new and future technologies, where terrific growth lies. From artificial intelligence and gene editing to the future of transport and data protection, we are building a pro-growth, high-standards framework that gives business the capacity and the confidence to innovate, invest and create jobs.
Stephen Doughty
The Minister is talking about innovation and future technologies. He will have heard Members from both sides of the House raise concerns about the lack of funding outside Horizon. Even if a new deal is agreed, that will not be for a significant period. Does the Minister think that the challenges being faced by the university sector will boost growth, innovation and investment, or reduce them?
Leo Docherty
I foresee a future where we have a very dynamic innovation sector, supported by the Government but working in partnership with our European friends. I will not give a running commentary on our negotiations on the Horizon programme, but colleagues will know that they are under way. Our approach is one of buoyant confidence about the benefits of future co-operation—that is all I will say. I hope the hon. Member shares my confidence.
To give another example, we must also remember that the Chancellor’s work on financial services will see more than 30 regulatory reforms unlock investment and turbocharge growth across the UK. A new approach to regulation will make meaningful change for the British public, with, for example, faster access to new medical treatments.
Fleur Anderson
On the subject of the confidence expressed in the business environment created by Brexit, it has been reported today that the number of UK chief executives quitting their jobs has more than doubled as bosses battle sluggish growth and a nightmare of EU red tape. The number of chief executives who have left their role jumped by 111%. Would the Minister agree that the business environment created by Brexit has not been entirely jubilant?
Leo Docherty
Of course, there have been choppy waters in recent times—I have not denied that. My proposition is that, taken in the round, the future growth of this country is clear to see, and the hon. Lady should share our confidence in the UK’s ability to be an agile, global and extremely dynamic economy, which no doubt we will be.
Let me make some comments on immigration, because Brexit has allowed us to move to a much fairer immigration system. The Government have introduced a points-based system to attract top talent from around the world, while at the same time activating the enormous potential of the UK workforce. The global points-based immigration system is focused on talent and skills, not where someone comes from, and makes it easier for the brightest and best to live and work in the UK. We have already introduced a comprehensive suite of new work routes and we continue to welcome and retain thousands of valuable and talented workers—scientists, researchers, doctors, nurses, engineers, bricklayers and plumbers. The points-based system is attracting worldwide talent and skills, including from EU member states, and we are grateful for it.
Turning to EU-UK cultural exchanges, colleagues will agree that Brexit was never about the UK stepping away from our proud and historic role in Europe. We continue to support cultural exchanges between the UK and the EU, such as the Turing scheme, which allows UK educational organisations to fund life-changing experiences around the world, and we will do everything that we can to facilitate a high flow rate of schoolchildren in both directions.
On our relationship with the EU, the Government are fully focused on implementing the trade and co-operation agreement, and the newly agreed Windsor framework. Both the withdrawal agreement and the TCA are functioning as intended. We look forward to entering a new phase in our post-Brexit relationships in Europe. As we set out in our recent refresh of the integrated review, the UK is committed to upholding the stability, security and prosperity of our continent and of the Euro-Atlantic as a whole.
It is our ambition to build even stronger relationships with our European partners based on values, reciprocity and co-operation across our shared interests, and we will provide leadership where we are best placed to do so. We will continue to work very closely in areas of mutual benefit, as we have in our response to Ukraine, and we are much looking forward to hosting partners from across Europe, including EU member states, at the European Political Community meeting in the UK in July 2024.
Once again, I thank all hon. and right hon. Members for their contributions to today’s debate. The Government will continue to seize the benefits of Brexit, delivering on our manifesto commitments to the British people, and we will work closely with our European neighbours, both in the EU and beyond, to uphold our shared values of inclusion, freedom, prosperity and democracy.
Martyn Day
On behalf of the Petitions Committee, I extend my gratitude to all Members who gave up their time to take part in today’s lively and informed, albeit rather one-sided, debate, which has emphasised the strength of feeling. An Omnisis poll that was mentioned earlier suggests that 59% of the public agree that there should be an inquiry. Why should there not be an inquiry into what has been the largest constitutional change that the country has seen in my lifetime, with the biggest economic impact? Clearly, it cries out for one.
I said that Brexit has been an unmitigated disaster, and I have heard nothing today to change my mind; however, it is worth pointing out that the petitioners’ call is for a public inquiry, not immediately to rejoin the European Union. Personally, I want to be back in Europe as quickly as possible. I would like to see the UK back in Europe, but I know that Scotland has an alternate route to get there, through independence. I would be happy to grab that route as quickly as possible.
The data that we have heard paints a very bleak picture. There is simply no such thing as a good Brexit. The public increasingly can see that. It makes me wonder whether Ministers are hiding behind the democratic mandate because they know that, and because a public inquiry would highlight the tissue of falsehoods and misinformation that the whole Brexit project was built on. It still requires a public inquiry. Since we have been debating, the number of signatures has risen rapidly. Now more than 184,000 people have signed the petition, and it is still growing.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered e-petition 628226, relating to the impact of the UK’s exit from the European Union.
Written Statement
Evaluation of the Culture Recovery Fund and Publication of Management Data
(1 year ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Julia Lopez)
I am repeating the following written ministerial statement made on 21 April 2023 in the other place by the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, my noble Friend Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay:
Publication of the Culture Recovery Fund Evaluation and release of management data
The Department for Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) has today published a report evaluating the impact and delivery of the Culture Recovery Fund (CRF). I will place a copy of the report in the Libraries of both Houses. The report can also be found online. DCMS has also today released aggregated management data from CRF applications and awards. I will place a copy of this release in the Libraries of both Houses. This information can also be found online. As Sir Damon Buffini, chairman of the Culture Recovery Board, says in his foreword to the evaluation, the Culture Recovery Fund has played a vital role in ensuring the long-term success of the sector, and this evaluation details how the fund has supported the sector.
The Culture Recovery Fund
The resilience, adaptability, and creativity of the cultural sectors undoubtedly helped get them through the pandemic. This was bolstered by the unwavering support provided by the Government through the Culture Recovery Fund. This was an unprecedented package of measures encompassing loans, grants, and support for capital works to provide full-spectrum support for organisations in these sectors, and one which we hope will never again be needed.
This evaluation report provides clear evidence that the CRF worked—supporting around 5,000 organisations and protecting thousands of jobs.
The report concludes that CRF met its overall objectives, was efficiently implemented and demonstrated value for money. It strengthened the financial health of organisations awarded funding, improved their resilience, and raised their future survival prospects to a degree that could not have been achieved by just relying on the broader package of Government support.
Looking forward
DCMS and its Ministers regularly meet organisations and individuals in the cultural sectors, and appreciate how important it is not just that they survived the pandemic, but that they are able to meet the challenges of the future. The evidence detailed in this report demonstrates that the CRF has made its recipients better able to face those challenges head on. As set out in recent Budget, and backed by the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, the creative industries are one of this Government’s five strategically important high growth sectors, and I am pleased that the Culture Recovery Fund has played such an important part in setting up the sector for its next chapter, as well as ensuring that it is still there to enrich our lives in so many other ways for decades to come.
[HCWS733]
Water Companies: Licences
(1 year ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the announcement by Ofwat on 20 March of a change to the licences of water companies requiring that dividend payments are linked to performance.
The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Benyon) (Con)
My Lords, we support Ofwat’s new measures, which were made possible by new licence modification powers that this Government gave to Ofwat via the Environment Act 2021. The measures strengthen the existing dividend licence conditions so that Ofwat can take enforcement action against water companies that do not make an explicit link between dividend payments and their performance for customers and the environment.
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)
I thank the Minister for his response. Since I tabled this Question, the Government have published their plan for delivering clean and plentiful water, which is to be welcomed and offers much hope. However, river pollution has blocked the development of 20,000 much-needed new homes, and more than 7,500 days’ worth of raw sewage has been dumped in various Ministers’ constituencies. Does the Minister believe that withholding dividend payments to water company executives and shareholders will really contribute to making the difference needed to improve long-term water quality? Surely something more robust is needed.
Lord Benyon (Con)
My Lords, that is just part of a great many things that the Government are doing. The new power that the Environment Agency has to link the companies’ licences to ring-fence provision on infrastructure spending is important. This comes as part of a plan that includes the Environment Act, as I said earlier; the Storm Overflows Discharge Reduction Plan; a strategic policy statement for Ofwat, in which the Government required very stringent new standards; and our recently published plan for water. No Government are doing more to tackle this issue.
The Duke of Wellington (CB)
My Lords, I also commend Ofwat on its recent announcement that it will seek to take some powers over dividends, but what it actually says is that the company boards will be required to take account of their performance towards the environment. What worries me—I wonder whether it worries the Minister—is that it is up to the company to assess its own performance. Is that really a strong enough power?
Lord Benyon (Con)
It is not just up to the company; it is up to the regulators, Ofwat and the Environment Agency. We are currently considering this, and there is a proposal to lift the cap on fines from the Environment Agency to an unlimited level. This is part of a concerted effort to tackle a serious problem.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
My Lords, it is the turn of the Conservative Benches.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I welcome the Government’s commitment to implement Schedule 3 to the Flood and Water Management Act 2010, but will my noble friend exercise a degree of urgency? Wales has already implemented this, making SUDS and sustainable drains mandatory in all new builds. That one measure alone will prevent sewage spilling over antiquated pipes and leading to river and sea pollution.
Lord Benyon (Con)
My noble friend is absolutely right: this was a key recommendation of the Pitt review following the floods in 2007. The Government are implementing it. It is complicated, because it is about who owns and has responsibility for the maintenance of the SUDS. My noble friend is right that this will have an impact on the amount of unwanted effluent that flows from developments into watercourses and aquifers, and it is being implemented—we are taking it forward urgently.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, following on from the previous question about the water companies marking their own homework, can the Minister explain how it is that the water companies themselves are responsible for monitoring and reporting? Will that change? He will know that a lot of the monitors do not work, so how can we be assured that decisions will be made on the basis of accurate reporting? It is not in their interest to provide that accurate information.
Lord Benyon (Con)
There was no information on this until 2013, when I required water companies to publish a full list. We now have—or will have in a matter of weeks—100% of all the monitors. The Environment Agency investigates anywhere a fault is not being correctly measured. The telemetry will exist to measure the quality of water in all these outflows, above the outflow and below it, so accurate comparisons can be taken. That sharing of information, which was lamentably woeful but which we have corrected, will be a key part of our attempts to successfully clear up our rivers.
Baroness Altmann (Con)
My Lords, the Government can be extremely proud of their record on the environment with regard to the Environment Act and a number of the measures to ensure improvement that I know my noble friend the Minister is personally committed to. Can he explain to the House whether he believes that Ofwat has sufficient powers to deal with this enormous problem that is exercising the public so much across the country?
Lord Benyon (Con)
My noble friend raises a key point. The Government give direction to the regulators of utilities such as water companies, and we have given very clear direction, which has been manifest in the latest Ofwat demand that water companies tackle this. It is not the only regulator. As I said earlier, the Environment Agency has huge powers and will levy fines and make sure that water companies that fail are taken into account. Of course, Ofwat also has to balance the importance of the pressure of bills on households with an increasing level of investment in tackling these issues. It is a constant balancing issue and one that I hope we are getting right.
Lord Rooker (Lab)
Can the Minister please explain how competition in the water industry is of direct benefit to the public?
Lord Benyon (Con)
It allows us to make comparisons between good and bad performers and to ensure that they are able to operate in the open market and borrow on the capital markets in a regulated way. Dividends are really important because they pay for investment, and very often they are paid to pension companies that invest in these companies. The average dividend is around 3.8%, which is not massive, but we want to make sure we get that balance right. Competition is also in the customers’ interest. Evidence shows that if it had not been for the kind of competition that we have created in the water industry, there would be higher bills for households and less money spent on infrastructure.
Lord Cormack (Con)
My Lords, week after week we read about the Wye and other beautiful rivers—they are sewers, in some cases. The question we are constantly being asked is: when can we expect our rivers to run clear and pure? Is it 2040, 2050 or 2030? When can we expect this?
Lord Benyon (Con)
We have set out dates by which we will expect to see different levels of improvement. We are requiring water companies to spend £56 billion, and most of that is being front-loaded. The date of 2030 is the first by which my noble friend will be able to see how successful we have been at that front-loading. On rivers such as the Wye, it is not just the water companies but farming that is the problem—a particular type of farming. We have had this debate many times, and action is being taken through the Environment Agency and grants that we are now offering through our environmental land management schemes to correct some of the issues that have gone wrong. We also need to look at planning, which has been part of the problem.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
My Lords, the Minister has previously said that the Government are looking at a proposal from the Environment Agency that directors of water companies that fail to improve and continue to pollute our watercourses should face a prison sentence. Can he update us on what progress is being made?
Lord Benyon (Con)
These are issues that require us to work across government, such as sentencing, but where a crime has been committed and it can be proved that an individual in a senior position in a company has directed that company to operate in an illegal manner, that is a criminal act and therefore sanctions should reflect that.
Baroness Parminter (LD)
My Lords, the Government have said that they will use the evidence of enforcement and litigation in determining whether they will use this new power on dividends for companies, but that requires evidence. As the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, said, it has recently been shown that of the storm overflow monitors that the water companies put in, one in six—2,300—are not working. Why are the Government not fining these water companies immediately if their storm overflow monitoring devices are not working, because otherwise no one can get the evidence and Ofwat cannot make these decisions?
Lord Benyon (Con)
The Environment Agency has a suite of enforcement actions it can take in those circumstances, including criminal prosecution. Last year it reported 30 monitors that were not recording data properly. Faulty or inactive monitors are identified by the agency through its data monitoring, and where water companies are failing to meet expected levels of monitoring coverage, the agency is holding them to account by requesting plans and monthly updates on progress. Some 15,000 storm outflows exist in this country; we now know where they are and we can monitor them.
Brain Tumours
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
To ask His Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to improve the scale of research into the causes and treatment of brain tumours.
Lord Evans of Rainow (Con)
My Lords, I am hugely grateful to the noble Lord for bringing this challenge to my attention and pay tribute to the work that he does on the APPG. We are working closely with research partners. I am pleased to say that more research is being funded, as we continue to encourage more researchers to become involved in what remains a challenging scientific area with a relatively small research community. I am confident that the Government’s continued commitment to funding will help us make progress towards effective treatment.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, this is a devastating disease and I welcome the Government’s doubling of the £20 million grant for research to £40 million in memory of my late friend Baroness Jowell. Unfortunately, of that £40 million, I understand that only about £8.8 million has so far been allocated. Can the Minister assure me that that £40 million fund will be ring-fenced purely for brain tumour research? Secondly, will the National Institute for Health and Care Research give proper feedback to researchers who have had their projects rejected so that they can resubmit their applications with more hope of success?
Lord Evans of Rainow (Con)
I thank the noble Lord and pay my tribute to Tessa Jowell. I remember her final speech in the House. It is one of the most moving speeches I have ever heard; I recommend that noble Lords look it up on YouTube if they missed it first time round.
Brain cancer poses major scientific challenges, requiring investment in basic science through to applied and clinical research. Progress is hard won but we are committed to finding solutions. We want to fund high-quality research to benefit patients. In the four years since the 2018 announcement of £40 million of funding, there have been 13 studies funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research, with £10.7 million of funding, compared with just six studies in the preceding four years. We want to fund more, but this shows a positive trend.
The department of NIHR continues to work closely with the Tessa Jowell Brain Cancer Mission to grow capacity for brain cancer research. This means attracting new researchers, developing the community and supporting researchers to submit high-quality research funding proposals. As part of this, the Tessa Jowell Brain Cancer Mission will host a round-table event, with cross-party MPs participating to discuss the future of brain tumour research with leaders in the field. I extend an invitation to the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, to attend this meeting, which will be held on 16 May.
Lord Polak (Con)
My Lords, I have three interests here. One is that my mother is currently suffering from brain cancer in a hospice in Liverpool. Secondly, I was successfully operated on 35 years ago for a brain tumour. Thirdly, I am an officer of the APPG on Brain Tumours; I was honoured to sit on the inquiry that produced the report, Pathway to a Cure: Breaking Down the Barriers.
In the other place, the Minister, Will Quince, said:
“I understand and share the frustrations that only a proportion of the £40 million on brain tumour research has been allocated”.—[Official Report, Commons, 9/3/23; col. 510.]
Can my noble friend confirm that bureaucracy will not get in the way of releasing funds for research, so that individuals and families who are suffering know that every effort is being made to find a cure for the deadly disease of brain cancer?
Lord Evans of Rainow (Con)
I pay tribute to my noble friend and wish his mother well. I was not aware of his fight with brain cancer 35 years ago. We are very lucky to have him in this place—long may it continue.
The NIHR generally does not allocate funding for specific disease areas or ring-fence. The level of research spend in a particular area is decided by factors including scientific potential and the number and scale of successful funding applications. In the four full years since the 2018 announcement of £40 million of funding, a commitment of £10.7 million has been spent on 13 studies, compared with six in the preceding four years. We want to fund more, but this represents a doubling of successful applications. The Government are committed to this but are reliant on good-quality projects being brought forward. I have spoken to my right honourable friend the Minister and more than £40 million will be allocated if the right projects come forward.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)
My Lords, do the Government have any plans for further proton beam therapy treatment centres, in addition to those in Manchester and at UCL, with consistent government and ethics research committee arrangements, so that the small research community can also benefit from cross-border working with the CUBRIC centre at Cardiff University, in which I declare an interest?
Lord Evans of Rainow (Con)
I thank the noble Baroness for her question; she shows her expertise in such matters. The UK departments for cancer research are jointly funding a network of 17 experimental cancer medical centres across the UK, plus a network for children which is dedicated to early-phase research into childhood cancers; we invested a total of £36 million between 2017 and 2022.
Lord Allan of Hallam (LD)
My Lords, can the Minister assure the House that the Government are committed to supporting research into brain tumours affecting children—in particular DIPG, which affects up to 40 children a year and for which, sadly, there is still no effective treatment?
Lord Evans of Rainow (Con)
The Government are committed to trying to solve the problem of childhood cancers. I am not aware of that specific case, but I can assure the noble Lord that, as I said in my previous answer, government research into childhood cancers will continue. However, there is still a lot of work to do; as the noble Lord well knows, this is a complicated and difficult subject to follow. There is a small medical community looking into this complicated disease, but the Government are doing all that they can.
Baroness Sugg (Con)
My Lords, is my noble friend aware of the wonderful charities that are undertaking important research into brain tumours, including the Brain Tumour Charity and Brainstrust? Will he join me in thanking the thousands of runners in yesterday’s London marathon who raised such amazing amounts for charities such as these? I believe that my noble friend was one of those runners.
Lord Evans of Rainow (Con)
I thank my noble friend for that question. I was indeed running the London marathon yesterday and took note of all the wonderful cancer charities, including those that my noble friend mentioned, as they were running past me—which is an indication of how slowly I was going. They were going a lot quicker than I was. However, the serious point is that the London marathon is a wonderful British institution that raises millions of pounds for charity, and an awful lot of cancer charities benefit from it.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
My Lords, I congratulate the Minister and others in this House on their efforts yesterday and pay tribute to the tireless work of the Tessa Jowell Foundation. It deserves our support for how it presses home the need for urgent improvements in treatment research and training to combat the rising devastation of brain cancer. However, while survival rates for glioblastoma are shockingly poor, and the numbers are described as an epidemic, this still is not enough for a business case to encourage companies to test new drugs. How will the Government encourage longer-term investment and action to develop new drugs, and will the Minister act to increase the numbers in clinical trials?
Lord Evans of Rainow (Con)
I thank the noble Baroness, who is right to point out that the number of people surviving brain cancer has not moved in recent years. I assure her that the Government are doing all that we can. The money is there. Working with the charitable organisations, we must attract more projects and investigations on this very complicated and difficult disease.
Lord Kakkar (CB)
My Lords, I refer to my registered interests. Is the Minister content that there is sufficient investment in the basic infrastructure to deliver clinical research in the NHS to ensure that novel therapies to treat brain cancers can be evaluated in a timely and efficient fashion, especially within the context of the substantial challenges that the NHS is facing as it deals with clinical backlogs?
Lord Evans of Rainow (Con)
There is already a significant investment in people and facilities for cancer research. The research infrastructure supports brain tumour research studies, mainly in the NHS. This infrastructure is instrumental in the delivery of research funded by the NIHR, charities and others, so it is important in supporting and building the research community. However, resources are significant, and it is difficult to disaggregate brain tumour spending and add to the £10.7 million that we have already allocated.
Baroness Blackwood of North Oxford (Con)
My Lords, it is very impressive to see the Minister at the Dispatch Box after his efforts in the marathon.
All of us all in this House want to see progress in responding to this hard-to-treat cancer. However, the Minister’s answers on this topic are not that dissimilar to those that I would have had to give when I was responding back in 2019. Can he go back to the Question from the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, go back to the department and challenge civil servants on whether they are giving the right feedback to researchers on how they can improve their research proposals so that we can start taking research forward and get the solutions for cancer patients who really deserve progress on that research?
Lord Evans of Rainow (Con)
I thank my noble friend, who is absolutely right to point this out. Perhaps we can discuss this further at the round table next month. Prior to these questions, I had a meeting and pressed the government department officials on this to ensure that the money is there. I am reassured that the money is indeed available if we get a sufficient number of projects that will have a significant impact on curing this terrible disease.
Hate Crime
(1 year ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Gohir
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the incidence of each of the five monitored strands of hate crime in respect of the sex of the (1) victims, and (2) perpetrators; and why annual hate crime data are not routinely disaggregated by sex when published.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Sharpe of Epsom) (Con)
My Lords, police-recorded hate crime data, published annually on GOV.UK by independent Home Office statisticians, are not routinely disaggregated by sex of victim or perpetrator. On 1 April, police forces started to identify and record any crimes of violence against the person, as well as sexual offences, that are deemed to be motivated by hostility towards the victim’s sex.
Baroness Gohir (CB)
I thank the noble Lord for his response. Will historical data be made available on the government website? Looking at the last 10 years of hate crime data, it has increased every single year. Between 2021 and 2022, it increased by 26%. What action are the Government taking to reduce hate crimes for all groups affected?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
On the noble Baroness’s latter point, she is right: in the year ending March 2022, there was a 26% increase compared to the previous year. Although the latest data does indicate that increase, the most recent Crime Survey for England and Wales figures, which were published in 2020, indicate a downward trend in overall hate crime incidents over the past decade. It is felt that the biggest driver for the increase in police-reported crime is likely to be general improvements in the recording of the crime. The police are also better at identifying whether a crime is a hate crime, along with increased victim willingness to come forward. As regards the publication of the data that we are collecting as of 1 April, I cannot say for sure yet. It is for 2023/24. It is voluntary at the moment, but it will be part of the annual data requirement. The Home Office statisticians will make an independent judgment as to whether it is fit for publication or not.
Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab)
My Lords, hate crimes have developed incrementally. First, they were targeted at racially motivated offences, before broadening into the five strands to which the noble Baroness’s Question alludes. So this should remind us that their current state is a snapshot in time. We must always review these things to extend further protections where they are necessary; that is how we got to where we presently are. So surely the routine disaggregation of annual data by sex would enable us to review whether there is a necessity of extended protections offered by hate crime laws to women and girls, in a way that is better informed than it apparently is at present?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
The noble Lord raises a good point. Of course, the Law Commission did look into this—a subject to which I am sure I will return. But the recording for hate crimes in terms of the sex of the perpetrator is actually very complex. The Ministry of Justice holds court criminal data; the sex of perpetrators is published for all crimes prosecuted that are specified in legislation, including hate crime offences such as racially and religiously aggravated assault, as the noble Lord has suggested. But where a sentence uplift is used because there is evidence of a hate element in the offence, it will be recorded under the offence legislation, not the uplift. Therefore, the sex of the perpetrator, while published, is not always linked to hate crime. Consequently, the data is not a complete representation of all hate crime and will not provide an accurate picture of the sex of the perpetrators.
Lord Singh of Wimbledon (CB)
My Lords, would the Minister agree that the whole point of collecting statistics on so-called hate crime is to use them to determine remedial action? But we already know the causes and the action required. So-called hate crime is unacceptable behaviour, not only against the five listed strands, but also against the very tall, the very short, the thin, the fat, people with red hair—anyone seen to be different from a questionable norm. We do not need statistics to lay down norms of acceptable behaviour in schools, the police and wider society.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
I entirely agree with the points that the noble Lord has made. I am not sure that was a question, but I entirely agree.
Lord Hannan of Kingsclere (Con)
My Lords, the hate crimes legislation seems to me to violate one of the general principles of common law, in that it defines crime subjectively: it defines crime as anything perceived to be a crime by the victim or by anyone else. Does my noble friend the Minister believe that the increase in reporting correlates exactly with an increase in actual crime? If it does, then what evidence is there that this legislation has been of value in combating discrimination and prejudice?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My noble friend asks an interesting question. I referred earlier to the Law Commission, which we asked to undertake a wide-ranging review into hate crime legislation. On the specific question, the Law Commission found that adding sex and gender to hate crime legislation could have made it more difficult to prosecute the most serious crimes that harm women and girls, including rape and domestic abuse. It would also treat sex unequally to other characteristics in scope of relevant hate crime laws, such as race or religion. So, while I cannot necessarily specifically answer my noble friend’s point, I would say that it is an incredibly complex area that needs very careful thought.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
My Lords, the Question from the noble Baroness, Lady Gohir, asked why hate crime statistics are not disaggregated by sex. But the question could equally be asked about why the data is not disaggregated by the age of the victim and the perpetrator. I well remember, when I sat on the pre-legislative scrutiny committee for the Domestic Abuse Bill, we had a lot of lobbying about violent acts against older people by younger people. Does the Minister agree that reporting the interaction of these characteristics, both sex and age, would allow resources to be better allocated for the victims and to prevent these types of crimes?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
Again, the noble Lord raises an interesting point. He will be aware that age is not one of the five protected characteristics—as I get older, I am beginning to think that that is a mistake. I cannot answer his question in greater detail than that at the moment but I will certainly take it back to the department.
Baroness Burt of Solihull (LD)
My Lords, we await the Second Reading of the Protection from Sex-based Harassment in Public Bill, a Private Member’s Bill that, if it passes, will create an offence of causing intentional alarm and distress to a person in public because of their sex or presumed sex. Can the Minister tell the House when this Bill will be introduced and whether such an offence will be recorded as a hate crime?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
I am afraid I am not sure when the Bill will be introduced. I am aware that the Government support that Bill, which was introduced by Greg Clark. I do not have the answer as to how the crimes will be recorded, but I will find out.
Lord Dobbs (Con)
My Lords, Saturday was the occasion of Stephen Lawrence Day. I pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Lawrence, who is in her place, for all the dedicated work she has done to build on the memory of her son. What a pity that it should have coincided with the outbursts of Diane Abbott, which left me cold in our modern world. We have hate legislation. Does my noble friend really think that that legislation is effective? Is it really reducing the amount of hate in society, or is it encouraging us to concentrate on the wicked things that are going on rather than allowing us the opportunity to celebrate and build on all the many good things that are going on in terms of race relations in this country, of which the Stephen Lawrence Day Foundation is one?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
I associate myself with my noble friend’s remarks about the noble Baroness, Lady Lawrence, and the work she has done in that area. As regards whether hate crime legislation increases, improves or takes away from the current situation, there are plenty of reasons why hate is present in society—you can start with Twitter and move on. I am not sure that the legislation makes an enormous difference to that, but it is something that will remain front and centre of public debate for many years.
Special Educational Needs: Employment Support
(1 year ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Addington
To ask His Majesty’s Government what plans they have to ensure that anyone identified as having a Special Educational Need in the education system is passported through to the appropriate support when looking for employment in adult life.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, in begging leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper, I remind the House of my declared interests in the register.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Education (Baroness Barran) (Con)
My Lords, we recently set out plans in the SEND and alternative provision improvement plan to ensure that every young person with special educational needs and disabilities achieves good outcomes and is prepared for adulthood. As part of this, we are developing good practice guidance to support consistent, timely, high-quality transitions for young people with SEND, including into employment. We are also supporting the Department for Work and Pensions to pilot an adjustments passport, which will to help smooth that transition.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for that response; I appreciate that she is primarily answering for a department that is not her own. At the moment, if you talk to anybody in employment going through this, they will give you a list of things that do not happen: people do not know what an adjustment is or how to find out what it is, and employers do not know exactly what they are supposed to do. Can we have a guide to what will happen when somebody goes into employment and, for instance, goes for Access to Work, where they are not required to get the job first, apply and then require the employer to ensure they are prepared to sustain them, without being at full capacity for a period of time before they get the benefit of it? Unless people can get some form of passporting or labelling system that says that they are entitled to it as they go to work, they are going to be in trouble.
Baroness Barran (Con)
The Department for Education is piloting the use of the adjustment passports in a number of settings. We started with higher education, and we are now looking at supported internships and apprenticeships. We need to understand how useful they are in that setting, and then we will look at whether they will apply more widely in future.
Lord Touhig (Lab)
My Lords, I declare my interest as vice-president of the National Autistic Society. Just 29% of autistic people are in paid work, and a recent IPPR report revealed that nearly one-third of unemployed 18 to 29 year-olds are autistic. The Government have a £151 million Access to Work budget intended to encourage employers to engage people with a disability. Can some of that funding be used to expand schemes such as supported employment and supported internships, which will directly benefit autistic people seeking work?
Baroness Barran (Con)
First, I thank the noble Lord for his work in this area. On Access to Work, as the noble Lord knows, this is a demand-led and discretionary grant for disabled people. My understanding is that in some cases, autism is defined as a disability and in others not, so there may be eligibility criteria. On the noble Lord’s wider point, he will be aware that Robert Buckland is leading a review of employment for people with autism, trying to understand the barriers and to raise the figure from the 29% to which the noble Lord referred.
Baroness Bull (CB)
My Lords, work experience is an important window on the world of work for all young people, but the figures we heard from the noble Lord opposite suggest that it is particularly important for young people with learning disabilities and autism in raising their expectations of and aspirations in the workplace. Are the Government confident that students with learning disabilities have the same work experience opportunities as their peers? What steps are they taking to encourage employers to make the necessary adjustments to provide placements for young people with learning disabilities and autism?
Baroness Barran (Con)
The noble Baroness makes an important point. The guidance on the support for young people with disabilities in relation to the Gatsby benchmarks, and on the support the National Careers Service offers, tries to address some of the issues she raises. However, without question, if we look at the evidence on employment rates for young people with disabilities, there is more to be done.
Lord Sterling of Plaistow (Con)
We have been discussing for many years the ways in which we can improve employment for youngsters on the spectrum. My grandson is on it, and I therefore spend a lot of my life trying to find some answers. As I have said before, every headmaster at every school throughout the country should have been trained in SEND and in identifying the problems of autism, as indeed should everybody in education. The SEND aspect is hugely important. I have had the pleasure of discussing this issue with my noble friend the Minister, who has her own very warm feelings on it and knows that something needs to be done. The key is educational psychologists. In my view, identifying at a very early age that somebody is autistic, establishing the possibility of sending them to a normal school, and in due course giving them the training to get a job, are key. I have discussed this with the Minister and I look forward to her response.
Baroness Barran (Con)
I know my noble friend feels very strongly about this, and I hope he welcomes the Government’s commitment to introducing a new national professional qualification for SENDCOs that will replace the existing qualification, and the commitment to increasing the number of educational psychologists in our schools, which we have already started to deliver on.
Baroness Wilcox of Newport (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her answers to date, but I would like to probe a little further. Last month, in the SEND and AP improvement plan, the Government committed to publish guidance to support
“effective transitions between all stages of education, and into employment in adult services”.
Given that the Secretary of State acknowledged that parents have lost trust in the system, is the Minister able to give parents a timeline for when they might get this important guidance?
Baroness Barran (Con)
The first guidance we will deliver will be on early language support, autism and mental health and well-being. Those practice guides will be available by the end of 2025. I do not have the date for the transitions guidance but I will be happy to write to the noble Baroness with that.
Lord Storey (LD)
My Lords, I appreciate that this is not the Minister’s department, but she will be aware that jobcentres have work coaches who provide support, particularly to young people. In my view, those work coaches have very limited training and provide very limited time. Can she assure us—or go back to her colleague’s department and then assure us—that young people with special educational needs get quality time and that the staff giving that support and time are properly trained?
Baroness Barran (Con)
Everybody who meets with a work coach should expect to get quality time, and my understanding is that the vast majority of individuals do. Of course, this is important for young people with SEND. DWP has a huge amount of experience in dealing with long-term health conditions and disabilities. Secondly, part of the work we are doing together with the DWP is to understand and knit together where education meets employment, to make sure that we get the best outcomes for young people.
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)
My Lords, my granddaughter, aged six, was identified with quite severe dyslexia. She went to the Eleanor Palmer School, where the headmistress said that no one in the school knew how to deal with it, so she sent two of the staff to be trained. My granddaughter did brilliantly at primary school and ended up at Edinburgh University with a good degree. So support really needs to start at primary school to ensure success in education.
Baroness Barran (Con)
I can reassure the noble and learned Baroness that it does start at primary school. The work we are doing to help teachers identify dyslexia early on—in particular, the early phonics screening test—allows us to do just that. Through our English hubs, we are helping primary schools and their teachers to support children like the noble and learned Baroness’s granddaughter.
Lord McCrea of Magherafelt and Cookstown (DUP)
What assurance can the Minister give that those with special educational needs will be guaranteed the same opportunity for lifelong learning as others within society?
Baroness Barran (Con)
Our aspiration is to make sure that all those who wish to access lifelong learning, including those with special educational needs, can do so. Obviously, we are in the early stages—we have not started to implement the policy in detail—but it will be a key focus for us.
Licensing Act 2003 (Coronation Licensing Hours) Order 2023
(1 year ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Sharpe of Epsom
That the draft Order laid before the House on 6 March be approved. Considered in Grand Committee on 19 April.
Microchipping of Cats and Dogs (England) Regulations 2023
(1 year ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Benyon
That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 13 March be approved.
Relevant document: 35th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. Considered in Grand Committee on 19 April.
Amendments of the Law (Resolution of Silicon Valley Bank UK Limited) Order 2023
(1 year ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Penn
That the Order laid before the House on 13 March be approved.
Relevant document: 35th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. Considered in Grand Committee on 19 April.
Shark Fins Bill
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, I understand that no amendments have been set down to this Bill and that no noble Lord has indicated a wish to move a manuscript amendment or to speak in Committee. Unless, therefore, any noble Lord objects, I beg to move that the Order of Commitment be discharged.
Energy Bill [HL]
Monday 24th April 2023
(1 year ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Energy Act 2023 View all Energy Act 2023 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 86-II Second marshalled list for Report - (13 Apr 2023)
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord True) (Con)
My Lords, I have it in command from His Majesty the King and His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales to acquaint the House that they, having been informed of the purport of the Energy Bill, have consented to place their interests, so far as they are affected by the Bill, at the disposal of Parliament for the purposes of the Bill.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (Lord Callanan) (Con)
My Lords, I will update the House on the legislative consent Motion process for the Energy Bill. The UK Government are seeking legislative consent Motions from the devolved legislatures for the Bill, in line with the Sewel convention. My officials are working with devolved government officials and will continue to do so throughout the Bill’s passage.
The Scottish Government have requested amendments to the Bill and are currently withholding support for legislative consent. We will of course continue to work with them regarding their concerns. The Welsh Government have not yet laid a legislative consent memorandum. It is not possible at present to obtain a legislative consent Motion from the Northern Ireland Assembly, but the UK Government are engaging with officials in the Northern Ireland Civil Service. The UK Government welcome the interest that the devolved Governments have shown in the Energy Bill and will continue to work closely with them on proposed changes in order to progress legislative consent Motions for the Bill.
Lord Lennie (Lab)
My Lords, this huge Bill leaves the House in far better shape than when it arrived. A combination of Labour, the Liberal Democrats, other parties, individuals and, most importantly, Cross-Benchers have secured measures that should see ISOP’s independence assured, community energy export markets develop, warmer homes and an efficiency plan to achieve that, the Gas and Electricity Markets Authority strengthened, and the ceasing of any further coal mining in this country—thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Teverson. It is to be hoped that the Government will support these changes in the other place and will not bring this Bill back for ping-pong. The range of supporters across the House should be sufficient to convince the Minister to back the changes to the Bill made by this House.
In the meantime, my thanks go to the Minister—remarkably, he has stayed the course while his Government have changed leadership three times and his Secretary of State twice since we began in September 2022—and his advisers from BEIS, and subsequently DESNZ, who have continually briefed and been available to answer questions and clarify intentions as we wended our way through this tome of a Bill.
My appreciation goes to my noble friend Lady Blake for her continuing support and to the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, on the Liberal Democrat Benches, with whom it has been a pleasure to work on the Bill. My thanks are also due to a number of Back-Benchers and Cross-Benchers, mainly drawn from the Peers for the Planet group, particularly including the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, the noble Baronesses, Lady Hayman, Lady Boycott, Lady Bennett and Lady Worthington—sadly temporarily departed from this House—and my noble friend Lord Whitty. Thanks also go to the House staff and the doorkeepers for arrangements during delays in advancement of the progress of the Bill, which were not of their making, and for keeping the quick-quick-slow dance rhythm to the Energy Bill.
My biggest thanks go to the remarkable Milton Brown in Labour’s legislative team of advisers for always being up to date with the progress of the Bill, for his liaison with the other place and for his political briefings and judgment, which allowed my noble friend Lady Blake and me to keep focused on this Bill over a long period. We wish it well on the next stage of its journey.
Lord Teverson (LD)
My Lords, one of the things that strikes me most about the passage of the Bill through this House is that it is has been the opposition parties saying to the Government, “Get on with it. We actually need this Bill through to give the powers that we need to meet decarbonisation and modernise the energy production system in this country”. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Lennie, that the amendments that have been made by this House are absolutely in line with the Government’s decarbonisation objectives. I hope that the Commons, as well as the Government themselves, will consider them as positive rather than negative.
I will not go through the long list of other Peers named by the noble Lord, Lord Lennie. What I will do is to say a great deal of thanks to Peers for the Planet for its work in the House, to the noble Lord, Lord Lennie, and to the noble Baroness, Lady Blake, whom I have enjoyed working with very much indeed. From our own offices, I thank Sarah Pughe and Sarah Dobson.
We look forward very much to not having to play ping-pong on this Bill. Maybe that is too much to hope for but I thank the Ministers, the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bloomfield, for their co-operation during the passage of the Bill. I also thank their teams. I look forward most of all to the Bill being implemented, so that the country as a whole can move ahead in its aims and objectives.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend on steering such a major Bill through. I am mindful of the fact that it was originally going to be an energy security Bill. I know that I and a number of noble Lords focused on the environmental aspects, particularly the mitigation hierarchy. I welcome the fact that this is to be enshrined in the levelling-up Bill, and look forward to pursuing it further on that Bill with my noble friend on the Front Bench.
I ask my noble friend to be mindful of the fact that the Scandinavian countries, led by Denmark, have raised a flag about Russian vessels masquerading as fisheries vessels. These are, it is assumed, purposefully undertaking spying operations, particularly to look at the underground cables and the major offshore wind farm operations, notably operated by Denmark. I understand that we are to have a major operation where a lot of this work will co-ordinate around the Dogger Bank, so I urge him to be mindful of the security risk associated with such a major area of the North Sea, where we are extremely vulnerable to such operations by Russian and other forces which may not be so conducive to our energy security as we might wish.
Baroness Liddell of Coatdyke (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to everybody who took part on the Bill because I never expected to see carbon capture and storage—I am the honorary president of its association—getting such a good hearing in this House. I put on record my appreciation of the £20 billion that the most recent Budget has decided to expend on carbon capture and storage. We cannot reach the targets on net zero without carbon capture and storage; the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, referred to the Danes, who are making fantastic progress on that in their fields. My last point is that we have the capability to capture 7,000 tonnes of carbon in the North Sea and elsewhere. Only Norway has more capacity than that. There is a great future here and, frankly, I am still pinching myself to accept that this House has got behind the Bill. I thank everyone who took part in it very much.
Baroness Hayman (CB)
My Lords, I feel that I should say something as everyone else has. There will be two things and they are very brief. One is to echo the hope that we will not have to fight battles again at ping-pong on issues which are absolutely mainstream and in line with the Government’s objectives. They are common-sense measures, particularly on insulation and energy efficiency, and on the remit of Ofgem. The other is that, in declaring my interest as chair of Peers for the Planet, and simply because this is an opportunity to thank those who give us support, I also record my thanks to Emma Crane, Kyla Taylor and David Farrar at Peers for the Planet for the work that they did on the Bill.
Lord Callanan (Con)
My Lords, let me add my thanks to all noble Lords who contributed to a very detailed and proper scrutiny of the Bill. We received lots of helpful suggestions—some unhelpful suggestions as well, but that is in the nature of the debate. Everybody engaged positively in the process and has been very thoughtful in their contributions. The Bill leaves this House in good shape.
Let me formally thank the Opposition Members, who have co-operated well. It is fair to say that they had no grief with the fundamental structure and idea of the Bill, but, as is the nature of opposition, wanted to make some improvements and push the Government to go a bit further. The Liberal Democrats—particularly the noble Lord, Lord Teverson—along with the noble Lord, Lord Lennie, and the noble Baroness, Lady Blake, have engaged really positively in the process and have been constructive. I thank them.
Let me also thank the many Back-Benchers who took part, including the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, the noble Baroness, Lady Worthington—who has sadly departed these shores for somewhere sunnier and nicer—and the noble Baronesses, Lady Hayman and Lady Liddell. I assure the noble Baroness, Lady Liddell, that I share her passion for CCUS. She will have seen in the announcement just before the Easter Recess that the Government are moving on with the track 1 negotiations. I am sure she will welcome that. Many across the House have contributed very much to the Bill and I am extremely grateful for all their contributions.
She is sadly not with us today, but let me also thank my Whip, my noble friend Lady Bloomfield, who has kept us all to order and taken a number of groups through herself. We are all immensely grateful that none of us managed to fall asleep during the proceedings and were therefore spared some of her acerbic interventions in such circumstances.
The Bill comes at a critical time for our country. Record high gas prices, Russia’s illegal invasion of Ukraine and the challenge of climate change all highlight why we need to work to boost Britain’s energy independence and security through the development of low-carbon technologies. Secure, clean, affordable energy for the long term depends on a transformation of our energy system.
That, fundamentally, is why we brought forward the Bill—the most extensive piece of primary legislation in a decade. The Bill delivers on our key commitments from the British energy security strategy, the Powering Up Britain paper, which brings together the energy security plan, the net-zero growth plan and the net-zero strategy. All have come together in this legislation. The Bill will help to drive an unprecedented £100 billion of private sector investment by 2030 into new British industries and support around 480,000 jobs by the end of the decade.
I must also thank the House of Lords Public Bill Office, the House clerks, and the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel—Richard Spitz, Lucy Baines and Ben Zurawel—for their extremely hard work drafting the Bill. It is a very long piece of legislation.
My thanks also go to all the policy, analytical and legal officials in the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and the Department for Transport, for their expert advice and resilience.
I also thank my Private Secretary, Angus Robson, the senior responsible officer for the Bill, Jeremy Allen, and the expert Bill Team: Jessica Lee, Safia Miyanji, Nicholas Vail, Salisa Kaur, Amanda Marsh, Abi Gambel, James Banfield, Matthew Pugh, Laura Jackson, Anthony Egan and Phaedra Hartley. They are extremely talented public servants. They worked long, hard and tirelessly on this important legislation and we owe them all our thanks.
Let me also thank the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero’s departmental lawyers, in particular the lead lawyers Mike Ostheimer and Martin Charnley for keeping me legally correct. It is a tough job; somebody has to try and do it. They do it nicely, well and tirelessly. That is the end of the debate so far in this House. It is my extreme pleasure to hand it to my ministerial colleague Andrew Bowie, who will commence the debate in the House of Commons.
Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill
Monday 24th April 2023
(1 year ago)
Lords ChamberRead 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: HL Bill 84-XI(a) Amendments for Committee (Supplementary to the Eleventh Marshalled List) - (24 Apr 2023)
Lord Best (CB)
I think it falls to me to intervene at this point. I will speak to Amendment 269, which concerns the development of larger housing sites. I reiterate declarations of interest: I am vice-president of the Town and Country Planning Association and of the Local Government Association. I thank the CPRE, whose excellent legal advisers devised this amendment. I am delighted to see the good work being done by the CPRE in partnership with Shelter, the TCPA and others, to improve decisions on what and where new development takes place.
Amendment 269 seems a fairly innocuous and technical one, but actually it fundamentally changes the dynamics of new development on larger sites. It seeks to bring into play some of the recommendations from the 2018 review of housebuilding practices by Sir Oliver Letwin, who was working on behalf of the Government. The amendment addresses issues of diversification of housing and infrastructure on larger sites, as advocated by Sir Oliver. Diversification of providers and provision would replace the housebuilders’ model of one developer cramming in the maximum number of homes of the same house type for the same house buyers and selling them at the very slow but profitable buildout speed that the market will absorb. Instead, larger sites, said Sir Oliver, should be subject to a diversity of housing provision, where a number of different developers, including SME builders, housing associations, self-builders and so on, would build a variety of different sorts of housing for families for rent and for sale, perhaps student housing and certainly accommodation for older people, to which we have made reference under other amendments, with green spaces and infrastructure, as well as transport links for walking and cycling and public transport, not just private cars.
Those other providers would work together at the same time, building out the total development at a much faster rate than with single ownership by one volume housebuilder. That approach would diminish the dominance of the oligopoly of volume housebuilders, which have failed to deliver what society needs. Instead, the variety of developers and housing providers would work simultaneously in meeting the needs of the locality. The detail of the diversity of types and tenures of the new housing, including social housing, would be enshrined in the local plan—now the local development plan.
Sir Oliver saw much merit in local development corporations, at arm’s length but wholly owned by the local authority or combined authority. They could acquire sites and parcel them out within a master plan. In cases where the development corporation is unable to reach agreement with the landowner on the site’s value, compulsory purchase may be the only way forward. If so, the terms for the CPO would be set by the same requirements to meet the obligations laid out in the local development plan and national policies. The value of the site is thereby moderated by the necessity of complying with local and national mandates.
Where no development corporation is involved, and, indeed, whether or not a CPO is needed, a similar outcome could be achieved if this diversification and specificity was required for planning permission to be granted for any development of a site of more than 500 homes. In these cases, the value of the land would always be deeply affected by the insistence, built into the system by this amendment, that the local plan and national policies must be adhered to.
This amendment is one of a pair with my Amendment 312A, which we debated earlier in Committee. Both amendments seek to capture land value and enable a real shift in the social benefits that can flow from development of new housing in the UK. Amendment 312A was concerned with land in public ownership, seeking to ensure that it was made available for optimal economic, social and environmental use rather than being sold off to the highest bidder. This amendment is concerned with land in private ownership; again, to enable its development to serve the public good, not simply to achieve the maximum profit for the developer. The amendment will also secure in law clarity on the long-standing arguments around “viability”. It would make it clear that compliance with the requirements of the local plan and national duties is an essential part of the basis for valuing the land. Developers would no longer be able to claim that they are unable to meet the local authority’s demands for affordable housing or other amenities simply because of the price they paid for the site.
In fact, the courts have already made it clear that this argument must prevail. The now famous Parkhurst Road planning case concerning a site in Islington shed light on the legal position last August. The developer argued that because of the price it had to pay for the site, it could not afford to provide the affordable housing sought by the council, but the judge, the honourable Mr Justice Holgate, ruled that this excuse could not stand. Indeed, he took the RICS to task for not providing clearer guidance on such matters.
This amendment is intended to radically improve the development of all larger sites. It seeks to take back control from the housebuilders and developers which propose and build developments that do not make optimal use of land. The amendment would mean that all new developments would at last have to meet the policy objectives contained in local and neighbourhood—if they exist—plans, specifying the social affordable housing requirements and the mix of types and sizes of accommodation, and taking account of national policies. Land values would have to reflect these realities.
I realise that, as with my amendment on publicly owned land, the approach of this amendment is dependent on local authorities having and finalising local plans, but when they do this, when they have those plans, this makes them much more meaningful. The Minister may feel unable to accept my amendments, but perhaps consideration of this way forward, the follow-through of the admirable work of Sir Oliver Letwin, could start us down a path that achieves the same desirable outcome. I commend the amendment.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Stevenage, and the noble Lord, Lord Best, for raising these important points about buildout.
I will address the noble Baroness’s amendment first. Too many developers choose to land bank having achieved planning permission on a particular site. We know from Local Government Association data that there are more than 1 million housing units with existing planning consent that have not been built. The question we need to ask is: why, when as a country we are desperate for new houses, are we failing to take action to ensure that sites are developed promptly? Is the Minister able to provide any explanation for the long delays in developing sites? Will the Government provide proposals to prevent such delays?
I think we are all keen to have more housing units built, so we should focus on any delays in the system and try to improve buildout. From local experience I am aware of some of the reasons for delay. Where there are several sites with planning consent in the same locality, developers choose to delay construction in order not to have too many units on the market at the same time. That is an understandable commercial decision, but it delays the building of units of housing, which we desperately need. Developers also, understandably, want to create a steady flow of sites to develop as part of their business plans. These extend into several years, so it is not surprising that there is a slow output of new homes. What actions do the Government intend to take to address this issue?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Levelling Up, Housing & Communities (Baroness Scott of Bybrook) (Con)
My Lords, Amendment 261 tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Stevenage, proposes two fundamental changes to Clause 104, which modernises the procedure for serving completion notices in England. While I appreciate the intention, I remind your Lordships that completion notices—when served by a local authority or the Secretary of State—must provide the recipient with an opportunity to complete development. It is a “use it or lose it” power. Removing this opportunity for the developer to use the permission, as this amendment does, raises the prospect that compensation from the loss of the permission will be necessary as it is a revocation of a planning permission. I believe this would make completion notices less appealing to local planning authorities.
The second proposed effect of the amendment relates to the removal of finished parts of a development where a site could not be completed in full. Local planning authorities already have the power to require the removal of unfinished developments by order under Section 102 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.
The noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, brought up one or two important issues. In the clauses already in the LURB, we have introduced two further provisions to ensure a better buildout rate of planning permissions in this country. First, the Government will require housing developers to report annually to local authorities on their actual delivery of housing. This will enable them to identify where sites in their area are coming forward too slowly. It will also help to inform whether to sanction a developer for failure to build out their schemes promptly. Secondly, the Government have introduced a new power that will allow local planning authorities to decline to determine planning applications made by developers that failed to build out at a reasonable rate earlier permissions on any land in the authority’s area.
To strengthen the package further, we will publish data on developers of sites over a certain size in cases where they fail to build out according to their commitments. Developers will be required to explain how they propose to increase the diversity of housing tenures to maximise development schemes’ absorption rate, which is the rate at which homes are sold or occupied. The NPPF will highlight that delivery can be a material consideration in planning applications. This could mean that applications with trajectories that propose a slow delivery rate may be refused in certain circumstances. We will also consult on proposals to introduce a financial penalty against developers that are developing out too slowly.
I disagree with the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, on houses that are not what a particular local authority wants. I believe that is up to the local authority. If the local authority has a local plan saying that it needs specific types of housing in the area, it needs to make sure that the planning applications that go through will have that in them. Local authorities know their area best, so it is up to them to make sure that their local plan is up to date and reflects what is required.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
I thank the Minister for the information she has provided about sanctions and so on. I wait to see how firm those sanctions are. On the issue of local planning authorities having the power, basically, to dictate to a commercial enterprise what is developed on a site that the commercial enterprise owns, I would love to hear what powers the LPA will have in that regard.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
The whole system is designed, after the LUR Bill, to be plan led. Therefore, planning applications should be in accordance with, first, national policies and, as importantly, local policies. If local policies say that you need, for example, houses for older people or disabled people, one should be agreeing only those planning applications that have those types of tenure within the developments that are coming forward through planning. If the system is plan led, I would have thought that the inspector should stick to the locally produced plan. On that basis, I hope this reassures the noble Baroness opposite that Amendment 261 is not necessary.
Amendment 269, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Best, seeks to ensure that the development of large housing sites—defined as sites of 500 or more dwellings or more than five hectares in size where the predominant use will be housing, or designated as a large housing site within a development plan—is diversified in such a way that it provides a mix of new housing that reflects local needs, including social housing, in line with a local authority’s local plan requirements and national development management policies. While we agree with the sentiment of this amendment, we believe that there are better ways of achieving its objectives. The Government are of the view that diversification is best achieved by making this a stronger material planning consideration in the assessment of any housing application, and by requiring a buildout and diversification statement in all prescribed applications. We believe that this is best achieved via a new national development management policy, as that can be applied more flexibly compared to legislation and therefore address the different planning circumstances and housing needs that occur across the country, and that such a measure should not necessarily be limited to larger housing sites.
That is why the Government announced in December 2022—as part of the consultation Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill: Reforms to National Planning Policy—that developers will be required to explain how they propose to increase the diversity of housing tenures to maximise a development scheme’s absorption rate, which is the rate at which homes are sold or occupied. We invited views on the design of this policy, which will help to inform our thinking as part of our fuller review of national planning policy later this year. In these circumstances, while I very much agree with the objective of this amendment, there is a better way to achieve it via national planning policy, and I believe that it should be applied to a greater range of housing sites. This will ensure faster buildout rates and the diversification of those housing sites.
Government Amendment 261A will amend Clause 105 to strengthen the existing powers and hold developers more to account for unreasonably slow delivery or non-implementation of planning permissions. Currently, Clause 105 gives local planning authorities the power to decline to determine planning applications made by a person connected to an earlier planning permission on that same land which was not begun or has been carried out at an unreasonably slow rate. This amendment will enable authorities to exercise the power where an applicant is connected to an earlier permission on any land in their area which has not begun or has been built out unreasonably slowly. This change will send the message to developers that local planning authorities, as well as the communities they serve, expect new residential developments to come forward at a reasonable rate before new planning permissions are considered. This amendment will give greater powers to local areas to tackle cases of slow buildout.
Lord Best (CB)
I am encouraged by the tone with which these issues are being approached. As regards the placing of penalties upon those who are not getting on with the job by refusing future applications from that firm, I can see some hazards here, not least if the delay is happening in one area and the applications for further schemes are somewhere completely different. Is this new power of withholding permission for new applications because you have been so slow in building out the ones you already have to be transferred from one local authority to another, or is it confined to a local authority acting only with regard to interests within its own boundaries?
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
I believe it is in one local authority, but I will check that. I will let the noble Lord know and make sure that everybody else in the Committee is aware.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I am grateful to noble Lords who have taken part in the debate and to the Minister for yet another thorough and thoughtful answer in response to the amendments.
When I moved my amendment last week, I said that I was pleased to see that the government amendment seemed to be complementary to my amendment, and therefore it was good to hear that some new steps are coming forward as regards placing some more requirements on developers in this respect. The Minister outlined some of those, such as publishing data on developers and diversity, the proposal on slow delivery and how it results in turn-downs, and financial penalties that we would be able to impose from local government, and so on. However, it would be good to see the details of those and how they are going to be incorporated. I assume they may go into the National Planning Policy Framework, but again, to echo the point we made several times, so far we have not seen that.
I remind noble Lords that the Local Government Association has said that it did not believe that “tangible powers” had been brought forward in the Bill to enable councillors to encourage developers to build out. I hear what the Minister said about secondary applications from those builders, but local authorities need powers to deal with current applications, where the buildout is slow too, so I hope some more thought might be given to that. The noble Lord, Lord Best, referred to the fact that builders may operate across different areas, which is a good point. However, if we take action on developers in the first instance, perhaps they will be encouraged not to go and apply elsewhere if they think that there will be action and that financial penalties will be imposed where they are too slow to build out.
I reiterate our strong support for Amendment 269 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Best. On the issue of diversification in larger developments, I take the Minister’s point that that might also apply to other developments in terms of making sure they include all types of accommodation. We have had long debates in your Lordships’ House around supported accommodation, but it can also apply to student accommodation—I have a particular passion for social housing. That is important. I also wanted to make the point that those types of accommodation being requirements, whether it is through the local planning authority or as part of the National Planning Policy Framework, would also help encourage the development of specialist builders and help us to get a wider picture across the country with specialist builders who have great experience in developing for those particular areas.
The noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, spoke about the viability issue, which I am sure has and will be the subject of discussions. On the Islington example she gave, those questions have arisen across the country. It is important we continue to debate that as part of the Bill, because I believe it is an opportunity to try to crack some of these issues around viability that we have been trying to wrestle with.
The noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, gave examples of the huge failure to build out, which means that 2.8 million permissions have been granted since 2011 but only 1.6 million homes have been built. We desperately need those homes, so we need to do whatever we can to push that forward and end the delays in the system—from land banking but also from other issues.
I come back to the issue of diversification of property. If we are not going to have a proper diversification strategy built in, we need a proper definition of affordable housing, because the current definition just does not work; that has been a theme throughout discussion of the Bill. As the noble Lord, Lord Best, said, the affordable housing definition does not work for lots of people in our communities, as we have discussed many times in this House. For the moment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment enables a local planning authority to refuse to determine an application for planning permission in certain cases where there was a previous application relating to land within the authority’s area and the development was not begun or has been carried out unreasonably slowly. The current power in the Bill would only be available if the previous application related to all or part of the same land.
““Agent of Change”: integration of new development with existing businesses and facilities(1) In this section—“agent of change principle” means the principle requiring planning policies and decisions to ensure that new development can be integrated effectively with existing businesses and community facilities so that those businesses and facilities do not have unreasonable restrictions placed on them as a result of developments permitted after they were established;“development” has the same meaning as in section 55 of TCPA 1990 (meaning of “development” and “new development”);“licensing functions” has the same meaning as in section 4(1) of the Licensing Act 2003 (general duties of licensing authorities);“provision of regulated entertainment” has the same meaning as in Schedule 1 to the Licensing Act 2003 (provision of regulated entertainment);“relevant authority” means a relevant planning authority within the meaning of section 84 of this Act, or a licensing authority within the meaning of section 3 of the Licensing Act 2003 (licensing authorities).(2) In exercising any functions under TCPA 1990 or any licensing functions concerning development which is or is likely to be affected by an existing business or facility, a relevant authority shall have special regard to the agent of change principle.(3) An application for development within the vicinity of any premises licensed for the provision of regulated entertainment shall contain, in addition to any relevant requirements of the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2015 (S.I. 2015/595), a noise impact assessment. (4) In determining whether noise emitted by or from an existing business or community facility constitutes a nuisance to a residential development, the decision-maker shall have regard to—(a) the chronology of the introduction of the relevant noise source and the residential development, and(b) what steps have been taken by the developer to mitigate the entry of noise from the existing business or facility to the residential development.”
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I am delighted to speak to Amendment 266, in my name and those of the noble Baroness, Lady Henig, and the noble Lord, Lord Foster of Bath, and I am extremely grateful to them both for co-signing. The genesis of this amendment, on the “agent of change” principle, came from the post-legislative scrutiny of the Select Committee on the Licensing Act 2003, which I had the honour to chair, and on which I served with the noble Lords in question and the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe, who I am delighted to see in his place this afternoon. We did a great deal of work, assisted by our then clerk, Michael Collon, and our specialist adviser, Sarah Clover, and I thank them for their help in drafting the amendment before us today. Latterly, we were delighted to work with Hannah Murdoch in the follow-up to that committee.
Like so many policies, planning is about trying to achieve a balance between alternative and potentially conflicting uses, and this lies at the heart of what we are trying to achieve in the amendment before us. Modern planning policies, both local and national, encourage the regeneration of urban centres and the reuse of brownfield sites, formerly known as previously developed land. This preserves our greenfield countryside sites, which include the green belt and are a diminishing resource.
Urban centres already contain industrial, business and cultural land uses, including the night-time economy. Many of these uses are noise generators or sources of noise. Many have been in situ for a long time and are not contained in buildings that are suitable for mitigating their sound output. The law of nuisance does not protect those pre-existing businesses from incoming noise-sensitive, typically residential development. It does not matter how long those original businesses have been there; on the contrary, the law of nuisance tends to curtail and limit the noise-generating land use—for example, in noisy businesses such as pubs and music venues—and protect the new occupants who have chosen to come and live nearby. The same is true for any type of nuisance, including overlooking, light and odour.
This modern change in the way we develop our urban spaces—for example, converting office space into residential units under committed development and such—represents a significant shift away from the assumptions of the regulatory regimes, including planning, licensing and environmental protection law. Those are based on noisy businesses being located in urban areas and residential areas being located in quiet suburban spaces, with residents commuting between them, but that is no longer suitable as we seek to limit unnecessary travel to preserve air quality, protect the climate and more. Indeed, that is why we sought to draw the planning and licensing regimes together and encourage them to work more closely—a fundamental recommendation of our original inquiry and follow-up report. Our current regulatory regimes do not adequately protect existing businesses and the night-time economy.
Those of us who served on the committee that looked at the Licensing Act 2003 are extremely mindful of the highly difficult circumstances experienced by the night-time economy and the hospitality sector during the Covid pandemic and, more recently, through the cost of living constraints and—if I may say so—the disruption caused by rail strikes.
The agent of change principle is designed to provide the protection we are seeking. The amendment clearly states that it is
“the principle requiring planning policies and decisions to ensure that new development can be integrated effectively with existing businesses and community facilities so that those businesses and facilities do not have unreasonable restrictions placed on them as a result of developments permitted after they were established”.
So far, the agent of change principle is represented only in policy. It appears in paragraph 187 of the National Planning Policy Framework and in paragraph 14.66 of the Secretary of State’s Section 182 licensing guidance in virtually identical terms, with the same definition of “agent of change” given there as in the proposed new Clause, which I have just rehearsed. In my view, we need to put those protections in primary legislation, and this Bill provides a useful opportunity to do so.
Policy protection in itself is not enough. Planning and licensing policies compete with each other in a balancing act, as I referred to earlier. The decision-maker on each occasion must place weight on the competing policies on a case-by-case basis. Some policies, such as the need for new housing, may be deemed to outweigh the need to protect existing businesses. It is an important part of the planning and licensing regulatory regimes to place restrictions on developers and land users by way of conditions and obligations that they would not otherwise voluntarily adopt. Developers, perhaps not unreasonably, seek to maximise profit. Enhanced mitigation in the new development to protect local businesses from having unreasonable restrictions placed on them will cost the developer more.
It is precisely for that reason that it is for the regulatory regimes to impose that where necessary. The imposition of appropriate conditions and obligations must come from primary legislation. The strength of policy guidance is not enough. By way of example, primary legislation provides appropriate levels of protections for our heritage assets—listed buildings and national monuments, among others. Developers and decision-makers have statutory duties set out in primary legislation to protect heritage assets in any development decision. The same level of statutory protection is now required for existing businesses, particularly hospitality and cultural venues, that are placed under increasing pressure from the intensification of residential use of urban centres.
Baroness Henig (Lab)
I am extremely pleased to support the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, who introduced this amendment in, if I may say so, an extremely detailed speech, which means that I can be somewhat briefer. I think noble Lords will be pleased about that, because I have a dreadful cough which might manifest itself in the next five minutes. I apologise if it interrupts what I want to say.
I was a member of the committee that was so ably chaired by the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, to carry out the post-legislative scrutiny of the Licensing Act 2003. There was an extremely strong team on that committee, quite apart from the chair and the House of Lords back-up team; Sarah Clover was an extremely helpful special adviser. I am grateful to Sarah for sharing with me her vast legal expertise on this topic, and for guiding me through the more arcane elements of this particular legal element.
The agent of change principle was one of the issues that came up during our proceedings. The Government professed themselves to be sympathetic to the problems being faced by the night-time economy. Indeed, their response to our recommendation that the agent of change principle should be adopted in both planning and licensing guidance was that they were consulting to see whether the agent of change principle should be emphasised by changes to the National Planning Policy Framework. That was in 2017; perhaps the Minister could tell me what the outcome of that consultation was, since the trail seems to have gone a little cold and I have not heard whether there has been any follow-up. I would be most grateful if perhaps the Minister could bring us up to date on that particular matter.
Now, of course, since 2017, the landscape has changed considerably for the worse as far as the night-time economy is concerned, as the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, quite rightly pointed out. It was decimated by Covid and is only just recovering from the impact. Along with the rest of the economy, the night-time economy faces critical staff shortages and considerable inflationary increases. Frankly, it needs all the help it can get. It needs the Government not to just pay lip service to helping the economy in these difficult times but to actually do something to assist.
This is one obvious way that the Government can help. Here is the Government’s opportunity to enshrine in primary legislation the agent of change principle, so that the interests of the night-time economy, local residents, and possible new local developments are all taken into account equably in planning decisions. It seems to me that that is a very important principle. Furthermore, it seems to me absolutely right, and very important, that this happens right at the outset of new developments, so that all interests at local level can be fully taken into account, difficulties can be pinpointed and ways to mitigate these difficulties can be identified early on.
Really, this is a very straightforward amendment to try to assist in the current process, and to improve it. Therefore, I commend it to the Minister as one which could bring great benefits up and down the country at, as far as I can see, hardly any cost. I very much hope it will be taken on board by the Government.
I will just add that the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, and I have some form in putting forward amendments which are then taken on by the Government and presented subsequently as government amendments. I am therefore extremely hopeful that this might happen in relation to this very constructive and helpful amendment, and I commend it to the Minister.
Lord Foster of Bath (LD)
My Lords, I too served on your Lordships’ Select Committee on licensing in 2017, and on the subsequent follow-up committee. I join with the noble Baroness, Lady Henig, in heaping praise on the absolutely able chairmanship of the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering. As we have heard, both committees concluded that it was important to incorporate the agent of change principle in planning policy and guidance.
In case anybody is in any doubt what this means, the agent of change principle ensures that a new development must shoulder responsibility for compliance when situated near, for example, an existing music venue. Similarly, if a music venue opens in an existing residential area, it would be responsible for complying with residential requirements to minimise nuisance. For example, based on this principle, an apartment block built near an established music venue would have to pay for soundproofing, while a live music venue opening in an existing residential area would be responsible for the cost of soundproofing.
The committee was therefore very pleased that the Government agreed that the agent of change principle should be reflected in the National Planning Policy Framework and in Section 182 guidance. That has now happened. However, the follow-up committee heard that the principle as it stands, reflected in those documents, does not sufficiently explain the duties of all parties involved. The committee argued that the principle needs to go further to protect licensed premises and local residents in our changing high streets, and that a lack of consistency between the planning and licensing systems—something that it believed needed to be changed anyway—has led to, for example, live venues not being guaranteed to be protected. I will give two quick examples.
The Night & Day Café is a live music venue in Manchester’s Northern Quarter. It opened in 1991 and is the venue that launched the careers of, for example, Elbow and Arctic Monkeys. In November 2021, the venue was served with a noise abatement notice from Manchester City Council. This followed ongoing complaints from local residents who had moved into a new development—warehouses converted into flats—during the Covid pandemic when the venue was temporarily closed. The case provoked a huge degree of interest. Some 94,000 people have signed a petition asking for the notice to be withdrawn, with one signatory describing the situation as
“like moving to Leicester Square and complaining about there being too many cinemas”.
Night & Day Café’s appeal over the order has been adjourned until later this year. It has still not been resolved.
The Jago is a venue in Dalston that hosts live music events, screenings and workshops. It is registered as an asset of community value and is very highly regarded in the local area. It has hosted musicians for almost two decades, but since the pandemic many surrounding buildings have been converted into residential properties, which has led to an increase in noise complaints and, in June 2022, it received a noise abatement notice. It too has been the subject of a petition trying to help, with over 2,500 signatures. Again, its problem has not yet been resolved.
The committee recommended that, to resolve issues such as these, the Government should review and strengthen the agent of change principle and consider incorporating it into the current planning reforms in the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill. The Government did not disagree, and themselves pointed to the then upcoming Levelling-Up and Regeneration Bill as a vehicle to address these concerns. This amendment is simply by way of helping the Government achieve what they agreed was needed: greater clarity about what is expected of councils and businesses. In that light, I hope the Minister will see that the amendment is designed to support and help the Government. I hope she too will support it.
Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for moving the amendment and to others who have spoken. I too was a member of the original committee, although not the follow-up committee. It is amazing to look at how life has changed so quickly since the report in 2017 and the subsequent report. Since then we have had the pandemic and a whole new experience of living in a different world entirely, including a different world of work, from what we had in the past.
Leaving aside nightlife, look at what is happening with online trading and with the high street. When one wanders around Oxford Street one sees quite large premises now empty and not being used. The Strand has been transformed completely from what it was like 20 years ago. Companies that had been there for almost a century and a half have disappeared, yet the properties remain empty. What will happen to them? Without any doubt, if they fail to get commercial operatives they will be converted into residential premises in due course.
The Earl of Lytton (CB)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe, raises a matter which concerns me. I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Pickering, on this amendment. I am not, and never have been, a member of the licensing committee, but I am bound to admit that I have enjoyed many of the venues that are facilitated by the licensing process.
My example is a little different, because this is not just a matter of licensing. It concerns the 24/7 use of an urban industrial area not very far from one of London’s major international airports—hence it is 24/7. It is an older industrial estate that had been subject to periodic, sporadic, upgrades of buildings. However, the local authority, in its infinite wisdom, gave consent for a piece of land on the edge of this industrial area, which I think had previously been residential back gardens, to be used for a residential development. This triggered a change of policy within the local authority, such that every time somebody wanted to do anything on the industrial estate—change a roller shutter door, have a better loading canopy or something like that—an hours of work restriction would be imposed, so preventing it being used 24/7. I challenged a local elected member on this, who was unaware of what his council had done and what the implications were.
I accept that that is a different situation from what one might call the shared space of a town centre, but I think it is relevant that we have—sorry to use the awful phrase—joined-up policies in relation to all these things, unless we want situations happening on our high streets such as those to which the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe, referred to. Later on, we will get to what happens with vacant properties in high streets when—when—we get to the group that is currently number 28 on the Marshalled List before your Lordships. My Amendment 426 in that group is on this issue.
One other issue is what we might call the administrative framework aspect of all this. I think of circumstances to do with the way in which local government or contractors organise such things as waste collection from premises in urban centres; refuse collectors can turn up in the small hours of the morning and cause disruption. I wonder whether we are not sometimes making a rod for our own backs by not thinking ahead about how we organise these things. Some are displaced by concepts such as core time servicing and other such matters relating to our town centres. There tend to be rather individual, single-issue decisions, without looking forwards, backwards or sideways.
I offer a word of caution to the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, on the wording “can be integrated” in the amendment. The phrase “can be integrated” does not necessarily mean that a new development will be integrated. I interpret “can” as facilitative, “will” as something more demonstrative. If the administrative rollout is subject to all manner of change going forward, without a statement of principles and constant monitoring of the unfolding process, we may end up with decisions made on a “moment in time” principle rather than having the dynamic under constant review and consideration.
There is obviously a resource implication here but, unless we do this, as the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe, says—given what has happened in just the last few years and post Covid, with the changes in demand, journeys to work and work-life balance—we will not be anywhere near ahead of the curve in getting this right. Other than that, I strongly support the principle of this amendment; I think it a really worthwhile amendment for consideration by your Lordships.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
My Lords, this has been an interesting debate; I thank the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, for bringing it forward. I also thank the licensing committee and its members for their considerable work on this. Listening to the debate, one thing that comes over very clearly is that it is time to review the status and look at the current situation. As the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, said, we now have the change of use from office to residential space in town centres, and my noble friend talked about the many empty town centre premises. There will be a lot of change in ways that we have not seen before and new challenges, especially for the night-time economy, as has been discussed.
As I said, the agent of change principle has been with us for some years now, which, again, is why it is time to look at this. We know that it is in the National Planning Policy Framework, but what strikes me from the debate is the question of whether it is fit for purpose. I have a number of questions for the Minister following on from this. Is the agent of change principle having a meaningful impact at the moment? Does the licensing guidance reflect the principles in the NPPF itself? We need to ensure that the NPPF is fit for purpose, as well as the agent of change principle within it. The question on my mind is: will the NPPF, when we get to see it, reflect the likely focus of future planning decisions? How will it all fit together?
As my noble friend Lady Henig said, this is an opportunity to enshrine this principle in legislation. We need to make sure that we get this right—that it is fit for purpose and does what it is supposed to do: work to protect both sides. It is important that the Minister is able to assure us on that matter.
My noble friend Lady Henig also asked about the current status of the consultation that took place in 2017 on the housing White Paper in relation to this issue. Not to have heard back from that consultation in 2017, six years ago, is a bit concerning. Since then, as my noble friend Lord Brooke mentioned, we have had the pandemic and so much has changed, so is that consultation even still relevant? Perhaps the Government need to revisit that completely. I would appreciate the Minister taking that back to her department.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, Amendment 266, tabled by my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering, tackles the important issue of the agent of change principle in planning and licensing—that is, the principle that existing businesses should not be negatively affected by restrictions on them resulting from new development in their area. National policies and guidance already provide strong support for that principle, and we will continue to make sure that authorities have the tools needed to deliver it. The Government therefore do not consider the amendment necessary.
I agree with my noble friend that preventing this happening is important to so many businesses, especially in the night-time economy, where these issues most regularly occur. That is why we amended the National Planning Policy Framework in 2018 to embed these principles, with paragraph 187 of the current framework saying:
“Existing businesses and facilities should not have unreasonable restrictions placed on them as a result of development permitted after they were established”.
In answer to the noble Baronesses, Lady Henig and Lady Hayman of Ullock, that came after the consultation, so it was partly a response to it. The framework goes on to highlight that, where there could be “a significant adverse effect”, the onus should be put on the agent of change proposing the new development to provide suitable mitigation before it has been completed.
We are also introducing national development management policies through the Bill. In future, and subject to further appropriate consultation, these will allow us to give important national planning policy protections statutory weight in planning decisions for the first time.
We believe that the proposed requirement for a noise impact assessment to be undertaken for relevant development would duplicate existing guidance for local planning authorities. Planning practice guidance published by the department is clear that the agent of change will need to clearly identify the effects of existing businesses that may cause a nuisance to future residents or users of the development proposed.
The guidance also sets out that the agent of change is expected to define clearly any mitigation that is proposed to address any potential significant adverse effects, in order to try to prevent future complaints from new residents or users. Many local planning authorities also make this assessment of effects a part of their local lists of information required to be submitted alongside relevant planning applications. After such assessment of the effects, reasonable planning conditions can be used to make sure that any mitigation by the agent of change is completed, as agreed with the local planning authority when planning permission is granted.
Importantly, the Government agree that co-ordination between the planning and licensing regimes is crucial to protect those businesses in practice. This is why in December 2022 the Home Office published a revised version of its guidance, made under Section 182 of the Licensing Act 2003, cross-referencing the relevant section of the National Planning Policy Framework for the first time. Combined with our wider changes in the Bill, we will make sure that our policy results in better protections for these businesses and delivers on the agent of change principle in practice.
I hope I have demonstrated that the Government’s policies embed the agent of change principle and that we will continue to make sure it is reflected in planning and licensing decisions in future.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to all who have spoken in this debate, particularly those who gave their strong support to this amendment. A number of questions were raised, in particular by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, which have not necessarily been answered in the debate. The noble Baroness, Lady Henig, and the noble Lords, Lord Foster and Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe, have stated why, in the Committee’s view, it is very clear that this amendment is needed. As I tried to explain to my noble friend, the policies and planning guidance on their own are not sufficient. So I would like to go back and discuss with those who have spoken whether there is cross-party support for bringing this forward at a later stage—but, for now, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Young of Cookham
“Local authorities and development management services(1) A local planning authority may set a charging regime in relation to its development management services.(2) In setting the amount of a charge under subsection (1) a local planning authority must secure that, taking one financial year with another, the authority’s income from charges does not exceed the cost to the authority of delivering the development management services for which the charges are imposed.”Member’s explanatory statement
The amendment would allow local authorities to develop a planning fees schedule that would enable the full costs of delivering its development management services, including the processing of planning applications, to be recovered.
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
My Lords, Amendment 267 is in my name and that of the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill. This amendment has the support of the LGA and it would enable local authorities to charge planning fees that met the cost of providing the service, but would prevent them making a profit from it.
One of the themes of our debates on the Bill has been the importance of local authorities providing up-to-date plans. Indeed, my noble friend has made the point that up-to-date plans are more likely to produce the increases in housing that the country needs. But if we are to do that and have up-to-date plans, we need properly resourced planning departments. We also want to see planning applications promptly processed so that development can go ahead, again to meet housing need. That requires properly resource planning departments, but we know that they are all under pressure. Of the respondents to the Home Builders Federation’s recent SME development survey, 92% said that lack of resource in local planning authorities was a major barrier to growth—up from 90% in 2021.
Planning departments will also need to respond to proposals in the Bill, which has 47 clauses that relate to planning. They are going to have to get up to speed with that if they are to succeed in the Government’s ambition to improve the planning system. They are going to need to digitise and streamline the planning process. They will have to understand the implications of the NDMP and the new NPPF. They will have to deliver the new environmental assessment procedures and the new procedures on heritage and for neighbourhood plans, along with other changes to the planning system that we have been debating—not to mention the implication of street votes.
At the moment, planning fees do not cover the cost of processing planning applications. According to the LGA, council tax payers subsidise the planning system to the tune of £180 million per annum—money that could be spent on social housing. I know that the Government are consulting on an increase, but there are two problems. First, even if granted, the increase will not meet the gap or give us the well-resourced planning departments we need. Secondly, it will not enable individual local authorities that have active planning departments to set fees that cover their costs.
Recently, the Government have tabled Amendment 285C, but I am not sure that it addresses the problem. That amendment will allow certain bodies to charge fees for advice in relation to planning applications. My noble friend will explain what that means; I suspect that it is a response to Amendment 283 and will enable bodies such as the Environment Agency and Natural England to charge for advice on planning applications. In any case, the wording of the Government’s amendment would not cover the ability for local authorities to charge fees for the processing of planning applications, because it refers to the ability to charge fees for “advice” in relation to applications, and, of course, the authorities can already do that.
However, there is a wider principle at stake here. This Bill was going to be called the “Devolution Bill”. The Government want to decentralise and give local authorities the ability to respond to local needs, so here is a golden opportunity to put that policy into practice. I was rereading the foreword of the levelling-up White Paper published in February last year. It said:
“We’ll usher in a revolution in local democracy”.
It seems to me that here is a good opportunity to put that ambition into practice.
Finally, this central control sits uneasily with the freedom local authorities have to set building control fees, which are part of the same planning family. That is an anomaly I find difficult to explain. There is no central government control over parking charges, school meal costs, rents or swimming pool tariffs. Why are the Government so insistent on retaining control of planning fees? I ask my noble friend whether she is prepared to relax the Government’s vice-like grip on local authority. I beg to move.
Baroness Parminter (LD)
My Lords, in the absence of the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, who cannot be here this week, I will introduce her Amendment 283, to which I and the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, have added our names. As it is her amendment, I will not do what I normally do and speak off the cuff. I have some notes from her, and I will, unusually, read from them.
A number of statutory consultees receive requests to provide expert information and opinion on planning applications and other planning cases. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, just mentioned some of them. The main statutory consultees include Natural England, the Environment Agency, the Health and Safety Executive, Historic England and Highways England.
The volume of planning application requests has increased by 38% over the six years up to the financial year 2021-22. It is estimated that this trend will continue. Natural England alone received almost 18,000 requests in the last financial year. In 2019 the main statutory consultees estimated the total cost of providing this advice at approximately £50 million. Obviously, costs will rise with volume.
Amendment 283 inserts a provision into the Town and Country Planning Act. It would allow the Secretary of State to make regulations to allow statutory consultees to charge developers and others for the provision of such advice and information about planning applications and other planning cases put forward by developers and others to local planning authorities. This provision would bring the cost-recovery arrangements for the majority of planning applications under the Town and Country Planning Act, in line with the proposals in Clause 118, which will allow cost recovery in the case of nationally significant infrastructure projects.
Amendment 283 lays out what particular provisions the regulations may make, including who should pay, how much and when. It also defines an “excluded person” who cannot be charged, unless that person is the applicant for the planning permission. Broadly speaking, in at least the first instance, it seems that the charges would be for the planning applicant or developer to pay, and charges would not be levied on the planning authority. It is all very straightforward and essential if our hard-pressed statutory consultees are to provide a prompt and efficient service to both planning authorities and applicants in the face of the growing case load.
The Minister has ostensibly agreed, as the Government have laid what seems like a similar amendment, Amendment 285C. However, proposed new subsection (3)(b) in the government amendment could be interpreted as prohibiting a statutory consultee charging fees to a planning applicant in respect of the provision of advice to a local planning authority by any route. It could even prohibit current scenarios where a developer is willing to meet those costs under a voluntary agreement, for example under a planning performance agreement or a service level agreement. If that is not the intention in proposed new subsection (3)(b) in the government amendment, the ambiguity needs to be removed.
It would be good to have confirmation today from the Minister that the Government intend to ensure that the statutory consultees can recover their costs. I ask the Minister whether she might be prepared to meet the noble Baroness, Lady Young, and other interested Peers between now and Report to identify a mutually satisfactory and unambiguous version of these two amendments.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
My Lords, I speak to my Amendment 287, which would achieve a planning fee system that would cover costs for local planning authorities. It largely mirrors Amendment 267 in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, and my noble friend Lady Thornhill. I concur entirely with his arguments, but have some additional points to make in support of the plea to enable local planning authorities to set their own fees.
Too often planning applications, especially those that are complex, such as a major commercial development, have a set fee that nowhere near covers the costs, simply because there is so much more to planning applications than simply considering the plan details submitted at the first stage. I give an example of a recent application near me for a very large commercial development of 1 million square feet—probably a bit more than that—with a fee of £300,000. That is, and sounds, a considerable sum. However, in the end there were more than 200 different elements of the planning application to consider, 96 of which were amendments to the original plan. One of those, which I endeavoured to read, was of itself more than 100 pages long.
Understandably, these applications are hugely complex and require considerable expertise within the local planning authority to understand and respond to them. They are not just about the design and features of the building itself—there is also highway access, road safety, landscaping, biodiversity, trees, noise and light pollution, and the impact on the landscape. In my local authority, they have to consider drainage and, in this instance, 14 attenuation tanks had to be built in the end to deal with run-off from the development. Hugely complex issues are being considered, and it all has to be done within that set fee, regardless. It took nigh on two years for that application to be fully considered and ready for a planning committee. Clearly, the fee failed to cover the costs of the details of the application.
There are implications to all this. The Royal Town Planning Institute reckons that there were 42% cuts in planning budgets over the 10-year period from 2008. There have been increases since, not all of which have been directed towards day-to-day planning officers. Digitisation was one of the issues rightly being considered by the Government. As the noble Lord, Lord Young, has said, the information is that local council tax payers are subsidising planning applications. If I told local people where I am that that was the case, they would rightly be very concerned, when other vital services have insufficient funding.
The RTPI research showed that one in 10 planning officer roles was unfilled. The reason for that is that so many expert planning officers find life much better rewarded—in many ways, not just financially—in private practice. The draining of local planning officers from the system is putting immense pressure on dealing with planning applications, and the timeliness of those, which again is hindering the Government’s aim to build more housing. None of this is helpful to achieving that.
Baroness Thornhill (LD)
My Lords, I do not want to take up too much time, because much has already been said, but I want to add a couple of points that have perhaps not already been made and expand on one point from the noble Lord, Lord Young. It is really important to acknowledge that the Government have found the means to increase planning fees for major and minor applications to 35% and 25% respectively. That is a positive move in the right direction and it has to be applauded.
As always, the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, has nailed Amendment 267 and I want to expand on one of his comments, on devolution. In reality, councils are effectively asked—and in effect taxpayers are asked—to subsidise a whole range of services, not just planning services. Licensing fees are one, and the one that really gets my goat is supplying credit agencies with the electoral register. There is a statutory cap on what can be charged, regardless of the actual cost. Even with land searches, which councils have to do the work on, the Land Registry actually gets the cash. I think it is an area that is ripe for looking at, particularly as we are in cash-strapped times; other agencies and other companies, not just the taxpayer, should pay the bill.
My only caveat about letting each individual council area decide absolutely on its fees is that “To those who have, more shall be given”. In areas where developers want to build—they are usually the areas where it is most lucrative and they will get the most profit—they will be able to get away with charging much higher fees simply because they can. I think the opposite should be true, so Amendment 267, which refers to the actual costs, is the fairest way of dealing with this, especially as salaries and other incidentals also vary depending on the geographical area that a council sits in.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, I will speak briefly in giving general support to the thrust of the amendments, not only on the grounds advanced by other noble Lords but because they would mitigate something I regard as a positive evil. It has become possible in recent years for major developers proposing major projects to offer to local planning authorities to fund the salary of a planning officer to help deal with their case. When I had responsibility in a London borough for planning policy, I resisted accepting that sort of offer, but perhaps we could afford to do so.
This strikes to some extent at the heart of public confidence in the planning system, which is always a little fragile. Noble Lords who have been involved in it will know that there are always people who suspect that there has been a fix and that something corrupt is going on, but that is not the case in my experience. However, to allow a developer to fund a planning officer only exaggerates that perception and damages public confidence in the planning system. The way out of this, not least in the context of devolution, must be to allow the charges to cover the costs. It also seems appropriate if we want to empower elected officials in local authorities. It is open to the possibility of abuse, as the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, said, and a local authority could seek to deter applications by setting punitively high fees, but my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham’s amendment broadly addresses that possibility. It might need a little refinement, but the principle is none the less clear and acceptable. I encourage support for this amendment because we are not taking sufficient notice of the evil I mentioned, which harms the planning system.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, Amendment 267 in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Young, and the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, was music to my ears; Amendment 287 from the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, is very similar. I have never understood why the public purse—the hard-pressed local government public purse at that—has to subsidise the development industry even for the very largest and most profitable developments. We have long spoken about a “polluter pays” principle in discussions on the environment; perhaps it is time we had a “profiter pays” principle in planning.
This issue has long been debated in local government. It is the subject of general incredulity that, at this time of financial crisis for local government, it is still allowed to continue. The Local Government Association has lobbied consistently on this point, stating in its recent response:
“We welcome the proposal to increase planning application fees, as it has for a long time been our position that there is a need for a well-resourced planning system. However, the Government should go further by allowing councils to set planning fees locally.”
I do not think it is a surprise to any noble Lords that local authority planning departments are at full stretch already. The noble Lord, Lord Young, referred to how they will respond to the 47 clauses in this Bill, never mind the issue of street votes—they will have plenty of work to do, that is for sure. It is an area of specialism where there are considerable shortages of professionals. In spite of a great deal of work being done to encourage young people to consider planning as a career and increase the number of routes into the profession, there remain difficulties in recruitment and retention. This is even worse in areas surrounding London, where it is almost impossible for local authorities to compete with the packages offered to planning officers in London.
This is exacerbated by the pressure of work; I know that many noble Lords in the Chamber will have sat through contentious planning application hearings, and I do not think any of us would be surprised to learn that our officers subject themselves to considerable stress. Therefore, it is only right that the industry makes a fair contribution to the cost of processing applications where it will reap substantial developer profit. This will enable local authorities to ensure that their planning teams are resourced adequately.
We also strongly support Amendment 283 in the name of my noble friend Lady Young, and so ably moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter. She is absolutely right that statutory consultees, often hard-pressed themselves, should be able to recover the costs from applicants. I understand that of the £50 million bill for this, cited by the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, 60% was incurred by Natural England and the Environment Agency as the two statutory consultees dealing with the greatest number of planning consultations. It was as far back as 2018 that the top five statutory consultees came together to form a working group to identify potential alternative funding mechanisms to address the increasingly critical and unsustainable position. They made recommendations to DLUHC in March 2019. This work highlighted the need for a change in primary legislation to provide a broad enabling power under which statutory planning consultees could pass on the costs incurred in providing statutory advice to applicants, either as part of the existing planning fees or as an additional separate charge.
We welcome the inclusion of a power in the LURB to enable statutory consultees to recover costs incurred in providing advice on nationally significant infrastructure projects. That alone, though, makes only a modest contribution to addressing the challenge of establishing the sustainable funding model. I believe for Natural England, approximately 70% of the statutory consultation work will continue to be reliant on grant in aid. Will the Government introduce a power that will help us? If not, the Government are, in effect, committing to rely on the Exchequer as the primary means of funding the essential role that statutory consultees play in support of the operation of the planning system.
There is also the danger that we will create an inconsistent funding model between NSIP cases and non-NSIP cases that are of a comparable size or impact, such as large-scale housing developments. That could result in the need to prioritise resources for NSIP work over non-NSIP work, create inconsistency in service levels and potentially disadvantage large housing developments, which would be the exact opposite direction to the way we want to go. I hope that the strength of my noble friend Lady Young’s amendment will be taken into account.
Consideration should also be given to other statutory agencies. We have seen similar pressures on colleagues in the National Health Service, for example, where they have to comment on planning applications. There is also pressure on the resources of county councils to respond to matters relating to highways, flood risk, education and adult and children’s care provision—to name just a few—which is required on almost every major application and some smaller applications. It is simply not right that those costs should fall on public agencies whose funding is limited. If they were adequately recompensed, their ability to respond to applications in a timely manner might be improved.
Government Amendment 285C is similar to that proposed by my noble friend Lady Young—I hope we can at least agree on that—but, as the noble Lord, Lord Young, pointed out, this may not refer to charging for local authorities. We would want to see both local authorities and statutory consultees able to charge something like the recovery of the costs they incur in relation to the planning system.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, Amendments 267 and 287 have been tabled by my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham and the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, respectively. I assure your Lordships that the Government understand the concerns about stretched resources in local planning authorities. However, we do not believe that enabling local planning authorities to vary fees and charges is the way to answer resourcing issues, and it does not provide any incentive to tackle inefficiencies. Local authorities having different fees creates uncertainty and unfairness for applicants and, if set too high, could risk unintended consequences by discouraging development.
Lord Shipley (LD)
May I ask the Minister to clarify one issue? I have listened very carefully to this debate but there is an issue that I have not fully understood. I heard her say that prescribed bodies will be able to secure cost recovery, but she has not said that local planning authorities will be able to recover their costs. She said that there could be an increase in the fees they are allowed to charge following the consultation, but that is not the same thing as permitting cost recovery; indeed, a lack, as yet, of a definition of cost underpins this whole debate. To my way of thinking, there is the immediate cost of administering and managing a planning application, with all the costs that may apply to that application. However, there is also the cost that a local planning authority might have in terms of the provision of IT services to the planning system, web services, office costs, heating, lighting, and so on—essentially, the overhead cost. As the Minister is going to think about all these issues, I hope very much to hear that the Government will consider full cost recovery for local planning authorities. However, as I say, I have not yet heard that during this debate.
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to everyone who has taken part in this debate. There have been a lot of Youngs involved, and I will try to respond on behalf of both of them. Let me say straightaway that I very much welcome the government amendment, and I am sure that, in her absence, the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, would also do so.
On the rest of it, I had hoped that, with this group of amendments, we might have found a chink in the Government’s armour that has been deployed throughout our debates. I am disappointed that we have not been able to make progress, and I know that the Local Government Association will also be disappointed.
I am grateful to all those who took part. The noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, made the valid point that the flat rate prescribed by the Government simply does not reflect the costs to a local authority of a complex planning application that spans a number of years; that point was not adequately dealt with.
I was most concerned to hear what my noble friend Lord Moylan said about developers offering to second to an overstretched planning department a planner who might assist them. That is rather like me saying to Test Valley Borough Council, “I understand your electoral department is under some pressure; I would like to second a returning officer to the forthcoming election”.
Lord Moylan (Con)
If my noble friend will allow me to say so, I did not suggest that they were offering to second somebody but to fund a planning officer who would be recruited from the pool of available planning officers.
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
I am grateful to my noble friend. None the less, the principle that he ended his speech with is still valid: a local authority should not be dependent on the good will of a developer to process that developer’s planning application. That goes against most of the codes of independence for local government.
In response to my amendment, my noble friend the Minister said that she could not accept it because of the uncertainty that might confront developers and the costs might be too high. But the charge under my amendment could only reflect the costs. A local authority could not charge a fee as a deterrent if it was not substantiated by the underlying cost.
As for uncertainty, what developers, housebuilders and any planning applicant want is for their application to be processed promptly and efficiently by a well-resourced planning department. That is their priority. I do not think that uncertainty about future fees comes into it, or it is right down their list of priorities.
Also, I do not see how this central control of planning fees sits with the whole language of the Bill, which is about empowering local authorities and giving them more autonomy to reflect local needs. It appears that, despite all that, we cannot trust them to set planning fees. I think the Government’s stance on this group of amendments sits uneasily with their whole philosophy, but, while I reflect on what to do next, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Geddes) (Con)
My Lords, as Amendment 270 has not been moved, I cannot call Amendments 270A or 270B, as they were amendments to the said Amendment 270.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Geddes) (Con)
My Lords, as Amendment 273 has not been moved, Amendment 273A cannot be moved, as it was an amendment to it.
The Earl of Lytton
“Building Safety Remediation Scheme(1) Planning permission must not be granted to any developer or associate responsible for the construction or sale of units in a building with a building safety risk until the Secretary of State has established a Building Safety Remediation Scheme. (2) Schedule (Building Safety Remediation Scheme) makes further provision for the establishment of a Building Safety Remediation Scheme.(3) This section comes into force six months after Royal Assent.(4) “Associate” has the meaning given in section 121 of the Building Safety Act 2022.”Member's explanatory statement
This clause inserts a new Schedule to implement a building safety remediation scheme to ensure that buildings with building safety risks are put right without costs to leaseholders.
The Earl of Lytton (CB)
My Lords, in moving Amendment 274, I will speak also to Amendment 318 in my name and that of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chelmsford. In doing so, I draw your Lordships’ attention to my professional interests.
I have two other amendments in this group: Amendments 320 and 325. They are on a related issue but, given the detail that I need to provide in relation to Amendments 274 and 318, I will do no more than signify my firm support for them and leave the heavy lifting on them to my co-signatory, the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham; I thank him very much for agreeing to do that.
While I am talking about the other amendments in this group, let me say that I agree that Amendment 504GJD in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, is certainly worthy of consideration in terms of providing better passive fire safety measures.
I turn to Amendments 274 and 318. I express my thanks to the Bill team for their engagement; to campaign groups across the country for maintaining awareness of the issues; and to the members of the policy team who have supported me. There are too many of them to name but they know who they are and I am very grateful to them. Most of all, I am grateful to the more than 200 individuals and leaseholder residents’ groups who have written to me over the past four weeks both to support me and to tell me about the tragedies and individual concerns that have beset their lives. It is particularly to give them a voice that I raise this issue today.
Amendments 274 and 318 concern, I believe, matters of great social and economic importance. Despite the Government’s measures in the Building Safety Act 2022, far too many leaseholders remain adversely and significantly affected by serious defects in the original construction of the buildings that they occupy or own. Although the BSA was a significant first step in solving the building safety crisis, it leaves significant numbers of leaseholders without adequate protection from, variously, cladding and non-cladding costs, and much of it is based on extra-statutory commitments of one sort or another. So we have a situation where enfranchised leaseholders and buy-to-let owners with more than three properties are excluded, while residents living in buildings below 11 metres in height receive no protection from non-cladding costs at all.
Correspondents tell me that the Government’s remediation scheme is not working for them and that there is confusion about the process, qualifying interests and building height calculation, with gridlock until all the complex arrangements are in place. The most frequent comment is that owners are still locked into unsaleable properties with waking watch and massive insurance costs, as well as high remediation bills in prospect without any early or firm date for resolution. I now learn that many conveyancers may even be reluctant to take on work involving buildings over 11 metres high because of the complexity and professional risks that face them.
I welcome the announcement that many of the country’s largest developers have committed to remediating buildings that they were responsible for, but I am concerned that their contractual obligations are limited to life-critical fire safety defects, rather than the wider definitions in the Building Safety Act. Furthermore, the developer contract apparently covers only around 10% to 15% of buildings that require remediation and appears to absolve developers of responsibility for those waking watch and other consequential costs.
Statutory liability for remediation itself is placed on landlords but without consideration of whether they have the resources to deal with this issue and are able to cover the costs. The DLUHC impact assessment admits that it has no cost estimates when it states:
“For buildings above 11 metres that have historical non-cladding fire safety defects, there is no reliable data”—
not even estimates—
“on the prevalence, or extent, of these costs”.
However, an Association of Residential Managing Agents survey suggests that the non-cladding remediation costs in buildings above 18 metres are, on average, £25,671 per flat and, in buildings below 18 metres, £38,184 per flat. There appears to be no data on the sub-11-metre block remediation issues. We do not know how many we are dealing with. By my reckoning, more than 200,000 individual flats are significantly affected in England alone. Others have arrived at higher totals. So my first question for the Minister is: will she be kind enough to tell us what figure her department is working to?
Some landlords have the resources to meet these remediation obligations but it is not universal. Several large groups are in fact thinly capitalised or have significant indebtedness. For example, the three groups that comprise what is known as the Long Harbour fund appear to have relatively modest net assets, while the Consensus Business Group has significant borrowings from insurer Rothesay Life. They are unlikely to have the free cash to fund remediation works as well as servicing their bondholders and lenders if the incidence of defects and the average remediation costs, to which I have referred, are totted up.
As noble Lords will know, freeholds are typically valued by capitalising the sum of the net ground rents. In value terms, however, they are small by comparison with the collective of leaseholds. High remediation liabilities may make them worse than valueless. So if landlords’ interests are negative and they become insolvent—bear in mind that some of them are dealt with through special purpose vehicles—these freeholds, with their negative value, are likely to be disclaimed by liquidators and escheat to the Crown, with all the delays and uncertainty that that entails. I foresee a legal limbo with unsaleable flats; although this would be unprecedented at scale, it is far from improbable, yet nobody in DLUHC admits to having done the calculations to assess the impact.
My fear is that the Government’s approach creates new credit risks for lenders, particularly in relation to buy-to-let portfolios. If excluded leaseholders are unable to pay their share of the remediation costs, schemes of remediation risk simply being stalled. In such circumstances, leases could be forfeited, widening out their lender security unless extra capital is given. Such a forfeiture would providentially give landlords a windfall gain. Historically, few leases have been forfeited because rebalancing the mortgage has been the preferred course of action. However, it is one thing to have a debt of a few thousand pounds on a service charge in arrears; it is another thing to have the much more costly and complicated scenario of remediation costs, which may run into tens of thousands of pounds. I do not believe that historical forfeiture data gives an accurate picture of the new scenario going forward. Credit risk and mortgage interest recalibration are likely to have impacts on the wider financial system and, in turn, effects on other derivatives and insurance policies. I believe that this is something that has some way yet to unravel.
This is not only about the free market; it is about the social sector as well. Many shared equity owners have told me that, although they have a minority equity stake, they are being made responsible for a 100% share of the remediation applicable to their unit of occupation. That seems grossly unfair. Amendments 274 and 318 would avoid all this and provide for an alternative, comprehensive solution to the building safety crisis that protects all leaseholders from past and future issues.
Amendment 274 would mandate the Government to establish a building safety remediation scheme—BSRS. Amendment 318 would create a new schedule setting out guidance for its key features, all intended to dovetail with the principles of the existing building safety fund. The intention is to protect all leaseholders—indeed, all owners of buildings of whatever height and tenure—from the costs of remediating buildings that are unsafe in their construction and the interim safety measures in circumstances where they are entirely innocent of the causes of these defects.
Where a building constructed since 1992 did not comply with the regulations in force at the time, strict joint and several liability for remediation of all material building safety defects would be placed on a developer and principal contractor. If neither is able to pay, or if a building met the regulations that were in force at the time of construction but is now seen as unsafe, which can happen, remediation funding would come from a much wider levy on the construction industry and materials providers as a whole, rather than just developers, as is currently proposed by the Government. Once a significant effect is established, there is no need for property owners to apportion blame; the industry can sort that matter out for itself.
Remediation will be carried out to standards under the BSA to avoid concerns about remediators effectively policing themselves and, worse, using their own selected approved inspectors. These may be the same firms that previously signed off things that they should not have.
Noble Lords will excuse me for not explaining Amendment 318 line by line given its length, but I seek brevity. Anyone wanting further detail can go to a resource at tinyurl.com/earloflytton. The approach has been scrutinised by a leading construction counsel, a planning KC, parliamentary counsel and other legal minds, as well as by building control, construction and fire safety practitioners. I am extremely grateful to them all for their input. It has attracted support from Ted Baillieu, former state premier of Victoria, Australia, and co-chair of the Australian cladding task force. This matter is attracting international interest around where we go with these sorts of defects. It has also attracted the interest and support of other organisations, including the Association of Mortgage Intermediaries, ARMA, the British Property Federation, the Intermediary Mortgage Lenders Association, NAEA Propertymark, the National Residential Landlords Association, and many others.
Developers should have been the first stop in the Government’s waterfall principle that we discussed just over a year ago. The BSRS bolts on to the existing government commitment, gives leaseholders and lenders more certainty of remediation, and puts them in a greater degree of control. However, it does not just deal with the present crisis. It covers similar situations in the future, and will, I believe, make short-cutting in building standards unworthwhile going forward. We all know that the race to the bottom on quality must cease. The BSRS provides a necessary layer of protection, especially as the Building Safety Act specifically excludes enfranchised leaseholders and commonhold unit owners from all its protections.
The Government do not have the money to solve the problem and are, at present, as I see it, unprepared to place the responsibility on the construction industry that has created this situation over decades of marking its own homework. I believe that the proposals I am advancing would deal with this. Echoing what one commentator said to me last week, if we do not get this right then the taxpayer could end up meeting the entire cost and we will go on building homes badly. We cannot allow that to happen.
All that apart, this is a fundamental matter of justice and equity. It is about protecting the innocent and vulnerable from the cost of failures by profitable enterprises—businesses that would be held liable for their actions in any other mercantile circumstances that one might conceive of. Indeed, the most basic function of government should be the protection of the citizen and society. Meanwhile, my mailbox continues to be filled with tales of individual tragedy, lives on hold, unsellable property, finances in disarray, fear of imminent bankruptcy, careers and retirements wrecked, mental health threatened, weddings shelved, the starting of families put off, forced evacuations—25 blocks is the tally since 2017—and much more misery besides. This crisis is not over until everyone is protected. I beg to move.
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, for introducing this group of amendments, for setting the scene for this important debate on building safety, and for putting forward his own solution. I will try to respond to his exhortation to do some heavy lifting.
The question underlying this debate is simple. Have the Government done enough to tackle the problems arising from the Grenfell tragedy or do we need to build on the Building Safety Act 2022 in the light of experience to address unresolved issues? I will argue that further action is essential.
I begin by recognising the progress that has been made by the Government. Some leaseholders have been given legal protection under the Act. Most developers who have been asked have agreed to pay up—well done to the Secretary of State—and the major lenders have agreed in principle to offer mortgages on blocks of flats with safety issues, although this does not seem to be reflected in practice. Good progress is being made with high-rise blocks that are owned by local authorities and housing associations. I know that my noble friend and her predecessor are sympathetic to those who have been in touch with them to discuss the issues that remain.
However, there is still a mountain to climb. A recent survey by the End our Cladding Scandal campaign in last month’s Inside Housing magazine found that
“only 21.8% of leaseholders in dangerous blocks have seen remediation work start. For 44.1%, a date has not even been identified for work to begin … and only around 10% expect them to do so within the next 12 months”.
As the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, has just said, hundreds of thousands of leaseholders face an indeterminate wait for complex remediation, and they cannot move in the meantime.
On top of the estimated 3,500 high-rise buildings which need remediation there are between 6,000 and 9,000 medium-rise buildings which need life-critical safety work. While 43 of the UK’s largest developers have signed up, this covers only about 1,000 blocks. What about the rest of them? Some 90% are reliant on support from the building safety fund, which is slow to release funding, or from leaseholder contributions or from freeholders. The Government’s funding stream for medium-rise blocks is not yet open for bids, but when it is it will cover only cladding removal, despite these buildings having other problems and serious compartmentation defects which need to be fixed. Non-cladding works can push costs up to £100,000 per flat.
The Government’s response, if there is no developer to sue, is to charge the building owner, if the building owner has a stake in the building worth £2 million. However, this involves a complex remediation order under the Act. Can my noble friend say how many have been secured? Initial hearings for a remediation order for blocks in Queen Elizabeth Olympic Park were adjourned in February and are unlikely to commence this year. It is a long and legally complex process. Those who then enforce the process—the fire authorities and the local authorities—must at times deal with intransigent developers, who then challenge the assessment of what work is necessary, building in further delay and cost. Some large freeholders are claiming to have net assets of less than £2 million per building, as the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, said, or that they are not part of a wider group, meaning that they are not liable under the so-called waterfall provisions. We have seen the unedifying dispute with the well-resourced railway pension fund.
Furthermore, even if you get a remediation order, freeholders are liable only for the costs of qualifying leaseholders. Again, as the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, pointed out, if the non-qualifying leaseholders—the buy-to-let landlords—cannot afford their contribution then remediation of the block simply will not go ahead, and you have deadlock. If the freeholder does not have the funds to pay, the leaseholders must pay up to the cap, which is £15,000 in London, with the balance coming from a yet to be determined government pot; work will not start until this is established.
The position is even worse for those in blocks under 11 metres, whom I and others tried unsuccessfully to protect last year when the Bill went through. They are non-qualifying leaseholders and so have no protection and face uncapped bills. The Government have said these should not need work, as blocks below 11 metres are, in their words, on the whole safe, but the guidance that has been issued says otherwise. At least one building under 11 metres, in Romford, has identical cladding to that at Grenfell Tower—the primary cause of the rapid fire spread. An assessment under PAS 9980, which is the UK national standard, unsurprisingly reached the conclusion that the cladding should be removed. The developers have no liability for work under the Act or indeed under the remediation contract with the Secretary of State, so no help is available to the leaseholders. That is simply indefensible.
In several cases, insurers are insisting on work on buildings under 11 metres going ahead or they will withdraw insurance cover. That leaves the owner with no choice at all. They are actually excluded from the duty to pursue alternative routes for funding; they simply pass the costs on to leaseholders. Against that background, the fire at Richmond House—below 11 metres—burned it to the ground in less than 11 minutes.
Here is quote from a letter from a leaseholder in one such building:
“I am a leaseholder in a building well under 11 metres. We are three storeys high with 10 flats. We are therefore excluded from any support from the Government, yet our freeholder/managing agent is taking us to court on Friday to ask them to agree to us having to pay for the cost of remediation—a £26,000 service charge in 2022 per leaseholder. We are told the freeholder does not have the means or obligation to pay for these works that we need to reduce the annual insurance premium. We are told that the only way to pay for these works is via the leaseholder and that we will be legally responsible to fund the money and pay it upfront so that the management agent has the means to pay for works.”
There are also reports of other leaseholders in buildings under 11 metres being forced to pay for remediation as a condition of continued insurance cover.
Last year, I was promised a case-by-case review of these blocks, but the evidence presented to the Select Committee in another place on 13 February this year said:
“We have not seen any progress with the case-by-case review in respect of under 11 metre buildings”.
The position for leaseholders in blocks of flats who have followed the policy of successive Governments and enfranchised by buying the freehold is also indefensible. Despite repeated commitments given to me by the Minister at the time that they would be treated as leaseholders and would therefore be entitled to protection under the Act, the Bill treats them as freeholders and penalises them for enfranchisement. This is what I was told in Grand Committee by the then Minister:
“They are effectively leaseholders that have enfranchised as opposed to freeholders. I hope that helps”. [Official Report, 28/2/22; col. GC 262.]
My amendment to deliver that commitment on Report was resisted, and enfranchised leaseholders remain outside the protection available to other leaseholders.
There is an enfranchised block in Manchester with serious non-cladding defects, and there was a fire in a flat there last year. The enfranchised company, which is actually the leaseholder, is required by law to resolve these as soon as possible. Government policy is that blocks should enfranchise, but those who do are excluded from protection.
Looking at the picture as a whole, three years on from funding being made available, only 28 eligible buildings had been signed off by the Building Safety Fund by the end of last month, out of a potential 3,500 or so buildings eligible for support. In the meantime, most leaseholders are still unable to sell and move on with their lives. Despite six high-street lenders announcing in January that they would offer mortgages on flats with issues as long as the leaseholder protections were in place, this is just not happening on the ground. In the meantime, insurance costs have soared and service charges have escalated.
Freeholders and managing agents are refusing to withdraw service charges for items such as waking watches in buildings covered by the Act, but which were issued before the Act came into force. They also rushed to issue fresh demands on leaseholders before the Schedule 8 protection came into effect on 28 June last year. Leaseholders incurred the substantial costs of waking watches and increased insurance before the Act was implemented, but clause 6 of the final contract with developers excludes this. If money is to be recovered, the leaseholders have to litigate.
There are also early reports—the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, may have touched on this—of conveyancers saying they will no longer accept instructions to work on sales of leasehold flats in buildings of any height. That is because certain lenders—I have heard Nationwide mentioned—are imposing requirements on them to check the statements made in landlord and leaseholder certificates, which they are unable to do.
The original proposal of the Select Committee in another place was that there should be a comprehensive building safety fund, fully funded by government and industry, and the Government should establish clear principles regarding how the costs should be split between the two. Where we are sits uneasily with commitments given by Ministers last year. Last year, Michael Gove said:
“leaseholders are shouldering a desperately unfair burden. They are blameless, and it is morally wrong that they should be the ones asked to pay the price. I am clear about who should pay the price for remedying failures. It should be the industries that profited, as they caused the problem, and those who have continued to profit, as they make it worse”. [Official Report, Commons, 10/1/22; cols. 283-84.]
The then Minister wrote to noble Lords on 20 January last year, when the Building Safety Bill arrived in your Lordships’ House. Under the section headed “Protecting Leaseholders from Unnecessary Costs”, he said:
“The Secretary of State recently announced that leaseholders living in their homes should be protected from the costs of remediating historic building safety defects”.
Then there was the Statement on building safety made in the other place by the Secretary of State on 10 January last year:
“First, we will make sure that we provide leaseholders with statutory protection—that is what we aim to do and we will work with colleagues across the House to ensure that that statutory protection extends to all the work required to make buildings safe”. [Official Report, Commons, 10/1/22; col. 291.]
As I have tried to show, where we are falls well short of the commitments given, but it is not too late for the Government to act. My amendment is a peg on which to hang the debate. I end with the two questions I started with. Are the Government satisfied with the current position? If not, what do they propose to do about it? I know my noble friend is sympathetic to the case I have made. I know that many leaseholders are watching this debate and hoping for a positive reply.
The Lord Bishop of Guildford
My Lords, for six years in the early 90s I was a priest in Notting Hill, in the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea, and had never lived in a place where the vision of levelling up was quite so necessary and quite so localised. The very wealthy were often living cheek by jowl with the very poor, and meanwhile, on looking north from one of our churches was the unmistakeable sight of a brutalist 24-floor block of flats on Grenfell Road, which 25 years later was to become the scene of an unspeakable, though sadly not quite unimaginable, tragedy.
Making buildings safe for leaseholders has since become a priority for the Government, which is to be welcomed. As the noble Lord indicated, this support remains both limited and partial, creating a new distinction between the haves and have-nots of leaseholding when it comes to the most basic of principles: that the homes in which we live, work and raise our families should be safe. I happened to meet one of those have-not leaseholders this morning, for whom insuring his flat, let alone selling it, has become virtually impossible.
My friend Graham Tomlin, the Bishop of Kensington during the unfolding of those terrible events in June 2017, has written movingly in this regard. He speaks of how a “pattern of moral compromise” had become embedded in parts of the construction industry, as revealed by the public inquiry into the Grenfell tragedy. He goes on to suggest a firming up of the responsibility of developers to make good their work, along the lines of the amendments of the noble Earl, Lord Lytton. His insights have been fed into the second of the five basic principles of the Archbishops’ housing commission: that
“Good housing should be sustainable, safe, stable, sociable and satisfying”.
One of the very few cases I still vividly remember from my original legal training is the landmark decision in Donoghue v Stevenson in 1932, which involved a Mrs May Donoghue discovering a decomposed snail at the bottom of her bottle of ginger beer, and a Mr David Stevenson, the owner of the ginger beer company. This famous snail resulted in a bout of gastroenteritis for Mrs Donoghue and a rather hefty fine for Mr Stevenson, while simultaneously forming the surprising basis of our modern law of negligence, and of a duty of care which does not depend on a direct contractual relationship between the parties involved. So how odd and morally indefensible it is, more than 90 years on, that the construction industry has been able to allow metaphorical snails to slide into its ginger beer bottles: to be negligent, bordering on reckless, when it comes to basic principles of safety, without a straightforward system of remediation which places responsibility where it patently lies.
The noble Earl’s amendments seem both right and practicable in that regard, given the idea of a levy to the remediation fund, which helps to answer concerns about affordability. Developing new confidence in the construction industry and driving up its standards will also help to protect the long-term reputation of the industry itself, which can be only a win-win for all concerned, or at least for all committed to the vision of good housing rather than a race to the bottom. I therefore support the noble Earl’s amendments and the principles behind them in this crucial area of our national life.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I thank the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, and the noble Lord, Lord Young, for explaining so very comprehensively what the issues are. The key question is whether the Government have done enough. I do not intend to go into all the detail but I have a couple of observations and a query, because I really do not know how to solve this crisis and I need to be convinced that what is being put forward is the solution.
One thing that has been very important is that so many categories of leaseholders were left out of previous arrangements. That has caused immense pain, hardship, a sense of unfairness and so on, as has been described. As we have heard, in the popular imagination this is all about solving the cladding crisis, but actually it goes far beyond cladding and covers a wide range of remediation work. Also, we have ended up in a ridiculous situation of people in the wrong size blocks of flats still having to pay but not being covered by protection and legislation.
I really appreciate all these different difficult dilemmas, and like everybody I had hoped that the work that had been done in the building safety legislation that many of us were involved in would be a great source of relief and excitement for leaseholders. It has not been. People are still absolutely in a very bad situation. The Government have to know that because I know they want to help. Therefore, we should consider our options.
These are my slight concerns. A lot of the problems that leaseholders face are based on the way that people are reacting to remediation work that will need to be done because of the building safety legislation that we passed. There is an atmosphere of risk aversion that means you cannot sell a leasehold flat now because of all the reasons that have been given. The lenders say, “Well, it’s leasehold; there may be future remediation work to be done”, and so on. It has become an absolute nightmare. It seems ridiculous, in the middle of a housing crisis, that people are unable to sell their flats, not because they are too expensive but because they cannot proceed. There is a kind of glut in the flat market at the moment: people cannot move on but people also cannot buy the flats that they urgently need to live in.
My concern is to make sure that we do not always describe this through the issue of critical safety work. Even during the building safety discussions, I was concerned that we would become too risk averse—that the whole process of building and construction would be so mired in fear of what might happen and the idea that fires would burst out at any moment that it would become impossible to build anything with the stipulations that were put forward. With the broader problem of housing supply and the housing crisis, I am terrified that we will end up with nobody building anything anymore because there will be too many risks in doing so because of the legislation that we have brought in. That is one problem.
The other thing that I am concerned about in relation to the polluter pays issue is that we might end up destroying the construction industry. I am more than aware of the fact that there are problems with parts of the construction industry. I do not doubt that there are what used to be described as cowboy builders and so on. I see serious problems when I look at all the work being done by the leaseholder groups to expose the terrible circumstances where people are living in flats that are not fit for purpose. I am not suggesting in any way that those things are not true but I am also very wary of demonising the construction industry and effectively destroying it at the very time when I want it to be hyperactively building houses all over the place to solve the problems of homelessness, the fact that people have nowhere to live, the affordability crisis and so on. Maybe the noble Lords could just answer how we deal with that.
So that we do not focus just on the construction industry as though it is solely the bad guys, I say that I am very frustrated about the fact that the banks are embroiled in holding things up. They will not lend to people who want to buy leasehold properties. That is a real problem; is it something we need to look at? As has already been discussed, and I have raised in past contributions, the role of the insurance industry has also been hugely problematic, with the cost of insurance. That all trickles down and the leaseholders end up being the people who suffer. As I said, I am very nervous about making our focus just on the construction industry.
The thing about the polluter pays model that I am concerned about is who gets labelled as the polluter. I have just walked past the demonstration in which the polluter in that instance apparently is the fossil fuel industry, the energy industry, or people who create cars. Those demonstrators say that the polluter should pay for all the problems in society. I am wary that this is oversimplistic as a solution. However, I say to the Government and to the Minister that saying that the status quo ante is sufficient is a betrayal of the promises that they, and in fact many of us, made to leaseholders last year.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
My Lords, I have an amendment in this group that I shall speak to, but I will first make a few comments about the amendments in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Lytton. I thank him for his extremely detailed and thorough introduction to what is a very complicated issue.
As we have heard, the noble Earl proposed similar amendments to the then Building Safety Bill, which the Government rejected in favour of Schedule 8 and the other leaseholder protections that were eventually included in the Act. I commend him for his continued efforts in the work he does to support leaseholders, and the noble Lord, Lord Young. They have been absolutely unassailable in not wanting to give up on this.
I am sure that the Minister will repeat some of the reasons given during the passage of the Building Safety Bill as to why the Government are unable to accept these amendments in this legislation. My recollection of the reasons given is that the amendments would require a sizeable bureaucracy to be set up to deal with the thousands of buildings that would potentially be caught, and concerns about litigation risk. However, the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, is absolutely right to press that something should be done for buildings that are under 11 metres and resident-owned buildings. As was said during the passage of the Building Safety Bill, part of the problem is the number of buildings. Something has to be done to help all these people. During the passage of that Bill, the Government promised that something would be done. The noble Lord, Lord Young, quoted from the debate on the building safety Statement the Government’s continued promises to help those leaseholders who have still been left out, but this has not been done.
If the Government are going to push back again on this issue, when are they actually going to address this, as they have has previously promised to do? As the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, said, there are still significant numbers of leaseholders unprotected from often huge costs, and the situation is not resolved until everybody has proper protection. The noble Lord, Lord Young, asked the very pertinent question, “Have the Government done enough?”—and then I think he answered his question, and the answer was no. The Government need to fulfil the promise made during the passage of that Bill and look at how that issue can be resolved.
It has been said that building safety remediation is very complicated. But it is not complicated at all and is actually something the Government could do very quickly and easily to improve the safety of buildings in multiple occupancy. My Amendment 504GJD states:
“Within 60 days of the passing of this Act, a Minister of the Crown must make a statement to each House of Parliament outlining their position on whether building regulations should require the installation of more than one staircase in large multiple-occupancy residential buildings for the purposes of fire safety”.
This has been a concern for some time, and Grenfell made issues of fire safety even more important. But the reason I want to bring this up is because the National Fire Chiefs Council has argued that second staircases should be mandatory in blocks above 18 metres in height. It states:
“In the event of a fire, a correctly designed second staircase removes the risk of a single point of failure, buying critical time for firefighting activities, and providing residents with multiple escape routes”.
It points to London Fire Brigade figures which show that from
“1 April 2019 to 31 March 2022 … 8,500 residents chose to evacuate buildings rather than stay put”.
We are really pleased that the Department for Levelling-up, Housing and Communities has been carrying out a consultation to mandate second staircases in new residential buildings above 13 metres. The consultation paper states that
“the provision of a second staircase can provide some benefits for very tall residential buildings such as added resilience for extreme events and reduced conflicts between emergency responders entering a building and those trying to escape, reducing the risk of the smoke ingress into an ‘escape’ stairwell”.
It also states that a second staircase would provide a second means of escape if one route were filled with smoke.
We welcome the fact that the department has been carrying out this consultation. It closed very recently. I would be very pleased if the Minister could give some update on when we are likely to hear the outcome and the Government’s response to the consultation, but, in the meantime, if she were inclined to accept our amendment, it would help progress.
Lord Cromwell (CB)
My Lords, I apologise to the Committee for not speaking in previous stages of the Bill: commitments elsewhere made it impossible. I shall speak briefly in support of Amendments 274 and 318 from the noble Earl, Lord Lytton. Reading the email circulated, citing powerful support for these amendments from expert commentators, government figures, individual leaseholders and associations from across the whole world, not just the UK, the rest of us can only look on in envy at the level of support that he has generated for his amendments. I congratulate him and the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, on championing this cause and on the powerful and detailed speeches which they gave us earlier, along with the right reverend Prelate.
The approach taken in these two amendments, which are founded on the polluter pays principle, make complete sense in putting right work that was in breach of building regulations at the time across a wider range of premises and a wider range of defects. I have some sympathy with the points raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, about looking after the construction industry. The fact is that, in a way, the polluter pays principle does not quite work here because, if building works were not done in accordance with the building regulations, it is quite clear who is responsible, whereas you could argue more widely about, for example, a leak from an oil tanker being a pollution incident. But, fundamentally, what this comes down to is, if not these solutions, what do the Government propose? I look forward to hearing.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
My Lords, the Grenfell fire tragedy of June 2017 has rightly ensured that many of us in this Chamber have put our minds to the outrageous way in which the construction industry failed to meet existing building safety regulations and how material manufacturers knowingly sold flammable cladding materials to be put on high-rise blocks of flats. That is not me saying that; the inquiry into the Grenfell fire said that.
We have over the past six years in this House tried two ways, so far, to address those issues, first through the Fire Safety Act and then through the longer, more detailed Building Safety Act. Right from the outset, I and others have said quite clearly that, whatever happens in putting right the wrongs of 20 years or more, the leaseholders are the innocent victims in this situation. They have done everything right in their lives and nothing wrong, and they should not be asked to pay a penny piece towards putting right the wrongs that have been done to them, which were concealed from them when they entered into a contract for their property.
We have, with the Government, tried hard to put this right. We have heard from the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, and the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, who have been on this route march, as it seems, from the beginning, trying to find the answer to the question, “As the leaseholder must not pay, who must?” The noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, asked the right question—of course, he always does—which is, “Has the Government done enough?” Some of us, including him at the time, said we did not think so, and so it is proving.
Not only we in this Chamber but thousands of leaseholders are saying that the Government have not done enough. Not only is the construct in the Building Safety Act of the waterfall of responsibilities failing to ensure that remediation takes place promptly or at all, but, meanwhile, as we heard from the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, many leaseholders have awful tales to tell about anxiety caused, mental health that has broken down, financial burdens that cannot be met, ensuing bankruptcy and life chances blunted—and no responsibility of theirs.
Why would any of us involved in legislation allow thousands of our fellow country men and women to be put in this position, where they are being seriously adversely affected, in emotional, financial and social ways, and not do anything—or enough—about it? The noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, rightly said again that the Building Safety Act, despite our best efforts, excluded certain groups of leaseholders: those living in blocks under 11 metres, enfranchised leaseholders and, indeed, some buy-to-let leaseholders. That is clearly not acceptable, because those leaseholders are suffering immensely; the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, gave a vivid example of that.
So the challenge to the Government and to the Minister, which I hope she will take up and respond to, is: what, then, can be done? The Government have tried to put in place a series of funding mechanisms and responsibilities, but that is clearly failing to help thousands upon thousands of leaseholders.
The Minister was unfortunately—or fortunately, for her—was not part of the long discussions on what became the Building Safety Act. We were promised at the time that leaseholders would not be expected to pay, but that is clearly not bearing out in practice. Therefore, I hope the Minister will go back to her department and ask those fundamental questions. The Government’s purpose, as expressed by the Secretary of State Michael Gove, was that it was morally reprehensible for leaseholders to pay. If that is the case, let us put that into practice and find a route through, so that no leaseholder pays anything. They have done nothing wrong and they should not be expected to pay.
In his proposed new schedule to the Bill, the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, has made a very detailed proposal about the polluter pays principle. I concur with the principle that those who cause the damage—the construction companies and the materials manufacturers—must pay. We have to find to find a way for that to work in practice. I am hoping that the Minister will come up with some answers.
Finally, the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, has once again raised the issue of second staircases in high-rise buildings and houses in multiple occupation, which we debated during the progress of what became the Fire Safety Act and also the Building Safety Act. Most of us said that, yes, that was the expert advice from the fire service chiefs and that is what we should do; but, unfortunately, that was not accepted by the Government.
I agree with the noble Baroness’s amendment, but I go back to the key to all this. My view—and that of all who have spoken, through all the outcomes that followed the Grenfell fire tragedy—is that, however the remediation of these buildings, of all heights, is resolved, when it comes to the leaseholders, whether enfranchised or unenfranchised, whatever happens, they must not pay. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, in his Amendments 274, 318, 320 and 325, the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, returns us to subjects that we debated extensively this time last year in what was then the Building Safety Bill. I say to the noble Earl, with the greatest of respect, that this House and the other place considered his arguments carefully last year and rejected them. I really do not think that this Bill is an appropriate place to try to reopen these issues.
Last year, the Government opposed the noble Earl’s scheme and proposed an alternative, the leaseholder protection package, which was agreed by your Lordships and the other place. As your Lordships will be aware, the leaseholder protections in what is now the Building Safety Act 2022 have been in force since June 2022 and form part of the Government’s response to the need to fix defective buildings, alongside a number of other measures that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State set out recently in a Statement in the other place, which was repeated for your Lordships.
Those protections are complex. I would be very happy to have a meeting with interested Peers to discuss the Government’s actions in detail if that would be helpful. If any noble Lord would like to do that, they can get in touch with me or my office and we would be very happy to set that up. But, as I said, the protections are complex and it is true that it has taken time for the various professionals working in this space to get to grips with them. None the less, there is now progress on getting work done, getting mortgages issued on affected flats and moving the conversation forward with the insurance industry to ensure that remediation can be undertaken and that building insurance premiums, which had been excessively high, reflect this reduction in building risk.
I want to be clear with your Lordships: the leaseholder protections are working. The first remediation contribution order to get money back for leaseholders has been made by the tribunal and is being enforced now. In response to my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham, I can say that there have been a further 12 applications for remediation orders to the First-tier Tribunal and nine for contribution orders; that is up to the end of December—we do not have any further updated figures.
The Government’s recovery strategy unit is litigating against large freeholders, and leaseholders have the peace of mind that the remediation bills they were facing—sometimes for more than the value of their home—are no more. I emphasise to your Lordships that changing the basis on which leaseholders are protected would set back by months the progress of remediation work, which is finally happening at pace, and would create further uncertainty in the market.
In addition to the inevitable delay to remediation that would be caused if the noble Earl’s proposals were adopted, I must emphasise that the objections set out by my noble friend Lord Greenhalgh, when he spoke from this Dispatch Box last year, are still relevant. The building-by-building assessment process that he proposes would be both costly and time-consuming, which would not be in anyone’s interest.
While the noble Earl says that his scheme seeks to avoid litigation, our experience shows that the level of complexity and the sums at stake in this field mean that litigation is inevitable—and will necessarily take place in the High Court, rather than the expert tribunal already dealing with disputes under the leaseholder protections, increasing costs and the time taken to resolve cases. I should also make it clear that the Government’s package of measures in this space goes much further than the leaseholder protections set out in the Building Safety Act.
At this point, I would like to answer a few questions. Both my noble friend Lord Young and the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, brought up the point of “under 11 metres”, which I know has been an issue raised. I think I have said many times at this Dispatch Box that the views of the independent experts are clear: there is no systematic risk in buildings under 11 metres. However, we continue to look at these on a case-by-case basis and provide any help to those leaseholders accordingly. If my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham would like to let me have the letter that was sent to him, I would be happy for the team to look at it.
The Earl of Lytton (CB)
My Lords, this has been an extremely interesting debate. I thank all noble Lords for their contributions on this group of amendments.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Young, for covering all the technical bits that brevity forced me to omit; I am grateful to him for that. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Guildford gave an outstanding and thought-provoking commentary on, among other things, corporate motivation and where that should sit in the rules-based order.
The noble Baroness, Lady Fox, asked me some specific questions. I will give it a go in terms of giving her a brief response, but if she wants more information then I ask her to let me know because I may need to write to her. She asked me about the potential damage to the construction industry. My belief is that the construction industry should be able to build its way out of the liability—admittedly, probably at a lower profit margin, but that should be a viable option for it, so I do not see this as being a total loss. One of her later points was about market damage. The best estimate at the moment is that about 10% of the blocks are affected, which effectively means that 90% of them are built to good standards and do not present a problem. The risk is that if we do not deal with those forthrightly, and if the Government’s programme is not continually ahead of expectation, the rotten apples will end up infecting a much wider cohort than would otherwise be the case.
The noble Baroness also picked me up on the demonisation of the term “polluter pays”. I hope that I avoided using that term in referring to the building safety remediation scheme, but I know that outside it has attracted that moniker. That is of course a reflection on the environmental liability; coming further forward in time from that strict liability, we have a more direct example. It is of health and safety, particularly on construction sites. The strict liability that was imposed under that regime substantially improved the rate of death and injury in construction. I believe the same focus that this liability would generate is applicable here, bearing in mind that we are talking about vulnerable people in their own homes and that they are asleep and unconscious for maybe 25% to 30% of the time. They really need to know that that is their safe haven and not to feel threatened in it by issues of safety or finance, such as not being able to transact their property.
I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Hayman of Ullock and Lady Pinnock, for their support. The noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, has been an absolutely doughty supporter of the principle throughout. I pay tribute to that, as I do to my noble friend Lord Cromwell for his contribution. I am most grateful.
I thank the Minister for her response but I am disappointed. The fact of the matter is that a very large number of flats are excluded. There is no prospect of any early protection from costs that their owners are not responsible for. Litigation against freeholders is all very well, provided that the freeholders were those who were responsible for the problem in the first place. But if they are not, because they just happen to be from a pension fund that picked it up along the way, no doubt relying on the same sign-off and building warranties as all the occupiers, then I have to say that this looks like the Government plucking at low-hanging fruit for the purposes of PR and marketing. I am sorry, but I do not buy the principle that letting others off the hook should necessitate going after people who may themselves be, beyond peradventure, innocent.
The Minister also referred to the comment made just over a year ago saying that the amendment I moved then, of which I hope this one can be regarded as a new and upgraded version, was not cost effective because it would require a building-by-building assessment. But you do not establish anything unless somebody goes and looks at the building on an individual basis; I know that as a surveyor. I have looked at hundreds of buildings in my professional life and that is where it starts. The Government’s own approval to any sub 11-metre matters is described as being on a case-by-case basis, so what is the difference?
Member's explanatory statement
This means that the extended time limits for enforcement of planning controls does not apply when there is a significant impact on the local environment.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I shall also speak to Amendments 277, 280 to 281B and 282 in the name of my noble friend Lady Hayman and in mine. I shall also make some comments in relation to Amendments 276, 278 and 279, in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, and Amendment 281C in the name of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead.
The increasingly acrimonious circumstances in which planning is often discussed, debated and granted has significantly increased the burden of enforcement. This is combined with a contraction of local authority planning teams due to reductions in local authority funding, which is putting increasing burdens on the planning process, as we have already debated today in Committee. Our amendments are in recognition of that and to ensure that timescales, fines and practices are developed in a way that is proportionate to the current circumstances.
As one brief example, most local councillors will be familiar with their weekly planning list having a number of certificate of lawfulness applications—they are a particular bugbear of mine. These mean that the applicant has not applied for the appropriate permissions in advance and, having now built out their development, is only now seeking the approval of the planning authority. There is little if any appropriate sanction for this behaviour, which seems grossly unfair to all those who take the necessary steps to submit their applications properly in advance of building.
It is fair to say that such developers face the risk of the planning authority turning down their retrospective application, and there have been notable examples of authorities requiring buildings and/or alterations to be taken down. However, with the powers of enforcement diminished, both in this respect and for straightforward breaches of planning, simply by the lack of resources to deal with enforcement, the danger is that we continue to see from the worst offenders a cavalier approach taken to the planning process.
Amendments 275 and 277 in the name of my noble friend Lady Hayman of Ullock are designed to draw attention to the fact that it may be necessary to foreshorten the extended time limits for the enforcement of planning controls where there is a significant impact on the environment. We appreciate that the 10-year window is necessary for raising issues relating to planning enforcement, but it will be important that all involved in development understand that, if enforcement relates to an issue where substantial harm is being caused to the environment, planning officers will expect these to be dealt with more quickly. We hope this amendment will give them the power to do so. The amendment aims to prevent a delayed response from developers, not to limit the amount of time planning controls can be exercised over environmental matters. This should be 10 years, as for all other matters.
We have discussed previously in Committee the need for rapid digitisation of the planning process, where that has not already been done. Amendment 280 is a probing amendment to ensure that this is the case for the enforcement aspects of planning as well.
As in other parts of the Bill, we believe that new burdens may be imposed on local authorities in relation to enforcement. Amendment 281 in my name is to flag up again that there will be a need for an overall assessment of all parts of the Bill to understand the likely financial impact on local authorities. We have received previous assurances from the Minister on new burdens funding. It would be good to know that relevant professional and representative bodies will be consulted on this important issue as quickly as possible after the Bill passes into law, so that no undue financial burdens are placed on already hard-pressed local authorities.
As we have discussed in previous clauses, the financial burden of planning does not fall proportionately on the developer, which is true of enforcement too. Amendment 281A in the name of my noble friend Lady Hayman of Ullock is included to ensure that we do not inadvertently create an enforcement fine regime where it is more cost effective for the developer to breach planning rules and guidelines because the cost of non-compliance is less than the profit they are likely to make from any breach.
My Amendment 281B seeks to introduce a very important provision that would prevent developers applying for an exemption to the provisions in a planning application to deliver affordable housing in a development. We are all very familiar with the long wrangles that planning authorities are having over viability. Our concern is that, if this exemption from enforcement clause were to apply to the delivery of agreed affordable housing, it would simply be another get-out clause in the armoury for developers, with their significant legal firepower, to avoid providing much-needed affordable housing.
Clause 116 is concerned with ensuring that the planning process works as efficiently as possible and makes best use of digital technology. My Amendment 282 seeks to set the purpose of this in the Bill, so there can be no doubt that it is the intention to avoid delays wherever possible.
Amendment 276 is in the names of the noble Earls, Lord Lytton and Lord Devon. Just as our amendments recognise the importance of a shorter enforcement period for environmental issues, it recognises the importance of changes of use to a dwelling house. We agree that, where enforcement relates to somebody’s home, a shorter time period than 10 years would be preferable.
Amendment 278, in the names of the noble Earls, Lord Lytton and Lord Devon, recommends consultation with affected parties on extending the time limits for planning enforcement from four years to 10 years. We would always support such steps, as professional bodies and local government representative bodies can be essential consultees in ensuring that all consequences are understood from the outset and that any unintended consequences can be predicted and mitigated.
On Amendment 279, in the names of the noble Earls, Lord Lytton and Lord Devon, we will be interested to hear the Minister’s response on whether it is the intention for the provisions of the Bill to be retrospectively applied to developments which, under current legislation, have reached the time limit for enforcement. Is the legislation to apply only to enforcement for developments started after the commencement of the Act? Will there be a transition period, or will it automatically apply to all developments that have reached the current four-year limit?
Amendment 281C in the name of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, seeks to insert in the Bill the explanation of the purpose of Clause 113, as is contained in the Explanatory Notes. We have had a number of examples during our examination of this Bill where the absence of these explanatory clauses could potentially cause ambiguity in their interpretation. Therefore, we support this sensible move to insert the explanatory clause in the Bill. I beg to move my amendment.
The Earl of Lytton (CB)
My Lords, probing Amendment 276, and Amendments 278 in 279, are in my name and that of the noble Earl, Lord Devon, who is regrettably unable to be with us today. Apart from declaring an interest as a property owner, I must also explain that I have in the past been threatened with enforcement proceedings—so guilty as charged, or perhaps not guilty as charged. I am very grateful to a number of planning practitioners who explained some of the finer points of all this to me.
These amendments relate to Clause 107 and refer to what is known as the four-year rule. The current position is that, if works to a property have been undertaken more than four years previously, the owner is immune from enforcement action by the local authority. The equivalent period for changes of use, which of course may be harder to spot, is 10 years. A minimum of 10 years unchallenged enjoyment of both works and change of use is required before a lawful use certificate can be claimed. If you like, the entitlement at that stage becomes absolute.
I should add that, for works or changes of use to a listed building or, I think, for one in a conservation area, time does not run against the enforcing authority, and so protection of heritage is not an issue. Furthermore, works of development that are done secretively or by concealment are, I believe, also not protected by the four-year rule. So the building of a house within the confines of an agricultural barn, as happened in one rather infamous case, would not escape.
The system has operated for many years, quite successfully as far as I know. In the most recent review of the arrangements, the four-year cut off remained unamended. My own sense is that, if works have not been spotted after four years, it is quite unlikely that they will be spotted more readily in years five to 10. Indeed, one might conclude that, if it is that unobtrusive, it should scarcely be a planning concern anyway. It is more likely that it will crop up to ensnare an unwary owner who makes a subsequent application and some historic non-compliance is spotted at that stage.
The four-year rule also recognises that planning is complex, with many pitfalls for the unwary, and that it is not necessary or desirable to micromanage planning uses of land and buildings. For instance, erection of deer fencing, construction of ponds and the placing of certain structures on land may in some cases require consent but in others they do not. A movable item nearly always does not trigger a planning issue but leaving it in the same place for too long does.
Many households think that a permitted development right absolves them of the need for any consent at all. I believe it is government policy to reduce burdens on householders. Furthermore, where a local planning authority has issued what is known as an Article 4 direction, removing permitted development rights for certain types of development, owners may not be aware of this or be made aware, even in a purchase situation. As in one instance which occurred in my professional career, a shopkeeper might find that they are subject to enforcement procedures for displaying an internally illuminated sign fixed to the interior of their shop window glass, but not if it is a foot or two further back. The rules are opaque, convoluted and may be interpreted differentially per authority. As I see it, the four-year rule served to prevent this becoming a more serious issue.
But Clause 107 would remove this protection. I know of no justification for doing this, nor any public consultation that underpins that decision to include it in the Bill. I think that most householders, and possibly quite a few lenders, would view this with concern. But the removal would have, in my opinion, a somewhat more sinister side-effect. I know of instances whereby an annoyed builder has set out to shop a property owner who did not award him a contract of works, or shopped the successful contractor—or a neighbour averring to the authorities that works in non-compliance are taking place, either because of neighbourly detestation or, as in one case known to me, because the neighbour took umbrage about the builders’ vehicle parking and plant-unloading arrangements in the street outside their home. So to leave the door open for an additional six years to this sort of risk of a snooper’s charter is socially, economically and administratively undesirable.
Lord Hope of Craighead (CB)
I shall speak to Amendment 281C. I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Stevenage, for her introduction and support for that amendment. It is one of two amendments which I have tabled to give effect to recommendations by the Constitution Committee, of which I am a member, seeking to promote the principle of legal certainty. The problem which concerned the committee in this case relates to the width of the power in the new Section 196E, introduced by Clause 113.
The Explanatory Notes say that the position at the moment about decisions
“to take enforcement action in response to breaches of planning control is at the discretion of the local planning authority”.
New Section 196E seeks to give power to the Secretary of State to provide relief from enforcement and planning conditions in a particular way, by providing that a local planning authority
“may not take … relevant enforcement measures”
or is subject to particular restrictions as to whether it should take that step.
The reason given in the Explanatory Notes is really a bit of history. In the difficult circumstances that arose as a result of the Covid-19 pandemic, with a later acute shortage of heavy goods vehicles,
“local planning authorities have been encouraged to be flexible in terms of enforcement action of non-compliance with conditions imposed on grants of planning permission which govern construction working hours and delivery hours”.
Those are the kind of conditions put forward to protect the environment of local residents, and so on—and, obviously, when they are imposed, they are imposed for a very good reason. But the Covid-19 situation, with the acute shortage of heavy goods vehicles, made it desirable that these hours should be extended, instead of being restricted to hours that would not interfere with people’s sleep, or whatever else it would be. There was a good reason for being more flexible and allowing the hours to be extended.
That is the background to the step being taken here, but the Constitution Committee’s concern was about the width of the power being sought under new Section 196E. The section is carefully drafted, because it says that what the Secretary of State may do by regulations is to give direct attention to
“relevant enforcement measures in relation to any actual or apparent failure to comply with a relevant planning condition”.
Those expressions, “relevant enforcement measures” and “relevant planning condition”, are carefully defined in this new section and are wide in their scope. “Enforcement measures” includes all the powers that one might expect—the powers to apply for enforcement orders, injunctions and entry without a warrant, and so on, to see what is going on, and to deal with issues about planning contravention notices, temporary stop notices, enforcement notices, warning notices and so on.
The new section is very carefully drafted. What it does not do is contain any kind of limit on the extent to which the power might be used, which is why the Constitution Committee, in its report, said that it was concerned by the breadth of the power and recommended that the clause should be amended to ensure that the power was limited to
“emergency situations or other forms of serious disruption”,
following the example set out in the Explanatory Notes. My amendment provides simply that the power may be exercised only
“in the event of an emergency or other form of serious disruption which makes it necessary for the local planning authority to be provided with this relief”.
As I said, the background is that, in any case at the moment, the local authority has a discretion as to how far it should go in dealing with breaches of planning conditions, but the power is actually giving directions. Therefore it is necessary, in the interests of legal certainty, that the scope of the power should be limited along the lines that my amendment suggests.
Baroness Thornhill (LD)
My Lords, this is a really interesting group of amendments and clearly very technical and detailed. The Minister may be relieved that I shall keep my comments quite simple, to address certain principles.
Clause 107 represents a radical change. There is quite a difference between four years and 10 years, which will apply to all forms of unauthorised development. As has already been said by the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, the Explanatory Notes do not actually give any rationale for the actual number of years. Is it a proposal following consultation of some sort, or just a figure between four and 10—in which case, may I suggest six? I would be interested to know how it was arrived at.
I am also interested in the Minister’s response to the noble Earl’s Amendments 278 and 279 on transition and consultation, which both seem reasonable and sensible, given that this is a significant time change, with consequences following from the scale of the change.
I agree that there is definitely some sense in bringing about a single limitation period, beyond which all such development is lawful, to put an end to the fraught arguments and confusion of what applies to which and when and why. Such confusions, in my experience, come from all parties—council officers, definitely residents and even on occasion legal representatives. It is not straightforward. When is a garage not a garage? What is a garage? I remember that one vividly.
Amendment 276 in the name of the noble Earls seeks to retain the four-year rule where a breach—I am choosing my words very carefully—involves a place where people live. From my urban experience, I have seen too many “beds in sheds” where, at worst, people are living in conditions not fit for animals and at best, they are massively overcrowded with inadequate facilities. Nobody should get away with exploiting vulnerable people, who are living in those conditions because they are desperate, just because the breach was reported only after four years and one day.
On Amendments 275 and 277 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, I seek clarification from the Minister and I accept that I may have got this wrong. Given that I agree with many of the noble Baroness’s amendments and her way of thinking about the Bill, I am, in a sense, sense checking. As I read it, the Government’s intention in this clause is to give local planning authorities a considerably longer timeframe—some might say too long—to intervene in a breach of unlawful planning that has been brought to their attention. I would say that was a good thing from the point of view of the local authority, affected residents and communities. Therefore, would her two amendments, if passed, mean that despite the breach having
“a significant impact on the local environment”,
the noble Baroness is seeking to reduce the time that residents have to notice it and their council to respond? It is the time to enforce and not the time to comply with enforcement: that is my understanding. Perhaps the Minister can clarify that and put me right.
Amendments 281 and 281A in the names of the noble Baronesses, Lady Taylor and Lady Hayman, deal with council finances. The situation was described well, so I do not need to repeat that, but what I will say is that enforcement is a very important service. We all want and need more effective enforcement. Poor enforcement across a whole council can undermine all our efforts to improve the place we live in. Enforcement is a big signal to residents that their council cares about what goes on in their areas and will do something about it. Over the years, I found it was a trust issue with residents, about “Whose side are you on?” Helpless cries of, “Well, it’s outside the four-year period” cut no ice.
The harsh reality, particularly in district councils, is that, increasingly, councils are responding only to breaches that are brought to their attention, rather than proactively going out looking for them, which I think is something we all think they should do and which should cut across a wide range of council functions. The reality is that, due to the reduction of available funding and a decline in the number of skilled staff over many years, that is not happening. Capacity and capability is an issue here too. The real skill in enforcement work is to bring about compliance without the need to serve notices and go to court, with all the additional cost and time that that incurs, in order to perhaps get a paltry fine. In my experience, most council officers will seek not to do the sorts of things that the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, mentioned; they actually work very hard to take proportionate and flexible actions with minor infringements.
On Amendment 281B in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, about social housing, we all know that of all the current Section 106 obligations that developers try to wheedle out of, social housing is their number one target. Reducing the wriggle room and strengthening this obligation is surely a good thing. We have several ex-council leaders in the Chamber who will all have experienced occasions when a developer has found it more cost effective to breach the rules and pay the fine. Chopping down trees covered by tree preservation orders is a regular example that springs to mind. We are all battle scarred, hence our cynicism regarding some developers and the desire to recover full costs, as in our earlier debate.
Earl Howe (Con)
My Lords, all the amendments in this group relate to the enforcement clauses in the Bill and it may be helpful if I begin by explaining briefly the rationale for the package of enforcement measures that the Bill contains. The Government recognise that effective enforcement is vital to maintain public confidence and trust in the planning system. The noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, made that point very powerfully. Local planning authorities already have a wide range of enforcement powers, with strong penalties for non-compliance, to tackle breaches of planning control. The Bill’s measures are intended to strengthen those powers so that local planning authorities are better able to take the robust action their communities want to see.
Amendments 275 to 279 inclusive all deal with Clause 107 on enforcement time limits. Amendments 275 and 277, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, seek to retain the current four-year time limit for commencing enforcement action against breaches of planning control where the breach has a significant impact on the local environment. Amendments 276 in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, seeks to retain the four-year time period after which enforcement action cannot be brought where there has been a breach of planning control consisting of the change of use of any building to use as a single dwelling house. Amendment 278 in the name of the noble Earl would require consultation to take place and a report to be published before Clause 107 can come into force. The noble Earl’s further amendment, Amendment 279, seeks to add to the Bill confirmation that breaches of planning control which are currently immune from enforcement action will remain immune following the passing of the Act.
Let me give the Committee some background on the need for Clause 107. Currently, Section 171B(1) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 imposes a four-year time limit on local planning authorities beginning enforcement action against a breach of planning control consisting of building, engineering, mining or other operations. Section 171B(2) imposes the same four-year time limit for a breach of planning control consisting of a change of use of any building to use as a single dwelling house. All other breaches of planning control are subject to a 10-year time limit. However, we have heard from key stakeholders the very point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, that there are some cases where the current four-year time limit is not long enough and the opportunity to commence enforcement action is inadvertently missed.
For example, a person may not initially raise concerns with a local planning authority, assuming a neighbouring development has the correct permissions or will not cause disturbance. Should the development prove disruptive, they may then try to come to an agreement with the person responsible for it. However, by the time they raise their concerns with the local planning authority, the opportunity to commence enforcement action may have passed.
We have also heard that having two timescales for enforcement can unnecessarily complicate cases. For example, where a new building has been constructed on land, enforcement action could be taken against the construction of the building itself, subject to the four-year rule, or against the material change of use of the land brought about by the construction of the building and its subsequent use, subject to the 10-year rule. This uncertainty can lead to lengthy and resource-intensive appeals and court cases debating the starting point for immunity.
Clause 107 seeks to address all these issues by making the time limit 10 years for all breaches of planning control in England. This will create greater certainty and consistency for all parties involved in the planning enforcement process and ensure that the opportunity to commence enforcement action is not inadvertently missed. To be very clear, Clause 107 is not about delaying the enforcement process unnecessarily. The expectation will remain that local planning authorities should act promptly to investigate and remedy breaches of planning control as quickly as possible.
Amendment 278 is about consultation. As I have already explained, we have engaged with key stakeholders during the preparation of the Bill. This package of enforcement measures is what the profession identified would most help it carry out its job more effectively. On the noble Earl’s Amendment 279, we will make transitional provisions in regulations to ensure that breaches of planning control that are currently immune from enforcement action will remain immune following the passage of the Bill. I hope that, with these reassurances, he will agree that these amendments are not required.
Amendment 280, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Stevenage, seeks to probe how technology can be used to support the new planning process. The Government share this ambition. We are keen to modernise the planning process and make better use of technology; amendments in Chapter 1 of Part 3 of the Bill, on planning data, are designed to do just that.
The new enforcement warning notices that we are introducing through the Bill may be served in a number of ways, including by electronic means, but I do not think it would be appropriate to make this the only means of serving such a notice. Enforcement warning notices are a planning enforcement tool. It is therefore vital that, if a local planning authority is beginning enforcement action, those against whom action is being taken receive the notices. Some do not use or have access to digital communication tools, and we must ensure that they are not disadvantaged. There is also the issue that an enforcement warning notice may be served on someone who has not engaged with the local planning authority and so the authority would not have an email address for them. I hope that, with this explanation, the noble Baroness will agree that this amendment is unnecessary.
Amendment 281, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, is about local authority resources. The measures in the Bill are designed to make the existing framework easier to use for enforcement officers. Where we are introducing new powers such as enforcement warning notices, their use is discretionary. As such, I do not think these measures will create significant additional burdens or resource pressures for local planning authorities.
However, we recognise that many local planning authorities already face capacity and capability challenges and we are taking steps to address this issue. We are currently consulting on proposals to increase planning application fees. In the enforcement context, this includes a proposal to double the fee for retrospective applications, in recognition that they often create additional work for officers over and above what is required for a regular application. To ensure that local planning authorities are well equipped and supported to deliver their existing requirements as well as the changes set out in the Bill, we have already started to work alongside the sector to design targeted interventions to support the development of critical skills and to build capacity across local planning authorities. With these reassurances, I hope the noble Baroness will agree that Amendment 281 is unnecessary.
I turn to Amendment 281A, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, and spoken to by the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor. The level of fine for failure to comply with a breach of condition notice is currently level 4 on the standard scale—a maximum of £2,500. The purpose of Clause 112 is to make fines for this offence unlimited, bringing them into line with the levels of fine for other planning enforcement offences. Amendment 281A would introduce a new sentencing requirement for this offence which would not apply to sentencing for other planning enforcement offences. It would not be reasonable to create a more punitive sentencing regime for the offence of non-compliance with a breach of condition notice than for other planning enforcement offences.
This amendment would also cut across the national approach to sentencing set out in the Sentencing Code which courts refer to when sentencing offenders. It is for the courts to determine the appropriate level of fine for an offence, taking into account its seriousness and the financial circumstances of the offender, including for this offence. Therefore, while I appreciate the sentiment behind this amendment, I feel that it is not appropriate for those reasons.
Amendment 281B, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, would ensure that relief from enforcement action under Clause 113 cannot be granted for any planning conditions relating to the type or volume of affordable housing. While I appreciate her concern about the power being used to restrict conditions about affordable housing, I reassure her that this is not the intention. Clause 113 has been brought forward to provide a statutory route to provide relief in future from planning conditions that unnecessarily impede economic activities during periods of disruption and uncertainty. This is in response to the experience during the height of the Covid pandemic to enable key business sectors to respond and recover from its impacts where we discouraged enforcement through policy.
Here, we focused exclusively on conditions related to the operative use of land or premises, such as construction working hours or delivery times. We would expect these types of conditions to provide relief from enforcement action in future. Conditions related to affordable housing were not in scope. More importantly, affordable housing provision is primarily secured through Section 106 planning obligations, rather than by condition. The concern that affordable housing provision could be affected by the use of this power is therefore misplaced. It does not affect Section 106 agreements.
Amendment 281C, tabled by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, seeks to limit the use of the power under Clause 113 to periods of emergency or serious disruption. I recognise that the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee has recommended that this power should be limited to periods of emergency or serious disruption. We are carefully considering its recommendations and will respond to the committee before Report. However, I reassure the noble and learned Lord that I believe the committee has made some valid points on the scope of the power. It is intended to be used in emergencies and periods of disruption, and it will not be used lightly. We recognise that planning conditions are an important way of making development acceptable to communities and we want them to continue to be used.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have participated in this debate. I am also grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Howe, for his response. I am afraid that enforcement is an element of planning that is little understood by the public; they often think that our powers and resources are much greater than they are to deal with some of the issues that arise. I pay tribute to planning officers who field all of this on a daily basis. Even in our short discussion here, it has been clear that it is not always very straightforward. We are all striving to improve confidence in the process as we go through the amendments to the Bill.
Some confusion has arisen around the proposed amendments to the time periods, but, having had the explanation from the noble Earl, that is a bit clearer. It was about whether the four-year time limit was there to begin enforcement action and that was now being moved to 10 years, which gives a longer wind. I accept all the comments that have been made—particularly by the noble Earl, Lord Lytton—asking whether, if nobody has noticed it in four years, they will notice it in 10 years, and whether it really matters if they do. However, these issues can be very serious, as we have heard in previous debates in this Committee. I think a longer time period for enforcement to be able to be taken does not make sense, particularly where, as explained, there are two timescales at play in the Town and Country Planning Act.
Our concern is that this might give reasons for delay to the enforcement action itself, particularly for issues around environmental action. We need to make absolutely sure that we are not going to give any opportunity for delay in responding to enforcement action. If there is going to be a delay in the reporting of it, that is one thing. If there is going to be a delay in responding to it, that is a whole other issue. In terms of the points made by the noble Earl on engagement with key stakeholders, I was reassured to hear him say that the delay to the time period had come directly from the key stakeholders involved.
We have had plenty of discussions in previous Committee sessions on the Bill about digitisation. I think that local government has gone quite a lot further than some of the people in DLUHC might think. I will leave that there, but of course we can always do better on digitisation.
The issue of local authority resources is very important to all of us, as we are constantly debating. There are quite a lot of acutely aware people in the public who might see the introduction of enforcement notices, potentially creating an expectation that we are going to have further action on them. We always have to be careful that we look at the resources that are going to be required to deal with new measures, and the same applies to this part of the Bill. I was extremely pleased to hear about the increase in fines for retrospective applications, which have been a long-standing bugbear of mine, as I said earlier.
The noble Earl mentioned that it is not the intention to give relief from affordable housing provisions. I understand what he said: that that provision is directed at emergency provision for construction sites. Those of us who were in local government at the time had plenty of contact from both the construction sector and from members of the public about changes to that—there was a need for emergency procedures then. We will take a closer look at that, as we believe there could be unintended consequences—particularly on the provisions for affordable housing—from that issue.
I will now turn to some of the comments made by other noble Lords. I have already mentioned the comment by the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, who asked whether, if something had not been spotted in four years, it was really an issue at all. It is often surveyors who pick up these issues at the exchange of property: a surveyor might go in and realise that something is not quite right with the property. I was quite surprised to hear the noble Earl say that there should be a line drawn under this after four years. Owners may not be aware of the Article 4 directions; I do think there is a very widespread lack of understanding around Article 4 directions and what they can mean. The rules are certainly a bit opaque, but I do not think it is repressive and intrusive local councils that are causing the problem here.
We do have the issue around HMOs and permitted development—which the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, referred to very powerfully—where you end up with these beds in sheds developments. The permitted development and HMO regimes exacerbate that and may need just as much attention as the enforcement mechanisms. I would agree that a better outcome would be trying to get compliance, rather than going into litigation. I really chimed with her point about people chopping down trees with TPOs—they would do that and then worry about the TPO afterwards.
I am grateful for all the responses to the points that have been made. I do remain concerned that the Bill is not terribly clear about whether it is enforcement or reporting of enforcement breaches that are extended to 10 years. That could do with some clarification. We will take a further look at that. With that, I withdraw my amendment for the time being.
Fishing Industry: Visas for Foreign Workers
(1 year ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Coaker (Lab)
My Lords, the UK’s fishing industry is in turmoil given the Government’s decision to implement a new visa scheme immediately, potentially leaving it short of workers. Why are they doing it? Fishing businesses are waiting weeks for the Home Office to process skilled worker visas. Is it not more sensitive to business viability to wait before implementing the scheme while the Home Office sorts the scheme and itself out? Could the English language requirement for the visa, for example, be made more sensible and reasonable? The UK’s valuable and vital fishing industry is going to be put at risk by this high-handed action by the Government. Are they going to act to sort it out, or refuse to listen to the legitimate concerns of the fishing industry?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Murray of Blidworth) (Con)
Since the original Question was answered in the other place by Miss Dines, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State has written to stakeholders to inform them of the details of the generous support package which was communicated today to industry leaders and stakeholders. The package is designed to help producer organisations and individual businesses in the seafood sector understand the immigration system and to offer Home Office premium expedited services and products at no cost. It includes: hosting an initial familiarisation session for key leads; working with our commercial partners to ensure that there is sufficient English language testing capacity at locations where workers could be recruited; working with our commercial partners to ensure that workers can access visa application centres to give biometrics; and, once a sponsor licence is received, expediting the decision-making process for no extra charge. Once visa applications are received from workers, expediting the visa decision-making process will also be at no additional charge. Our service standard is 15 working days, but we will endeavour to make decisions in eight to 10 days. We will also appoint a dedicated point of contact in UK Visas and Immigration in relation to these matters.
Lord Teverson (LD)
My Lords, the record of this Government and the Tory party is that they talk about how they defend the fishing industry, yet over the last few years they have seemed determined to destroy it. Why does a vessel need a different crew when it fishes within territorial limits from the one it needs when it fishes beyond them? This seems to be red tape, as does the scheme the Minister just explained. This industry has been on its knees, and we need it to thrive—surely we need to change the way that this operates altogether.
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
I thank the noble Lord for that question. It has been the long-standing position of this Government and previous ones that foreign nationals coming to work in the UK—be that on land or in our waters—should comply with the immigration system when doing so. I do not believe that this is a controversial proposition, and the fishing industry is no exception. This House and the other place legislated to rectify and clarify the position in Section 43 of the Nationality and Borders Act. The action that the noble Lord complains about is merely the implementation of those provisions, which have been approved by Parliament.
Lord Knight of Weymouth (Lab)
My Lords, a week last Thursday, a good friend of mine in Orkney rang me in some distress. He runs a crab fishing business with two vessels, with several thousand crab creels at the bottom of the north Atlantic. The decision made by the Home Office, which was effective that day, meant he had no way of going and servicing those creels and no way of bringing them in. There is no space on the dock for him to land them if he could bring them in, but if he went to get them with his crew, he would be subject to a potential £20,000 fine per crew. He applied many weeks ago for the skilled worker visas and they are still being processed, so today’s letter was not received with great cheer. Can the Government make a special dispensation for Orkney crab businesses to carry on fishing in their traditional waters, which are far off in the north Atlantic but count as inshore due to three tiny uninhabited islands? If they were discarded from the calculation around inshore waters, an important traditional industry for Orkney would be allowed to survive.
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
I know that the noble Lord is a doughty campaigner on these issues. Indeed, we have previously exchanged views on this. I am happy to look at the suggestion he raises, but it is right that the fishing industry should be able to utilise domestic labour where possible and use the skilled workers visa route to employ foreign nationals if necessary within 12 nautical miles. I am afraid that it is not within the department’s ability to change the geography of the waters around Orkney, but I will certainly look at the matter he raises and write to him about it.
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)
My Lords, on Thursday 13 April, the Home Office announced that the scheme to allow visas for workers in aquaculture and offshore renewable industries would now cease for the fishing industry with immediate effect. This caused both outrage and chaos among fishermen, who are now to be classed as skilled workers, unlike seasonal agricultural workers. The immediate cessation of the visa system for the fishing industry came as a total shock. Why was this announcement so sudden, and why was it made during the Easter Recess, producing a catastrophic impact?
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
I thank the noble Baroness for that question. It cannot have come as a total shock because we debated the provisions in the Nationality and Borders Act when it passed through Parliament, so the industry had a clear indication at that point of the Government’s intention and direction of travel. Turning to the noble Baroness’s substantive point, I point out that there are fundamental differences between fishing and the agricultural sectors. The agricultural scheme is seasonal and temporarily provides low-skilled labour for peak seasons in roles that are generally not eligible for skilled worker visas. The fishing industry, by contrast, operates all year round, and the occupations are eligible for skilled worker visas.
Israel and Occupied Palestinian Territories
(1 year ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My Lords, I join the Government in condemning the appalling and cowardly murder of Lucy, Maia and Rina Dee, and send our deepest condolences to Rabbi Leo Dee and the rest of the family.
This year has been one of the deadliest for Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories: 98 Palestinians, including at least 17 children, have been killed by Israeli forces, and 17 Israelis have been killed so far in 2023. Each life lost is a tragedy, and every Palestinian and Israeli deserves a just solution to the conflict. As Andrew Mitchell said in the debate on the Statement:
“When the House speaks with one voice, particularly in its condemnation of human rights abuses, we have an impact, and our voices are heard”.—[Official Report, Commons, 20/4/23; col. 394.]
We must therefore be united in strongly opposing all actions that make a two-state solution harder to achieve, including rocket attacks, the expansion of illegal settlements, settler violence and evictions and demolitions, and condemn all acts of terrorism.
Last month, the 2030 Roadmap for UK-Israel Bilateral Relations was signed, and Andrew Mitchell assured the other place that it did not indicate any change in the UK’s long-established position on a two-state solution. Can the Minister therefore explain why there was no mention of this objective in the road map?
Andrew Mitchell also referred to the meetings between the Israelis and Palestinians in Aqaba and Sharm el-Sheikh to discuss ways to de-escalate the rising tensions. What are the Government doing with our international partners to support that process, and what is the Government’s assessment of both Israeli and Palestinian commitments made in those meetings being met?
Earlier today it was reported that a Jordanian MP has been arrested following allegations of attempts to smuggle weapons into Israel. Given concerns that the violence could spread, can the Minister tell us whether we are working with Jordan on de-escalation and engaging on this issue?
Andrew Mitchell said:
“The UK’s position on settlements is absolutely clear: settlements are illegal”.
Earlier this month, UN special rapporteurs called on the international community to raise this issue. Have the Government taken any specific steps on this call?
The Minister stated in the other place that
“the UK is clear that the demolition of Palestinian homes and forced evictions cause unnecessary suffering to ordinary Palestinians and call into question Israel’s commitment to a viable two-state solution”.
He also said that the UK Government
“are also focused on preventing demolitions from happening in the first place … through our legal aid programme”.
Can the noble Lord tell us what resources have been devoted to this programme and what assessment has been made of the success rate in challenging demolitions within the Israeli legal system?
The damage that Israeli restrictions on movement, access and trade inflict on the living standards of ordinary Palestinians, especially in Gaza, is huge. Can the noble Lord tell us what progress has been made on the UK’s call for access into and out of Gaza, in accordance with international humanitarian law, for humanitarian actors, reconstruction materials and those, including Palestinians, travelling for medical purposes? What support are we giving to UN agencies and key partners on the ground in this regard?
In conclusion, Andrew Mitchell stated that
“the UK will recognise a Palestinian state at a time when the Government believe this will best serve the objective of peace”.—[Official Report, Commons, 20/4/23; cols. 471-72.]
Can the noble Lord specify the conditions the Government believe need to be met for this to happen?
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, given that it will be a while until we have the repeat of Thursday’s Statement on Sudan, I thank, through the Minister, the envoy for his responsiveness to me on that issue.
I share in the condolences expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Collins, to the family—I know that the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, personally provided solace to them—and, in the wider context, to the families of the 17 Israelis killed so far in 2023 and the 17 Palestinian children among the 98 Palestinians. The murders of civilians are especially egregious and must be condemned. The responsibility of those in control is to reduce tension, and this is of course made harder when an Israeli family is devastated by loss, but also when the occupying power, Israel, does not even allow the registration of a Palestinian killed, as we read today. We join in the commemorations of the 75th anniversary of statehood of our ally and friend Israel, but recognise that this is one of the bloodiest years in many, far outstripping the violence last year.
It is therefore regrettable that this year looks less and less like a year of opportunity for peacemaking but rather, one of increased violence, notwithstanding the recent meetings referred to in the Statement. Israel is suffering from terrorism outwith and within its borders, but it is moving to wider breaches of international law with impunity; and moves to put those in the new Government of Israel—the most extreme members of the most right-wing Government in its 75 years—in civilian control of military administration of the illegally occupied territories is, in effect, a proposal for annexation. There is a combination of continuing lack of robust security and control within the Palestinian Authority, but also an Israeli Government facing unprecedented opposition at home.
Of course, for peace there needs to be talk, as the Statement highlighted, and I agree with the Minister in that regard. However, for a significant breakthrough, who would talk? It is correct that Israeli Governments are faced with groups who deny the very existence of the state, but now others face Israeli Ministers who deny the very existence of the Palestinian people. US Israeli groups are refusing to meet Prime Minister Netanyahu because of concerns about the consequences of what he described to CBS’s “Face the Nation” yesterday as legislation to
“make corrections in our judicial system”.
If we all believe in the rule of law—I hope the Minister will agree with this—then the burden is placed on an occupying power as a sovereign entity. However, the only reference to the illegal occupation in the road map referred to is one line in the security section of the introduction:
“We will cooperate in improving Palestinian livelihoods and Palestinian economic development”.
This suggests to any reader that we consider Palestine to be a federal province rather than an occupied territory. However, regardless of the view on that, we have actively and deliberately cut economic development support to Palestine, inhibiting the development of livelihoods, which acts against avowed UK policy. As I have raised previously, why has UK support for Palestine, which was £102 million in 2020, been reduced to £6 million in 2023-24? Department for Business and Trade funding for economic development in the area, which was stressed specifically in the road map Statement, has been cut from £25 million to zero. What impact does the Minister believe that will have, and what likelihood is there that there will be support for economic development within Palestine? If the UK plays a role, it must be to make a two-state solution viable in a practical way.
Finally, I welcome chapter 12 of the road map, on gender, but why is it silent on other areas of tolerance? Avi Maoz was a deputy Minister under Netanyahu—a religious nationalist, anti-Arab and anti-LGBTQ coalition partner representative. Mr Maoz has described LGBT people as a threat to the family and said that he wanted to cancel gay pride parades. He has also said that a woman’s greatest’s contribution is in marriage and raising a family. Are UK Ministers engaging with all parties in the coalition in order to develop the road map, or only with certain of them? Regarding those who are still in government who are homophobic, are the Government intending to work with them on chapter 12, and why have other areas of tolerance been excluded? I hope the Minister can respond to these points.
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon) (Con)
My Lords, first, I thank the noble Lords from the two Front Benches for their support for the Government’s Statement and add our unequivocal condemnation of acts of terrorism which, tragically, saw yet another family, that of Rabbi Dee, ripped apart, with the incredible loss that he and the Dee family have suffered, with the loss of both his wife and two beautiful daughters. I know I speak for the whole House in once again reiterating both our collective sense of abhorrence of the act of terror that took their lives and our strong sense of solidarity and support at this very trying time.
That said, there has been the generosity and strength of spirit shown by Rabbi Dee himself through his engagement. Noble Lords will have read the letter that my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary sent to Rabbi Dee. I had the opportunity to visit Lucy Dee’s family and meet her parents, sisters and brother at their home and join the shiva. I can share with noble Lords the incredible sense of tolerance and recognition. There was no hate being directed to those who had carried out these abhorrent acts. There was, yes, a call for justice, but, equally, a recognition of our common humanity. There could not be no better example of that then in the donation we saw of Lucy Dee’s organs, one of which went to a Palestinian Arab.
It reflects a common humanity when we see such acts of violence as we have seen and some acts of terror as we have witnessed recently. As the noble Lords, Lord Purvis and Lord Collins, both alluded to, the toll on human life is incredible. As the noble Lord, Lord Collins, said, every life lost is a tragedy in itself. That is why I assure both noble Lords that we remain absolutely committed to a two-state solution, where we see not just the independence of both states. In the world in which we stand, ultimately there will be an interdependence between a future Palestinian state and the State of Israel.
Israel has, of course, an absolute right to protect its citizens. That is why, when the events unfolded at the Al-Aqsa mosque, we were among the first directly to raise the reaction that we saw across the Arab and Islamic world. I engaged quite directly with the Israeli authorities, as I did with the Palestinian authorities and other key neighbours. We immediately needed a de-escalation. Of course, we saw further attacks, with the missiles that were launched into Israel from both Lebanon and Gaza, but, thankfully, with both the Palestinians and the Israeli Government, notwithstanding some of the responses, after that period ended—and long may it last—we saw a de-escalation and, thankfully, the violence that was being experienced receded.
Turning to some of the specific questions, I assure both noble Lords that the United Kingdom remains absolutely engaged on the issue of Israel and our relationship with the OPTs. Recently, I have been engaging directly. I had a conversation with the Israeli ambassador on Friday. Prior to that, I met Husam Zumlot, the Palestinian representative. There were a couple of points about the road map, raised by the noble Lords, Lord Collins and Lord Purvis, that I was able to deal with. This in no way undermines or changes the position of the United Kingdom Government on the two-state solution. Equally, however, it is important that we recognise Israel as a partner and move forward on a bilateral basis to strengthen our relationship. As both noble Lords alluded to, there were specific references made to the importance of our relationship and our different partnerships, but also Israel’s current role in the OPTs. As the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, alluded to, the issue of security is paramount, but the welfare of Palestinians in the OPTs is also important.
On the point on settlements raised by both noble Lords, again, the United Kingdom Government are absolutely clear. We regard the settlements as illegal and against progress on the two-state solution. Many within Israel have also challenged the current Government in the calls they have made on certain of the outposts. On the converse, I would say, as I saw myself through my visit to Israel when the new Government came in, Israel is a robust democracy where the independence of the judiciary is respected. Many within Israel are having the very discussions which have seized many parts of the world. It is important that that vibrancy of that democracy demonstrates the discussions that are taking place.
On the issue of the two-state solution and recognition of Palestine at the appropriate time, the noble Lord, Lord Collins, referenced my right honourable friend Andrew Mitchell. It is very important—we have been stressing this through our direct engagement—that the next step must be a restart of direct negotiations between the Palestinian Authority and the Israeli Government. We are certainly working with key partners, and directly with both, to ensure that we play our part. That is why we were involved in the discussions that took place on de-escalation at both Aqaba and Sharm el-Sheikh. I visited Cairo in this respect. I also had a very constructive meeting with Foreign Minister Shoukry about the important role that Egypt and Jordan play, as two countries that have signed peace agreements with the State of Israel.
On the issue of routes into and providing support to the Palestinian Territories, the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, understandably raised, and I recognise, that there has been a reduction of support in many parts of the world through the reduction of ODA, but, last year, we again supported the UN on the ground, including UNRWA. When I went to Hebron recently, I also visited an UNRWA school. It is important that other countries in the region also support the livelihood and education of Palestinian children.
When I met Ministers in the Israeli Government, I also raised the importance and responsibility of raising the prosperity agenda, seeing opportunities that can exist for all citizens, including, in this instance, Arab citizens within the State of Israel. I visited Technion when I went to the city of Haifa, and saw how education is both empowering and enabling all communities within Israel, but we want that opportunity equally for people within the OPTs and, ultimately, progress towards a viable, sustainable Palestinian state. For that, we need not only strong co-operation between Israel and the Palestinian Authority but the support of those key partners who have signed deals with Israel. That is why, within the road map, we also stressed the importance of strengthening the Abraham Accords. I do not see them as separate routes; they are all part of the same equation to see how we can strengthen and see stability and security prevail within that part of the world.
On the issues raised about economic development, I agree with both noble Lords on the issue of two-state solutions; I do not think there is a difference between the views of any parties about the importance of the viability of a two-state solution. In that, I am on record, as are colleagues of mine, including the Foreign Secretary, on the position I have already stated on the illegal settlements, but also that, ultimately, the next important step is negotiation—but there needs to be valid partners for that. The security and stability of Israel are important, as is the welfare and progress of every Palestinian. There is loss of life—we see the Dee family and what has been suffered. We see demolitions: I went to Masafer Yatta—the noble Lord, Lord Collins, raised this—to profile the importance of retaining institutions which have been built, such as schools and community centres, and to highlight the importance of the welfare of Palestinian communities, particularly those beyond Area A, according to the Oslo Accords.
Whether it is the toll of the tragic and abhorrent deaths through terrorism of Lucy Dee, Maia and Rina, or the death of 15 year-old Muhammad Nidal, these are all individuals, yes, but they are all families, and the impact is being felt by everyone across both Israel and the OPTs.
I assure noble Lords that, since taking on this brief, I have prioritised the importance of direct engagement by the United Kingdom Government, and I will continue to do so and update the House accordingly.
Lord Pickles (Con)
My Lords, I draw attention to my entries in the register of interests, particularly those relating to friendship with Israel.
My noble friend the Minister and I have been friends and have worked together for a long time. I have never been prouder of him than when I saw his visits to the Dee shiva. Sometimes Ministers have to deliver difficult messages and do difficult things, but I thought that he showed immense humanity in his visits. I think the whole House is proud of the way in which he expressed himself there.
All that makes it slightly more difficult for me to say the following. The Palestinian Authority has a “pay for slay” system, where money is handed over by way of a pension or stipend to Palestinians who murder Israeli citizens, particularly Jews. When we were in the EU, the EU administered the prisoners scheme and held a list; we did not have direct access. Now, we administer that scheme ourselves. Will the Minister make it clear to the Palestinian Authority that British taxpayers’ money will not be paid out for the murderer of a mother and two girls on a visit to the seaside? Will he tell the authority about the requests made at Sharm el-Sheikh and, in particular, at Aqaba? Will he tell the authority that it has lost control of Jenin and Nablus and needs to re-establish itself because a consequence of its absence there is that armed gangs are murdering Palestinians within its area?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his kind remarks. On his specific questions, I assure him that we have stressed to both the Palestinians and the Israelis—I did so directly to the Palestinians—the importance of ensuring that the security co-operation that has existed and continued between both sides, notwithstanding the challenges that have been faced on the ground, is restored at the earliest opportunity.
I further assure my noble friend that no UK aid—this has been looked at over a period of time—is used for payments to Palestinian prisoners, their families or the so-called martyrs fund. However, we stand by the importance of supporting essential needs in the West Bank and Gaza, which I am sure my noble friend recognises. Equally, we stress and ensure that checks and balances and mitigations are put in place to ensure that such support and funding reaches the most vulnerable.
On my noble friend’s other point, as I reassured the Israeli ambassador on Friday, these issues are raised directly. The strength of our investment in our relationships with both the Israelis and, in this instance, the Palestinian Authority means that we will continue to raise these issues at the highest levels with the PA.
Baroness Blackstone (Lab)
My Lords, following on from the question asked by my noble friend Lord Collins, can the Minister tell the House precisely what steps the Government are taking to work with the international community to prevent yet more Israeli illegal settlements in the West Bank? The latest plans involve nearly 3,000 new housing units in East Jerusalem; these developments are entrenching a one-state reality and denying Palestinians basic rights. What hope is there for both peace and the two-state solution in these circumstances? For how much longer are the Israeli Government going to get away with ignoring their obligations under international law with impunity with respect to illegal settlements?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, I have already stated the Government’s position but, to be absolutely clear, we regard the settlements as illegal under international law. They call into question the progress on and commitment to a two-state solution. We have urged Israel to halt its settlement expansion, which threatens the physical viability of a Palestinian state; we did so recently in direct bilateral discussions with the Israeli Government. We have also acted with our key partners: the United States, France, Germany and Italy. We jointly issued a statement on 14 February in which we strongly opposed unilateral steps, which are contrary to both the viability of a two-state solution and international law. We believe that they undermine the basis and strength of international law.
On demolitions, as I have already said, some of the strongest statements that we can make are through direct visits. We are committed to working with all parties in respect of these demolitions and evictions of Palestinian property; most notably, at the moment, a demolitions order remains over the Palestinian town of Masafer Yatta. As I have said, I had visited directly and, in doing so, have raised this issue directly with the Israeli ambassador and Israeli Ministers. I will continue to do so.
Ultimately, wherever one stands—for example, as a friend and a partner, as we are in the United Kingdom and across this House—on Israel and a future Palestinian state, the fact is that there can be no lasting, sustainable peace until we see that objective being realised; I am certainly clear on that in my mind. However, to do so requires compromise, negotiation and, ultimately, real recognition that sustainable peace will be possible only once we see that reality—but only that reality—and the interdependency that exists between people. There is so much shared there—the culture and the community. What needs to be recognised is that what has happened in the past should not be a sheer determinant of what happens in future. We need to play our part as the United Kingdom. I assure noble Lords that I am seeking to do just that.
Lord Bellingham (Con)
My Lords, I certainly share the House’s condemnation of the violence on both sides and agree with the Minister very strongly that the only way forward is a two-state solution. I join my noble friend Lord Pickles in praising the Minister for his personal role in this very sad saga over the last fortnight or so.
Does the Minister agree that the appalling rhetoric from Iran that the state of Israel has no right to exist was quite shocking and deeply unhelpful? What representations will we make to the state of Iran and to the UN on this matter?
Following on from a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, the 2030 road map stated very clearly that we were going to do all that we possibly could to boost trade between the UK and Israel, particularly around tech start-ups, support for SMEs, training and R&D. Further to the noble Lord’s point, I think that the House accepts and understands that there will be a reduction in ODA going into those poorer parts of the Palestinian territories, but are we serious about boosting support for small businesses and enterprise in those Palestinian areas to relieve poverty? Surely trade and the creation of wealth will lead to the empowerment of the Palestinian people and make a two-state solution more likely.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend. On his final point, it is my firm belief that, ultimately, economic empowerment and education provide real opportunities to progress, irrespective of where a person is in the world. That is why it is important that while we stand very strongly in our position, we also seek to strengthen our negotiations and relationship with Israel.
Equally, on the point alluded to by the noble Lord, Lord Collins, I reassure noble Lords that this in no way negates our previous position on the OPTs. I made this clear when I met the Palestinian representative, for whom it was also a concern.
Regarding recognition, it appals me when such statements are made by certain individuals in a given Government. We cannot support statements which do not recognise the existence of a particular community or people, and the same applies to Iran. It still shocks me to this day. Israel has been in existence for many decades. It is a reality on the map. You may not like it, but it is a reality, and those who do not like it need to live with it and recognise that Israel plays a very important role in the world.
We have made our position on Iran’s statements very clear. This morning, we sanctioned more individuals within the IRGC. I was very supportive of the proscription that was given to Hamas and of our non-engagement with it, because Israel is a reality—Israel exists. It is equally important that, as we move forward, Palestinians exist. With our approach of being both friends to the Palestinian community and strong friends and partners to Israel, we believe that there is a role. Many in Israel recognise the importance of this, as does the Foreign Minister of Israel, Eli Cohen. That is why the road map also recognised the importance of the economic empowerment and economic progress of Palestinians. While we work towards the two-state solution, the humanity and economic progress of Palestinians should not be forgotten.
Lord Campbell of Pittenweem (LD)
My Lords, I join with others in expressing condolences and in the condemnation of violence, however caused and by whom. However, my attention has been drawn to the concluding sentence of the section of the Statement on the mounting death toll, which says:
“We say to the Israeli Government that although Israel has a legitimate right to defend its citizens from attack, the Israeli security forces must live up to their obligations under international humanitarian law.”
A little later, in relation to the al-Aqsa raid and the status quo, it states:
“The raid by Israeli police on Al-Aqsa mosque during Ramadan and on the first day of Passover was one such incident. When Israeli security forces conduct operations, they must ensure that they are proportionate and in accordance with international law.”
International law is mentioned twice. I am aware of the full explanation which the Minister gave of the Government’s policy, but given that international law is referred to twice, it is surprising that the breach of international law which is constituted by the illegal settlements was not referred to at all. Nor was there any reference to settler violence, an issue which I have raised with the Minister on other occasions.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, I fully recognise that the situation and the violence that occurred at the al-Aqsa mosque during Ramadan and Israel’s response was called out quite directly by the UK Government. I put out a statement at that time. The noble Lord, Lord Purvis, referred to obligations of a particular power deemed to be an occupying power, and that is the situation which prevails in the OPTs—that is why we call them the Occupied Palestinian Territories. That comes with obligations in terms of the protection and rights of those within those territories, and it applies to all people within the OPTs. Al-Aqsa is in east Jerusalem, which we regard as part of the OPTs.
On settler violence, by definition, any violence should be condemned, and we totally condemn settler violence that takes place. Provisions are in place and that is why the obligations on the Israeli security forces, as well as the Palestinian security forces, are key. I come back to my earlier point that an urgent first step to prevent further violence must be co-operation between the Palestinian security forces and the Israeli defence forces, which we have seen in even quite testing circumstances. Certainly, we support efforts being made in that regard.
Lord Polak (Con)
My Lords, I refer to my registered interest as the president of Conservative Friends of Israel.
I was in Israel for Passover with my family. The attack was horrific. In fact, the other attack—the ramming —happened outside our hotel on the Friday night, when sadly an Italian lawyer passed away from being hit by the car. It was actually frightening. I was with my grandkids; it was all a bit too close.
If I may say, the initial response from the FCDO was, frankly, weak and embarrassing. That first statement over the weekend after the horrific killing of Lucy and her two daughters was embarrassing. But I pay tribute to the Prime Minister, who after his weekend break came out with a very strong statement about terror, followed by the Foreign Secretary’s letter.
In paying tribute to them, I want to pay tribute, as has been done by others, to my noble friend the Minister. We went together to see the family—the parents of Lucy and therefore the grandparents of the two girls—at the shiva in St John’s Wood, and sat together. Unfortunately, in life, I have been to many shivas. This was harrowing in so many ways. Yet, as the Minister suggested, the positivity from the family was not hatred; it was about trying to move forward. They had just lost their daughter and yet were talking like that. So, in that way, I have to say that there is hope. I do not think that the Minister should underestimate the profound effect that his visit, and of him taking time out and sitting with the family, had on the family and the wider community.
Tonight is Yom HaZikaron; in the Israeli calendar, it is the night where the whole of Israel will stop to remember the soldiers who have given their lives for the state. That carries on until tomorrow evening, which becomes Yom Ha’atzmaut, Israel’s Independence Day—75 years, as has been mentioned.
It is all the more concerning to me that, just before coming into the Chamber this evening, there was another car ramming in Jerusalem. People’s lives are being devastated.
So, I have two questions for my noble friend. The first is picking up the point of the noble Lord, Lord Purvis. He talked about LGBT rights. I ask my noble friend: where else in the Middle East, including in the Palestinian Authority in Gaza, does the LGBT community have rights comparable with what it has in Israel? Is there anywhere else in that area that has the rights that the LGBT community has?
Secondly, it has been a couple of weeks since the Prime Minister met with the Prime Minister of Israel. I would be grateful if he could give us a little bit of understanding of that meeting.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, first I also recognise and thank the noble Lord for going to the shiva. Having him present there was also helpful, I think, when you are trying to bridge certain cultures, be it by faith or community, particularly in such trying and testing circumstances for the family concerned. As I want to again say, it was incredible in terms of the conversations we had, and also the strength of spirit—I certainly felt quite inspired after seeing not just the sense of forgiveness but recognition of a common humanity.
I think my noble friend has already both asked and answered his first question. I think that is a reflection of the vibrant democracy which I alluded to in the state of Israel. Notwithstanding the different and quite passionate discourses that take place in Israel, there are different communities, including the LGBT community. There is a flourishing Israeli-Arab community as well. I think these are realities on the ground which we all very much recognise.
In terms of the discussions in the visit that took place by Prime Minister Netanyahu, it was also building upon the importance of the road map which was signed between Foreign Minister Cohen and Foreign Secretary Cleverly, to see how we could progress that in terms of practical delivery. I am sure that my noble friend recognises, as does the whole House, that my right honourable friend the Prime Minister also used that as an opportunity to stress the importance of the two-state solution, and also the importance of the United Kingdom as a constructive partner to both Israel and the Palestinians.
Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill
Monday 24th April 2023
(1 year ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023 View all Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 84-XI(a) Amendments for Committee (Supplementary to the Eleventh Marshalled List) - (24 Apr 2023)
Earl Howe
“(iii) for “arising in” substitute “in respect of”;”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the amendment inserting a new paragraph (ab) at the end of line 30 of Clause 115 in the minister’s name.
Earl Howe (Con)
My Lords, I will speak also to Amendments 281CB to 281CE. These amendments are aimed at creating greater opportunities for those people who want to build their own home by ensuring that local authorities make sufficient provision for self- and custom-build sites in their areas.
The Government believe that self- and custom-build housing can play a crucial role as part of a wider package of measures to boost home ownership and diversify the housing market, as well as helping to deliver the homes that people want. Self and custom build improve the design and quality of homes as they are built by the people who will live in them.
We are aware that, under the current legislation, some development permissions that are not necessarily for self- and custom-build housing are being counted towards a local planning authority’s statutory duty. This has meant there is an incomplete and inaccurate picture of self and custom build at a local and national level, which can distort the market and have wider impacts on small- and medium-sized enterprises and developers.
In the other place, the Government introduced Clause 115 to ensure that a development permission will count in meeting the duty only if it is actually for self-or custom-build housing. The Government have brought these additional amendments forward to further tighten up the Self-build and Custom Housebuilding Act 2015 to ensure that the intended policy aim of the original legislation is being met in practice.
Amendment 281CB ensures that only land made available explicitly for self-build and custom housebuilding qualifies towards the statutory duty to grant planning permission et cetera and meets demand for self and custom build. We have tabled the amendments to give the power to the Secretary of State to define in regulations the descriptions of types of development permissions that will count towards meeting this duty. This will ensure that only development permissions that are intended to be built out as self or custom build will be counted. The regulations are likely to require any permissions granted for self and custom build to be characterised by a condition or planning obligation making that requirement explicit. Amendment 281CE specifies that any regulations made under this new power will be subject to the negative resolution procedure.
Amendment 281CC ensures that any demand that a relevant authority has accrued for self and custom build through its self and custom build register that has not been discharged within the three-year compliance period will not dissipate after this time, but will roll over and remain part of the demand for the authority to meet under Section 2A of the 2015 Act. Amendments 281CA and 281CD are consequential, minor and technical amendments that amend the 2015 Act to ensure that Amendment 281CC works in practice. Overall, the amendments proposed ensure that the 2015 Act works as intended, without ambiguity.
These amendments, accompanied by our other interventions, including the launch of the Help to Build equity loan scheme and the Government’s response to Richard Bacon MP’s independent review into scaling up of self-build and custom housebuilding, will help to mainstream the self- and custom-build sector. This will allow more people to build their own home, help support SMEs and boost housebuilding. I therefore hope that noble Lords will support these amendments. I beg to move.
Lord Best (CB)
My Lords, I rise to support this group of government amendments aimed at increasing the number of homes built or commissioned by their future occupiers. I had the pleasure of piloting the Self-build and Custom Housebuilding Act 2015 through your Lordships’ House. It started as a Private Member’s Bill from Richard Bacon MP, who has tirelessly—I would say relentlessly—pursued his campaign to get the sector to scale up. Most recently, he has produced an independent review to boost the building of self-commissioned new homes across all tenures, and these amendments flow from the Bacon review to which the Minister referred.
In countries as diverse as Germany and New Zealand, much of the new housebuilding is done in partnership with its future occupiers who, if not actually building the homes, are specifying the form they take and working with an SME builder to meet individual requirements. The result in other countries is that homes are more varied, personalised, affordable and energy efficient. These amendments attempt to give this still fledgling sector further impetus by helping self-builders and custom housebuilders to get their hands on the land on which to build, rather than leaving the volume housebuilders to gobble it all up. The sector would be an important beneficiary of my earlier amendment on diversification on larger sites, but a shift to that Letwin-inspired development model is not going to happen immediately. Bolstering the existing means to get local authorities allocating land for self-build and custom housebuilding is eminently sensible. I congratulate Richard Bacon on his continuing tenacity, the Right to Build Task Force on getting the Government to take forward these amendments and the Government on accepting them.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
My Lords, these amendments support moves that will enable self and custom build, as the noble Lord, Lord Best, said. It is an important sector that is not especially helped by previous legislation, but these amendments may help. I have a question. I have an example where planning consent was given, with some concessions made, by the planning department to a small number of people who wanted to build out the site as a self-build project and then failed to do so. As the site had previous planning consent on it, a new developer was able to come in and gain consent for a non self-build project. I just wonder if there is a bit of a loophole there that the Minister may have come across and that perhaps needs to be closed.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
I thank the Minister for introducing these government amendments. We have no problem at all with them. They seem fairly straightforward in what they want to achieve, but I would like to make the point that this is going to help provide only a small number of homes. I wonder what estimate the Government have made of the number of homes this will provide and what the demand is for this sort of housing. It would be quite interesting.
We are concerned about the number of houses being built, full stop, particularly since the Government abandoned their mandatory housing target. We feel that this Bill should be used to help the Government to concentrate on providing sufficient quality housing that includes both affordable-to-buy and social housing. Perhaps the Government could then bring forward an amendment on properly defining “affordable housing”; that would be a very useful amendment to see going forward.
As I said, I have absolutely no problem with this; I am quite happy to support the government amendments. However, we feel that the Government need to balance their interest in progressing this with their progress in meeting their stated target of 300,000 new homes.
Earl Howe (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Best, and both noble Baronesses, for their comments and questions. The noble Lord, Lord Best, is perhaps this House’s foremost expert on housing matters, saving my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham who is now looking at me.
To answer for now the question put by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, on the number of self-build and custom-build houses that we expect to flow from this, it is very difficult to estimate. We do think that those categories of housing have a definite place in the system. If I can enlighten myself, and her, further, I will be happy to do so. I hope she will have gained a sense that these amendments are designed to remove the barriers that have been identified in this area; certainly, we fully expect that to happen having engaged with the sector.
As regards a definition of affordable housing, I think that will have to be a long debate for another day—although we have touched on that subject before during these Committee proceedings.
As regards the question posed by the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, I think the instance that she cited will be addressed, in part at least, by Amendment 281CC. What we want to achieve in that amendment is that, where you have a register of self-build and custom-build applications that have not been discharged within the three-year compliance period, that demand will not dissipate after this time but will roll over. I will, however, write to her about enforcement on these particular applications and clarify that.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook
“(aa) after subsection (5) insert—“(5A) Regulations may make provision specifying descriptions of planning permissions or permissions in principle that are, or are not, to be treated as development permission for the carrying out of self-build and custom housebuilding for the purposes of this section.”;”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment allows the Secretary of State to specify descriptions of planning permissions or permissions in principle that will count as development permissions for the purpose of a local planning authority complying with its duty to meet the demand for self-build and custom housebuilding in its area.
“(ab) in subsection (6), for paragraph (a) substitute—“(a) the demand for self-build and custom housebuilding in an authority's area in respect of a base period is the aggregate of—(i) the demand for self-build and custom housebuilding arising in the authority's area in the base period; and(ii) any demand for self-build and custom housebuilding that arose in the authority’s area in an earlier base period and in relation to which—(A) the time allowed for complying with the duty in subsection (2) expired during the base period in question, and(B) the duty in subsection (2) has not been met;(aa) the demand for self-build and custom housebuilding arising in an authority’s area in a base period is evidenced by the number of entries added during that period to the register under section 1 kept by the authority;”;”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment provides that the demand for self-build and custom housebuilding in an authority’s area in a particular 12 month base period should be treated as including any demand from an earlier 12 month base period which has not been met within the time period allowed for complying with the duty to meet that demand.
“(c) in subsection (9)(b), for “arising in” substitute “in respect of”.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the amendment inserting a new paragraph (ab) at the end of line 30 of Clause 115 in the minister’s name.
“(2) In section 4 of the Self-build and Custom Housebuilding Act 2015 (regulations), in subsection (2), before paragraph (za) insert—“(zza) section 2A(5A),”.” Member's explanatory statement
This amendment provides that regulations made under section 2A(5A) (see the amendment inserting a new paragraph (aa) at the end of line 30 in Clause 115 in the minister’s name) are subject to the negative resolution procedure.
Lord Moylan
“Directions under section 35: review(1) The Planning Act 2008 is amended as follows.(2) After section 35ZA (directions under section 35: procedural matters) insert—“35ZB Directions under section 35: reviewWithin three years of making a direction under section 35(1) and annually thereafter, the Secretary of State must consider progress with implementation of the development contemplated in it and, if the Secretary of State considers that it is unlikely to proceed, the Secretary of State may withdraw the direction.””
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, I declare my interest as a member of the board of the Ebbsfleet Development Corporation.
Designation as an NSIP, a nationally significant infrastructure project, has a blighting effect. It differs from a normal planning permission in that the Government become something akin to a co-partner in a project that is designated an NSIP, supporting it because of its national significance. But what responsibilities fall on the Government as a result of this co-partnership, sponsorship or promotion of a particular project? In particular, what obligations fall on them to avoid or mitigate any persistent blight that might ensue?
An egregious example is the expansion of Heathrow Airport. Noble Lords may not know that I have been a long-standing opponent of the expansion of Heathrow Airport for over 10 years. More importantly, not only do I oppose it but I think it is unworkable and undeliverable: it involves either moving the M25 or building a runway over it, its cost would exceed £18 billion when the whole market value of the airport is significantly less than that, and so on. But there it is: the designated status remains present for Heathrow Airport’s expansion, and the blighting of the area—the effect that it has on the surrounding villages, on housing and on other land uses—remains.
An example from Ebbsfleet relates to the Swanscombe peninsula, a large triangle of land that, so to speak, protrudes into the Thames. It is within the red line of the Ebbsfleet Development Corporation as a planning authority, but the corporation does not own it. Proposals for a privately funded resort, of the character of a Disneyland or whatever, were given nationally significant infrastructure project status as long ago as 2014. Very slowly, the company promoting it advanced to a position in 2021 of being able to submit a DCO. In the meantime, it suffered the bolt from the blue of Natural England turning up out of nowhere—or, specifically, out of Ebbsfleet International railway station—and designating it a site of special scientific interest. This ability of Natural England to appear out of nowhere and designate sites as SSSIs at the same time as they are nationally significant infrastructure projects is worth exploring in a different debate. Then the DCO was rejected by the planning inspectors for, among other things, not having a transport plan attached to it—a point that had been made repeatedly to the company by the corporation in its role as planning authority. Now I read in the newspapers that the company recently went into administration.
However, the blight on the land and—while there are not many of them—on the existing industrial occupants of the land continues. I do not mean by this any criticism of the developer and I do not regard its failure to deliver the project, at least to date, as a criticism of it. Private sector projects inherently involve the taking of risk. It is right that we have an economy where risk is taken, but one of the corollaries of taking risk is that not all businesses or projects succeed, so the fact it has have not succeeded is not a criticism of it.
However, that is not my point; my point is to ask where the Minister is in all this. Where is the department that agreed to the designation, all of nine years ago? It is true that the Minister has written recently to the company, asking how it plans to progress. But since the company is in administration, I am not sure what answer he expects to get. Apart from that, it is hard to see how the Government have engaged with furthering this project, which they regard as nationally significant.
My amendment is intended to be very gentle. It places very little obligation on the Government but it would require them, three years after designating an NSIP, to review progress—that is all—“and annually thereafter”, with a view to seeing whether the project is actually going to be delivered. It then says that the Secretary of State may decide to cancel the designation. That power to cancel is already in existing legislation—the Planning Act 2008, as amended—so I am not conferring a new power. I am simply implying that he or she should consider it as a result of a review of progress. This would at least show that the Government share a responsibility for the progress of projects which they have designated as nationally significant. It would help to mitigate the blight that they cause, in effect, by showing that degree of engagement, review and possible cancellation.
I regard this as a very modest amendment, and one that it would be easy for my noble friend on the Front Bench simply to accept as drafted. I look forward to her response and hope that that is indeed what she agrees to do.
Lord Stunell (LD)
My Lords, I give three-quarters support—I was going to say half-hearted support—to what the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, has moved by way of his amendment. The nationally significant infrastructure projects programme was quite a radical change when it was introduced. It was seen as a way of what one might call railroading—except that would perhaps be unfortunate given some of the projects—or delivering national projects which would be perpetually trapped in the local planning system should they go by the conventional route.
It is something of a planning bulldozer, and I absolutely share the concern of the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, about the expansion of Heathrow; we are on the same page as far as that goes. It is equally clear that, if a project such as Heathrow was ever to go forward, it would not survive the local planning processes, so the existence of a nationally significant infrastructure project mechanism for delivery is certainly well justified in the legislation. The question is: what happens when a project begins to fade from the priority list of the Government or, for that matter, that of investors in a private project? The noble Lord has produced two examples, known very well to him from his personal work experience and career, which illustrate the point.
I say to the Minister that surely there should be some process of project review in central government. The Built Environment Select Committee—I was a member until January—considered that in some detail, in looking at some evidence that we received in relation to reports. The committee took evidence from various parties. Who is actually in charge of the oversight of whether projects will proceed, are proceeding or are making progress? The committee was not convinced at that time that the Government had a viable and clear process for deciding that a project was or was not a priority, what that priority might be or what its consequences might be. The idea that there is a national pipeline, with projects neatly lined up going in at one end and coming out completed at the other, is fanciful. However, that is the way that the thinking, and often the public expression, about having a national infrastructure plan is expressed.
I am with the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, and this amendment, but I see it much more as being about hearing from the Government that they have a review process, that the review process is capable of taking a hard decisions, and that, when it takes a hard decision, it makes it operational on the ground so that we do not have huge areas, such as those around Heathrow, that are blighted. Indeed, on the peninsula on the Thames estuary, to which the noble Lord, Lord Moylan referred, progress is going in no direction. In the presence of a Section 35 designation, nobody else can go there either. It is essentially a dead development area, which I would have thought the Government would be anxious to avoid.
I am keen to hear what the Minister believes the mechanism is and whether, in the judgment of the Government, it is effective. If it is effective, it should be quite easy to answer the question put by the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, on how long it will be before the Ebbsfleet peninsula is de-designated. I suspect that it would be difficult for the Minister to de-designate Heathrow at the Dispatch Box today for a variety of reasons, but I hope that it is clear the direction from which I am coming, and that the Minister in replying can give us some satisfaction on this before we proceed further.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
I will come in very briefly. I certainly see the point of the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, and of the three-year review. I am not convinced that yearly after that is necessarily the right way to go; it could be a longer period between the reviews. However, I see the point he is making, and the problems it causes if things do not happen in an area.
I will leave it there, other than to say that I have always been a backer of Heathrow expansion. I want to put that on record because we have had a couple of people opposed to it. I think it would be good for the economy and that we should get on with it.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, for his amendment and for enabling a short debate on NSIPs, because I think it is pretty important.
I ought to say that, before I was elected to the other place, my job was to work on various national infrastructure projects, or NSIPs—when I started working on them, they were not called that, of course, but that all changed—mainly around energy and water. I remember vividly when the new regime came in, back in 2008, under the Planning Act. At the time, it was a big change but very welcome because, as people have said, projects just got stuck all the time. As well as establishing statutory timescales and a streamlined DCO process, it brought more attention to the importance of public consultation. This helps local communities to understand why a project is happening near them and can unpick some of the problems and help move projects on.
It is worth pointing out that, since the NSIP system came into force in 2010, 113 transport, energy and wastewater projects have been considered, which shows a huge difference from the system we had before. It has sped up the planning process between submitting an application and the DCO being granted. We know that in the national infrastructure strategy in 2020 the Government committed to the NSIP reform programme, which aimed to speed up timescales by up to 50% for projects entering the system from the end of this year. It is really good to see this included in the levelling-up Bill, because projects can still get horribly stuck.
One that springs to mind from personal perspective is Hinkley Point C. I think that I started working with National Grid on the connections into Hinkley Point C in 2007, and one of my jobs was to do the timeline for the project. Every six months I would add another year or two on—and so it continues. It is getting there, but it is many years behind, and the trouble is that you then have an enormous amount of extra cost. Anything that can be done to support that fast-track consenting that the Bill suggests—faster post-consent changes—is really to be supported.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Levelling Up, Housing & Communities (Baroness Scott of Bybrook) (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Moylan for tabling Amendment 284. I shall not be commenting on any individual planning case at all. Obviously it would not be correct for me to do so.
Amendment 284 seeks to ensure that the progress of applications, in circumstances where a Section 35 direction has been made, is monitored and kept under review by the Secretary of State. I agree that developments, especially nationally significant infrastructure projects, should enter our planning system efficiently, and doing so is crucial for ensuring that local communities and businesses can express their views on the real impacts that these projects can have on them.
The NSIP consenting process has served the UK well for more than a decade for major infrastructure projects in the fields of energy, transport, water, waste and wastewater, and has allowed these projects to be consented within an average of around four years. Some of these projects enter the NSIP planning system under a Section 35 direction. This is the beginning of the planning process for some projects and offers prospective applicants certainty that they can take their projects through the NSIP consenting process. This consenting mechanism has been used successfully by 18 developers and allowed them to capitalise on the benefits that the NSIP regime offers.
Very occasionally, applications for development consent can be delayed or even withdrawn. This applies to applications that either automatically qualify as an NSIP under Part 3 of the Planning Act or are directed in through Section 35. This often occurs to allow developers time to ensure that applications entering the system are of the standard needed to efficiently and robustly undergo the scrutiny required. I acknowledge that this can translate into uncertainty for some communities, businesses and investors that have the potential to be affected by such projects.
Under Section 233(2) of the Planning Act, the Secretary of State already has the power to revoke a direction to treat a project as an NSIP, and thus no longer allow the project in question to enter the NSIP planning system through these means. The Secretary of State may consider using this power, for example, if it becomes clear that the rationale or basis on which the Section 35 direction was made has changed, so this is no longer the correct and appropriate consenting option for the project in question. I appreciate why my noble friend has raised this amendment, and I hope he will withdraw it following the reassurances I have provided.
The noble Lord, Lord Stunell, and others brought up the interesting issue of oversight. We are currently working to set this up. Minister Rowley is setting up an IMG which will look at the cross-cutting issues on projects, but he cannot get involved in the specifics on projects, in order not to prejudice, obviously, future decision-making, particularly as a Planning Minister. I will also take on board the issue that the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, brings up about the capacity within local planning authorities to deal with these very big projects. I think it is something we can feed back in and I will do so.
Lord Stunell (LD)
I thank the noble Baroness for a very helpful answer. Will she say something about the actual timeline for this group formally starting work? She suggested that it was going to start work in the fairly immediate future: perhaps some sort of timescale could be provided.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
I do not have a timescale tonight, but I will talk to Minister Rowley and try to get one for the noble Lord and let him know. As I say, I hope my noble friend will withdraw the amendment following the reassurances I have provided.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to noble Lords who have taken part in this short debate. I shall start briefly with the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy of Southwark, being keen to fly. He said at the end about Heathrow expansion, “We should get on with it”. I am not necessarily a believer that textual exegesis is the right way to approach a winding-up speech, even in your Lordships’ House, but this question of what “we” is in that sentence is at the heart of this. If it were purely a private planning application, it would mean the developer, but I do not think that is what he meant when he talked about Heathrow. He meant either “we” as a Government or “we” as a nation: we, somehow bigger than just the private sector developer, should be getting on with it, and it is that blend that is involved in nationally significant infrastructure projects, where, as I say, the Government make themselves a co-partner with private sector developers in the case both of Heathrow and the other example I gave. It is that confusion about who is responsible that I am trying to get to.
We know the Government are responsible, to some extent, with a project such as Heathrow expansion, but what are their responsibilities in relation to the consequences of it and are they actively monitoring? That is really my question. The noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, I am sure understood that I was not in anything I said criticising the process as such or saying that there was not the need for a process that would speed large applications through the system, although it is undoubtedly the case that the speed with which the DCO process is handling applications is getting slower and slower, and everybody involved in it knows that. It may well be that the time for a refresh is coming. I do not think it is simply skills; it is also demand for additional up-front information and so forth: this is something the Built Environment Committee, which I chair, may well look at again.
I do not know why the noble Lord, Lord Stunell, said that he was only three-quarters in support of my amendment, as I thought he gave a 100% endorsement. I do not know what reluctance prevented him from coming out wholeheartedly, because he also put my purpose very well. Although I invited my noble friend to accept the amendment, the noble Lord recognised—as I am sure my noble friend does—that it is essentially a probing amendment to try to find out what the Government do and how they take their responsibilities for these projects forward.
I welcome my noble friend’s response, but it was slightly on the disappointing side. Of course, it is wonderful that an inter-ministerial group is being set up to look at these issues—I did not know that—but she slightly took away from the benefit of that in saying that it should not look at individual projects, which are precisely what I would like Ministers to look at. I appreciate that a Planning Minister, who may have to take planning decisions—
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
It will look at cross-cutting issues on projects but cannot get involved with the specifics of a project, in order not to prejudice decision-making. I did not say that it could not look at individual projects, just their specifics.
Lord Moylan (Con)
I am grateful for that but, thanks to a judgment—I cannot remember the name—in the courts a year or two ago on the Holocaust memorial, local planning authorities have been required in the past year or two to put in place rigorous separations, called Chinese walls, between those officers who work on developing councils’ own applications and those assessing them, in a way that always existed to some extent but is now very much more rigorous. If Ministers, including the Planning Minister, are understandably inhibited from getting into the details of why a project is not happening, perhaps a similar arrangement could be achieved within government; maybe someone in the Cabinet Office or wherever could take on the responsibility for getting into the weeds of projects that are not happening and either helping them to do so or cancelling them.
I am grateful to my noble friend for acknowledging that Ministers have the power to remove an NSIP designation. I would like to think that they could remove it on grounds more expansive than the one she mentioned—that it was no longer an appropriate designation—such as it simply not happening and therefore being, in practice, an irrelevant designation. She did not say that but perhaps it was implicitly encompassed in what she did say. I would like to think that any ministerial involvement now getting going, which I wholly welcome, could be structured in such a way that Ministers could get involved in the weeds.
I am very grateful for this debate. It has flushed out some issues that we would not otherwise have debated and I am grateful to my noble friend. With the leave of the Committee, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook
“Power for appointees to vary determinations as to procedureIn paragraph 2 of Schedule 6 to TCPA 1990 (powers and duties of appointed persons), in sub-paragraph (10)—(a) for “does not apply” substitute “applies”;(b) at the end insert “only for the purposes of subsection (4) of that section”.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment inserts a new Clause into Chapter 6 of Part 3 of the Bill to amend the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to enable a planning inspector (as an appointed person) to vary the procedure of certain proceedings under section 319A of that Act.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, planning appeals are currently decided by three potential routes: written representations, hearings or public inquiries, or a combination of all three. Government Amendment 285A will enable an appointed planning inspector, rather than a case officer, as is currently the case, to change the mode of procedure for a planning appeal. The Government believe that an appointed inspector is best placed to decide the most appropriate mode of procedure for an appeal case as they will be familiar with the facts of the case and the views of all parties. The new clause will facilitate a more streamlined procedure and have a positive impact on the operational delivery, leading to more efficient and timely appeal decisions. I therefore request that the amendment is supported.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for introducing these three amendments, which enable planning appeals to be heard virtually, where the choice is being made by an appointed inspector. I wholly support the opportunity for virtual hearings. Currently, as the Minister explained, there are two options for appeal hearings: one is by written procedure and the other is by a full public hearing. It is usually the choice of the appellant which procedure they use. So someone appealing against, say, a planning refusal can ask for it to be heard in a public setting. I would like reassurance that that will still be the case.
Some members of the public find it easier to join virtually, and that is a really positive move. I accept the argument the Minister has made that it opens it up for more people to take part. Equally, though, there are always some who find that difficult, especially if they live in more remote areas where access to good-quality broadband is not possible. I am thinking of colleagues I have who live in North Yorkshire; when I have Zoom calls with them, it is hit and miss. I would just like reassurance that those people would be able to engage if they wanted to.
Now I have a question about the future. Some planning appeals are so important that, in my view, they are better heard in a public session. If there is a wide interest in the locality, a public hearing in person gives more reassurance to a local community than one that is held virtually or by the written procedure. The reason I argue this is that if you are in a room full of people, you feel the mood and sense what is going on much better than you do in a similar virtual hearing.
I support what has been said, with those provisos. Lastly, local plans have, obviously, planning inspector involvement. Is it anticipated that these too could be heard virtually, or will that still be largely in person?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I know it is not the practice in your Lordships’ House to have long discussions on government amendments. I do not intend to do that, but I want to make some comments on these amendments, because I think they are interesting.
On Amendment 285A, I make the point that varying proceedings should always be the subject of very effective communication, not only because we have professionals engaged in these processes but because the public are involved and need to understand exactly what is happening. Where there are changes, even more effort should be made to communicate why they have been made. I raise again the issue of resourcing of PINS. A lot of clauses in the Bill are putting another heavy burden on the Planning Inspectorate, and those issues need to be taken into account.
Secondly, as we have heard, Amendment 285B indicates that the Government wish the planning process to allow people to participate remotely in planning proceedings at the grant of the Planning Inspectorate. If the Government can see the value of this—I am very pleased that they can—I ask the Minister why what is good for planning proceedings is so inappropriate for the rest of local government? We have had debates on this previously in the Bill.
The Minister made the point that participating virtually increases diversity of participation, which I completely agree with. It also saves unnecessary travel; we have had those discussions on previous clauses. We are all trying to get down to net zero, and people do not have to travel if they can participate virtually. In addition, it helps those who live in bigger geographical areas. My borough is very small geographically, so it is not really a great hardship for anyone to have to come to the town hall for a discussion on a planning application or anything else. However, if you live in some of the parts of the country where that is not such an easy journey, particularly at certain times of the year, it can be much more difficult. So, I am confused about why we seem to think that this is a really helpful process for one part of local government activity but not for the rest of it. I also probe why the amendment says, “require or permit”. I am concerned about “require” and whether the planning inspector is going to be able to insist that this happens virtually, and how that is going to work.
The noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, referred to feeling the mood in planning meetings. That is a variable experience, from my experience in local government. Sometimes it can be useful to do that, and sometimes you would not want to be anywhere near feeling the mood in a planning meeting—but that is another matter. I echo the question from the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, about whether the intention is that this should apply to local planning inquiries. That is a whole other issue that needs further consideration.
By the way, I know that the noble Earl, Lord Howe, responded quite extensively on the ability to have local government proceedings virtually, and that is on the record. I would just appreciate a response from the Minister on why this is right for planning but so wrong for everything else in local government.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
Let me respond to a couple of those points. On the difference between a case officer and a planning inspector and how you bring in the appellant, at the moment the case officer handles the administration of a planning appeal case, which includes the appointment of a planning inspector, but they also determine the mode of the procedure after seeking input from the parties and the inspector. Therefore, at the moment it is the case officer who talks to the parties and the inspector, and who then makes a decision taking all of that into account. We are suggesting that the planning inspector, who is the decision-maker or recommendation maker for called-in and recovered cases, will assess the details of the case and representations received from all parties in just the same way, so they would be seeking input from all parties before they made that decision.
On local plans, the major party in that will be the local planning authority or the local authority, and I cannot see those discussions being taken online. I suppose a local authority could ask for that, but those are usually quite long and arduous meetings that sometimes go on for weeks, so I am pretty sure they would be public.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
My understanding, then, is that in the instance of a local plan hearing, the local planning authority would decide whether it should—the Minister is shaking her head, so I have misunderstood. Therefore, the appointed planning inspector makes the decision whether it will be in public or online.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
I therefore seek assurance that those members of the public—and in some cases members of the council, presumably—would be able to ask for it to be held in person if that was more relevant and appropriate.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
That is exactly what I was saying. Although the decision would be made by the inspector, it would be taken only after speaking to the person asking for the inspection, which would be the local planning authority. So it is important that it has a large input into that, just as any appellant in a normal planning appeal would have input into the discussion on how it was going to be dealt with. However, I cannot see a local plan inspection being held online. As I said, as with the current procedure, the appellant will be asked and the council will have a chance to comment on the appellant’s choice of procedure. That is because we need to make sure there is fairness to all parties, but the inspector will have the final decision.
On how Planning Inspectorate meetings, hearings or inquiries differ from local authority meetings—I think that is the question the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, asked—the measure clarifies the Planning Inspectorate’s existing practice of operating in-person and virtual proceedings as appropriate. This is necessary just to reduce the risk of challenge. We are not changing anything in the legislation; it can do this anyway without us changing anything. That is unlike some local authority meetings; Planning Inspectorate events through hearings or inquiries do not represent decision-making forums but allow interested parties to make representations. Hearings and inquiries enable planning inspectors to gather evidence, which they use to inform their approach to a case with a view to issuing either a decision or a recommendation to the Secretary of State, whereas planning meetings are decision-making meetings.
Lord Stunell
“(d) a Combined Mayoral Authority with devolved planning powers.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment removes the power in the bill to make incidental provisions in relation to devolved competencies, and inserts combined Mayoral Authorities with devolved planning powers into the exemptions that regulations may not make provision in relation to.
Lord Stunell
I speak to Amendment 285AA, which refers to Clause 123. It is by way of a probing amendment, and I would have explained to the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, had he been here, that the missing quarter last time was about how probing or speculative it was. I make no secret of the fact that mine is a probing amendment. The first few lines of Clause 123 were the red flag that made me put down this amendment. It reads:
“The Secretary of State may by regulations make such amendments and modifications of the relevant enactments as in the Secretary of State’s opinion facilitate, or are otherwise desirable”.
There follows a long list of things to which the Secretary of State may, if in their opinion it is useful, make changes. It is another clause with very wide-ranging powers given to the Secretary of State, and the purpose of giving them to the Secretary of State is not at all transparent.
What is perhaps relevant, and is certainly the reason for tabling the amendment, is that subsection (7) contains some exceptions. It reads:
“Regulation under this section must not make any provision which is within”—
Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland,
“unless that provision is a restatement of provision or is merely incidental”
and so on. It is a clause with wide-ranging powers which do not apply in Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland, unless, again, the Secretary of State has the opinion that they are a restatement or merely incidental.
My amendment removes the exceptions to that, so there is proper devolution to the three national legislative bodies in those three nations, and adds a fourth exception to the application of the clause, which is for combined mayoral authorities. I could have added a whole lot more as well, but the amendment is in the spirit of devolution and making sure that we do not allocate to the Secretary of State powers which are not needed and which, in the hands of a different Secretary of State, might be abused or misused and might have unforeseen bad consequences.
I want to hear in clear terms from the Minister: why we need the clause at all; why it has to be in such wide-ranging terms; and, with regard to the exceptions for the three national Administrations, why even within that, there is an exception built in which allows him or her to impose powers. Why does he not take the opportunity to make devolution in England mean something more substantial by saying that, in combined mayoral authorities, such powers as may be needed in Clause 123 may be exercised within that authority and not simply cascaded down from Whitehall?
I see that the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, has given notice of his intention that the clause do not stand part of the Bill, and I would say that that is very much of a piece with my amendment. We have here a clause which is neither necessary nor useful and absolutely not contributing to levelling up in any way. I beg to move.
Lord Carrington (CB)
My Lords, I declare my interests in farming and land ownership as set out in the register. I agree with every word that the noble Lord, Lord Stunell, has said; I would perhaps go a little further in some areas.
My understanding of Clause 123—and, therefore, my reason to seek its removal—is that, through its inclusion in the Bill, it seeks to give authority to any Government to amend primary legislation that underpins planning and compulsory purchase legislation through the means of secondary legislation. Such changes might have a profound impact on the way planning is delivered. It is not appropriate that this legislation gives such a wide remit to the Government to change primary legislation for an objective that is yet to be determined without the full scrutiny of Parliament through debates in both Houses.
In other words, Clause 123, which gives the Government the ability to consolidate and amend compulsory purchase legislation, should be deleted from the Bill as it gives the Government too wide a remit to encroach on property rights without a clear objective. It could lead to changes in compulsory purchase legislation that tip the balance further towards the developer and away from protecting the home owner’s and landowner’s rights. The ability to amend more than 25 key pieces of primary legislation, described as “relevant enactments” in Clause 123(2), in any way that any Government see fit—potentially with limited consultation or scrutiny—must raise very serious concerns.
Additionally, it is premature to propose amending compulsory purchase legislation before, as I understand it, the Government have received the outcome of the Law Commission’s review into compulsory purchase reform. There is also the matter of the lack of a government response to the consultation on compulsory purchase compensation, which is still awaited despite the Government including some of these controversial measures in this Bill. The department is clearly in breach of the consultation principles, which state that it should:
“Publish responses within 12 weeks of the consultation or provide an explanation why this is not possible. Where consultation concerns a statutory instrument publish responses before or at the same time as the instrument is laid, except in very exceptional circumstances (and even then publish responses as soon as possible). Allow appropriate time between closing the consultation and implementing policy or legislation”;
that last point is relevant in this particular case. Planning legislation is the foundation of so much, particularly in the rural economy. There is a real risk that growth of the rural economy and housing delivery could be held back by amendments that have gone through without proper scrutiny.
I look forward to hearing the Government’s response and reasons.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, regarding Clause 123, we believe that this provision was added to the Bill subsequent to consideration in the other place, so it has perhaps not had the same scrutiny as other parts of the Bill.
Amendment 285AA, moved by the noble Lord, Lord Stunell, seeks to have the status of combined mayoral authority with planning powers added to the list of exemptions. A distinction was drawn previously in your Lordships’ House between the devolution powers conferred on mayors and the legislative powers devolved to Administrations, but what meetings and discussions have been held with devolved Administrations in this respect?
I express our concern, alongside that of the noble Lords, Lord Stunell and Lord Carrington, about the implications of this clause in any case. The noble Lord, Lord Carrington, argues that the clause should not be part of the Bill at all. I can understand this view as in this part of the Bill, as in others, there are very significant powers being taken by the Secretary of State to amend these long lists of 25 pieces of primary legislation, with limited scrutiny or consultation and without reversion to either House. That would give us great cause for concern. I hope that the Minister can respond to this, but we support the clause stand part notice.
Earl Howe (Con)
My Lords, I have listened carefully to the concerns expressed by the noble Lords, Lord Stunell and Lord Carrington, and hope and believe that I can fully reassure them both. I will respond to the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, in a second, but will begin by addressing Amendment 285AA, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Stunell.
This amendment would restrict the nature of amendments that can be made under the power contained in Clause 123 so that the Secretary of State could not use it in relation to matters within a devolved competence or where a mayor has planning powers. Noble Lords will be aware that under Clause 123(6) any changes made by regulations under this section do not come into effect except where Parliament enacts a relevant consolidation Act and that Act comes into effect. In practice, these regulations will smooth the transition of the law from its current unconsolidated state to its future consolidated state. To do this, they have legal effect for only a moment, immediately before the relevant consolidation Act comes into effect.
Noble Lords will know that consolidation is a highly technical exercise restricted to the clarification and restatement of the existing law. This power is likewise restricted. It cannot be used to change the terms of devolution, nor to interfere in policy matters which are devolved. The power to make incidental provision in relation to a devolved competence is included here to reflect that much of planning and compulsory purchase law pre-dates devolution. Without this power allowing the Secretary of State to disentangle the law in England, we would be unable to ensure that in substance the legal position within devolved competence would be unchanged when the law applying in England was disentangled. In relation to the second—
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I thank the noble Earl for giving way. The provision in Clause 123(4) says:
“For the purposes of this section, ‘amend’ includes repeal and revoke”.
That sounds like a sledgehammer being used to crack a nut if it is a matter of consolidation.
Earl Howe (Con)
Consolidation in this area of the law is immensely complex. Frankly, we do not know the full extent of the relevant planning provisions that must be considered in any common consolidation exercise because the exercise has not been commenced.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
My apologies, but if it is that complex, is it not more likely that mistakes could be made, making it even more concerning that something could just be repealed or revoked without full comprehension or sufficient time? It is quite concerning.
Earl Howe (Con)
The noble Baroness should not be concerned, if I may suggest, as I shall go on to try to explain, because I have a little bit more to set out for the Committee. The power does not allow the changing of the terms of devolution once given effect in law, nor does it allow any changes to what planning powers can be conferred on any area as part of such a deal.
Finally on the amendment, I reiterate that in relation to the planning powers of mayors, there is no intention to remove the powers of district councils through devolution deals. I therefore hope I have persuaded the noble Lord that, as expressed, the amendment is not necessary.
Lord Stunell (LD)
I thank the noble Earl for taking us through what for some of us is a kind of grade 1 learning experience, which he has dealt with very effectively. I have some considerable concerns which remain. I wonder whether he could go back to a point that he made in response to the noble Baroness a few minutes ago: that it was so complex and there were so many different pieces of legislation that it was not possible to give a list of all the complexities and so on which were involved. He also spoke about trust, and how the whole system might be undermined by opaqueness. If I connect those two remarks, he will perhaps see that to some extent the opacity means that the trust is not present on this side of the Chamber at the moment.
Earl Howe (Con)
I am sorry to hear that. The point I was seeking to make is that the general public need to trust the law and know what the law is, as does anyone dealing with the planning system. That is why the Government’s ambition is to put in train a consolidation exercise, which may take a considerable time. I have been quite frank with the Committee that there are not only 50 Acts that we know about which deal with planning and compulsory purchase, but—as my notes say—innumerable other Acts which cross-reference those 50 Acts. It will require a major legal exercise to bring all the threads together.
I cannot commit to a timescale for consolidation from the Dispatch Box today. There is a large amount of work to do before we can get to that stage and that will naturally have to be balanced against the wider legislative programme. It is for that reason that we are asking for this power to prepare the way—I think that is the best way of putting it—to make the ultimate consolidation a more achievable exercise.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I am sorry to keep pursuing this point but it is really very important indeed. Any of us who has worked on this Bill knows the difficulty of how many crossovers there are with other Bills. On the previous group of amendments, from my perspective and I am sure from those of colleagues on these Benches, we ended up referencing back through various Bills to get to the point that the amendments referred to. That does not make life easy, and I am sure it makes it very opaque for professionals and the public trying to deal with the system. That simply underlines yet again, as we have done many times through this process, that a planning Bill might have been a better option to get to the rationalisation of the planning system, but we are where we are with that.
We remain concerned about just how this exercise will be done. Will a whole series of statutory instruments come through? Will it just be for the Secretary of State to make the decisions and then change the legislation—I am not entirely sure how that works in process terms—or will we have a whole other Bill that will be the “consolidation of planning Bill 2025” or something? I am interested as to what the process will be for this, because we have 25 Acts here at least—there are probably more than that, in truth—that need amending.
Earl Howe (Con)
As I said, the exercise is an enormous one. It requires legal brains to get their heads around the statutes before we can even think about putting a consolidation Bill together. I am afraid I cannot be precise in answer to the noble Baroness but I will see whether I can clarify and distil what I have tried to say—obviously not very adequately—by writing to her. I will of course copy my letter to the noble Lords, Lord Stunell and Lord Carrington. In doing so, I hope I can provide complete reassurance about the intent behind these regulation-making powers.
The Earl of Caithness (Con)
My Lords, I have listened with great care to my noble friend. I understand about consolidation and legislation; it is immensely complicated. He used a phrase that I half wrote down—I missed the last bit because I was listening to the next sentence. He said that there is no intention to change. Does that mean that, when my noble friend and my noble friend Lady Scott leave their jobs, the next Ministers could have an intention to change, or does it mean that there will be no change, only consolidation?
Earl Howe (Con)
Consolidation by definition does not extend to changing the policy effect of legislation.
Lord Stunell (LD)
My Lords, I think the noble Earl will have detected a degree of unease right around the Chamber about how this clause will take effect, not just in the course of this Administration but in the hands of a different one at a future date. I have heard the discussion and learned a lot. I will need to read Hansard and the noble Earl’s letter when it comes and take a view on whether this is something to take further forward. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook
“Participation in certain proceedings conducted by, or on behalf of, the Secretary of State(1) The Secretary of State may, to the extent not otherwise able to do so, require or permit a person who takes part in relevant proceedings conducted by the Secretary of State to do so (wholly or partly) remotely.(2) The references in subsection (1) to the Secretary of State include references to a person appointed by the Secretary of State.(3) “Relevant proceedings” means any inquiry, hearing, examination, meeting or other proceedings under an Act (whenever passed or made) which relate to planning, development or the compulsory purchase of land.(4) Relevant proceedings include, in particular—(a) any proceedings to which section 319A of TCPA 1990 applies (see subsections (7) to (10) of that section);(b) any proceedings under section 20 of, or paragraph 6 of Schedule 3 to, the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990;(c) any proceedings under section 21 of, or paragraph 6 of the Schedule to, the Planning (Hazardous Substances) Act 1990;(d) any proceedings under section 13A of, or paragraph 4A of Schedule 1 to, the Acquisition of Land Act 1981;(e) any proceedings under Part 10A or Part 11 of the Planning Act 2008;(f) an examination under Part 2 of PCPA 2004;(g) an examination under Chapter 2 or 3 of Part 6 of the Planning Act 2008 (including any meetings under Chapter 4 of that Part) in relation to an application for an order granting development consent;(h) an examination under Schedule 4B to the TCPA 1990 in relation to a draft neighbourhood development order.(5) For the purposes of this section a person takes part in relevant proceedings remotely if they take part through—(a) a live telephone link,(b) a live television link, or(c) any other arrangement which does not involve the person attending the proceedings in person.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment inserts a new Clause into Chapter 6 of Part 3 of the Bill. The Clause confers a power on the Secretary of State to require or permit a person who takes part in certain proceedings relating to planning, development or the compulsory purchase of land to do so wholly or partly remotely. The power can be exercised by a person appointed by the Secretary of State and it is intended that the Planning Inspectorate will be appointed for this purpose.
“Power of certain bodies to charge fees for advice in relation to applications under the planning ActsAfter section 303ZA of the TCPA 1990 (fees for appeals) insert—“303ZB Power of certain bodies to charge fees for advice in relation to applications under the planning Acts(1) A prescribed body may charge fees for the provision of advice, information or assistance (including the provision of a response to a consultation) in connection with an application within subsection (2) that relates to land in England. (2) An application is within this subsection if it is an application, proposed application or proposal for a permission, approval or consent under, or for the purposes of, the planning Acts.(3) A prescribed body may not charge fees under subsection (1) in respect of—(a) a response to a consultation that a qualifying neighbourhood body is required to carry out under an enactment;(b) the provision of advice, information or assistance to an excluded person, unless the advice, information or assistance is provided in connection with an application within subsection (2) by that person;(c) the provision of prescribed advice, information or assistance or advice, information or assistance of a prescribed description.(4) In subsection (3)(a), a “qualifying neighbourhood body” means—(a) a qualifying body within the meaning given by section 61E(6) (and includes a community organisation which is to be regarded as such a qualifying body by virtue of paragraph 4(2) of Schedule 4C), or(b) a qualifying body within the meaning given by section 38A(12) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.(5) In subsection (3)(b), an “excluded person” means—(a) the Secretary of State;(b) the Mayor of London;(c) a local planning authority;(d) a mayoral combined authority (within the meaning given in section 107A of the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009).(6) A prescribed body may charge fees under subsection (1) only in accordance with a statement published on its website which—(a) describes the advice, information or assistance in respect of which fees are charged,(b) sets out the fees (or, if applicable, the method by which the fees are to be calculated), and(c) refers to any provision in an enactment pursuant to which the advice, information or assistance is provided.(7) Subsections (8) and (9) apply where a prescribed body decides to charge fees under subsection (1) for advice, information or assistance which the body provides pursuant to a provision in an enactment.(8) If a person fails to pay the fee charged under subsection (1), the prescribed body may, notwithstanding any requirement to provide the advice, information or assistance, withhold the advice, information or assistance until the fee is paid.(9) The prescribed body must secure that, taking one financial year with another, the income from the fees charged under subsection (1) does not exceed the cost of providing the advice, information or assistance.(10) A financial year is the period of 12 months beginning with 1 April.(11) Before making regulations under this section, the Secretary of State must consult—(a) any body likely to be affected by the regulations, and(b) such other persons as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.(12) In this section, “fees” include charges (however described).”” Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment inserts a new section 303ZB into the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 which provides a power for certain bodies to charge fees for the provision of advice, information or assistance in connection with applications for a permission, approval or consent under the planning Acts in relation to land in England.
Baroness Pinnock
“Public consultation on planning and women’s safety(1) The Secretary of State must, within 90 days of the day on which this Act is passed, open a public consultation to establish the impact of proposed changes to the planning system on women’s safety.(2) Section 70 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (Determination of applications: general considerations) is amended in accordance with subsection (3).(3) After subsection (2A), insert—“(2B) In dealing with an application for planning permission for public development, a local planning authority must establish a review of how the proposed development would impact women’s safety. The review must, in particular, consider the impact of proposed development on—(a) open spaces,(b) layout of buildings,(c) unlit or hidden spaces,(d) visibility of entranceways, and(e) blind spots.(2C) The local planning authority must prepare and publish a report setting out the results of the review.””Member's explanatory statement
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to open a public consultation to establish the impact of proposed changes to the planning system on women’s safety and would require local planning authorities to review the impact of new developments on women’s safety.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
My Lords, we have discussed for many hours now the importance of a plan-led process and the outcomes of planning. Planning has the power to create great, safe, appealing places. Equally, poor planning has the ability to create places that do not feel safe and do not appeal to many of our fellow citizens. Amendment 288 asks the Government to have a consultation once the Bill is enacted in order to consider in the planning process the particular angle of women’s safety. In saying that the focus is on women’s safety, I do so in the knowledge that anyone who is particularly vulnerable, be they old, less able, or children or young people, would benefit from a focused look at safety in public places in the planning process.
I equally acknowledge that, during a planning application, the safety unit of the local police force will often be asked for advice and commentary on what is being proposed. Frequently in my experience, that considers fencing, alleyways and so on, but this amendment is trying to extend that. The consultations that I am seeking would have a broader look at whether the places that we create will be safe for women, particularly on their own, to use. There have been a number of recent tragic examples where clearly walking across a park at night is not safe.
I was particularly alerted to this issue when I read a research report published by Turley, a planning consultancy. Its argument, which I summarise, is that women are disproportionately impacted by poor design in public spaces, which makes women feel more vulnerable. I guess that, if I asked the women in this Chamber whether they cross the road at night when the other side is better lit, the answer would be yes. Do they avoid overgrown hedges where it is particularly dark? Yes. Do they avoid going down the shortcut of the alleyways, or the ginnels, as we call them? Yes. Our planning process has resulted in places where women feel less secure, and if they feel less secure, they are less likely to use public places. If public places are public places, they ought to be safe for everyone.
What I am seeking is that, by giving greater thought to women’s safety, we plan out, before places are built, areas which are less safe for women. In a survey, 55% of women stated they would not use public transport after dark and 34% stated that feelings of insecurity have stopped them travelling at times. A report by UN Women UK found that 70% of women have felt harassed in public spaces due to the issues that I have just raised of dark places, poor lighting, overgrown hedges, high fences and that sort of situation.
It has consequently been argued that women cannot fully enjoy towns and cities, especially, if they do not feel that they can travel through them safely. The sad fact is that there have been several recent terrible examples where women, even though they were not alone, were viciously attacked. If it were within our grasp to avoid creating places where this happens, surely we would want to grasp that and deal with it very quickly.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, for introducing her amendment and indeed for tabling it in the first place. This important issue is not talked about enough. I am aware that in the other place a PMB was brought forward on this subject at some stage, but it is something that is not considered sufficiently.
We heard some figures and stats from the noble Baroness. The consultation on the safety of women and girls found that 71% of all women in the UK had suffered some form of sexual harassment in public spaces. I wonder whether the figure is higher, because I wonder whether every woman admits to it—so it is at least that number. If I think back to my own life experience, I remember that when my daughters became teenagers I could not help myself: I started to worry about them, because I did not want to happen to them the things that had happened to me. To be in that position when there are other things that could be done is frustrating.
To me, this is an opportunity where simple things could be done if they were better understood by designers and planners, so I am completely behind the noble Baroness’s amendment. If we are improving the safety of women and girls, it is about putting positive societal values right at the heart of our planning and design—particularly urban planning, as the noble Baroness mentioned—and we know that new approaches to this could ensure that outcomes improve for women, particularly those who are working and living in urban areas.
Something that I find frustrating about this issue is that women are often made to feel entirely responsible for themselves to be safe. They are told, “Carry alarms. Don’t do this or that. Don’t go there”. It should be not just women’s responsibility but society’s responsibility to look after women and the vulnerable in that society. We need to think not just about the planning of new developments but about their delivery. As the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, said, women need to feel safe. She talked about streetlights, pavements, secure walkways and the things in her amendment that would make a huge difference.
Perceptions of safety are just as important here. That is one of the reasons why the part of her amendment that says the local planning authority must prepare and publish a report, setting out the results of the review that she suggests, is important. It is only when you do that review and prepare and publish a report that you can see accurately what needs to be done.
We know that 36% of women state that they feel unsafe walking in their local area at night. The consultation that was done on safety asked women to pinpoint specific areas where they do or do not feel safe. That has highlighted common characteristics between places where people either feel safe or do not feel safe. Those statistics and other findings are highly significant, because they are then available to inform research and enable the future design and development of buildings to explicitly and specifically consider safety issues and therefore to adopt the kinds of measures that we need to allay safety fears—and much of this is in the noble Baroness’s amendment.
So what should city planners and developers consider when looking at how they can improve this situation in their areas? Clearly, there is never going to be a one-size-fits-all approach, which again is why it is important to have these reviews and reports done. Planners locally need to be able to determine what is needed in their locality and have that as their starting point.
There are some interesting findings. For example, warm light is better than harsh lighting. Light can evoke a range of feelings and has a different impact on people at different times of night and day. There are interesting ways in which things could be improved that we might not even think of straight off. We know that people put CCTV up and think it will help safety, but actually it often has the opposite effect; if there are CCTV cameras everywhere, they can make you feel unsafe. Even if that perception is not reality, it adds to the feeling of not being safe. Basically, it sends out the wrong message and so can discourage people from going into that area, even though in theory it might actually be the safest place to be.
Development can also create temporary spaces which are in a constant state of flux, and create anxiety in people. If we think about the interface between a public space and adjacent land, how does that all join together? How do you get from one to the other? The noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, talked about subways, for example—underpasses. What might look fun during the day can look very different at night-time.
Again, we need to think about how buildings are designed. If you have worked in a large building, you can often feel very isolated in it. I have worked in a building where I knew that there was somebody who worked in another part of it who had, shall we say, not been too pleasant to me in the past. If I was in that building on my own, that made me feel extremely vulnerable but I did not want to leave my job. We also need to think about how car parks are lit outside workplaces, for example. This is probably going to sound a bit daft to the men, but one thing that I have always got really frustrated about—and worried about if I had to suddenly leg it, to be blunt—is when you are in area full of cobbles and you have heels on. It sounds silly but very small things can make a difference to your perception of safety when you are out at night.
Architects, developers and urban planners really need to ensure that women and girls’ experiences are involved in building safer environments. It should not just be about women; men need to contribute to the process and demonstrate that they are committed to working with women to improve building design and planning. Back in March 2021 Priti Patel, when she was the Home Secretary, said:
“Every woman should feel safe to walk on our streets without fear of harassment or violence”.
Accepting the noble Baroness’s amendment would be an excellent place to start.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, I thank noble Lords for that debate. Short it may have been, but it was full of some interesting facts.
Amendment 288 tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, would impose a duty on the Secretary of State to publicly consult on changes to the planning system to establish the impact on women’s safety. The amendment would also require local planning authorities, when determining a planning application for public development, to establish a view on how that proposed development would impact women’s safety.
The Government recognise public safety for all as a priority, and that it is critical that the planning system plays an important part in addressing that effectively in new development. The National Planning Policy Framework is already clear that a council’s planning policies and decisions should aim to create safe and inclusive places for all. It explicitly states that both planning policies and decisions should promote public safety. This is in line with the Government’s strategy on tackling violence against women and girls.
The Government have recently consulted on the proposed approach to updating the National Planning Policy Framework. The consultation acknowledges that this important issue is already addressed within national planning policy. However, it sought views on whether to place more emphasis on making sure that women, girls and other vulnerable groups feel safe in our public places including, for example, policies on lighting and street lighting. As we have heard, the consultation closed on 2 March this year. We expect to consider this subject area in the context of a wider review of the National Planning Policy Framework, to follow Royal Assent to the Bill. The Government will consult on the details of these wider changes later this year, reflecting responses to the prospective consultation.
The supporting planning practice guidance on healthy and safe communities spells out that planning provides an important opportunity to consider the security of the built environment and those who live and work in it. This specifically references Section 17 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, which requires all local, joint and combined authorities to exercise their functions to do all that they
“reasonably can to prevent … crime and disorder”.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
My Lords, I thank particularly the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, for her full-hearted support for this amendment and the approach that it is taking. I thank the Minister for her full reply. Yes, planning applications are currently considered in relation to safety, but the difficulty is: through whose eyes is safety being considered? What I am trying to suggest to your Lordships’ Committee in this amendment is that women have a particular perception of safety which probably is not shared by many men.
Earlier I asked a general question: how many women here would cross the road to somewhere that is better lit? There were nods all around. That is not because planners previously had deliberately designed something that was going to be unsafe. They designed something they thought would be safe, but they did not see it through the eyes and perceptions of women. That is particularly what I am pointing to. It is a shame that the Minister, who I am sure would have agreed with much that I said, did not feel able to support this amendment.
Finally, we have the wonderful reference to the NPPF— as yet unpublished. The NPPF, says the Minister, will make reference to women’s safety and has particularly considered the safety of women and girls. But, unfortunately, we will not see the content of the NPPF until the Bill has been enacted. If you ask me, that is not acceptable. This amendment and others have asked particularly for issues of general importance to be thought about. The answer is that it may well be in the NPPF, but the Government are not publishing this until they have made all the decisions on this Bill. I urge the Minister yet again to get this NPPF before the House by Report because that will enormously aid our discussions. With that, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
“Wildbelt(1) Local planning authorities must maintain a register of wildbelt land in their local areas (see section 106(3)(c) of the Environment Act 2021).(2) Wildbelt land must be recognised in local plans based on areas identified in the local nature recovery strategy.(3) Local planning authorities must act in accordance with local nature recovery strategy wildbelt designations in the exercise of relevant functions, including land use planning and planning decisions.(4) Wildbelt land may not be subject to land use change that hinders the recovery of nature in these areas.”Member's explanatory statement
This new Clause would secure a land designation in England that provides protection for sites being managed for nature’s recovery, identified through the Local Nature Recovery Strategies created by the Environment Act. Sites designated as wildbelt in Local Plans would be subject to only moderate controls, precluding development but allowing farming and other land uses which do not hinder the recovery of nature.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, in the absence of the noble Lord, Lord Randall, who is unable to be here, sadly, as he is unwell, I will be moving Amendment 289, to which I have added my name. I also support Amendment 386 in the name of my noble friend Lady Hayman.
Amendment 289 would deliver a new planning designation to protect wild spaces for nature, climate and people. We have some effective nature designations in the UK, but there is currently a gap in the protection they offer; for example, there are sites where nature is not yet in full health but is getting there or where nature is, in effect, recovering but is not protected.
These sites can vary from land on the edge of built-up areas, where nature has been allowed back in, such as community orchards, to habitats undergoing restoration to boost carbon storage, such as rewetted peatland. Wherever they are located, these recovering sites provide vital spaces for wildlife—for wild animals to feed, shelter and thrive. They are often the green spaces closest to our homes. However, the lack of planning protection for those spaces means that they are vulnerable to development pressures and other damaging land-use changes, threatening the biodiversity benefits that they provide. With nature in decline, and the crucial Environment Act target to halt the decline by 2030 needing to be met, we cannot afford for more wild spaces to be lost. The wild-belt designation proposed by Amendment 289 would protect sites with growing biodiversity value and ensure that investment of time and money over recent years to restore nature on these sites is not wasted.
The amendment allows for wild-belt sites to be identified by the Environment Act’s local nature recovery strategies and recognised in local plans. They would then be protected through the planning system by a presumption against land-use change that would hinder the recovery of nature. This would enable these sites to continue to support wild species. Existing sustainable land uses, such as nature-friendly farming or habitat restoration for carbon offsetting, would be allowed to continue. That would allow these precious sites to continue to contribute to nature’s recovery and be used to connect up other sites important for the natural world, creating lifelines for nature across the country. It would also provide more access to green and blue spaces for people, greening green belts and restoring neglected blue spaces.
In the words of the Wildlife Trust, which first came up with the wild-belt concept,
“it would help create communities where people can enjoy healthier, happier lives through on-your-doorstep access to nature and ensure we hand over our natural environment in a better state to the next generation”.
We can level up planning protection through the wild-belt designation, securing places for more abundant wildlife and more nature-filled lives for all of us. I hope that noble Lords and the Minister will feel able to support the amendment.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend for introducing the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Randall of Uxbridge. I have a similar amendment in this group; it requires that the Secretary of State must publish draft legislation to allow local authorities to propose wild-belt designations for the purpose of improving the results of environmental outcome reports.
Amendment 289 would create a new planning designation to support land for nature’s recovery, known as wild belt. As we have heard, the Wildlife Trust first proposed this designation to enable land that is being restored or has the potential for restoration to be protected to see the nature recovery that we so desperately need to see. We want to see from this legislation that the new wild-belt designation gets taken up by the Government so that it is included in planning reforms. If you are going to protect land to allow it to be restored for nature, it has to be tied into our planning system; otherwise, it will just get unpicked in various places.
The Wildlife Trust has warned that the proposed changes to the planning system, which the Government say are to tackle the shortage of homes and support sustainable growth will, unfortunately, increase the threats to nature. It has raised concerns about the fact that we have inadequate data, which then means that the Government, local authorities and planners are not properly informed about the impact on wildlife. That leads to a bias towards development that weakens environmental protections—and I am sure that none of us wants to see that.
As my noble friend said, the trusts want to see recovery of wildlife and easy access to nature for people put right at the heart of the planning system. This wild-belt designation would secure an area against future changes to land use, so that efforts to recreate or restore natural habitat actually become more meaningful and long lasting. We also know that the RSPB has released analysis showing how the UK has missed almost all its targets in this area of conservation, including failing to protect or manage enough land for nature. We know that proposed government planning reforms include zoning land for growth where major developments could take place, renewal areas where small-scale building could occur and protected areas where there would be more stringent controls. But one thing we really need to think about is how our sites for nature join up, because nature travels.
There has been a lot of discussion for a number of years about wildlife corridors. If we are going to have these local recovery strategies for local nature through our authorities, they need to join up. The wild belt would be a good way to do this, alongside the green belt and other proposals the Government have put forward, such as the new ELM scheme. It is about bringing all this together in order to make it absolutely as meaningful as possible. Designation of land as wild belt could be a requirement for receiving public money, for example, through ELMS; it could be part of the new schemes that are coming in.
The Wildlife Trusts have proposed five principles to ensure that the planning system helps nature. They want to see a bold new designation to protect the new land that is put into recovery, which is what they are calling wild belt. So, I hope the Minister has understood why wild belt is so very important and will look to support these amendments. If they were accepted, wild-belt sites would be identified by local nature recovery strategies and actually recognised in local development plans. That would make all the difference, because then they would be protected through the planning system. If we can secure more sites and protect them, we will start to make the difference we need to make in recovering our wildlife and biodiversity.
The Earl of Caithness (Con)
My Lords, I am sure my noble friend Lord Harlech agrees with me that the idea behind these amendments is absolutely right and that we all want to see an increase in nature and biodiversity, but I urge him to take a slightly jaundiced view of them. The way they are drafted and the bureaucracy involved is of concern to me. The noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, made a powerful case for designation, saying that wild belts—whatever wild belts are, because there is no definition, as I will come on to in a moment—will be protected. So were national parks; so are AONBs; so are SSSIs, since the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, which I took part in; but that has not stopped nature declining. The problem is that we are focusing too much on designation rather than on management. It is management of land that will increase biodiversity and wildlife.
It should be second nature to farmers to farm in a way that will benefit wildlife. Good commercial farming can work hand in hand with nature. Anyone saw the recent David Attenborough programme “Wild Isles” will have seen that, in the last episode, he gave examples of farmers on hill land and on rich grade 1 land farming for wildlife as well as commercial farming. The farmer on the commercial land has to rotate his crops on a regular basis and will therefore rotate some of the wildlife’s habitat. If a field that he has put down to wildflowers is designated, there will be bureaucracy to change that from one field to another; whether it is a slightly bigger or smaller area will involve a whole lot of bureaucracy and make the farmer’s job a whole lot harder.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
My Lords, my noble friend Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville was unable to remain in your Lordships’ House to this late hour and has passed me some notes to which I will speak, if that is okay. She wished to speak in particular to Amendment 289, to which she added her name, and wishes the noble Lord, Lord Randall, a speedy recovery.
As others have said, the wild belt definition was proposed by the Wildlife Trusts. Any Government committed to nature recovery, biodiversity and our environment ought seriously to consider what they have to say. As we all know, biodiversity is at an all-time low. Our previous desire to see neat and well-kept hedgerows, farmland and gardens has had a devastating effect on our wildlife, of all types and sizes. To help biodiversity recover, it is necessary to ensure that areas of the countryside, both rural and urban, are maintained in a “wild” state. These will be included in the local nature recovery strategies for each area and easily identified in these plans.
A wild-belt area must be protected as such, from planning use and planning decisions. It is too easy to refer to a piece of scrubland as unsightly and of no particular use and to concoct a plan to turn it into something else. This misses the point altogether. That which is wild—and therefore unsightly, in the eyes of some—is likely to attract wildflowers and insects and become the home of small mammals and birds, all of which will increase the biodiversity of an area and protect and enhance nature’s recovery.
The Environment Act makes provision for the creation of local nature recovery strategies. By ensuring that wild-belt areas are included within these strategies, we can protect them from predatory development. They can, however, be used for farming and other land uses which will protect and not hinder nature recovery, such as nature-friendly farming and habitat restoration for carbon offsetting.
Amendment 386 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, also proposes wild-belt designations by local authorities, which would enhance the local environmental outcomes reports. Everything possible must be done to ensure that biodiversity is increased across the country. I support Amendment 386 from the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman.
Lord Harlech (Con)
My Lords, as this is the first time I have spoken in Committee on the Bill, it is probably appropriate that I declare my farming and land management interests, as set out in the register.
I turn to Amendment 289 in the name of my noble friend Lord Randall of Uxbridge, and so eloquently introduced by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, and Amendment 386 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock. I thank all noble Lords for laying these amendments and provide assurances that I share the same view as my noble friend Lord Caithness on the importance of helping nature to recover.
While these two amendments both refer to wild belts, they take somewhat different approaches. I will begin by addressing Amendment 289, which seeks to secure a land designation of a wild belt. This would provide protection for sites being managed for nature’s recovery, identified through local nature recovery strategies. I thank noble Lords for the recent constructive debate on local nature recovery strategies, which covered quite similar ground. As my noble friend Lord Benyon reassured the Committee, the Government share the desire for local nature recovery strategies to be reflected appropriately in local plans so that the planning system can play a more proactive role in nature recovery. This is something we committed to explicitly in the recent environmental improvement plan.
Where we differ is on the necessity of making amendments to this Bill to achieve this. Instead, we will rely on existing duties created under the Environment Act and the guidance which the Government have committed to produce. The language of this proposed amendment—to “act in accordance” with a new designation based on the local nature recovery strategy—would be more binding than previous amendments. While the Government are determined that the planning system should play an important role in nature recovery, the system still needs to balance this priority with other priorities. Requiring, in legislation, that planning must “act in accordance” with plans for nature recovery would hamper the ability of planning authorities to strike this balance.
Last month we published the regulations and statutory guidance needed for responsible authorities to begin preparation of local nature recovery strategies. We are now working to put in place the guidance on how local authorities should consider LNRS in their local plans. This will be published this summer and will deliver on the commitments we have made. Therefore, while I appreciate the intention of Amendment 289, the Government are not able to support it. I hope that the noble Baroness, on behalf of my noble friend, will be able to withdraw it.
Amendment 386, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, would require the Secretary of State to publish draft legislation to allow local authorities to propose wild-belt designations for the purpose of improving the results of environmental outcome reports. EORs sit alongside the Government’s commitments to support nature’s recovery and are intended to ensure that decision-makers have the facts they need when deciding whether to move forward with a specific plan or to permit a specific development. EORs will consider a range of environmental factors, including the influence of protected or designated spaces on the effects of the development, and the model of outcomes and indicators will allow the Government to reflect environmental priorities, including matters such as the preservation of wilderness.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, talked about the need for a joined-up approach. The local nature recovery strategy statutory guidance explains how areas for nature recovery should be identified, including how conditions should be spatially connected for nature recovery and existing areas of importance for nature. I know from my own experience on the Select Committee for land use—my noble friend Lord Caithness also raised this—about management. We need to see much better management, particularly of green-belt spaces which are neither very green nor have much biodiversity in them. This is a real opportunity for those areas to do a lot of what these amendments are proposing.
Noble Lords also referred to the commitments the Government have made on this issue. The recent levelling up White Paper reinforced that local nature recovery strategies will be reflected in plan-making. It has been mentioned several times, but the National Planning Policy Framework expects plans to identify, map and safeguard components of local wildlife-rich habitats and wider ecological networks, including the hierarchy of international, national and locally designated sites of importance for biodiversity, wildlife corridors and the stepping stones that connect them, and the areas identified by national and local partnerships for habitat management, enhancement, restoration and creation.
While the concept of a wild belt is intriguing, introducing a designation that is required for the purpose of improving the results of an EOR risks distorting the purpose of environmental assessment, which is to provide relevant environmental information in a digestible way to support effective decision-making. Therefore, I am not able to recommend that the Government support these amendments, but I hope I have provided noble Lords with the assurances they seek in order to withdraw them.
While Amendments 386 and 289 take different approaches from each other, and from the Government’s stated position, I hope I have reassured noble Lords that we are working towards the same aim—nature’s recovery—and that the approach we are taking through the powers under the Environment Act and subsequent guidance will achieve that aim.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have added their support, and the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, who agrees, normally, with so much of what we are debating. I am sorry we have a slight difference at this late point in the debate, but I am sure we can iron it out.
My noble friend Lady Hayman was quite right to emphasise the essential link between nature recovery and the planning system. This comes up in other amendments we will deal with during the course of the Bill, but this amendment deals with one specific part of that relationship. My noble friend also rightly emphasised the need for wildlife corridors. We are learning so much more about the fact that you cannot have little isolated pockets of nature recovery and expect it to work. We need that broader viewpoint and a way for nature to travel around the country to provide a wider benefit.
The noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, was quite right to stress that, in order for that to happen, the less special and the less beautiful places need to play their part as well. An awful lot of nature recovery activity can go on in places which we do not necessarily see as being particularly beautiful, although they nevertheless have a role to play in nature recovery.
All that leads to the concept of the wild belt. I disagree with the noble Earl, Lord Caithness; it is not a bureaucratic proposal because we already have the structure here—we are just giving an extra tool to the local nature recovery strategies and the people working on that to take a wider look at what is going to make nature work in their area. As I say, it is about finding new pockets or areas which are not necessarily the ones that people might think of, which will help with this nature recovery plan.
Therefore all the powers are already there—they already exist in the Environment Act. All we are doing is providing greater scope for those people to really deliver what we are asking of them. I disagree about whether it is bureaucratic; I think it is actually quite a simple ask. It is quite a popular ask; a lot of the NGOs and campaigners out there recognise the benefit that this can bring, so I hope noble Lords will not disregard it as it is a proposal worth pursuing. In fact, I have had a number of noble Lords from the Government Benches talking positively about this, so it is a concept that has legs, and I think we will return to it.
Having said all that, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Randall, has a speedy recovery and that he will be able to be here for us to plan our next steps on what we will do with this amendment. However, in the meantime I beg leave to withdraw it.