House of Commons
Prayers
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Oral Answers to Questions
(11 months, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Paul Howell (Sedgefield) (Con)
Mrs Emma Lewell-Buck (South Shields) (Lab)
Peter Dowd (Bootle) (Lab)
Jonathan Gullis (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Con)
Dr Luke Evans (Bosworth) (Con)
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Suella Braverman)
Antisocial behaviour brings misery and menace. On 27 March, the Government launched the antisocial behaviour action plan, giving the relevant agencies all the tools they need and communities confidence that it will not be tolerated. The plan focuses on making communities safer, building local pride, prevention and early intervention. These proposals will ensure perpetrators are punished and help to restore pride in our communities.
Paul Howell
I compliment the Secretary of State on driving the increase in police numbers on the streets. While Durham has 239 more police officers since 2019, will she confirm that recruitment will continue, as we have not yet returned to the 2010 level? Will she advise me and my Sedgefield constituents how to ensure that the emphasis is on frontline deployment to antisocial behaviour hotspots?
Suella Braverman
I congratulate my hon. Friend on his doughty campaigning in his constituency. Durham has received £3.4 million through four rounds of the safer streets fund, including just under £1.5 million in the current round. This is funding projects such as youth diversionary activity, ASB education programmes and target hardening measures. This Government are putting more police on the streets and engaging with communities to enable them to prevent crime.
Mrs Lewell-Buck
Driving without care or consideration is described as one of the worst forms of antisocial behaviour, as the consequences can be fatal. If caught speeding, does the Home Secretary agree that no one should be above the law?
Suella Braverman
As I said earlier, last summer I was speeding. I regret that. I paid the fine and I took the penalty. At no point did I attempt to evade sanction. What I am focused on is working for more police officers, so I am proud that this Conservative Government have secured a record number in the history of policing. This side of the House is focused on the people’s priorities.
Peter Dowd
According to a joint letter I received from the Home Secretary and the Levelling Up Secretary on 27 March 2023:
“Tackling antisocial behaviour is an absolute priority for this Government.”
In the real world, how can 450 fewer police officers in Merseyside since 2010, and 69p per person invested in the immediate justice pilot, be classed as anything approaching tackling antisocial behaviour?
Suella Braverman
I am pleased that, thanks to this Government’s commitment, Merseyside has received millions of pounds of increased funding compared with previous years, but, most importantly, there have been seven rounds of safer streets fund projects in Merseyside, with 2.9 million in total provided over four rounds. I am glad that Merseyside has been chosen as one of our pilot areas for our immediate justice scheme, which is one way we will kick antisocial behaviour.
Jonathan Gullis
I thank my right hon. Friend for her earlier answer. In Stoke-on-Trent North, Kidsgrove and Talke, we are delighted to have seen more than 330 brand-new police officers recruited, new CCTV in Kidsgrove parish and more than £2 million in safer streets funding for Stoke-on-Trent. Sadly, however, in places such as Cobridge, crime increased by 75% between January and December 2022, which is why I launched the safer streets petition, which has more than 430 signatures. Will my right hon. Friend work to get the police and crime commissioner and the city council to bid with me for the next safer streets pot, to keep the streets safe in Tunstall, Cobridge and Smallthorne?
Suella Braverman
My hon. Friend does a great job of standing up for his constituents on antisocial behaviour. In March, we launched the action plan to crack down on precisely the behaviour he has been talking about. The plan is backed by more than £160 million of new funding. That includes funding for an increased police and other uniformed presence in ASB hotspots. I am glad that his force has also been chosen as one of the pilots.
Dr Evans
I am pleased to see the plan being brought forward, because only last week I was speaking to parish councillors from Bagworth who have had real problems with vandalism and graffiti in some of their playgrounds —so much so that they are thinking of closing them. I have heard of this happening in places such as Earl Shilton and Barwell, too. Will the Home Secretary say how the plan will support communities such as mine?
Suella Braverman
I was pleased to visit Leicestershire police force some months ago. I am committed to supporting communities and the police. I am pleased that Leicestershire police has received £2.8 million through four rounds of the safer streets fund, including £800,000 in the current round, to fund projects such as youth diversion activities, antisocial behaviour education programmes, and target hardening. We have funded several initiatives, and that is how we work together with other agencies to ensure that our streets are safer, communities can restore pride, and ultimately that criminals are put behind bars.
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
In Kendal we are proud of the recently set up Youth Matters project, which is about engaging young people with worthwhile activities to do with their time. Does the Home Secretary agree that as well as tackling antisocial behaviour by firm and adequately resourced policing, it is important that she works with her colleagues in the Department for Education to boost youth work, in particular detached youth work, to help give young people worthwhile things to do with their time? What is she doing to improve funding for that part of our armoury against antisocial behaviour?
Suella Braverman
Tackling antisocial behaviour is one of my priorities. That is why I launched the plan with the Prime Minister. It requires a multifaceted solution, and a lot of work must be focused on youth diversion. I was pleased to visit a boxing project a few weeks ago, in which money from the Home Office was diverted to encourage young people off the streets to take up a sport, work with mentors, and learn a new skill. It is a great way of reducing crime.
Sarah Jones (Croydon Central) (Lab)
The Home Secretary rightly said that antisocial behaviour brings misery and menace. As part of local antisocial behaviour plans, neighbourhood and traffic police across the country will rightly be cracking down on speeding and dangerous driving. Does the Home Secretary think that people who speed should be given the option to get private speeding awareness courses, rather than doing them with everyone else, and in her own case, what exactly did she ask her civil servants to help her with?
Suella Braverman
Hopefully we are not going to be too repetitive today, Mr Speaker. As I said earlier, last summer I was speeding. I regret that. I paid the fine and I accepted the points, and at no point did I seek to evade the sanction. But let us be honest about what this is all about. The shadow Minister would rather distract from the abject failure by the Labour party to offer any serious proposals on crime or policing. Labour Members want to talk about this because it distracts from the fact that they voted against tougher sentences for paedophiles and murderers. They want us to ignore the fact that Labour MPs would rather campaign to stop the deportation of foreign criminals than back our Rwanda scheme. They would rather the country does not notice their total abandonment of the British people. This Government are focusing on delivering a record—[Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. The Home Secretary said that she did not want to be repetitive. That goes all around the Chamber.
Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)
The Minister for Immigration (Robert Jenrick)
The points-based system serves the whole United Kingdom, and as noted in the Migration Advisory Committee annual report, immigration policy cannot be a complete solution to population movements within the United Kingdom, or to labour shortages. The Scottish Government have policy levers to address those issues more effectively.
Patricia Gibson
The Scottish Government have repeatedly raised the issue, I have secured a debate on it, and my SNP colleagues have raised it over and over again: labour shortages are posing huge challenges for Scotland right now. The Scottish Government proposed a rural immigration pilot—a proposal welcomed by one of the Home Secretary’s predecessors, the right hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Sajid Javid). Why will the UK Government not engage with the Scottish Government on that important issue, given that the Scottish Government have no powers in that area?
Robert Jenrick
We believe strongly that the UK is better served by a single, national immigration service, and there is no material difference between unemployment or economic inactivity rates in Scotland versus the rest of the United Kingdom. The first port of call for vacancies should always be the domestic workforce. That is why my right hon. Friend the Work and Pensions Secretary has brought forward a wide package of measures across the whole country, to help more people into the workforce. It is not right that we always reach for the lever of immigration to solve those challenges.
Tom Hunt (Ipswich) (Con)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that, when thinking about the level of net migration, we should consider not just GDP and economic impact but the social and cultural impact of such rapid change, including the pressure on public services and housing?
Robert Jenrick
It is right that we consider economic growth and the needs of our economy, but my hon. Friend is absolutely right that these decisions also require careful consideration of the impact of large amounts of legal migration on housing, access to public services and, as he said, community cohesion and integration. That is absolutely the approach of the Government and the Home Secretary, and I am considering the challenge.
Stephen Kinnock (Aberavon) (Lab)
Ending the small boat crossings is one way of reducing immigration, and Labour has a five point plan to do just that, but asylum seekers are only a fraction of the net migration total. The reason net migration is so high in Scotland and across the UK, and the reason businesses are over-reliant on migrant labour, is that, for 13 years, the Conservative party has failed to train up our home-grown talent. It has slashed the skills budget, and failed to get people off record-high NHS waiting lists and back to work. Labour has set out plans to do each of those things, because we want and expect immigration to come down, and yet the Prime Minister and the Home Secretary are clearly at loggerheads on the issue—it appears that the right hand does not know what the far-right hand is doing. Is the Home Secretary still committed to the 2019 Conservative manifesto pledge of bringing net migration below 226,000? If so, does she think that the Prime Minister agrees with her?
Robert Jenrick
Let us be absolutely clear: this party wants to bring net migration down. I have no idea what Labour wants to do. In the last few days we have heard a succession of shadow Ministers confused on this issue. The Conservative Government believe in controlled migration. We only have to look back to the legacy of the last Labour Government to see that, under Labour, there is always an open-door approach to migration. We will control migration; the Labour party leaves an open-door migration policy.
Owen Thompson (Midlothian) (SNP)
The Minister for Immigration (Robert Jenrick)
I am in regular correspondence with the devolved Administrations about the Illegal Migration Bill. I recently met the Scottish Cabinet Secretary for Constitution, External Affairs and Culture, Angus Robertson, and last week I wrote to the Cabinet Secretary for Social Justice to propose a meeting, which I hope will happen later this week.
Owen Thompson
Not only is the Bill being driven through Parliament at breakneck speech, but the Scottish Government have been given no opportunity yet to consider the proposals properly before their introduction. Does the Minister therefore agree that any regulations through the Bill that would amend, repeal or revoke any Scottish legislation or any devolved matter cannot possibly come into force without the consent of Scottish Ministers?
Robert Jenrick
I think that I just made clear that I have reached out to colleagues in the Scottish Government. But immigration is a reserved matter, and it is a matter for this Parliament to dictate our future borders policy. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will support the Bill. From the figures that I have seen, his constituency of Midlothian currently has no asylum seekers in dispersal accommodation and no asylum seekers in contingency accommodation such as hotels. Zero asylum seekers in his constituency. He is, I am afraid, yet another example of humanitarian nimbyism by the SNP.
Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)
In addition to the devolved Administrations, will the Minister kindly share details of the discussions that he has had with local authorities—local government and local councils in particular—on the Bill’s provisions? How do those relate to the Government’s plans to accommodate people in Wethersfield, including those who would be covered by the Bill?
Robert Jenrick
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. When she was Home Secretary, she set out the policy to create large sites on which to house asylum seekers in a more focused and less expensive manner, and she took forward a proposal for a site in the north of England. My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary and I have continued that tradition and set forth plans for three sites: one at Bexhill, one at Wethersfield and one at Scampton.
Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)
The Trafficking Awareness Raising Alliance, TARA, supported 156 women in its service in 2021 and 2020. Of those, 138 were seeking asylum or were undocumented when they were referred to TARA. Bronagh Andrew of TARA told the Scottish Parliament’s Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee that,
“had the Illegal Migration Bill been in place, those women would not have been able to access our support.”
In the face of clear evidence of the harm that the Tories’ Illegal Migration Bill will cause, what possible justification can the Minister give for removing support from trafficked women in Scotland and strengthening the hand of those who would exploit them?
Robert Jenrick
The Bill is based on the simple principle that we want to break the people smugglers’ and human traffickers’ business model. By supporting the Bill—I know the hon. Lady opposes it—we will do that. We will stop people making these dangerous, unnecessary crossings and there will be fewer cases such as those that she raises. But I go back to the point that I made to her colleague, the hon. Member for Midlothian (Owen Thompson). If the SNP feels so strongly about this issue, why does it do so little to support asylum seekers in Scotland? Currently, there are 11 contingency hotels in the whole of Scotland, housing 600 migrants. That is 1% of all the asylum seekers in the country. She never matches her words with deeds.
Nigel Mills (Amber Valley) (Con)
Mr Gagan Mohindra (South West Hertfordshire) (Con)
Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)
The Minister for Security (Tom Tugendhat)
We recently launched our strategy to tackle fraud, alongside measures in the Online Safety Bill that will require companies to prevent fraud and measures in the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Bill to hold companies to account for fraud committed by their employees. We are also working with tech companies to agree other measures and improving the support we give to victims.
Nigel Mills
We know that 80% of fraud starts online, and 18% comes from the tech companies that the Minister talked about, yet they do not contribute anything to reimbursing the victims of fraud, despite effectively profiting from causing it. Is it not time that we considered asking them to contribute towards reimbursing some of the losses that they are introducing into the system?
Tom Tugendhat
My hon. Friend is raising questions that we have looked at closely in the fraud strategy, and he is absolutely right to highlight the disparity between those who are causing and those who are paying. This is a conversation that we have been having, and I look forward to identifying some areas soon for further discussion. Action Fraud has not always helped as well as it might, which is why we are looking at making the system more efficient.
Mr Mohindra
At my surgery in Sarratt last month I met Catherine, whose father was defrauded out of thousands after taking a call from a man who he thought worked for Virgin Media. Catherine only found out after her father unfortunately passed away and she found all the emails he had sent attempting to get his money back—a battle that Catherine has now taken on. Can the Minister tell the House what he is doing to stop vulnerable people being targeted by fraudsters?
Tom Tugendhat
May I offer absolute sympathy to Catherine? Sadly, although my hon. Friend is citing the case of an older man who was the target of crime, this is a crime that affects many people of all ages across our society. It is not specifically connected to the most vulnerable; rather, it predominantly affects people who are online more often, which, as one can imagine, includes many people across society. We are rolling out the nationwide economic crime victim care unit across England and Wales, for victims whose cases are not investigated by the police. This group will help victims to recover from fraud and cyber-crime, and will significantly reduce the likelihood of repeat victimisation.
Martin Vickers
I welcome Minister’s proposal that Action Fraud should have greater capacity. I have experienced a number of constituency cases where elderly people were robbed of their life savings and there was a feeling that insufficient priority was being given to this issue. Will the Minister give an assurance that there will be a renewed focus on dealing with these scams, which destroy people’s lives?
Tom Tugendhat
I can absolutely give that commitment. These scams, which to some people appear victimless, are sadly anything but. The connection to serious mental health issues that follow is sadly all too clear, and many of us in our constituency work have come across individuals for whom these events have resulted in extreme suffering and sometimes even worse.
Seema Malhotra (Feltham and Heston) (Lab/Co-op)
It is staggering that fraud now accounts for almost half of crime, yet barely any of those crimes are investigated, and less than 0.1% of them make it to court. Hardly anything seems to be being done to upgrade police technology and practice to help deal with that. Seriously, what are the Government doing that will make any sort of difference?
Tom Tugendhat
The hon. Lady will have heard only a few weeks ago that we launched our new fraud strategy, which includes 400 officers in the national fraud squad and increased resources of some £400 million to help police forces across the country. A lot of that work has already started, and a lot of it still has to be done. We are making sure that that focus is there because, as she correctly says, 40% of crime is fraud. The UK, sadly, has received too many attempts to defraud our people, for several reasons. One reason is the way our banking system works and the speed of banking in the UK, and another is the English language, which I am afraid makes it significantly easier for fraudsters overseas to act against our people. It is true that a significant amount of that crime is not here in the UK but abroad, so working with partners around the world is important.
Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)
There were 3.7 million instances of fraud last year. Will the Minister say why only 0.1% of cases make it to court?
Tom Tugendhat
We are working on that challenge with the Ministry of Justice, and the hon. Gentleman is right to highlight it. Often, the reason is that many of those crimes are committed abroad or are not followed up. Sometimes, that is because people are embarrassed to report them, which is a great shame because they should not be embarrassed—they are crimes like any other. Often, it is because it is very difficult to collect evidence. That is exactly why we have launched the new national fraud squad to help police forces across the country, working with the regional and organised crime units to bring not just the evidence but eventually the prosecution through the Crown Prosecution Service, to make sure that we have not just reports of fraud but prosecutions and convictions.
Emma Hardy (Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle) (Lab)
Just over a year ago, the anti-fraud Minister Lord Agnew resigned in anger at the billions being lost and written off in covid fraud payments. He said to the Treasury Committee on which I sit:
“There is not anybody who would condone a weak system that allows money to fall into the laps of crooks, and that is what I saw happening.”
Lord Agnew was a Conservative Minister. Can the Minister tell us what has changed, if anything, such as the amount of money in covid fraud payments recovered or the attitude of the Treasury?
Tom Tugendhat
As the hon. Lady knows well, this Government take fraud very seriously in these matters. I say that with absolute confidence because we have just worked up a national fraud strategy for the first time in many years. We have the money and the commitment, and now we have the officers behind it. This is an extremely important area of crime that we have been taking seriously in order to ensure that it reduces alongside other areas of crime. That is exactly what this Government will do.
Naz Shah (Bradford West) (Lab)
According to the Government, fraud is now the most common crime in the UK, costing almost £7 billion a year, with one in 15 people falling victim. The number of victims has skyrocketed amid the cost of living crisis, and victims are left without hope. Police forces up and down the country are crying out for resources to tackle the ever growing and advancing ways in which criminals exploit people to commit fraud. If the Government care and are serious about fraud and its victims, why do Ministers persistently exclude fraud from crime statistics?
Tom Tugendhat
That is a slightly strange question, because fraud is in the Crime Survey of England and Wales, so I simply do not understand which surveys the hon. Lady is looking at. She may be thinking of the crime surveys before 2010, which are hard to compare because Labour did not count fraud—but we do.
Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)
The Minister for Immigration (Robert Jenrick)
More than 24,000 people have arrived in the UK from Afghanistan under or since Operation Pitting, of whom 21,000 have been resettled under the Afghan relocations and assistance policy or the Afghan citizens resettlement scheme. There is not a visa application centre in Afghanistan for security reasons, but those who have left the country can make a visa application in the normal way. The ACRS is designed to support vulnerable people such as women and girls at risk.
Munira Wilson
For the fourth time in recent weeks, I feel compelled to raise on the Floor of the House the case of five British children who have been in hiding in Kabul for the past 18 months. Four of those British passport holders are girls and only one of them is allowed to attend school. I and my team have not been able to bring them to safety, to be with their family in the UK, because their Afghan mother cannot secure a visa. I am grateful that the Minister has looked at this case personally, but it has stalled again, because his officials are insisting she travels to Pakistan to do her biometrics. He will be aware that it is totally unsafe for a woman to risk her life to travel on her own, without a chaperone, to Pakistan to get a visa, even if Pakistan grants her a visa to travel there. So please, will the Minister waive the requirement for biometrics in this case and those of other women and girls who face mortal danger, as this family does?
Robert Jenrick
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for the tenacious way in which she has represented her constituents. She knows that I intervened personally to seek a swift resolution to this case. I am told that UK Visas and Immigration has the application under consideration and is speaking with the hon. Lady’s office to help progress the application, and I hope we can resolve it very soon.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
Does the Minister accept that the female population of Afghanistan is enslaved at present? Has he seen the amazing film by the courageous Sky correspondent, Alex Crawford, called “Women at War: Afghanistan”, which spells that out? Will he spare a moment to look at early-day motion 1188, marking the 90th anniversary today of the founding of the Academic Assistance Council, now the Council for At-Risk Academics? I came across that organisation while it was trying to rescue female academics from potential enslavement and bring them to this country so that they could join the faculties of the University of Southampton, among others.
Robert Jenrick
I would be pleased to look at the material that my right hon. Friend recommends to me, in particular the early-day motion. The treatment of women and girls in Afghanistan by the Taliban is abhorrent—we all condemn that. That is one of the reasons we have created the Afghan citizens resettlement scheme, to support as many as we possibly can.
Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)
I recently had a meeting with the Prime Minister to discuss the plight of female judges and prosecutors who were encouraged by the United Kingdom to take up those roles, when they were trying to produce a democracy under the rule of law in Afghanistan. I would like to see humanitarian visas for some of those women, so that they can come to the United Kingdom. The Prime Minister seemed quite sympathetic and said he would take the proposal away and look at it. Will the Minister assure me that the Home Office would also be sympathetic to that request?
Robert Jenrick
I would be very happy to look into that. I remember that the hon. and learned Lady has campaigned on this issue for some time, since the fall of Kabul, so perhaps a useful way forward would be for she and I to meet to discuss this further.
Tracey Crouch (Chatham and Aylesford) (Con)
As part of the Government’s resettlement scheme for Afghan citizens facing threats of persecution from the Taliban, the Home Office granted visas to the Afghan women’s junior development football team. The women’s parliamentary football team played a match against them and, despite the studded tackle that left me wincing in agony, I was struck by their gratitude for and appreciation of our generous and lifesaving hospitality. However, there are many sportswomen left in Afghanistan, banned from participating in their sport by the Taliban and under threat of severe recriminations if they even dare to kick a ball, ride a bike or wield a cricket bat. What is the Minister doing to support those women and girls, particularly if they wish to come to the UK to play their sports?
Robert Jenrick
As my hon. Friend has said, the Taliban have banned Afghan women and girls from competing in sports and exercising in gyms. Afghan women who competed in sports, ranging from football to cycling, are now forced to stay home, amid the kind of intimidation to which she refers. I think particularly of the bravery of those Afghan women who recently posed for photos with the Associated Press, alongside the equipment that they used to be able to use, now covering their faces with burqas. These are the reasons why we have made our important and generous offer through the ACRS, which is a scheme we want to take forward to help more women and girls out of Afghanistan to a place of safety and a new life in the UK.
Richard Fuller (North East Bedfordshire) (Con)
The Minister for Immigration (Robert Jenrick)
The Government take the protection of the public and security incidents at immigration detention centres extremely seriously. I met senior Serco executives on 4 May to discuss their response to the incident at Yarl’s Wood in my hon. Friend’s constituency. An independent investigation into the incident is now under way; we will consider its findings in detail.
Richard Fuller
Will my right hon. Friend join me in thanking the chief constable of Bedfordshire, Trevor Rodenhurst, for working with other police forces across the country? I understand that all but one of those who absconded have been rearrested, and that arrests have been made of others who have facilitated people being out of detention. However, there remain serious questions to be answered, both about the comparative ease with which people were able to abscond from the facility and about the interaction between Serco and the police. Will my right hon. Friend please look at those issues?
Robert Jenrick
I join my hon. Friend in thanking Bedfordshire police for leading the national response to the incident. He is correct that of the eight men who escaped, only one now remains at large and we are determined to find him as quickly as possible. There are robust security measures in IRCs, but they are now being reviewed again in the light of this incident. I have met senior Serco executives to hold them to account for their conduct and to ensure that they take the incident extremely seriously. I know that my hon. Friend will be visiting Yarl’s Wood soon; I would be very happy to speak to him and understand his reflections.
Suzanne Webb (Stourbridge) (Con)
Tom Randall (Gedling) (Con)
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Suella Braverman)
Our Illegal Migration Bill will end illegal entry as a route to asylum in the United Kingdom, breaking the business model of the people-smuggling gangs and restoring fairness to our asylum system.
Suzanne Webb
Tackling illegal immigration, like small boats, is a hot topic for many of my constituents; I hear about it time and again on the doorstep, and I see it in my inbox. Can my right hon. Friend assure the people of Stourbridge that it is this Government who can be trusted to make every possible effort to address this complex problem and ensure we stop the illegal boats?
Suella Braverman
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The Prime Minister and I are determined to stop the boats—we are doubling the number of UK-funded personnel in France, and for the first time specialist UK officers are embedded with their French counterparts—whereas I am afraid the Labour party has consistently voted against our measures, not just in the Illegal Migration Bill but in the Nationality and Borders Act 2022. We know that Labour Members would scrap Rwanda. The truth is that they do not want to stop the boats; they want to open our borders.
Tom Randall
In a recent interview, the Leader of the Opposition was unable to say whether he would repeal the Public Order Act 2023, which protects the public against seriously disruptive protests. Given this flip-flopping on key legislation, does my right hon. Friend agree that it is only this Conservative Government who can be trusted to stop the boats, and that it is entirely possible that the Opposition, having tried to vote down the Illegal Migration Bill several times, will change their mind on that as well?
Suella Braverman
My hon. Friend makes a very good point. The British people would be forgiven for failing to keep up with changing Labour policy. On the one hand, Labour Members opposed our Public Order Bill; on the other hand, they said that they would not repeal it. They are in favour of campaigning to keep foreign criminals in the country, yet they want to scrap our Rwanda plan. This Government, this Conservative Prime Minister and this side of the House are focused on stopping the boats, taking the fight to the militant protesters and standing up for the British people.
Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)
Last December, the Prime Minister promised that the Home Office would recruit another 700 new staff to the small boats operational command. How many of those 700 staff are now in post?
Suella Braverman
Last year, the Prime Minister set out a detailed plan on how we are stopping the boats. The hon. Gentleman is right to refer to our increased personnel on our small boats operational command. I am pleased to say that we are making very good progress on increasing the personnel working on the channel. We have increased the number of caseworkers, we are making progress on our asylum backlog and we are increasingly bearing down on this issue.
Dan Jarvis (Barnsley Central) (Lab)
Afghans make up one of the largest cohorts of small boat migrants, in part because the legal routes are not working. Let me give the Home Secretary a quick example. Families who have been approved under the Afghan relocations and assistance policy are stuck in Islamabad and are now being told that they need to source their own accommodation to get here, but there is no published guidance on how they should go about doing that. Given the obvious challenges of securing accommodation, not least if they are stuck in a hotel room in Pakistan, can the Home Secretary say precisely what support her Department is providing to this cohort of people who are stuck in Pakistan?
Suella Braverman
Both the Afghan relocations and assistance policy and the Afghan citizens resettlement scheme make clear the criteria by which people will be assessed when they are applying to come to the United Kingdom. I am proud that this country and this Government have welcomed over 20,000 people under those schemes. Of course there will be individual cases and we are happy to consider them, but overall the scheme has worked well and thousands of people have benefited from it.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
One of the justifications for using former military bases rather than hotels was that they would be a deterrent. We now learn from the Home Office that RAF Scampton will not take people from hotels, but that it might be a detention centre or it might take migrants from Manston. The whole policy is in chaos. Is that why the Home Secretary’s own civil servant, on 6 February, recommended to her that the Home Office should agree to stop work on proposals for RAF Scampton and agree that it should immediately notify the local authority that it was no longer developing proposals for the site? Why has the Home Secretary ignored her own civil servants?
Suella Braverman
I very much appreciate the efforts of my right hon. Friend in standing up for his constituents; he is doing a fantastic job. What I would gently say to him is that we have over 40,000 people accommodated in hotels today and we are spending over £6 million a day on that accommodation. It is an unacceptable situation, and that is why the Prime Minister and I have made it a priority to bring on and deliver alternative, appropriate and more cost-effective accommodation.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
The problem is that there are no safe and legal routes. I have children in my constituency who are separated from their parents because they were brought to the UK under the UNHCR scheme and their parents cannot now come and join them. They have moved from Afghanistan to Pakistan, but they have no means of coming here to be with their children. Why is the Home Secretary keeping families apart as opposed to reuniting them?
Suella Braverman
I just do not agree with the hon. Lady’s characterisation. I am incredibly proud—[Interruption.] I am incredibly proud of the immense generosity that the Conservative Government and, more importantly, the British people have demonstrated over recent years. We have welcomed over half a million people seeking humanitarian protection to these shores through safe and legal routes. On top of the country-specific routes, there are non-country-specific routes through which people can apply. The reality is that we have millions of people seeking to come here and we have to take a balanced approach, but overall we have extended the hand of generosity and we have a track record of which we can be proud.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
The Minister for Crime, Policing and Fire (Chris Philp)
My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) is a tireless campaigner on this issue and I know that the whole House is grateful to him for championing and introducing the Homelessness Reduction Act 2017. As we made clear at the time of the passage of the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022, the Government are committed to the repeal of the Vagrancy Act 1824, and as soon as suitable replacement legislation is ready—which we hope will be fairly soon—we will introduce it as soon as parliamentary time allows. At the same time, we will repeal the Vagrancy Act.
Bob Blackman
I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. More than a year ago in a vote in both this House and the other place, we agreed to repeal the 1824 Vagrancy Act, yet it seems as if the Home Office is trying to reintroduce it to deal with aggressive begging. I think the whole House would agree that people who are street homeless need to be helped and assisted, not arrested. When will we see the enactment of that legislation so that the police can be given the powers to help people who are street homeless rather than threaten them?
Chris Philp
My hon. Friend is right. The people who are homeless and need assistance should receive that help. I know that our colleagues in the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities are working hard to make sure that that happens, but we also need to make sure that members of the public are protected from aggressive or nuisance begging, so where the repeal of the Vagrancy Act leaves lacunae in the law, we need to ensure that they are filled. That is why we will repeal the Vagrancy Act once the replacement legislation is ready and, as I have said, we will do that as soon as parliamentary time allows.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Minister for his response to the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman). Homelessness is a scourge and a problem across the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. The Minister is known to be a compassionate man, and he understands the issue very well. What discussions have taken place with the Northern Ireland Executive on the Vagrancy Act to make sure that what happens here also happens in Northern Ireland so that it benefits our people, too?
Chris Philp
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question, which he asks with his customary courtesy and compassion. We want to have discussions with the Northern Ireland Executive as soon as it is reformed, which we hope will be soon. I am pleased to tell the House that rough sleeping levels in England, where the Government have direct responsibility, are about 35% lower than in 2017, and we look forward to working with our friends and colleagues to bring about the same results in Northern Ireland.
Christian Wakeford (Bury South) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Suella Braverman)
Countering foreign disinformation that seeks to subvert and undermine the UK’s democracy, prosperity and security is vital. The National Security Bill, which is currently making its way through Parliament, will further strengthen our ability to counter hostile state threats.
Christian Wakeford
It is now more than two years since The Times reported that Iranian cyber specialists were peddling disinformation in an attempt to influence the result of the 2021 Scottish Parliament elections. In the same year, the US Department of Justice shut down 36 Iranian-linked websites in a disinformation crackdown. How do the Government intend to combat and disrupt the threat of disinformation spread here in the UK by the murderous Iranian regime?
Suella Braverman
Disinformation is the concerted effort to create and deliberately spread false or manipulative information, and the hon. Gentleman is right to say that hostile states such as Iran use disinformation as a hostile act against the United Kingdom’s interests. We are constantly reviewing our position on Iran, and this is something we take very seriously at the top of Government.
Holly Lynch (Halifax) (Lab)
Microsoft’s digital defence report outlines how nations including Russia, China and Iran are deploying social media-powered propaganda operations to shape opinion, discredit adversaries and incite fear, with harrowing examples of Russia’s use of hybrid warfare in Ukraine. During the passage of the National Security Bill, the Labour party called for an annual report on the extent of disinformation originating from foreign powers, which this Government rejected. Does the Home Secretary accept that the Government have been far too slow in responding to the scale of this threat, and that such an annual report represents the bare minimum that the Government should be doing to protect the UK from foreign hostile and sustained cyber-interference?
Suella Braverman
I disagree with the hon. Lady’s characterisation that the Government have been too slow to act on Russian state threats. Following the invasion of Ukraine last year, the UK introduced trade sanctions in relation to internet and online media services, preventing designated entities from using platforms to connect with UK audiences online. The Government designated TV-Novosti and Rossiya Segodnya on 4 May 2023, choking off the Russian Federation’s ability to disseminate misinformation across the internet through its state-sponsored RT and Sputnik brands. There has been a lot of effort and a lot of work to counter Russian state disinformation.
Siobhain McDonagh (Mitcham and Morden) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Suella Braverman)
Fraud is a despicable crime that accounts for more than 40% of all crime in England and Wales. The Government’s fraud strategy will do far more to block fraud at source by working closely with the private sector and law enforcement. The Online Safety Bill obligates tech platforms to protect users from fraud, and we will consult on banning cold calling for financial products and clamp down on number spoofing. We will ban devices that let criminals send mass scam texts or disguise their number when making scam calls. New powers will take down fraudulent websites.
I have told police forces that I want tackling fraud to be a priority, and a new national fraud squad with 400 new investigators will go after the worst fraudsters. We will change the law so that more victims of fraud get their money back, and Action Fraud will be replaced with a state-of-the-art system.
Siobhain McDonagh
My constituents Mrs L and Mr M, from Hong Kong, came to the UK on a British national overseas passport. They came to see me because they had been paying into a pension for the whole of their careers and sold their home before coming to the UK, but because of their BNO visa status, their bank account was frozen at the direction of the Chinese state, in contradiction to Hong Kong law. They are not alone; the Home Office has issued BNO visas to more than 160,000 Hongkongers who have moved to the UK. Does the Home Secretary think it is right that at the behest of the Chinese communist party, BNO passport holders are being denied access to their own money, from their own bank accounts—
Mr Speaker
Order. Topical questions have to be short. People cannot have full questions on topicals, please. I am sure you have come to the end and that the Home Secretary will have a grip of the answer.
Suella Braverman
I am very concerned by the issue the hon. Lady raises. We have welcomed more than 100,000 people from Hong Kong via our BNO scheme. We have also had similar reports and we have heard from a group of BNOs who have raised concerns of a similar nature. My right hon. Friend the Immigration Minister, and potentially the Security Minister, will get back to her on the details, but I share the concern she is raising.
Mr Laurence Robertson (Tewkesbury) (Con)
The Minister for Immigration (Robert Jenrick)
I would be happy to take a further look and to learn from my hon. Friend’s experience. I am pleased to say that UK Visas and Immigration is now processing all new visit visa applications within the service standard of 15 days, with 323,000 applications from those with African nationalities last year.
Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)
On a difficult anniversary, I pay tribute to the brave soldier Lee Rigby and to the innocent children, women and men who lost their lives, and the many more who were injured, at the Manchester Arena, as well as to their families, who remind us of the commitment to never let hatred win.
At the heart of the Home Secretary’s responsibility is to ensure that laws are fairly enforced for all. But when she got a speeding penalty, it seems that she sought special treatment—a private course—and asked civil servants to help. She has refused to say what she asked civil servants to do, so I ask her that again. Will she also tell us whether she authorised her special adviser to tell journalists that there was not a speeding penalty when there was?
Suella Braverman
As I said earlier, in the summer of last year I was speeding. I regret that. I paid the fine and I accepted the points. At no time did I seek to avoid the sanction. What is serious here is the priorities of the British people. I am getting on with the job of delivering for the British people, with a record number of police officers and a plan to stop the boats, and by standing up to crime and for policing. I only wish the Labour party would focus on the priorities too.
Yvette Cooper
The trouble is that the Home Secretary is failing to deliver for the British people too, and everyone can see that she is not answering the basic factual questions on what she said to the civil service and to her special adviser. It matters because it is her job to show that she is abiding by the ministerial code, which she has broken before, on private and public interests, and to enforce rules fairly for everyone else. Time and again, she seems to think that she is above the normal rules: breaching security even though she is responsible for it; trying to avoid penalties even though she sets them; reappointed even after breaking the ministerial code; and criticising Home Office policies even though she is in charge of them and is failing on knife crime, on channel crossings, on immigration and more. The Prime Minister is clearly too weak to sort this out. If the Home Secretary cannot get a grip of her own rule-breaking behaviour, how can she get a grip on anything else?
Suella Braverman
I have some gentle advice for the right hon. Lady. The person who needs to get a grip here is the shadow Home Secretary and the Labour party, as they have wholly failed to represent the priorities of the British people. When, Mr Speaker, will the Labour party apologise for campaigning to block the deportation of foreign national offenders? When, Mr Speaker, will the Labour party apologise for leaving this country with a lower number of police officers—
Mr Speaker
Order. May I just say that I have no responsibility for the Labour party?
Chris Loder (West Dorset) (Con)
Robert Jenrick
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the manner in which he has defended his constituents on this difficult issue. Although housing asylum seekers in more rudimentary accommodation such as barges is undoubtedly in the national interest, we are acutely aware of the challenges faced by the local communities in which they will be moored. That is why we are working closely with Dorset Council, with the hon. Gentleman and with my hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset (Richard Drax).
Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)
My heart and the hearts of all those on the SNP Benches go out to those affected on the anniversary of the Manchester Arena tragedy, particularly the family and friends of Eilidh Macleod whose memorial trust stands as a legacy to her love of music.
Speeding can affect a person’s eligibility for leave to remain in the UK, so should not the same motoring offence and, indeed, the further breaches of the ministerial code by attempting to get special treatment affect the Home Secretary’s right to remain in her job?
Suella Braverman
As I said earlier, in the summer I was speeding. I regret that I was speeding. I accepted the points and I paid the fine. At no point did I seek to avoid the sanction. What I find regrettable, however, is the SNP’s wholesale failure to deliver for asylum seekers, to deliver for justice and to deliver for vulnerable people. Its Members are opposing our Bill to stop the boats, they are opposing support to break the people smuggling gangs and they are opposing a pragmatic approach.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
Robert Jenrick
I know how strongly my hon. Friend feels about this issue. I will of course look into those contracts, but the enduring solution to this issue is to stop the boats in the first place. That is why we brought forward the Illegal Migration Bill.
Vicky Foxcroft (Lewisham, Deptford) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Miss Sarah Dines)
I thank the hon. Member for her question. Full details should be coming to us to look into that. However, the Government take hate crime of any sort extremely seriously, which is why we have done basic policing and increased the number of police officers to more than ever before—over 200,000.
Gareth Johnson (Dartford) (Con)
The Minister for Crime, Policing and Fire (Chris Philp)
I completely agree with my hon. Friend. The right to protest emphatically does not extend to trying to ruin or disrupt the lives of fellow citizens who are trying to get to hospital for treatment, to get their children to school or to get to their place of work. That is why this House recently legislated with the Public Order Act 2023. It is a great shame that the Opposition voted against it. This Government stand on the side of law-abiding citizens, and we fully support the police in using those powers.
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)
Suella Braverman
As I have made clear, last summer I was speeding, and I regret that I was speeding. I was notified of the matter, I paid the fine and I took the points. At no point did anything untoward happen and at no point did I try to avoid the sanction.
Rob Butler (Aylesbury) (Con)
Chris Philp
My hon. Friend raises an important issue. The Government recently published our antisocial behaviour action plan. My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary and her colleague the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities are jointly chairing a taskforce to ensure that action is taken. We are setting up a number of hotspot patrols around the country to ensure that the blight of antisocial behaviour is heavily policed against and that, where it occurs, it is dealt with quickly and thoroughly and no one is left behind.
Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)
Robert Jenrick
I can assure the hon. Lady that our intention is that there will be no diminution in accommodation standards, whether for asylum seekers or anybody else, but it is critical that we get those people out of hotels, saving the taxpayer hundreds of millions of pounds per year, and house them in the most appropriate forms of accommodation.
Aaron Bell (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Con)
My constituents are rightly appalled by the organised nature of so much immigration crime. Can my right hon. and learned Friend set out what work is being done to tackle those organised groups’ operations at source, and what impact that is having in reducing the numbers of arrivals of illegal immigrants?
Suella Braverman
Part of our plan to stop the boats focuses on causal factors such as serious organised immigration crime gangs, which are networked and highly resourced. We have had some success in arresting hundreds of people involved in those gangs and disabling several such gangs, but we are employing more resource in our National Crime Agency and increasing the numbers of officers working with the French so that we can clamp down on the problem at cause.
Marion Fellows (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
Suella Braverman
As I said earlier, in the summer of last year I was speeding. I regret that I was speeding. I paid the penalty and I accepted the points. At no time did I seek to avoid any sanction or consequence.
Crispin Blunt (Reigate) (Con)
Given the 56% rise in transphobic hate crime between 2021 and 2022, are the Government concerned, and what strategies will they put in place to get that horrifying number down?
Miss Dines
Transphobic crimes are hateful and, although people do not realise it, they represent as much as 3% of all hate crimes recorded. The Government are determined to stamp it out, which is why we are funding groups such as True Vision that are working hard in this area—I know my hon. Friend is working hard too—and funding initiatives such as the national online hate crime hub, an essential capability designed to allow individuals to have specialist intervention and work. We are also working on education, with £3 million of funding going to five anti-bullying organisations between August 2021 and March 2024. It is only with better education and the work of my hon. Friend that we will make progress in this area.
G7 Summit
(11 months, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Prime Minister (Rishi Sunak)
The whole House will join me in remembering the victims of the horrific Manchester Arena bombing six years ago today. Our thoughts are with them and their families. Our thoughts are also with the family of Lee Rigby on the 10th anniversary of his murder, and I pay tribute to his son Jack, who is honouring his father’s memory by raising money for other bereaved military children. As Jack’s mum says, Lee would be very proud.
I have just returned from the G7 summit in Japan, where I was humbled to be the first Prime Minister of the United Kingdom to visit Hiroshima. On behalf of this House and the British people, I recorded our great sorrow at the destruction and human suffering that occurred there, and our fervent resolve that it should never again be necessary to use nuclear weapons.
As I report to the House on the G7 Summit, I want to address head-on a mistaken view that is heard too often: the idea that Britain is somehow in retreat from the world stage, or that our influence is in decline. I reject that utterly. What we have seen in recent months is this Conservative Government delivering the priorities of the British people, and bringing our global influence to bear on some of the world’s biggest challenges. Nowhere is that clearer than on Ukraine.
It was a pleasure and a privilege to welcome my friend President Zelensky back to the UK last week. His attendance at the G7 summit was a historic moment. When Putin launched his war, he gambled that our resolve would falter, but he was wrong then, and he is wrong now. Russia’s military is failing on the battlefield; its economy is failing at home, as we tighten the stranglehold of sanctions; and the image of the G7 leaders standing shoulder to shoulder with President Zelensky in Hiroshima sent a powerful message to the world: we will stand with Ukraine for as long as it takes.
Of course, we have seen a huge collective effort across our allies, and not least from the United States, but I am incredibly proud of our role at the forefront of international support for Ukraine. We were the first country in the world to train Ukrainian troops; the first in Europe to provide lethal weapons; the first to commit tanks; and, just this month, the first to provide long-range weapons. Now we are at the forefront of a coalition to train and equip the Ukrainian air force. We gave £2.3 billion in miliary aid last year—that is second only to the United States—and will match or exceed that this year. Putin should know that we are not going anywhere. We know that Ukraine will not only win the war, but can and will win a just and lasting peace, based on respect for international law, the principles of the UN charter, and territorial integrity and sovereignty.
We bring the same resolve to the biggest challenge to the long-term security and prosperity of our age: China. As the G7 showed, the UK’s response is completely aligned with that of our allies. We are working with others to strengthen our defence ties across the Indo-Pacific; diversify our supply chains in areas such as critical minerals and semiconductors; and prevent China from using economic coercion to interfere with the sovereignty of others—concrete actions, not rhetoric.
Our economic security is not just about managing the risks of China. We are taking advantage of our post-Brexit freedoms with a hugely ambitious trade policy. We have concluded negotiations on the comprehensive and progressive agreement for trans-Pacific partnership—a trade deal with the world’s fastest growing region. We have signed critical minerals partnerships with Canada and Australia, and a semiconductor partnership with Japan. The Windsor framework secures the free flow of trade within our UK internal market, and on Friday, we announced almost £18 billion of new investment into the UK from Japanese businesses. That is a huge vote of confidence in the United Kingdom, creating significant numbers of good, well-paid jobs, and helping to grow the economy.
And we are acting globally to tackle illegal migration. It is the British Government who will determine who comes to Britain. We must stop the boats and break the business model of the criminal gangs. To do that, we are deepening international co-operation to tackle illegal migration, through new deals with Albania, France and, starting just at last week’s Council of Europe, with the EU border force, too. At this weekend’s summit, we have secured agreement that we will increase G7 co-operation. So our foreign policy is clearly delivering for the British people. By strengthening our relationships with old friends and new, from the Indo-Pacific to Washington to Europe, we are delivering a diplomatic dividend for the UK.
That is not all. We have announced billions more for our defence—the largest contributor in Europe to NATO. We have signed an historic agreement to design and build the AUKUS submarine, giving the UK, Australia and the US interoperable submarine fleets in the Atlantic and the Pacific. We have launched a new programme to build the fighter jets of the future with Italy and Japan. We have announced that in 2025, the carrier strike group will return to the Indo-Pacific once more, and in Sudan, the British military completed the largest evacuation of any country. If anyone thinks the UK is no longer able to wield hard power in defence of our values, just ask the Ukrainian soldiers driving British tanks or firing our long-range missiles.
All that is how we will prosper at home and defend our values abroad. That is how our foreign policy is delivering for the British people, and that is why, on the world stage, Britain is forging ahead—confident, proud and free. I commend this statement to the House.
Keir Starmer (Holborn and St Pancras) (Lab)
I thank the Prime Minister for advance sight of his statement, and I join him in his comments in remembering the victims of the Manchester Arena bombing and in marking the awful murder of Lee Rigby.
The war in Ukraine is entering a critical stage. Freedom must win out over tyranny, and Putin’s aggression must fail. As the Ukrainians continue to defend themselves and prepare for an offensive to push Putin’s forces out, it is crucial that they know the nations of the G7 continue to support their fight without waver. We will stand with them for as long as it takes. We will stand with them because their decisive victory is the route to a comprehensive, just and lasting peace.
Therefore, Labour welcomes the strong show of support for President Zelensky. We welcome the decision by our partners on F-16 fighter jets. We also welcome restrictions on exports that aid the Russian war machine, and we welcome the tightening of the vice on the mineral trade that is funding Putin’s aggression. I urge the Prime Minister to proscribe the Wagner Group as terrorists and to ensure Britain’s sanctions are not just in place, but enforced. No one has been fined for breaching sanctions since the war began.
As I told President Zelensky when I met him in Kyiv, whichever party is in power in the UK, there will be no let-up in Britain’s resolve. We will continue to support Ukraine’s military and its people in their quest for freedom, peace and justice. When their moment of victory comes, we will be there to help them rebuild from the rubble of war. Does the Prime Minister agree with me that, when it comes to Ukraine, it is important that we continue to show that we are united across this House?
I also welcome the commitment to de-risk our economic relationship with China. It is in our national interest to engage with China. It will be a crucial global partner in the effort to reach net zero, and we have a trading relationship worth £100 billion. But that pursuit should never come at the cost of economic security, and we should never leave ourselves vulnerable to economic coercion. We must be clear-eyed about the facts. China is increasingly aggressive in the Pacific. It shows disdain for democratic values and human rights, and it is seeking to exploit economic leverage. A decade of ignoring these facts and Tory Governments cosying up to Beijing has gifted the Chinese Communist party a stake in Britain’s key infrastructure. We need to change tack and Labour is willing to work with the Government on this. It is time for a full audit of UK-China relations, and to work more consistently with our allies to develop a long-term plan for western engagement and a long-term plan for economic security because—as this winter has shown us—in the modern world, economic security is national security.
As the world races to invest in new technologies and to make its supply chains more robust, we must make sure that British businesses can take advantage. The Prime Minister has rightly pointed out the importance of the semiconductor industry: semiconductors are the brains of our electronic devices, indispensable components of cutting-edge manufacturing. The US and the EU have big plans to grow and nurture their sectors, to remove any vulnerabilities from their supply chains. We have waited a long time for the UK to present its strategy—it finally arrived last week—and an industry leader described it as “frankly flaccid”. Does that worry the Prime Minister as much as it worries me?
While others build resilience and seize opportunities, this Government seem content with managed decline, and this is not the only area where I fear we are being left behind. The US and the EU used the G7 to continue important talks that would allow European companies to share in billions of dollars of US tax incentives for electric vehicles and green technologies, and vice versa. Last week, we saw warnings about the future of the UK car industry. People who work in the sector are very worried. They want leadership, so can the Prime Minister confirm that his Government will secure the same or better access for British manufacturers, and when can we expect to hear progress on this?
When the Inflation Reduction Act was passed, the Government’s response was not to outline what opportunities it offered to Britain; it was to say that it was “dangerous”, and to suggest that an active industrial strategy is not the British way. Wake up—it is not the 1980s anymore. A race is on. We need to be in it and we need to win our share of the jobs of the future. We cannot afford to be stuck in the changing rooms complaining about how unfair life is.
As the war in Europe continues to rage, Hiroshima was a fitting stage for the G7 summit. A city that has seen unimaginable horrors has risen from its past. It can serve as an inspiration for those in Ukraine who fight daily for their freedom. Their future can be bright. From Ukraine to China to climate change, today’s challenges are big, but if we stay united with our allies and partners—if we work together—they are not insurmountable and, if we are focused, if we have a plan, the economic opportunities of the future are bigger still. Britain must seize them with both hands. Our future can be bright too.
The Prime Minister
I thank the right hon. and learned Gentleman for his comments at the beginning with regard to Ukraine. Just with regard to the Wagner Group, we have already sanctioned the Wagner Group in its entirety and we do not as a routine matter comment on proscriptions, as he well knows.
With regard to sanctions, in April, we announced new sanctions targeting those who were aiding and abetting the evasion of sanctions on Russian oligarchs and, in the integrated review refresh, we announced £50 million over the next few years for a new economic deterrence initiative that will work on sanctions enforcement and compliance in co-operation with our allies.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman asked about clarifying our approach to China. That was done in the integrated review refresh—he may have missed it. It was spelt out clearly, and indeed was warmly welcomed, not just by foreign policy commentators in the UK but around the world. It has been mentioned to me specifically by leaders and statesmen from many different countries as a template that they have followed in their own national security strategies.
With regard to co-operation with our allies, again, that is something that is already happening and we are leading the way. The right hon. and learned Gentleman may have missed that the G7 communiqué launched a co-operation platform on economic coercion, something that we spoke about in our integrated review refresh and has now been brought to fruition. That will not just be co-operation of G7 allies: over time, it will be broadened to ensure that we are working together to combat countries when they attempt to coerce other countries economically.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman made various points on climate change and the G7’s record. What he failed to mention is that, out of all the G7 countries, the country that has the best record on reducing climate emissions is the United Kingdom. It is very welcome that other countries are catching up with our record on climate change. We applaud them, and it is something we have fought hard for them to do, so it is great that they are now doing it.
I will not mention the right hon. and learned Gentleman’s other points, other than to say that we have a different point of view. We do not believe that the way to drive economic success and prosperity is to subsidise the most. That is not the route that will lead to the best outcomes and that was something that the G7 itself acknowledged. I again point him to the language in the communiqué that particularly warned against subsidy races, pointing out that they were a zero-sum game when they come at the expense of others. Actually, we should be working co-operatively, as we are. Lastly, for all his negative talk, the proof is in the simple fact that on Friday we announced £18 billion of new investment in the UK economy from a range of leading Japanese businesses. They have enormous faith and confidence in the United Kingdom—why doesn’t he?
Alicia Kearns (Rutland and Melton) (Con)
I applaud the Prime Minister’s recognition that the Chinese Communist party is the greatest threat we face and that we must de-risk to keep our people safe. We will engage when in the global interest, but we cannot allow the Chinese Communist party to cast defence as escalation. Can I urge my right hon. Friend to consider three tests when it comes to de-risking? The first is transnational oppression. We must be strong at home if we wish to deter abroad. The second is techno-authoritarianism. We must prevent reliance on CCP technology that is stealing our data and will undermine us. Finally, we must uphold the international rules-based system, because the CCP is trying to undermine and capture it. Can I also urge the creation of an economic Ramstein on Ukraine that mirrors that of the military, because we have failed to suffocate the financial war machine that is allowing Putin to continue with this war? The Prime Minister can lead that with my right hon. Friend the Chancellor. It would make a meaningful difference and end this war sooner.
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend for her questions and for her the work on these issues in particular. With regard to her latter question, at the G7, we announced more sanctions particularly targeting the military-industrial complex of Russia’s war machine. I think that will go some way to addressing her concerns and her point, but there is of course more to do and we look forward to engaging with her on that. With regard to China, her points are all well made. I look forward to discussing with her how we can strengthen the new anti-coercion platform that we have established—I know she has talked about that in the past—where we, working with other countries, can make an enormous difference to more vulnerable nations’ ability to stand up to economic coercion, whether from China or other hostile states.
Stephen Flynn (Aberdeen South) (SNP)
I begin by echoing the sentiments of the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition in relation to the Manchester bombing and the appalling death of Lee Rigby so many years ago.
The symbolic importance of the G7 summit taking place in Hiroshima goes without question, as does the importance of the presence of President Zelensky in Japan. It also goes without saying that Ukraine’s war and its fight for democracy is our fight, too, and all of us on these Benches and across the House are fully united in our support for the President and the people of Ukraine. In order for Ukraine to be successful, we need unity among all those nations that believe in peace. In that regard, can I ask the Prime Minister whether he had any conversations with those nations that still at this moment in time are importing crude oil from Russia, and whether he expressed any concern about other nations that may be benefiting from products that have been derived from that crude oil?
We did hear strong words from the G7 on the situation with China. However, I am intrigued by the Instagram intervention of the former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for South West Norfolk (Elizabeth Truss). I would be grateful for the current Prime Minister’s view in respect to whether that was helpful, whether he agrees with her that China poses a strategic threat to the UK and whether he would echo those sentiments.
On the economy, it would be remiss of me not to reflect on the fact that the UK has the lowest growth in the entire G7. Our economy is still below pre-pandemic levels. In contrast, the United States has seen its economy grow by around 5.3% in the intervening time. Did the Prime Minister take any lessons from those allies in Japan about how to secure proper economic growth?
The Prime Minister
On China, our approach is laid out in detail in the integrated review refresh. I reiterated it yesterday and will not go over it again, but China, as I said, represents a systemic challenge. It is the greatest challenge we face. In fact, I said it is an “epoch-defining challenge”, given its ability and intent to reshape the world order. Its behaviour is increasingly authoritarian at home and assertive abroad, which is why we should be robust in defending and protecting ourselves against that.
On sanctions, we are working in tandem with the European Union and the US to intensify diplomatic engagement with third-country partners to highlight potential circumvention risks on sanctions and we will continue to do so.
More generally on the question of peace and discussion with partner countries, it was excellent to have a discussion on Ukraine and peace with partner countries outside the G7—I think it was perhaps one of the most meaningful sessions of the summit—where countries agreed to the principles of a just and lasting peace being based on the UN charter and, indeed, on the principles of territorial integrity and sovereignty. That is very welcome because, while many people may have ideas for what peace in Ukraine looks like, a ceasefire is not a just and durable peace and we will keep ensuring that the peace Ukraine has is one that it deserves and is truly just and lasting.
Mr Tobias Ellwood (Bournemouth East) (Con)
Could I welcome this statement and the work of the Prime Minister at the G7? We are rightly rekindling those international statecraft skills, as we see in Ukraine, going from NLAWs—next-generation light anti-tank weapons—to main battle tanks, training on Salisbury plain, the Storm Shadows and, of course, helping secure those F-16s; and on China, with more robust language as we deal with China’s aggression. But of course, as we rightly step forward, that will place an ever greater burden on our armed forces. I think he knows where I am going with this: could I ask him when we are likely to see an increase in the defence budget to 2.5% of GDP?
The Prime Minister
I know my right hon. Friend has long championed this, and rightly so, which is why I was pleased, as Chancellor, to increase our defence budget by £24 billion—the largest sustained increase since the end of the cold war. Just recently, the Chancellor added an initial £5 billion of spending over the next two years both to strengthen our nuclear enterprise and to rebuild stockpiles, which is something I know he has been interested in, and we outlined an ambition to increase defence spending to 2.5%. We are on track to get to 2.25% in the next couple of years, at which point we will take stock and see where we are economically and fiscally but, as I have said, the threats our country faces are increasing and it is right that we invest appropriately to protect ourselves.
Ed Davey (Kingston and Surbiton) (LD)
Can I join the Prime Minister in paying tribute to the victims of the Manchester Arena bombing and the family of Fusilier Lee Rigby?
I welcome the Prime Minister’s update. He is right that the UK and our allies must be steadfast in our support for Ukraine. He was also right to announce new sanctions on Friday to further restrict Russian businesses from selling their products into the UK. Now we must take further action to support Ukraine. That includes encouraging individuals in this country who have directly invested in companies still active in Russia to sell their personal shares now. Does the Prime Minister agree that these people should end their investment, so they stop supporting the Russian economy and thereby Putin’s war efforts?
The Prime Minister
We were one of the first countries to put in place an incredibly comprehensive sanctions regime against Russia. We have sanctioned, at this point, over 1,500 people—tens of billions of dollars of assets. Indeed, because of our actions, something like over $200 billion-worth of Russian state assets are currently now frozen. All that is contributing to a significant squeezing of the Russian economy, as we are seeing, and its ability to replenish its war machine, and we will keep looking for other opportunities to tighten the vice, as we did this weekend.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
If, against all original expectations, Ukraine succeeds in expelling Russia from her territory, will the time then have come for us seriously to consider admitting Ukraine to NATO, so that no future psychopathic Russian leader will ever be tempted to invade her again?
The Prime Minister
As the NATO Secretary-General has already said, Ukraine will become a member of NATO. The most immediate task that faces us is, as my right hon. Friend knows, to provide the support that Ukraine needs to be successful on the battlefield, and to provide the longer term security agreements and arrangements that Ukraine deserves, and to do that in a way that is multilateral—that is something I discussed with leaders across the G7. In doing so we will send a strong signal to Russia that we are not going anywhere, increase the long term deterrent effect, and strengthen the incentive for it to withdraw its troops now, and not attempt to wait anybody out.
Ruth Jones (Newport West) (Lab)
Many people in Newport West have been eagerly waiting for the Government’s semiconductor strategy, including 600 hardworking employees at Newport Wafer Fab. After three years of waiting, rather than coming to this House, the Prime Minister made the announcement in Japan on Friday last week, avoiding parliamentary scrutiny yet again. That is unacceptable in my view. How can we expect effective research and development to be carried out within the semiconductor industry, as trumpeted by the strategy, without well-funded domestic manufacturing capacity?
The Prime Minister
The hon. Lady may have missed the £1 billion of investment in the UK semiconductor industry contained in the strategy, and the fact that it was welcomed by leading companies from the sector. It has taken the right amount of time to get the strategy together, because it is the right strategy for Britain. Every country has different strengths, and every country plays a different role in the supply chain. We are focused on what we do best, which is in compound semiconductors, as the hon. Lady will know well from south Wales, but also semiconductor design and intellectual property. Those are the strengths we are investing in, which give us leverage in a large global supply chain. That is why the strategy was warmly welcomed, and is the right strategy to strengthen our security.
Vicky Ford (Chelmsford) (Con)
Among many other achievements this weekend, may I thank the Prime Minister for ensuring that education did not drop off the global agenda, and that the communiqué reaffirms the G7’s commitment to global education? It is an issue that we in the UK have led on for many years. More than 200 million children in the world right now are in need of urgent educational support, and that has been made worse by conflict and climate change. May I urge my right hon. Friend to continue to encourage our friends, particularly France and Japan, to contribute to Education Cannot Wait?
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend for all her work in this area previously. She will be proud, as I am, that the Foreign Secretary launched the women and girls strategy in March, and one particular thing in that was to continue putting women and girls at the heart of everything to do with education. UK aid has supported 8 million girls to gain a decent education, which is part of our pledge to enable all girls to have access to 12 years of high quality education. That is something we will continue to champion in all international fora.
Liam Byrne (Birmingham, Hodge Hill) (Lab)
I declare an interest as chair of the international Parliamentary Network on the World Bank & International Monetary Fund. I also welcome the commitment in paragraph 10 of the G7 communiqué to enhance development finance, tackle the imminent debt crisis, tackle climate change, and advance progress towards the sustainable development goals. Would that be an awful lot easier if the UK stepped up and met the African Development Bank’s calls for hybrid capital, matched Japan’s commitment to share 40% of the new special drawing rights, and used the €3.5 billion that we get back from the European Investment Bank to help build a bigger World Bank? At a stroke, that would help to restore the global leadership and development that we have so needlessly and dangerously squandered.
The Prime Minister
The right hon. Gentleman failed to mention that we are currently the third largest spender in the G7 on development aid as a percentage of GDP, and one of the largest contributors to funds such as the Global Fund and the multilateral institutions that he names. We have everything to be proud of. When it comes to reform, as we discussed at the G7—I began this work as Chancellor—we are pushing for reform of the multilateral development banks, so that we can stretch their balance sheets. We are also pioneering the work of using climate resilient debt clauses in our bilateral lending—that was a specific ask from the development finance community that we are taking forward. Indeed, as Chancellor I put in place the common framework for debt relief—something the right hon. Gentleman will be familiar with—and we are now working hard to deliver the benefits of that to countries. I think when I announced it we were the first country to announce that we would recycle our SDRs, and that is making an enormous difference. Every country contributes in different ways, but we should be very proud of our record.
Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)
I congratulate my right hon. Friend on putting Ukraine front and centre at the G7 summit. Will he make it clear that that is not just because we believe it is morally right to support Ukraine in her own self-defence, but is because the successful outcome of the war in Ukraine is intrinsically tied up with our own strategic and national interest, and that of the whole western world, upon which our own security and prosperity depend?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend put it well; I agree with every word he said. I would go slightly further. Ultimately, what are we fighting for? We are fighting for the values that we believe in of democracy, freedom and the rule of law. The only thing that I disagree with him on is that while he said the western world, actually what has been striking and welcome in the conflict has been the support of countries such as Japan. I paid enormous tribute to Prime Minister Kishida in Hiroshima for that leadership, because it has rightly recognised, as have other countries and allies such as Australia, that our security is indivisible. Whether in the Pacific or the Atlantic, the values that we all hold dear are universal, and we should all work together and fight hard to defend them.
Hywel Williams (Arfon) (PC)
The semiconductor partnership with Japan is very welcome indeed, but although the Prime Minister mentioned domestic investments to the hon. Member for Newport West (Ruth Jones) a moment ago, I understand that that £1 billion is focused entirely on research. Is he similarly committed to manufacturing—at Newport, for example —or is he happy to leave that to Taiwan, the United States and, of course, the European Union?
The Prime Minister
What we are focused on is growing our semiconductor industry and making sure that we are resilient against future shocks. There are lots of different ways to do that. Indeed, we just signed a new semiconductor deal with Japan, as the hon. Member acknowledged, and we will continue to find opportunities to do that with others, but the idea that we can insource a global manufacturing supply chain in the UK is simply not right. We should focus on our strengths. We will support manufacturing where it makes sense. In compound manufacturing in particular, the capital intensity is far less than in more basic fabs and chips, so we have a strategy that works for the UK’s strength, and particularly works for south Wales, and I am confident that it will be successful.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
The Prime Minister rightly mentioned illegal migration—it would be good to hear what the G7 is proposing to deal with it, particularly in terms of co-operation by our French allies—but the truth is that legal migration dwarfs anything from illegal migration. In the last 20 years, the population of the UK has increased by 8 million, of which 7 million is legal migrants. What will he do to back up the Home Office in making serious efforts to stop legal migration, which is changing the country forever, which is totally unsustainable and which we have promised to deal with again and again?
The Prime Minister
As my right hon. Friend can probably imagine, that was not a topic of conversation around the table in Hiroshima, but I and the Government are committed to bringing down the levels of legal migration. With regard to illegal migration, co-operation with allies is yielding tangible benefits for the UK. He talked about France; the new deal with France strengthens physical co-operation with French forces on the ground. It also strengthens co-operation and intelligence sharing. At the Council of Europe last week, we opened up conversations to work more closely with Frontex, the EU’s border agency. Italy will ensure that illegal migration is a specific topic that is mentioned, discussed and worked on at next year’s G7 summit under its presidency, and I will continue to raise it at all the international fora where I am present.
Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab)
As the Prime Minister mentioned, President Zelensky attended the G7 summit. One thing that I understand is important to him is that Ukrainian culture has an audience across the world, yet there are concerns that musicians from the Ukrainian Freedom Orchestra and the National Symphony Orchestra of Ukraine will not be able to tour the UK later this year because of the heavy financial and administrative burden of obtaining UK visas. The Prime Minister will understand that funding visa fees and travelling to obtain visas is so much more difficult for musicians in war-torn Ukraine. Last year, the Home Office agreed to waive visa fees and expedite the visa process to allow Ukrainian musicians to perform here. Does he agree that Ukrainian musicians still deserve that support? Will he ask the Home Secretary to ensure that we offer that support as we stand with Ukraine?
The Prime Minister
With regard to Ukrainian culture in particular, it was a great pleasure for us to host Eurovision on Ukraine’s behalf, which was a fantastic success and was warmly welcomed by the Ukrainian Government and President Zelensky. I am happy to look into the matter that the hon. Member raises, but as she will understand, our overwhelming priority right now is to support Ukraine to ensure that its counter-offensive is successful. That will occupy the bulk of our attention.
Chris Grayling (Epsom and Ewell) (Con)
Clearly, the move towards onshoring or nearshoring key strategic products is sensible—we saw why that is so necessary during the pandemic and with other issues—yet there seems to be a tendency across the developed world for the natural, logical, strategic need to nearshore key products to turn into protectionism. What discussions took place about that at the G7, and what can my right hon. Friend do to ensure that we do not revert to a protectionist world and abandon the benefits of free trade?
The Prime Minister
My right hon. Friend makes an excellent point, and he can rest assured that I raised exactly that point with my colleagues in Hiroshima. He will be pleased, as I was, that there is language in the G7 communiqué that commits all G7 countries not to act at each other’s expense, and not to do so in a way that amounts to zero-sum competition, but he is absolutely right to identify the risk. Other countries acknowledge it, which is why the G7 communiqué is strong on this point. Going forward, we will see much greater co-operation between allies, so that we do not engage in protectionism, which is not something that will drive prosperity and growth in any of our countries.
Stewart Hosie (Dundee East) (SNP)
May I welcome what the Prime Minister said about China, particularly his intention to diversify our supply chains in areas such as critical minerals? The Prime Minister knows that China probably mines around 70% of all rare earth minerals and produces around 90% of all processed rare earth minerals globally. What investments is he planning to support to ensure capacity anywhere in the world to stop companies in the UK and elsewhere being required to buy from China?
The Prime Minister
We are strengthening investment here at home and increasingly playing our part in the critical minerals recycling chain. Recycling in particular, which is a key part of how we can ensure long-term sustainability, is an area where there is an enormous growth opportunity in the UK, and we are investing directly in that. As the right hon. Member will know, we have just signed critical minerals agreements with Japan and Australia, with more to come, as I continue conversations with other leaders. In particular, our new economic coercion unit, which is being established, will work to ensure that China cannot exert undue influence on countries that possess critical minerals, to ensure that they can trade those minerals freely and fairly.
Greg Clark (Tunbridge Wells) (Con)
I should declare that I have the honour to be the Prime Minister’s trade envoy to Japan. Next week marks the 30th anniversary of the opening, by the then Prince Charles, of Toyota’s manufacturing plant in Derbyshire. It has been a tremendous asset for both our countries. Does the Prime Minister agree that in a turbulent world—one in which, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling) says, protectionism is on the rise—our two countries, Japan and the UK, are more like-minded than ever, and even more than at that time? Will the Prime Minister commit to work closely with Japan to manufacture the next generation of cars, as well as new technologies, from offshore wind to satellites and AI?
The Prime Minister
I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his appointment; I know he will do a superb job, and I agree with him. As the recent Hiroshima accords say, the relationship between the UK and Japan is the strongest that it has ever been across all areas. Whether on scientific collaboration, trade and economic growth, or indeed security, the partnership is strong, and the recent accords that we have signed will take it to even greater depth and levels of co-operation.
On the issue of auto manufacturing, I was pleased to meet the president of Nissan while I was in Tokyo, who had also recently met the Chancellor. As my right hon. Friend can see from the announcements, there is confidence in the UK economy, and we will continue to work closely with Japanese automakers to ensure that there is investment in the UK and that we can make the next generation of electric vehicles here.
Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)
The Prime Minister did finally mention climate change in his response to the Leader of the Opposition, but this G7 summit was a disaster for the climate, flying in the face of expert warnings that if we are serious about staying below 1.5 degrees, there can be no new exploration of oil and gas. While the communiqué acknowledged the new fund for loss and damage, it failed to deliver any new funding for it. Oxfam has estimated that the G7 countries owe the global south a staggering $8.7 trillion for the harm already caused by their excessive carbon emissions. Will the Prime Minister now lead the way on that fund, and commit to new and additional funding specifically for loss and damage in advance of the COP28 summit?
The Prime Minister
The hon. Lady obviously missed the fact that this was the first G7 commitment to stop building new coal plants. It was the first G7 collective renewable energy target, and it confirmed that the developed countries would meet their commitment to provide $100 billion in climate finance per annum—something that has been warmly welcomed. Again, I point her to what I said to the Leader of the Opposition. She failed to point out that of all the G7 countries, we have the best record on reducing climate emissions
Michael Fabricant (Lichfield) (Con)
As the Prime Minister knows, it is Putin’s wish and Ukraine’s fear that the conflict goes long and battle fatigue sets in. My right hon. Friend has been clear—as has the Leader of the Opposition—that we will give that long-term support, but what was his assessment of his colleagues whom he met at the G7, particularly from countries such as India, which have not always shown full commitment to the struggle in Ukraine?
The Prime Minister
As I pointed out earlier, the session with partner countries that were invited, including India, Brazil, Australia and others, was very good in confirming support for a just and durable peace in Ukraine. On my hon. Friend’s first point, he makes an excellent observation. That is why we have been working hard with other countries to put in place bilateral and multilateral long-term security arrangements.
I have long discussed that with President Zelensky and have spoken to other leaders, because my belief is that if we can put some long-term multilateral security arrangement in place as soon as possible, that will show President Putin that we are not going away and that there is no point trying to wait us out, because Ukraine will get long-term support to defend itself—not just last year, this year and next year but for years to come. That is important for us to do, and my hon. Friend can rest assured that I will continue having those conversations and pushing that point with our allies, all the way in the run up to the Vilnius summit.
Stephen Kinnock (Aberavon) (Lab)
The Government’s No. 1 priority should be to strengthen the resilience of our economy so that we can stand more firmly on our own two feet in this dangerous and turbulent world. It was disappointing, therefore, that in the Prime Minister’s statement he failed to make any reference to the central role that steel plays—a key industry that builds our economic and national security and resilience. Given China, the US and the EU Governments are investing hundreds of billions of pounds in their steel industries, can he set out what steps his Government are taking to ensure that we build this vital building block of our manufacturing base?
The Prime Minister
The Government are committed to supporting the UK steel industry. The hon. Gentleman knows full well that I cannot comment on discussions of a commercially sensitive nature with particular companies, but he will know our track record. As Chancellor, during the pandemic I provided financial support to a steel company in south Wales because I believed it was the right thing to do. If he needs any evidence of our commitment to the steel industry, particularly in Wales, he does not need to look too far.
Richard Drax (South Dorset) (Con)
I commend my right hon. Friend on his stance on Ukraine and on a successful G7. He rightly mentioned the problem of mass immigration, particularly illegal immigration. Without doubt, one of the aggravating factors is the EU’s open border policy. Was there any discussion to re-look at that?
The Prime Minister
There was no discussion at the G7, as he might expect, but illegal migration was discussed when I was at the Council of Europe last week. As my hon. Friend can see, we have started conversations with the EU about closer co-operation with the EU’s border agency Frontex. We can work together upstream to share intelligence and make sure that we break the cycle of the criminal gangs. He can expect further conversation and co-operation in that vein because, ultimately, this is a shared challenge. Illegal migration was up 50% to 60% in the European continent last year, so we are not alone in facing this challenge. We will work with others to constructively solve it.
Drew Hendry (Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey) (SNP)
The Wagner Group has already admitted to murdering 40 children and hundreds of adults sheltering in a basement in Bakhmut. Mere sanctions are not a strong enough message. What does that terrorist organisation have to do before the Prime Minister will take action to proscribe it?
The Prime Minister
We are ensuring that those who commit war crimes in Ukraine will be held accountable and brought to justice. That is why we took a leading role in supporting evidence gathering and providing both financial and technical legal support—we have recently provided more than £1 million for those efforts. We very much welcome the recent announcement by the International Criminal Court to bring to justice those who have committed war crimes, particularly those against children, and we will continue to play a leading part in the coalition, ensuring that those who commit those crimes are brought to justice.
James Morris (Halesowen and Rowley Regis) (Con)
The global environment faces more challenges than it has for many years, not least an existential threat to the rules-based international order and threats to the essence of our democratic values. Does the Prime Minster agree that the UK is uniquely placed to build the networks and relationships that are needed to stop those threats from becoming a reality?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We are uniquely placed: our international engagement and diplomacy in the last few months has shown that we have strong relationships, not just in the United States but across Europe and increasingly in the Indo-Pacific as well. All those relationships are strengthening our security at home and abroad, and delivering real benefits for the British people.
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)
The Prime Minister mentioned the United Nations in the context of his remarks about Ukraine, and he will be aware that the United Nations has quite rightly condemned the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Will he comment on the calls made by Secretary-General Guterres to attempt to negotiate a ceasefire, supported by President Ramaphosa and the Pope? What comment will he make about the statement made this morning by President Lula of Brazil? He is right that a ceasefire is not peace, but any peace process has to be started by a ceasefire, otherwise this war will go, and get worse and worse.
The Prime Minister
I could not disagree with the right hon. Gentleman more. A ceasefire is not a just and lasting peace for Ukraine. Russia has conducted an illegal and unprovoked invasion of another country. It has committed heinous war crimes. The right, and only, response to that is for Russia to withdraw its forces from Ukraine. All plans, masquerading as peace plans, that are in fact attempts just to freeze the conflict where it is, are absolutely wrong and they should be called out for exactly what they are.
Crispin Blunt (Reigate) (Con)
May I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the substantive and central role he played at the G7 summit and the important progress made in advancing the G7 agenda, which is of growing importance to our security and our economy? What is his assessment of how far India is now moving to share this agenda, not least in its relations with Russia?
The Prime Minister
As I said, the session with partner countries, including India and others, was positive in its conversation on Ukraine and on the principles of what a just and lasting peace would look like. Such a peace should be based on the principles of the UN charter and respect for the territorial integrity and sovereignty of countries. Those are principles that we believe in, and on which the United Nations was founded and peace in Ukraine should be brought about.
Ms Marie Rimmer (St Helens South and Whiston) (Lab)
Did the Prime Minister have any success in convincing countries, such as India and Brazil, to take a stronger stance against Russia’s invasion and partial occupation of Ukraine?
The Prime Minister
One benefit of President Zelensky attending the G7 summit was the ability for him to talk directly to those leaders, and he did so, particularly in that session but also in other conversations. It was a very powerful message that he could deliver in person. I hope that message will go around the world and people saw the symbolism that it represented. As we have seen, at the United Nations over 140 countries have condemned Russia, which remains largely isolated on the global stage, and we continue to bring others to the cause.
Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)
The UK’s key role in G7 Tokyo decisions highlights the fact that this Government are doing more on the world stage, not retreating from it, especially in the Indo-Pacific region and south-east Asia, where I have the honour to serve the Prime Minister as trade envoy. Does he agree that this is a good time, in the last year of the term of office of President Jokowi of Indonesia—the largest member state in the Association of Southeast Asian Nations and the current ASEAN chair—for both our countries to scope out the will and capacity for a wide-ranging bilateral free trade agreement?
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend for all the work he does to promote our trade in the region and strengthen our relationship with countries such as Indonesia. I discussed his missives in person with President Jokowi and we had a good conversation about how we can strengthen our trading relationship, not least through the JETCO, the Joint Economic and Trade Committee, which we already have and which we are looking forward to building on in future.
Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)
If it is the Prime Minister’s firm resolve that it should never again be necessary to use nuclear weapons, why is he spending billions of pounds on renewing Trident?
The Prime Minister
Look, of course on this issue we will disagree with the Scottish nationalist party, but we remain committed to the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, to which we are a signatory along with 190 other countries. That offers us the best tool available to bring about eventual global disarmament, but it will have to be step by step and it will have to be a negotiated approach, because we have to recognise the escalating security threats that we face and the role that our nuclear deterrent plays in keeping us safe.
Matt Warman (Boston and Skegness) (Con)
Qualcomm, Graphcore and Arm are among the major semiconductor manufacturers that welcomed the UK’s semiconductor strategy. The Prime Minister is right to focus on where we are best and where we can play an outsize role in this industry. At its heart, however, this is also about lessening our semiconductor dependence on Taiwan. Will the Prime Minister assure me and the House that that will not come with greater risk of seeing a decrease in relations between China and Taiwan?
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend for his comments about the semiconductor strategy, which of course is an area on which he speaks with authority. Our long-standing policy on Taiwan has not changed. We have a clear interest in peace and stability in the Taiwan strait and will completely resist any unilateral attempts to change the status quo. We continue to have deep and growing ties, in a wide range of areas, with Taiwan, whether that is on economic, trade, cultural or educational matters.
Andrew Western (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)
The Prime Minister spent time at the G7 dealing with reports that his Home Secretary may have breached the ministerial code. Will the Prime Minister take the opportunity to update the House on whether he has yet met his independent adviser and whether there will now be an investigation into whether the ministerial code has been broken, and to confirm that if the Home Secretary has breached the ministerial code she will be sacked?
The Prime Minister
Well, I can confirm that that was not a topic of conversation at the G7 summit, but in the interests of being generous: I have always been clear that where such issues are raised, they should be dealt with properly and professionally. Since I have returned from the G7, I have been receiving information on the issues raised, I have met both the independent adviser and the Home Secretary, I have asked for further information and I will give an update on the appropriate course of action in due course.
Jack Brereton (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Con)
I very much welcome the £18 billion of new Japanese investment for the UK. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that he will be working to ensure that as much as possible of that investment comes to businesses in Stoke-on-Trent, and that we can grow the number of skilled, well-paid jobs in Stoke-on-Trent?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is a fantastic champion for Stoke and his constituents. The great news about this investment is that it is coming in a range of industries, which means that all parts of the UK, I am confident, will benefit. Whether it is in auto manufacturing, clean energy or the industries of the future such as quantum and semiconductors, there are fantastic opportunities. Ultimately, that is why our international diplomacy is working; it is delivering concrete benefits and jobs for people here at home.
Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (Ind)
Diolch, Madam Deputy Speaker. The sanctions strategy against Russia is being undermined by so-called leakage to other countries. For instance, Russian oil exports to India have reportedly increased substantially, a point that I suspect President Zelensky will have made to Prime Minister Modi during their discussions at the summit. Did the Prime Minister make similar points during his bilateral talks with Prime Minister Modi?
The Prime Minister
As I have said, the G7 allies are working in tandem to intensify diplomatic engagement with third-country partners to highlight potential sanction circumvention risks. We also, as I have said, are investing £50 million in a new economic deterrence initiative, which will back up our own sanctions implementation and enforcement.
Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)
I commend my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister for leading discussions at the G7 in Hiroshima on countering and guarding against the national security threats that are coming from China. In that vein, will he consider blocking companies such as BGI that are harvesting genomic data—as they have done in the United States and in academia in Canada—from activities in this country?
The Prime Minister
Our new National Security and Investment Act 2021 gives us the powers to block hostile investment into sensitive sectors. My hon. Friend will know that we have used those powers to block Chinese investment in Newport Wafer Fab, for example. We obviously look at every transaction on a case-by-case basis, but we now have one of the most robust frameworks anywhere in the world for protecting our companies and our intellectual property from foreign interference and theft.
Richard Foord (Tiverton and Honiton) (LD)
Liberal Democrats welcome those parts of the Prime Minister’s statement that relate to Ukraine, but I would like to take that a little further and ask him about Russian misinformation. President Biden said of the supply of F-16 fighter aircraft that he had received assurances that the fighter jets would not be used to
“go on and move into Russia”.
President Macron said something similar in relation to the supply of French weapons, but misinformation from the Kremlin abounds about NATO’s intentions. Is the Prime Minister prepared, like the Presidents of the United States and France, to talk about how British long-range missiles will be limited to targets in Ukraine for the liberation of Ukraine?
The Prime Minister
The Defence Secretary has already made clarifications around our use of Storm Shadow, but we should all remember that Ukraine is engaged in self-defence. Indeed, NATO itself is a self-defence alliance. Ukraine has faced an illegal and unprovoked act of aggression and invasion from Russia and we should be able to give it all the means necessary to defend itself against those attacks.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Prime Minister very much for his statement and his support for Ukraine on behalf of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. He has clearly shown that his words become actions, and for that we thank him very much. I think that every one of us recognises a good deed there. I declare an interest as chair of the all-party parliamentary group on international freedom of religion or belief. I very much welcome the progress that has been reported by the Prime Minister on an essential trade deal, but I would also like to know whether he had an opportunity to raise the issue of freedom of religious belief with his counterparts, because an essential component of any trade deal must be the core value of human rights alongside religious freedom.
The Prime Minister
I know that the Foreign Secretary engages on this topic regularly with all our allies where it is relevant, and we will continue to do so, because we will stand up for freedom of expression and religious belief, not just in this country but in countries around the world.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I thank the Prime Minister for his statement. We now come to the statement from the Home Secretary, but before I call her, I would like to remind hon. Members that they should not refer to any specific cases currently before the courts and that they should exercise caution with respect to any specific cases that might subsequently come before the courts, in order not to prejudice those proceedings.
Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse: Report
(11 months, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Suella Braverman)
With permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I would like to make a statement about the Government’s response to the final report of the independent inquiry into child sexual abuse. The inquiry lasted seven years and its findings are harrowing, involving widespread child sexual abuse going back decades and shameful institutional failures in child protection. Each case represents an intensely personal story of the pain and suffering of a child enduring something that nobody should endure. I am so sorry that anyone has. The interests of victims and survivors are at the heart of the inquiry’s report, and of the Government’s response. I want to thank the more than 6,000 victims and survivors who bravely came forward to share their testimonies. I was humbled and moved when meeting several of them recently. Today is about ensuring their voices are heard and reflected in our work, so that future generations do not suffer as they did. I promise that their courage will count.
I pay tribute to the chair of the inquiry, Professor Alexis Jay, and her team for their fearless commitment to uncovering horrendous societal, professional and institutional failures, and for years of meticulous and diligent work. We must use this moment to bring this crime further out of the shadows, to provide proper support to all victims and survivors, and to deliver real and enduring change.
This Government have repeatedly shown our determination to stop the scourge of child sexual abuse. Just last month the Prime Minister and I announced new measures to tackle the evil of grooming gangs, but there is zero room for complacency and the inquiry’s final report confronts us with a necessary moment for further reflection. It is more than a collection of recommendations; it is a call for fundamental cultural change, societal change, professional change and institutional change.
I am pleased to say that this Government have risen to the inquiry’s challenge. We are accepting the need to act on 19 of the inquiry’s 20 final recommendations. That includes driving work across Government to improve victims’ experience of the criminal justice system, the criminal injuries compensation scheme, workforce regulation, access to records, consistent and compatible data, and communications on the scale and nature of child sexual abuse. The Government’s response does not represent our final word on the inquiry’s findings, but rather the start of a new chapter.
We will continue to engage with victims and survivors, with child protection organisations and with Professor Jay to ensure they retain sight of our work and confidence in our delivery. The full Government response will be published online at gov.uk. The Welsh Government have responded separately on matters relating to Wales alone.
I will now highlight our response to some of the most consequential recommendations. We need to stop perpetrators in their tracks, and we need better to protect and support the children they seek to prey upon. To do this we must address the systemic under-reporting of child sexual abuse. As I announced in April, the Government accept the inquiry’s recommendation to introduce a new mandatory reporting duty across England. Today, I am launching a call for evidence that will inform how this new duty can be best designed to prevent the continued abuse of children and ensure they get help as soon as possible.
The inquiry recommended a redress scheme for victims and survivors of historical child sexual abuse, which the Government also accept. Of course, nobody can ever fully compensate victims and survivors for the abuse they suffered, but what we can do is properly acknowledge their suffering and deliver justice and an appropriate form of redress. This is a landmark commitment. It will be complex and challenging, but it really matters. As the inquiry recommends, we will carefully consult victims and survivors; we will draw on lessons from other jurisdictions; and we will make sure we honour the inquiry’s legacy as we design the scheme.
We accept that there is more we can do to ensure that those who have suffered get access to the provision they need to help them recover and rebuild their lives. We have already introduced the Victims and Prisoners Bill, which will ensure that the criminal justice system delivers on victims’ entitlements. It will also introduce a new statutory duty on local partners to work together when commissioning support services for victims of sexual violence, but where we need to go further, we will. We will elicit views on the future of therapeutic support, including systemic changes to provision, through the extensive consultation we are undertaking on redress. It is right that we consider these things together so we can better deliver the support needed by child and adult victims and survivors of abuse.
The inquiry rightly demands proper leadership and governance of child protection. In response to the inquiry’s recommendation for a new child protection authority, the Department for Education’s implementation strategy “Stable Homes, Built on Love” has set out major reform to children’s social care. Although taking a different form, we are confident that these reforms will fulfil the proposed functions of such a child protection agency and ensure a coherent response across all parts of the system to child sexual abuse. The Government will, however, closely monitor the delivery of our commitments through our newly established child protection ministerial group, inviting scrutiny from victims, survivors and other partners. We will keep this House and the other place regularly updated on our progress.
The inquiry makes two recommendations relating to the horrifying and growing threat of online child sexual abuse. The Government’s Online Safety Bill will be a truly world-leading law that will make the UK the safest place to be online. The strongest measures in the Bill are reserved for child sexual abuse, leaving companies in no doubt about their duties to remove and report child sexual abuse material found on their platforms, and to use technologies such as age verification. Child sexual abuse is a global crime, which is why we continue to lead work with international partners to bring pressure to bear on the big tech companies, which must face up to their moral duty to protect children.
There is no greater evil than hurting a child. This landmark inquiry found that for far too long stopping child sexual abuse was seen as no one’s responsibility. We must ensure that child abuse is brought out of the shadows, we must make it everyone’s responsibility, and we must give those who have suffered the confidence that their voices will be heard, their needs will be met and they will be protected. We owe a great debt of gratitude to the victims and survivors who came forward, to their families and to campaigners. Today is their moment, and it must be a watershed moment. I commend this statement to the House.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I call the shadow Home Secretary.
Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)
I thank the Home Secretary for advance sight of her statement, and join her in paying tribute to the victims and survivors of this hideous crime. Many of those victims and survivors have been crucial to establishing the inquiry in the first place and have been involved, working hard to make sure that voices are heard. Their strength should be recognised and their calls to action must be heeded.
There is no more hideous crime than child sexual exploitation and abuse, a crime that preys on vulnerability and leave scars that are felt for the rest of a young person’s life. The independent inquiry set up by the Home Secretary’s predecessor, the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May), identified failings across a wide range of institutional settings, including local councils, the Anglican and Catholic Churches, and organised groups and networks. In each area, action is needed to make sure that abuse is tackled wherever it is found.
I welcome the Government’s acceptance that there needs to be a redress scheme for victims and survivors of historical abuse. I ask the Home Secretary what the timetable and next steps will be on that, as that trauma can last a lifetime and is truly devastating for those who experience it.
May I also say to the Home Secretary that the rest of the statement is inadequate as a Government response to such a serious and weighty report? I am glad that she has accepted the need to act on 19 of the 20 recommendations, but that is not the same as accepting the recommendations or as setting out what action she is actually going to take. For example, the inquiry said that victims and survivors should receive
“a guarantee of specialist therapeutic support”,
but all her statement says is:
“We will elicit views on the future of therapeutic support”.
We know that that therapeutic support is inadequate and that there are lots of views already—the whole point of the inquiry was to gather those views and that evidence. On many of the recommendations, there is little detail. All that the Home Secretary has done is simply point to what the Government are doing already. I hope that there is more in the full report to which she refers, but there is far too little in the statement today to give us any confidence.
Labour called for mandatory reporting of child sexual abuse nearly a decade ago. The Government finally agreed to do it in April, but all the Home Secretary has done today is open a call for evidence. Well, there have already been many calls for evidence. In fact, the inquiry gathered lots of evidence. At best, she could have launched her own call for evidence some time ago. Why is mandatory reporting not in the Victims and Prisoners Bill? That is our opportunity to make progress rapidly.
The Home Secretary’s response to online sexual abuse is far too weak. She has referred to the Online Safety Bill—we know that that is long delayed and watered down—but this is not just about the legislation; it is also about the action that is taken. Since then, we have had an inspectorate report on online abuse that describes the police response to online child sexual abuse and exploitation as
“too often leaving vulnerable children at risk”,
with examples of police taking up to 18 months to make an arrest after becoming aware that children were at risk of abuse. There was nothing on that in her statement. What action will she take on policing?
New evidence from the Internet Watch Foundation found that the number of web pages containing category A material has more than doubled since 2020—just in the past few years alone. Again, the response is wholly inadequate.
Charging rates have got worse and worse. Every year, approximately 500,000 children will be sexually abused, only one in five of whom is likely to report their abuse. Only 11% of the reported cases result in a charge, down from more than 30% in 2015. It has got so much worse over the past few years. That means that the overwhelming majority of child sexual abusers face no consequences—criminals are getting away with these terrible, terrible crimes. It has got even worse than the last time we discussed this topic in the House in October.
On child protection and the Disclosure and Barring Service, again, we have warned about gaps in the disclosure and barring system, and there are still problems with it. Only last year, we had unaccompanied asylum-seeking children being placed in hotels without properly trained DBS staff. What has the Home Secretary done since then even to reform child protection in her own Department?
Children and teenagers have paid the price of the country’s failure to tackle child sexual abuse and exploitation. The Home Secretary’s predecessor rightly set up this inquiry, but there is a responsibility on every single one of us, and in particular on the Home Secretary and the Government, to make sure that action takes place. This is about the victims and the survivors, but it is also about future generations of children whose safety and lives will be at risk if we do not see action.
Suella Braverman
I thank the right hon. Lady for her questions and her response, and for the utmost seriousness with which she has approached this topic.
As I said in my statement, the report represents fundamental change to the way in which we deal with child abuse. I hope that the recommendations that we are taking forward today demonstrate the Government’s commitment to tackling this evil. The right hon. Lady asks about timetable and pace. On the speed of the report and our response, I hope she will appreciate that it is important not only that the independent assessor, Professor Jay, took the time to get the report right, but that we consider things thoroughly now so that we make the most of the recommendations and ensure that we deliver the level of reform that will make a meaningful difference on the ground to victims and survivors and that will make a difference in culture to prevent this from happening again.
This is reform on a level not seen before. It will mark a step change in our approach to child sexual abuse. We need to, and we will, get this right. If that takes time, that is time well spent. I do not want to give victims and survivors the false impression that implementing these big commitments will happen overnight. What I can promise them is that this response heralds a new start; it signifies a change in direction and it represents an acknowledgement of what they have been through, what they have testified to and the work of this inquiry.
The Government have accepted the need to act on 19 out of the 20 recommendations. We are accepting the vast majority of them. I hope that that reflects our genuine and real commitment to getting this right. I have also committed today to closely monitor police force data on child sexual abuse, not only to ensure that the police are appropriately prioritising that terrible crime, but to identify where they need partners such as tech companies to improve their response. Let me be clear: we will do whatever it takes and whatever is necessary to protect children from abuse—no ifs and no buts.
Let me issue a few thanks. I put on the record my thanks to my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May) , one of my predecessors, for launching this inquiry, recognising the problem and starting this important work. I put on record my thanks to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education, to my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor and to other Cabinet Ministers who have come together to support this Government response. This issue will require a whole-of-Government, multi-agency response if we are to genuinely protect the interests of children.
Above all, I thank the victims and their families for sharing their stories and for helping us to take this big step forward. I have had the honour of meeting members of the victims and survivors consultative panel; today I met professionals who are working on the frontline, members of the police force and members and employees at the Centre of Expertise on Child Sexual Abuse, hosted at Barnardo’s and funded by the Home Office. I have visited The Lighthouse in Camden, which provides therapeutic support to children who have encountered this kind of horrific abuse, and I have worked with and met the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children. I thank all the professionals on the frontline.
Child sexual abuse is a complex issue and its enormity cannot be underestimated. I am enormously grateful to the victims and survivors for their courage. The abuse should never have happened, but I hope that with these changes we will make a difference and prevent future abuse from taking place. We owe that to past victims and their families.
Mrs Theresa May (Maidenhead) (Con)
I am grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend for her statement. When I launched the independent inquiry, I said that people would be shocked at the level of abuse of children that had taken place in this country, and indeed the final report showed an appalling and shocking level of abuse—not just historical abuse, but abuse that carries on today. The Government’s response is very important. Those who wish to abuse children will look for opportunities to work with children in order to undertake that abuse. Will my right hon. and learned Friend please give a little more detail about the Government’s response to the recommendations in the report on the Disclosure and Barring Service, including those on the use of the disclosure regime for those working with children overseas and on extending use of the barred list of people who are unsuitable to work with children?
Suella Braverman
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right to point out that we need to enhance the rigour of scrutiny and standards within the workforce when it comes to professionals who have direct contact with or responsibilities relating to children. That is why several of the recommendations relate to registration. We accept the recommendation on the registration of care staff in residential care. We also accept the recommendation on the registration of staff in young offender institutions and secure training centres, and we are exploring the proposals on how to operate it. We are looking at the recommendations relating to the barred list of people who are unsuitable for work with children, and the recommendation relating to the duties to inform the Disclosure and Barring Service about individuals who might pose a risk. We are accepting those recommendations as well and exploring the ways and the form in which we can deliver them.
Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab)
I have a long history with IICSA; I was one of the MPs who first lobbied the then Home Secretary for it, and I am incredibly grateful to the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May) for commissioning it, but that was seven years ago. That is seven years of victims and survivors laying out their stories, and telling us what we already knew: that this is an epidemic. In that time, the Government could have been doing very practical things to prevent it. The Home Secretary says that she accepts the need to act. That is not the same as acting. She said that victims would have visibility in the work that will be done, and that there would be consultation and monitoring. Where is the funding? Where is the actual getting on with the recommendations? What is the one recommendation that the Home Secretary does not accept? She has not told us that.
Suella Braverman
I have been fully transparent. I have come to the House today to set out our response, and we are also publishing our detailed response to the inquiry, which sets out the detail that the hon. Lady requests. As for what the Government have done, I reject the accusation that we have not acted. I am very proud of the effort that this Government have made so far to get to the point at which we can accept the vast majority of the recommendations. Now the work starts.
We need to ensure that we get the recommendations right and deliver them in a meaningful way. I do not apologise for taking the time to get that right. Accepting the redress scheme is a landmark commitment that the Government are making today. That will ensure that victims of this heinous crime secure redress. We need to decide what form that will take—not every victim or survivor is the same—and how that redress can be delivered. There are many forms that redress can take. We need to assess what is appropriate for the victims, and listen to survivors, so that we get the scheme right. I am determined to do so.
Sajid Javid (Bromsgrove) (Con)
I welcome the Home Secretary’s statement. IICSA’s final report rightly said that the pace of technological change is of significant concern. Indeed, since the report was published, some seven months ago, we have seen a seismic shift in artificial intelligence. AI is already bringing fantastic benefits for society, but it also brings threats; I know that the Home Secretary is fully aware of that. Those threats are especially acute for children. For instance, huge amounts of AI-generated child sexual abuse imagery are already being created and shared by paedophiles. As we have heard, the report was commissioned by my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May) some eight years ago. It has taken us that long to reach the point of action. In the AI age, we can no longer take so long to act. What processes has the Home Secretary put in place to ensure that her Department and laws keep up with the pace of change of technology?
Suella Braverman
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right to say that the rapid pace of development in technology is a challenge to grapple with when it comes to protecting children online. I pay tribute to him for standing up for child victims when he was Home Secretary, and taking a stance against this heinous crime. Our Online Safety Bill is making its way through Parliament. It is future-proofed to allow the regulator to keep pace with technological developments. From the Home Office point of view, I am working with the National Crime Agency and GCHQ to identify the new challenges posed by AI. In this field, there are opportunities but also real risks posed by the proliferation of AI, and we need to ensure that our law enforcement agencies are equipped to deal with them.
Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall) (Lab/Co-op)
The Home Secretary stated that the inquiry rightly demands proper leadership and governance when it comes to the protection of children. Another area that demands proper leadership, and where protection is needed, is child criminal exploitation. Sadly, a number of young children who are criminally exploited are sexually exploited as well. Girls are used by criminal gangs. They are gang raped multiple times and asked to perform sexual acts. When those girls report that to the police, they are viewed as gang members; they are not treated as victims. Does the Home Secretary agree that if we are to treat those girls as victims, we need a proper statutory definition of child criminal exploitation?
Suella Braverman
Child sexual exploitation is abhorrent, and this is part of our response in stamping it out. Since the inquiry published its final report, we have published our Victims and Prisoners Bill, which places new duties on local commissioners to commission sexual violence services according to need, including for children. When the Bill becomes an Act, there will be new powers and strengthened opportunities to enable police and crime commissioners to respond to particular needs in their areas, such as the issues that the hon. Member raises.
Alexander Stafford (Rother Valley) (Con)
I thank the Home Secretary for making the statement to the House and for visiting Rother Valley to meet me and victims of child sexual exploitation only last month. As well as helping survivors of child rape and families such as those who were affected in Rotherham and Rother Valley, we must work to ensure that those who failed in their duties of care may no longer hold positions of authority. Does she agree with the points that I set out in my recent ten-minute rule Bill—the Public Office (Child Sexual Abuse) Bill—which would ensure that nobody who enabled, facilitated or ignored child sexual abuse had any position of authority?
Suella Braverman
I thank my hon. Friend for his very important campaigning on this issue and for his advocacy for victims. I found it incredibly powerful to visit him in his constituency and to meet campaigners and other victims and survivors of child sexual abuse.
We are introducing the duty to report; that is one of the key recommendations and one of the key measures that we are taking forward. We want to get this right. We need to ensure that those in positions of authority—whether they are in local authorities or are social workers, teachers or police officers—undertake their roles and responsibilities and discharge their duties, and ensure that the right balance is struck in protecting children. Professor Jay makes it clear that a duty can bring about a culture change. That is what I want to see.
Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)
I join the Home Secretary and shadow Home Secretary in paying tribute to the brave victims who have come forward as part of this inquiry. Young people in care are some of the most vulnerable members of our society, targeted by abusers because they do not have the support networks that other young people grow up with. Although thousands of foster carers, children’s home staff and others do an amazing job of providing a stable, loving environment, the report highlighted the shocking abuse that many children in local authority care experience. Will the Government accept the inquiry’s recommendation to amend the Children Act 1989, so that the courts can intervene when local councils are not exercising their parental responsibilities properly?
Suella Braverman
I think the amendment to the Children Act to give parity of legal protection to children in care is the recommendation to which the hon. Member refers, and we accept in spirit the need for parity. We are exploring ways in which we can best empower children in care to challenge what is going wrong in their care through the independent review of children’s social care and national panel reviews. Importantly, we have the national safeguarding review panel, which takes action and looks in depth into serious incidents. That can discharge a lot of the functions that have been called for in this inquiry.
Jackie Doyle-Price (Thurrock) (Con)
I welcome much of what my right hon. and learned Friend has said this afternoon, but she is right when she observes that this is a question of cultural behaviour. The truth is that state institutions have failed these victims for decades, based on institutional bias against their social background as much as anything else. We know that perpetrators are very clever in seeking out their victims, and in seeking out those who will be believed least. As she pointed out, this requires a whole of Government response to challenge the behaviour of state institutions so that they are more vigilant and take these things seriously.
To probe my right hon. and learned Friend a bit further, how will she achieve a change in behaviour across the criminal justice system? It is only a matter of weeks since she responded to the Casey review, which again showed some of these behaviours. Also, on lifetime therapeutic support for victims, it is now six years since NHS England committed to a lifetime care pathway, yet local commissioners are still not commissioning the necessary services. What can she say this afternoon about ensuring that the Government really do deliver on this and that this does not just sit on the shelf?
Suella Braverman
I am very cognisant of that risk, and the one thing I want is to be held to account for my words today. I want another update to this House on progress—on delivery of our response—in due course.
In terms of how to bring about a culture change, the report is very clear. I believe that mandatory reporting—a duty, a legal obligation—will direct and force professionals’ minds into a particular way of thinking. That will be accompanied by training, and it must be accompanied by peer support. That is how we will bring about a culture change so that we avoid and eliminate turning a blind eye to apparent problems that are of a heinous nature.
On the support available and what the Government have done already, there have been significant increases in Government funding for victims of sexual violence, including child sexual abuse. The Home Office’s support for victims and survivors of child sexual abuse has got funding of over £4.5 million, and we have distributed that to charities that provide vital support. The NHS long-term plan commits an additional £2.3 billion for the expansion and transformation of mental health services. We now need to ensure that that gets down to the grassroots level and reaches the victims and survivors, but a lot of work has already gone on within Government.
Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)
It is estimated that just one in five child victims report to the police, but in my experience in local government, young people who were disclosing that they were being abused needed an independent advocate and an independent voice to go to, so that they would be listened to and treated with sympathy. It is not necessarily reporting to the police that is required, so what can the Home Secretary say about what she is doing to open up those avenues, so that people can report with confidence that they will be listened to?
Suella Braverman
The issue that the hon. Gentleman raises is precisely the reason why I am a passionate supporter of independent sexual violence advisers, as well as independent domestic violence advisers: they are also relevant for children who are victims of sexual violence. We have already increased the number of ISVAs available to victims of sexual violence, including children, so that when someone makes a complaint and enters the criminal justice system, they will have an independent professional who is on their side to help them navigate a very traumatic and daunting process, who can provide clarity and the vital support that can make the difference between a successful prosecution and an unsuccessful one.
Laura Farris (Newbury) (Con)
I have previously declared an interest, because I was counsel to the inquiry from 2016 to 2017.
Given that the inquiry looked at cases that were often decades old, there is a risk that we see its conclusions as belonging to the past, rather than the present. One of the recommendations of the inquiry is creating a protective environment for children, and although that will have meant something different in some of the contexts that we looked at, we know now from the Children’s Commissioner that one of the biggest drivers of child sexual exploitation is the ubiquity of violent online porn, particularly when the perpetrator is also a child.
Can I therefore ask the Home Secretary what reassurances she can give that the Online Safety Bill really will protect children from viewing this kind of content? Rather more boldly, could I ask her whether she would consider working with her counterparts at the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport to regulate the content of some of the big porn providers such as Pornhub, which we know through a body of evidence hosts and promotes child sexual exploitation in some of its online content?
Suella Braverman
My hon. Friend speaks with expertise, and she raises a very important point with which I agree: the ubiquity, as she puts it, of online pornography and its accessibility by children is a major factor in the incidence of criminal behaviour of this type. The Online Safety Bill will mark a game changer in the protection of children online, and will take us forward in preventing children from accessing this heinous material. Through the Bill, companies will need to take a robust approach to protect children from illegal content and criminal behaviour on their services. They will also need to assess whether their service is likely to be accessed by children and, if so, deliver safety measures for them. Those safety measures will need to protect children, and there will be measures relating to age verification. In my mind, that represents a robust step change in how we protect children online.
Ruth Jones (Newport West) (Lab)
As co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on safeguarding in faith communities, may I thank the Safeguarding Minister, the hon. Member for Derbyshire Dales (Miss Dines), for her letter to our group written on 12 May? We appreciate that there are many recommendation in the inquiry’s final report, and they need careful consideration, but given the years of historical abuse and the years of inquiry, may I urge the Home Secretary to do all that she can to ensure that these wrongs are righted and that we see action, not more consultation, for the victims and survivors, and as quickly as possible?
Suella Braverman
I want to move as quickly as possible as well, and I want to get it right. For example, with the redress scheme, we have the very helpful starting point of Professor Jay’s recommendation. We have now accepted that recommendation. There are various models around the world of how a redress scheme can operate, such as those in Australia and Scotland and more localised examples. We need to ensure that the right criteria are established, that the process is robust and fair, and that ultimately the victims and survivors get the redress, the justice and the closure that they seek.
Robbie Moore (Keighley) (Con)
I welcome today’s statement, and I put on record my thanks to all those who helped influence the report, particularly the victims of child sexual exploitation. I also thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May) for instigating the report.
Unfortunately, child sexual exploitation haunts my community in Keighley, and I have held many a roundtable with victims and their families who have had to go through incredibly traumatic experiences. I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Witham (Priti Patel) for coming up when she was Home Secretary to listen to some of those terrible stories. One of the things that definitely came across was a lack of trust and the disappearance of trust in the very organisations that should be there to protect the most vulnerable in society, whether that is the police, our local authorities or healthcare systems. That was further illustrated by a report by the Bradford safeguarding partnership in July 2021, which looked at only five children across the Bradford district who had experienced child sexual exploitation. That is why I want to see a full Rotherham-style inquiry into child sexual exploitation across the Bradford district, so that we can get to grips with some of the complexities at a local level.
Will the Home Secretary give a commitment to work with all Departments on this issue? We need a whole of Government approach involving not only the Department for Education but the Department of Health and Social Care and the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, because it is only when we all work with those Departments, and at a local level with local authorities and devolved mayoralties, that we can get to grips with and tackle this issue once and for all.
Suella Braverman
My hon. Friend speaks powerfully, and I pay tribute to him for all his campaigning on behalf of his constituents on this very serious issue. The reports relating to Rochdale, Telford and Rotherham are all very powerful in their conclusions, and they speak to a similar situation to that to which he refers. The mandatory duty seeks to address professionals not taking action by placing a legal obligation on professionals to identify signs and indicators of child sexual abuse, and by providing them with the right training so that they have the know-how to deal with these delicate but devastating matters. It will be a game changer. Professionals on the frontline will have at the forefront of their professional training what child sexual abuse looks like, how to identify it and what action to take to stop it.
Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)
The recent appalling court case on the murder of Finley Boden, which led to the conviction of his parents for murder, exposed serious questions about the social work practised at Derbyshire social services and indeed the actions taken by the court. For that reason, the recommendation for the creation of a new child protection authority was very much welcomed. Can the Home Secretary tell us what specific proposed functions of the child protection agency she believes will be better delivered by the Department for Education’s implementation strategy? Why does she believe that approach is better than the creation of a child protection authority, as recommended in this report?
Suella Braverman
May I put on record my sympathies to the family of the hon. Gentleman’s constituents? When it comes to the child protection authority, we absolutely agree that we need a sharper focus on improving practice in child protection and ensuring that we are all playing our part to keep children safe. Since the inquiry reported, the Department for Education, in responding to the care review, has set out a bold vision for reform of social care and child protections—“Stable Homes, Built on Love”—and the Government are confident that those reforms will deliver the intention behind the inquiry’s recommendation for a new child protection authority.
Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)
Can I put on record my tribute to my constituents who gave evidence to IICSA? They relived their trauma so that changes can be made in future and they are among the most courageous people I know.
One of the recommendations from IICSA’s final report is for the introduction of arrangements for the registration of staff working in care roles in children’s homes, including secure children’s homes. This is an obvious practical recommendation that would make a material difference to the safety of children living in local authority care, but it was originally recommended in 2018 and there was really no excuse for the Government not to act at that time to implement it. Since that time, children have continued to suffer abuse and neglect in children’s homes, including those run by the Hesley Group in Doncaster and the Calcot homes in Oxfordshire. Can I ask the Home Secretary why she waited five years to act and can she update the House on the timescale for implementing this very important recommendation?
Suella Braverman
We accept the meaning and significance of recommendation 7, to which the hon. Member refers, on the registration of staff working in care roles in children’s homes. We are exploring the proposals to introduce professional registration of the residential childcare workforce as part of the “Stable Homes, Built on Love” strategy—key and landmark reforms to our care system. But we recognise the important contribution of the residential childcare workforce in caring for some of the most vulnerable children in our society, and the importance of ensuring that they have the skills required to safeguard, support and care for those children. We are backing them with investment and reform.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I thank the Home Secretary for her statement.
Points of Order
(11 months, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Crispin Blunt (Reigate) (Con)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Last Thursday, there was a debate on psilocybin access rights, a technical and detailed area of policy, changes to which are hoped to transform the effectiveness of current mental health treatments. How can Back Benchers successfully use the procedures of this House to enable debate to hold the Government to account for proposed policy changes they will not make if the responsible Minister will not reply to the debate, particularly when the debate is led by colleagues who have long made personal study of that particular area of policy, such as the hon. Member for Inverclyde (Ronnie Cowan) and myself, and not least when they are reinforced by the harrowing personal experience of hon. Members of this House such as the hon. Member for Warrington North (Charlotte Nichols)?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving me notice of his point of order.
Madam Deputy Speaker
The Minister is here and I believe that he would like to respond, so I suggest we ask him to make a brief response.
Chris Philp
Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Very briefly, I regret that I was not in Parliament at the time of the debate. I did give my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Crispin Blunt) advance notice of that. I was at the defence establishment in Porton Down at the time. As often happens, another Home Office Minister, the Minister for Immigration—a very capable Home Office Minister—replied. I have previously met one to one with the hon. Member for Warrington North (Charlotte Nichols) to discuss this in detail, and I replied to an Adjournment debate just a few weeks ago. As I said at the time, I have, subsequent to the debate and the meeting, asked the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs to accelerate its work on removing barriers to research for all schedule 1 drugs, including psilocybin. So I take this opportunity to assure my hon. Friend that I have asked for that work to be accelerated, and the calls that he and other Members have made have been heard.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I feel that the Minister has given quite a long response, but I call Crispin Blunt.
Crispin Blunt
Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I regret to say there was an inaccuracy in my right hon. Friend’s response. When I alerted him to the date of the second debate on psilocybin access rights, on 18 May, he told me that he had an engagement that day. However, it never occurred to me for a moment that he would put that engagement ahead of his duty replying to this House. I certainly got no communication at all that he had made a decision not to attend Parliament to reply to that debate.
Madam Deputy Speaker
I hope the hon. Gentleman will accept that it is not my responsibility to decide which Ministers respond to debates, but I think it is courteous that the Minister has come here today and given an explanation. If the hon. Gentleman is not satisfied with that response, I am sure he will pursue it with the Minister. Perhaps a meeting might be arranged.
Madam Deputy Speaker
I do not want to prolong this too much further because we are in danger of going backwards and forwards over the same issue. The hon. Gentleman is clearly not happy that the Minister was not there for the debate, but the Minister has explained his reasons. The hon. Gentleman may not be happy with those reasons, but there is not a great deal I can do about that. But his point has been heard and I suggest we move on.
Owen Thompson (Midlothian) (SNP)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Earlier this afternoon at Home Office questions, the Immigration Minister, who I have notified of this point of order, appeared to suggest that it was my responsibility that no asylum seekers, through the dispersal scheme, had been housed in Midlothian. Midlothian is a warm and welcoming community and we look forward to welcoming anyone from anywhere at any time. Despite the Minister suggesting that there had been no attempt to have any asylum seekers, through the dispersal scheme, housed in Midlothian, on 22 February, I was notified of the Home Office’s intention to house asylum seekers in my Midlothian constituency, but, on 1 March, the Home Office notified me that it no longer intended to proceed with that dispersal. Perhaps it is not for me to say, but if the Home Office were to engage with local authorities, local councils or the Scottish Government, these sorts of issues could be dealt with. I ask for your advice, Madam Deputy Speaker, as to how I can best ensure that the record is correct and that there is no slur on the Midlothian constituency through the suggestion that it is not welcoming of anyone from any background coming to it, and as to how the record can be corrected to reflect that.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that point of order. He does not have to notify Ministers that he intends to raise a point of order. I do not know whether he did or not—
Madam Deputy Speaker
Okay. The hon. Gentleman has made clear his view about what the Minister said. I know that there are hon. Members and Parliamentary Private Secretaries present who, it feels to me, are going to report back what the hon. Gentleman has said very quickly, as I am sure will the Whips. He has put his point of view on the record and I am sure that, if any necessary corrections need to be made, the Minister will do so, or he may communicate directly with the hon. Gentleman.
Non-Domestic Rating Bill
Monday 22nd May 2023
(11 months, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Non-Domestic Rating Act 2023 View all Non-Domestic Rating Act 2023 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Committee of the whole House Amendments as at 22 May 2023 - (22 May 2023)
18:09 - The Committee divided: - Ayes: 168 / Noes: 282 - Question accordingly negatived.
The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Dame Rosie Winterton)
Before I call the mover of amendment 4, I remind the Committee that, while I am in the Chair, I can be addressed as Madam Chair or Dame Rosie, but not as Madam Deputy Speaker. We always have to remind colleagues of this as we move into Committee.
Peter Aldous (Waveney) (Con)
I beg to move amendment 4, page 1, line 10, at end insert—
“(2A) In section 64 (Hereditaments) of the Act—
(a) omit subsection (2), and
(b) in subsection 4(3), after “subsection” omit “(2)”.
(2B) In section 65 (Owners and occupiers) of the Act—
(a) omit subsection (8), and
(b) omit subsection (8A).”
The intention of this amendment is to abolish liability to non-domestic rates of advertising when a right is granted permitting the use of land for advertising (section 64) or when land is used for advertising or the erection of an advertising structure (section 65).
The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means
With this it will be convenient to consider the following:
Amendment 5, page 3, line 3, leave out “one year” and insert “five years”.
The intention of this amendment is to extend the delay in uplifts to business rate bills.
Clauses 1 to 4 stand part.
Amendment 1, in clause 5, page 16, line 3, leave out from “(b),” to end of line 4 and insert “omit “fifth””.
This amendment would require local non-domestic rating lists to be compiled every year.
Amendment 6, in clause 5, page 16, leave out line 4 and insert “in every fifth” substitute
“no less frequently than in every third”.
The intention of this amendment is to move towards revaluations on local non-domestic rating lists at no more than three-yearly intervals.
Amendment 7, in clause 5, page 16, leave out line 4 and insert
“”on 1 April in every fifth year afterwards”
substitute
“on 1 April 2026 and on 1 April in every year afterwards””.
The intention of this amendment is to move towards annual revaluations on local non-domestic rating lists from April 2026 onwards.
Amendment 2, in clause 5, page 16, leave out line 6 and insert “omit “fifth””.
This amendment would require central non-domestic rating lists to be compiled every year.
Amendment 8, in clause 5, page 16, leave out line 6 and insert ““in every fifth” substitute
“no less frequently than in every third””.
The intention of this amendment is to move towards revaluations on central non-domestic rating lists at no more than three-yearly intervals.
Amendment 9, in clause 5, page 16, leave out line 6 and insert
““on 1 April in every fifth year afterwards”
substitute
“on 1 April 2026 and on 1 April in every year afterwards””.
The intention of this amendment is to move towards annual revaluations on central non-domestic rating lists from April 2026 onwards.
Amendment 3, in clause 5, page 16, leave out lines 12 and 13 and insert—
“(ii) the year beginning on 1 April 2023 and each year beginning 1 April after that date”.
This amendment would make every year from now on a relevant period for transitional provision under the 1988 Act.
Amendment 10, in clause 5, page 16, leave out lines 12 and 13 and insert—
“(ii) the period of three years beginning on 1 April 2023 and each year beginning on 1 April from 1 April 2026 onwards.”
The intention of this amendment is to move towards each single year being the relevant period for transitional provision under the 1988 Act.
Clause 5 stand part.
Amendment 11, in clause 6, page 16, line 15, at end insert—
“(za) in subsection (4), for “different from what it would be” substitute “less than it would be””.
The intention of this amendment is to effectively abolish downwards transition.
Amendment 12, in clause 6, page 16, line 17, at end insert—
“(c) in making these regulations the Secretary of State shall ensure that no ratepayer pays a higher amount in business rates than the amount derived from multiplying the uniform business rate by the property’s rateable value.”
The intention of this amendment is to remove downward transitional phasing.
Clauses 6 to 12 stand part.
Amendment 13, in clause 13, page 21, line 31, leave out “paragraph 4G” and insert “paragraphs 4FA and 4G”.
This is a paving amendment for Amendment 14.
Amendment 14, in clause 13, page 22, line 26, at end insert—
“4FA The definition of a person (“P”) for the purpose of paragraphs 4C to 4E does not include a person who is in receipt of relief of 100 per cent with a chargeable amount of nil.”
The intention of this amendment is exclude businesses who have nothing to pay from the duty to notify HMRC and the VOA.
Amendment 20, in clause 13, page 23, line 35, at end insert—
“4LA Paragraphs 4K and 4L do not apply if P is eligible for small business rate relief (for example, because the rateable value of the hereditament for which P is or would be a ratepayer is less than £15,000).”
This amendment would exempt businesses in receipt of Small Business Rate Relief Exemption from annual reporting if there is no change to report.
Amendment 15, in clause 13, page 27, line 44, at end insert—
“(5A) After paragraph 5ZF (inserted by subsection (5)) insert—
“Rebate in case of failure by valuation officer to provide confirmation
5ZG Where the valuation officer has not provided confirmation to P of a change following a notification by P that will affect the valuation of a hereditament within 60 days of the valuation officer receiving that notification, the total amount of non-domestic rates payable on that hereditament is reduced by—
(a) £100, and
(b) (b) a further £60 for each day until the confirmation is received by P, up to a maximum of £1,800.””
The intention of this amendment is to impose reciprocal penalties on the VOA for failure to notify ratepayers on changes in their rate assessments.
Clause 13 stand part.
Amendment 17, in clause 14, page 32, line 37, at end insert—
“(e) after paragraph 2C insert—
“2D(1) This paragraph applies where—
(a) a hereditament consists wholly or in part of land on which an advertising right is exercisable; and
(b) the right is not severed from the occupation of the land.
(2) For the purposes of determining the rateable values of the hereditament under paragraph 2 above, the rent at which the hereditament might reasonably be expected to be let shall be estimated as if the adverting right did not exist.
(3) In this paragraph “advertising right” means a right to use any land for the purpose of exhibiting advertisements.””
The intention of this amendment is to provide that the rateable value of hereditaments which consist wholly or in part of land on which an advertising right is exercisable to be calculated as though the advertising right does not exist.
Clauses 14 to 18 stand part.
Amendment 18, in clause 19, page 39, line 11, at beginning insert “Subject to subsection (4A)”.
This is a paving amendment for Amendment 19.
Amendment 19, in clause 19, page 39, line 17, at end insert—
“(4A) Section 13 may not be brought into force until at least 6 months after guidance has been published by the Valuation Office Agency on the requirement this Act will place on business ratepayers.”
This amendment is to ensure that guidance is made available to business ratepayers before the duty to notify comes into effect.
Clauses 19 and 20 stand part.
New clause 1—Valuation Office Agency performance targets—
“(1) The Secretary of State must within three months of the date on which this Act is passed prescribe by regulations performance targets for the Valuation Office Agency to respond to requests for updates to the central and local non-domestic rating lists and to challenges to the valuations on those lists.
(2) The Secretary of State may by regulations require the Valuation Office Agency to report at least annually on its performance in such detail as the Secretary of State may require in or by virtue of those regulations.
(3) The Secretary of State must lay before Parliament any reports made under subsection (2).
(4) Any regulations made under this section must be made by statutory instrument and are subject to negative procedure (annulment by either House of Parliament).
(5) Regulations under subsection (1) may not come into force until an impact assessment has been laid before Parliament.”
This new clause would require annual reports from the VOA on its performance against targets to be set by the Secretary of State.
New clause 2— Non-domestic rating: retail sector review—
“(1) The Secretary of State must conduct a review of the effect of non-domestic rateable values on the retail sector.
(2) The review must be commissioned no later than 6 weeks after the date on which this Act is passed.
(3) The review must assess the impact of non-domestic rateable values on competition between different parts of the retail sector, for example—
(a) stand-alone businesses operating from a single shop premises in a village, town or suburban high street setting,
(b) chain stores with multiple premises in city centres and out-of-centre shopping malls, or
(c) mainly online operations based on making deliveries from very large warehouses or fulfilment centres.
(4) The report of the review must be laid before Parliament no later than 1 May 2024.”
This new clause would require a review of the differential impact of business rates on different parts of the retail sector.
New clause 3—Non-domestic rating: hospitality sector review—
“(1) The Secretary of State must conduct a review of the effect of non-domestic rateable values on the hospitality sector.
(2) The review must be commissioned no later than 6 weeks after the date on which this Act is passed.
(3) The review must assess the consistency of approach to setting of non-domestic rateable values between hospitality businesses occupying premises of similar size and trading style, including—
(a) public houses,
(b) restaurants
(c) live performance theatres, and
(d) exhibition spaces.
(4) The report of the review must be laid before Parliament no later than 1 May 2024.”
This new clause would require a review of the differential impact of business rates on different parts of the hospitality sector.
Amendment 25, in schedule, page 47, line 2, at end, insert —
“18A In the Non-Domestic Rating (Alteration of List and Appeals) (England) Regulations 2009 (S.I. 2009/2268), omit regulation 15 (Advertising rights).
18B In the Non-Domestic Rating (Alteration of List and Appeals) (Wales) Regulations 2009 (S.I. 2005/758), omit regulation 15 (Advertising rights).
18C In the Non-Domestic Rating (Miscellaneous Provisions) (No. 2) Regulations 1989 (S.I. 1989/2303), omit regulation 4 (Advertising rights).”
These consequential amendments would be required to remove references to advertising rights following the abolition of liability to non-domestic rating in respect of advertising rights effected by Amendment 4 to Clause 1 of this Bill.
Government amendments 21 to 24.
That the schedule be the schedule to the Bill.
Peter Aldous
I shall start off where I left off in the Bill’s Second Reading debate. By way of background, the Bill is to be welcomed, although it is important that it is viewed as the start of the process of fundamentally reforming business rates and not the endgame. It probably would have been preferable to have heeded the advice of the Chartered Institute of Taxation and for the Government to have brought forward a new consolidated business rates Bill, rather than to amend the Local Government Finance Act 1988. That would have sent the message to businesses both large and small that real change was on the way. However, we are where we are and we must ensure that, ultimately, this Bill paves the way to reducing business rates to an affordable level, putting the business rates system on a long-term, more easily understood footing and removing those barriers to regional growth.
We must have in mind the ultimate end goal, which should be to get the uniform business rate multiplier back down from in excess of 50p in the pound to the more affordable 30p in the pound, which is where we started when the system came in in the early ’90s. To get to that, we need annual valuations, the abolition of the multitude of complicated reliefs and to digitalise the Valuation Office Agency. The Bill moves us in that direction—although perhaps a little too tentatively. Moreover, the duty to notify, which takes up much of the Bill, adds a bureaucratic burden on businesses and there are some unintended consequences that we should avoid. We must have in mind the need at all times for increased transparency. The amendments that I tabled have those considerations in mind.
Any adjustments to the business rates system should be guided by two principles: reducing the regulatory burden on businesses and, as I said, reducing the uniform business rate multiplier. We should look at the Bill with those considerations in mind and aim to move towards a sustainable system that provides a long-term revenue stream that businesses can find bearable, which has not been the case so often in recent years.
A properly functioning property tax system is critical to achieving a vibrant and sustainable economy. For most of this century, an outdated and unresponsive business rates system has placed enormous strain on many businesses, particularly those in the retail and hospitality sectors. Moreover, that strain has not been shared equally across the country. That illustrates how the current system is a hindrance—a logjam—to levelling up. We need non-domestic rates to be more responsive to changes in the economy so as to ensure that the system does not place an undue and unfair strain on businesses. If we can achieve that, we shall be more able to attract long-term investment into our towns and cities, and we shall be better placed to meet other vital policy objectives such as revitalising our high streets and achieving our net zero aims and goals.
Clause 5 relates to the frequency at which revaluations take place.
As I have mentioned, we need to move to the end goal of annual valuations, so that business rates are more in line with the economic outlook. I have tabled amendments 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10 with that objective in mind. To achieve a responsive business rates system, valuations should be carried out as regularly as possible. The Bill is a good first step, and increases valuations from every five to every three years, but it should provide the flexibility for a future Government to require more frequent valuations —ultimately, every year. Annual revaluation could bring bills more in line with commercial property values, rather than lagging many years behind. Even with a three-year list and a two-year antecedent valuation date, occupiers will be paying business rates bills in early 2026 that are based on valuations from nearly five years beforehand.
Annual revaluations are essential if the Government are serious about modernising the business rates system. They take place in countries as diverse as Hong Kong and the Netherlands, and thus there is no reason why they should not take place in England and Wales. To conclude on this issue, the enormous administrative burden placed on ratepayers by the new duty to notify would certainly not be worth the distress and inconvenience it will cause if it does not ultimately result in the introduction of annual revaluations. In that context, I urge the Government to give full consideration to these amendments.
Clause 13 sets out the requirement for ratepayers to provide information—this is the new duty to notify, which, as drafted, places an unnecessary burden on businesses. Amendments 13, 14 and 15 have the objective of reducing that burden and imposing penalties on the Valuation Office Agency.
Amendments 18 and 19 relate to clause 19, and would ensure that guidance is made available to business ratepayers before the duty to notify comes into effect. The new duty to notify will place an onus on all ratepayers to provide the Valuation Office Agency with any information that they reasonably believe could impact on the business rates valuation. This is an enormous additional ask, not least for the 700,000 businesses which, up to now, have not been subject to business rates and might be completely unaware of what is proposed. The duty requires ratepayers to notify the VOA of changes to their properties within a 60-day window, and carries the risk of financial sanctions and even imprisonment if they fail to comply.
As a former chartered surveyor, I cannot see how such a burdensome duty on all commercial property occupiers—including, as I have said, current non-ratepayers—can be justified as necessary to administer a move to three-yearly revaluations. This duty might be bearable for businesses if it assisted the VOA in administering the move to annual revaluations. For small businesses, it will cause more pain than the gain that will be derived from moving to three-yearly valuations.
The new duty will leave many ratepayers wondering what might qualify as a notifiable change. The VOA is yet to publish any guidance; thus many businesses will take no chances and will notify the VOA of any changes to their properties. The VOA will hence be hoist with its own petard, as it will be flooded with paperwork.
As I mentioned on Second Reading, many businesses, particularly small and medium-sized enterprises without any rating expertise, will turn to rogue rating advisers for help. Business rates advisers do not require a licence to practise, and many unscrupulous operators will see the new duty to notify as an opportunity to take advantage of small businesses.
While the ratepayer has a short period in which to notify the VOA of any changes to the property, as the Bill stands, the VOA has no such obligation. It can, in effect, respond to notifications at its leisure. I therefore propose a reciprocal provision that places on the VOA a 60-day timeframe in which to respond to notifications, with rebates to the ratepayer equivalent to the fines set out in clause 13 that accompany a failure to comply.
Clause 6 is a short and simple but nevertheless extremely important clause, which gives effect to the removal of downwards transitional phasing, as announced by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor on 17 November last year in his autumn statement. That was a positive step, but clause 6 as drafted does not permanently remove the threat of downwards phasing, which is a punitive tax that unfairly penalises occupiers whose rateable values have fallen. It is wrong to force those whose property values have fallen to subsidise those whose property values have risen.
The clause as it stands simply removes the requirement for transitional phasing mechanisms to be revenue-neutral. That means that the Government no longer need to fund any upwards transitional mechanism with a corresponding downwards transitional mechanism. However, that means that a downwards mechanism can be easily introduced by a future Government without any parliamentary scrutiny. Amendments 11 and 12 would plug that loophole and permanently abolish downwards transitional phasing. If any future Government want to reintroduce it, they should come to Parliament and make the case for it, rather than bringing it in through the back door.
Amendment 16 would delete clause 14, which, from my perspective, is inequitable and unfair to businesses. As it stands, clause 14 exempts Government legislation from qualifying for the pursuit of a material change of circumstances. That would remove a vital check on Government and would allow future Governments to legislate with impunity at the expense of businesses right across the country, leaving them no recourse to challenge legislation that interferes with their ability to do business.
A material change in circumstances gives ratepayers recourse to pursue relief on their business rates when circumstances outside their control hinder their ability to do business. Clause 14 exempts Government legislation from being a qualifying reason for a material change in circumstances. I anticipate that the Government have included this clause because they want business rates to be a predictable source of revenue, even if their own legislation or action undermines the very rateable value of the properties occupied by businesses.
During the covid lockdown, to prevent the spread of the virus, the Government forced a number of businesses to cease trading. However, instead of accepting that there had been a material change of circumstances for those occupiers and allowing appeals to be launched, the Government introduced a locally administered compensation scheme. With clause 14, the Government are seeking the freedom to introduce any legislation at any time that might alter the rateable value of a property. That is both unprecedented and wrong.
Clause 14 can be viewed as a power grab that sets a dangerous precedent and tells occupiers that they will have to accept the detrimental impact of legislation on their ability to do business, with no legal recourse. Amendment 16 would delete clause 14, restoring the ability of ratepayers to claim a material change of circumstances, regardless of how the change in circumstances arose.
Amendments 4, 5, 17 and 25 would amend and add to clauses 1 and 14 and part 1 of the schedule. They address a niche issue, albeit an extremely important one. The out-of-home advertising industry includes adverts on billboards, walls, digital posters, street furniture, bus shelters, buses and railway stations, which we see every day as we go about our lives and probably take for granted. The industry provides an important form of income for local authorities, and it is estimated that almost half the revenue generated goes back into local communities. These amendments would abolish the liability to non-domestic rating in respect of advertising rights.
The removal of business rates on advertising rights from the rating lists would have three advantages. First, it would increase the value and level of services provided by local authorities. Secondly, it would remove a competitive disadvantage to growth that impacts the out-of-home advertising industry, but that does not apply to its rivals—broadcast, print and online media. Thirdly, it would reduce the high level of inefficiencies relating to advertising rights applied through the Valuation Office Agency, local authorities and the out-of-home advertising industry.
As drafted, the Bill will directly and adversely impact the industry’s ability to invest in local communities. That runs contrary to the Bill’s objective of reducing barriers to business investment. In 2023, business rates charged on advertising rights are an antiquated, out-of-date and ineffective tax. Advertising rights are the only remaining right attracting liability for non-domestic rating. The liability to non-domestic rating in respect of sporting rights was abolished by the Local Government and Rating Act 1997. Amendments 4, 5, 17 and 25 would remove that anomaly.
In conclusion, I have enormous respect for the Minister and for his co-sponsor of the Bill, my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury. Although Treasury Ministers are not currently present on the Front Bench, I am mindful that the Bill has been drafted from a Treasury perspective, gathering in all that money. That is incredibly important—don’t get me wrong—but I suggest we also need to look at the issue through the prism of business.
Whether large, medium-sized or small, businesses need confidence, certainty and a fully reformed business rates system that takes on board some of the amendments I have put forward. A fully reformed system will mean that businesses will know where they stand, and business rates will not be the elephant in the room. People will be able to invest in, build on and expand their businesses with a degree of confidence, leading to increased profits. What that will do—joy to the Treasury—is increase taxation. The Bill makes a start and provides an opportunity for us to turn the vicious circle of business rates into a virtuous circle.
The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I call the shadow Minister.
Sarah Owen (Luton North) (Lab)
As I stated on Second Reading, the Opposition support the measures in the Bill overall because it is crucial that local authorities and businesses have clarity as soon as possible so that they can prepare for what is to come. We have worked constructively to improve the legislation before it gets to them, but the Bill is still lacking in areas that small businesses are crying out for help with.
On Second Reading, I raised the matter of the pressures that small businesses, particularly small chains such as convenience stores, will be under as a result of the intensified reporting requirements. Although it is certainly important to increase accountability for businesses submitting their finances, stakeholder groups such as the Association of Convenience Stores and the Shopkeepers’ Campaign have drawn attention to the stifling impact that the new requirements could have on their businesses. Some small and medium-sized enterprises may resort to outsourcing their account reporting, risking another financial hit in return. We have yet to see the Government addressing those concerns or considering any alternatives.
Helen Morgan (North Shropshire) (LD)
I rise to speak to amendments 1, 2, 3 and 20, as well as new clauses 1 and 2, tabled in my name. I note the excellent speech by the hon. Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous), who tabled amendments with very similar objectives to my own. This Bill is a disappointment to all businesses who are struggling through tough financial conditions. Not only are prices going up for every single purchase that they make, but many small businesses were forced to lock into gas and electricity contracts at astronomical rates last year and are no longer receiving any meaningful support with those energy costs. They may also be struggling with interest rate rises on their borrowings following the period of economic chaos caused by the Government last autumn.
This Government committed to reviewing the system of business rates fundamentally in their 2019 manifesto, but this Bill offers only peripheral changes to an outdated system that does not work for a modern economy. The Bill offers to change the timescale of revaluations from every five years to every three years. This is a welcome reduction, but Liberal Democrats believe that it does not go far enough. The reality for businesses is that a three-year gap between revaluations means that they will continue to pay rates that are far from reflective of the real economic conditions they are operating in. Amendments 1, 2 and 3 would require non-domestic rating lists to be compiled every year and make every year from now on a relevant period for transitional provision under the Local Government Finance Act 1988. Annual revaluations are possible. We only need to look to the Netherlands, where they have been taking place since 1995. There, rateable values are allowed to move with the local economy. This means the tax that businesses are required to pay better reflects the conditions that they face.
I also want to spend a little time on amendment 20, tabled in my name. It is estimated that as a result of the Bill as it stands, 700,000 small businesses who currently pay no business rates at all will need to submit annual reports to the Valuation Office Agency, even when there has been no change to the premises they occupy. These small businesses, like many in North Shropshire, are already plagued by seemingly endless monthly and quarterly Office for National Statistics returns, along with their ongoing tax and financial reporting requirements.
The Bill adds yet another administrative hoop for these businesses to jump through and threatens hefty penalties if forms are completed incorrectly. This piles unnecessary pressure on to small businesses and it will not raise any more tax for public services. These businesses already receive a notification to inform the VOA if there is a material change in their premises, so there is nothing to be gained from this element of the Bill. Amendment 20 attempts to deal with this problem by removing the requirement for annual reporting of no change for those businesses in receipt of small business rate relief. I urge the Minister to support amendment 20, which I intend to push to a vote, and to cut unnecessary red tape for the small businesses we desperately need to help, in order to drive economic growth and breathe new life into the high streets of our historic market towns.
I also wish to speak to new clause 1, tabled in my name. It seems very one-sided to impose punitive fines on businesses for failing to report updates to the VOA on time, without any reciprocal expectations of that agency. As I outlined on Second Reading, dealing with the VOA over changes to a premises can be a protracted affair, and all the time that that is going on, businesses face uncertainty about their rates liability and, critically, cannot plan their cash flow. New clause 1 would require the VOA to report to the Secretary of State on its performance in detail at least once a year. This report should correspond to targets to be set by the Secretary of State. The new clause also calls for the findings of these reports to be laid before Parliament. I have suggested targets, rather than legally binding levels of service, to reflect the fact that no two premises are the same and that updates can be complex and can be challenged, but those targets would at least set an expectation of performance and ensure some accountability for the VOA.
Lastly, I wish to draw attention to new clause 2. I think there is general agreement on both sides of the Committee that we want to see our high streets and market towns thrive. This is especially true in places such as the five historic towns in my North Shropshire constituency, where the local high street is not just a practical place to go to but a social lifeline for many residents. Those high street shops are in competition with online retailers whose warehouse premises have a much lower rateable value per metre squared, putting the high street at a disadvantage. This was confirmed in the Treasury Committee’s “Impact of business rates on business” report in 2019.
Disappointingly, however, the Bill does not take this discrepancy into consideration. Instead, the Government will continue to drain physical retailers through rates that do not reflect the challenges they are already facing, leaving many at a tipping point and struggling to compete on an unfair playing field. New clause 2 would require a review of the impact of non-domestic rateable values on competition in different parts of the retail sector, so that Members could understand the true scale of the issue and inform policy accordingly. This review should be commissioned within six weeks after the date this Act is passed. Overall, I urge Ministers to support these amendments and new clauses in order to improve the Bill, which is just not ambitious enough in fundamentally reforming an out-of-date tax system.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (Lee Rowley)
I am grateful to all colleagues across the Committee for their contributions today. I think all of us spoke on the Bill’s Second Reading, and we have rehearsed the arguments on a number of these points already. It is important to reiterate from the Government Front Bench that this Bill delivers significant reforms for the business rate system. It increases the frequency of revaluations, which I think has been generally welcomed across the Committee today. It also modernises the administration of the tax and it provides new reliefs to support things such as property improvements. Taken along with the nearly £14 billion-worth of taxpayer subsidy for businesses this year, it helps to manage the tax burden amid the ongoing pressures that the hon. Member for North Shropshire (Helen Morgan) mentioned.
I will now turn to the contributions that hon. Members and hon. Friends have made today. My hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous) made an incredibly constructive set of comments, and I completely understand the sentiments behind many of the amendments he has tabled. He set a challenge at the outset of his speech, saying that he is looking to move towards annual valuations, the removal of complications and the adoption of digitalisation. We are making progress in two of those three areas, which I hope is not bad, and he has indicated that, overall, this is a step in the right direction. We are moving from five-yearly valuations—in reality, they have happened every seven or eight years in some instances in recent years, for good reason—to three-yearly valuations. We are moving towards the collection of further digital data, and we are continuing to support businesses, where we can, through the reliefs we have put in place.
Lee Rowley
The hon. Lady is going to tell me exactly where she would find several hundred billion pounds to fill her black hole.
Helen Morgan
Amendment 20 is about cutting red tape for small businesses. Does the Minister agree that he is talking about policy objectives that are not relevant to the Bill?
Lee Rowley
That tells us everything we need to know about the Liberal Democrats. They want to talk about only this Bill, ignoring every other policy. They look one way when talking to one part of the country, and the other way when talking to the other part of the country. That shows the Liberal Democrats’ lack of seriousness in understanding how taxation actually works, in understanding how to run a modern, dynamic market economy and in understanding how we need to pay our way to make sure our economy is successful in the long term. It is for those reasons that we oppose amendment 20.
Peter Aldous
The points I made were genuine. I think this Bill needs to be changed, and I hope the Government will have an open mind in considering whether to do so in the other place. We may well review this situation again.
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 2 to 12 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 13
Requirements for ratepayers etc to provide information
Amendment proposed: 20, on page 23, line 35, at end insert—
“4LA Paragraphs 4K and 4L do not apply if P is eligible for small business rate relief (for example, because the rateable value of the hereditament for which P is or would be a ratepayer is less than £15,000).”—(Helen Morgan.)
This amendment would exempt businesses in receipt of Small Business Rate Relief Exemption from annual reporting if there is no change to report.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Lee Rowley
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
It has been a pleasure to support the progress of this Bill through the House. I do not seek to detain the House for long, but let me say briefly that the Bill offers some of the most substantial reform to the business rates system since its inception in 1990 and meets our commitment to reform and reduce the burden of the tax on business. By moving to more frequent revaluations from 2026, we are delivering on a key ask of business. We have been up-front with the House and with businesses that meeting this commitment is a major ask, which is why we have made some changes to the way ratepayers interact with the Valuation Office Agency. That principle was accepted by respondents to the review that predated this legislation.
Our approach has been to listen and to take appropriate action. I have already mentioned the evidence-based approach that we adopted in that review and the close dialogue that we foster with our partners in business and local government. We are also taking action to reform transitional relief, which was the No. 1 one ask from stakeholders on business rates ahead of the 2023 revaluation. That is a major commitment, a major step to supporting fairness and a major improvement in the credibility of our business rates system.
Finally, we are happy to have agreed to the Welsh Government’s request for various measures to be extended to Wales, and also to be supporting Northern Ireland with a data sharing measure.
I conclude by expressing my thanks to all Members for their contributions on Second Reading and in today’s debates. Although we have not agreed on everything, this has been a useful and constructive session. I am grateful to the Clerks of the House for supporting the smooth running of the Bill and to all of the teams across the Department and those in the Treasury, His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs and the Valuation Office Agency for their help in preparing the Bill. I look forward to watching the Bill’s progress in the other place, and I commend it to the House.
Sarah Owen
Throughout the condensed debate on this Bill, it has become clear that, although well meant, this was a missed opportunity to do better—to do more for businesses across the country. Yet again, the Government have managed to miss the point, despite multiple people, even from their own Benches, trying to guide this legislation into a better place.
A step in the right direction could and should have been a leap. This was a chance to provide businesses with more than short-term sticking plaster fixes. Instead, we see small businesses worrying over the administrative burden of meeting the new duty to notify requirements and questioning what hefty punishments will be handed down for any genuine errors. The hon. Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous) quite rightly pointed out that they include even imprisonment.
The Federation of Small Businesses, the shopkeepers, the corner shops, the Association of Convenience Stores—the backbone of many of our urban and rural communities —have all voiced their concerns. Those concerns have been echoed by Members from all parts of the House, but have sadly fallen on the deaf ears of this Government.
However, there has been some agreement in these debates—that the current outdated, dysfunctional business rates system is not fit for purpose. The only difference is that the Government continue to tinker around the edges while Labour would scrap it root and branch. That is what small and medium-sized enterprises have spent years lobbying for.
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 that Conservative Ministers have had neither the will nor the ability 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 home-grown small and medium-sized businesses to thrive in our retail sector.
Among the common-sense reforms that we put forward was to provide short-term support by raising the threshold for small business rates relief this financial year. As I have said previously, raising the threshold to £25,000 would save our high streets more than £1 billion. This support is not only what small local businesses need, but what our high streets and towns are crying out for.
I know that Small Business Saturday takes place just once a year nationally, but it is something I do in Luton North nearly every Saturday. I meet entrepreneurs, small businesses, innovators and creators in my town who are doing amazing things in our community, with our community and for the good of our community. Every Small Business Saturday shout-out that I do is to celebrate them and their contribution to our local economy. I know the very real difference it would make to them and to every small business across the country if we raised the threshold of business rates relief to £25,000 now, and ultimately if we did away with the outdated and unfair current business rates system altogether.
I genuinely hope that that the small steps in the right direction made today can be built on and improved in the future by a Government of whatever political stripe—hopefully a red one. We must stem the decline of our high streets and tip the tax balance between digital and physical businesses. We cannot continue to see high street shops boarding up their windows while online giants get away without paying their fair share.
Lastly, I thank every hon. Member who has spoken, including the Minister, I thank the Clerks and I thank the stakeholders, who have briefed well and lobbied fairly on behalf of their members’ interests.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.
Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Bill (Programme) (No. 2)
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83A(7)),
That the following provisions shall apply to the Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Bill for the purpose of supplementing the Order of 16 January 2023 (Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Bill: Programme):
(1) Proceedings on Consideration of Lords Amendments shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion two hours after their commencement.
(2) The Lords Amendments shall be considered in the following order: 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 3.
Subsequent stages
(3) Any further Message from the Lords may be considered forthwith without any Question being put.
(4) The proceedings on any further Message from the Lords shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement.—(Mike Wood.)
Question agreed to.
Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Bill
Monday 22nd May 2023
(11 months, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Act 2023 View all Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Act 2023 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Commons Consideration of Lords Amendments as at 22 May 2023 - (22 May 2023)
20:14 - The House divided: - Ayes: 288 / Noes: 227 - Question accordingly agreed to.
20:28 - The House divided: - Ayes: 286 / Noes: 231 - Question accordingly agreed to.
20:40 - The House divided: - Ayes: 286 / Noes: 232 - Question accordingly agreed to.
20:51 - The House divided: - Ayes: 287 / Noes: 232 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Kevin Hollinrake)
I beg to move, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 1.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Lords amendment 2, and Government motion to disagree.
Lords amendment 4, and Government motion to disagree.
Lords amendment 5, and Government motion to disagree.
Lords amendment 6, and Government motion to disagree.
Lords amendment 7, and Government motion to disagree.
Lords amendment 3.
Kevin Hollinrake
This Bill was introduced with the intention of balancing the ability to strike with the rights and freedoms of the public, by applying minimum service levels on strike days to protect the lives and livelihoods of the public. We should not ignore the fact that the economic costs of these strikes have been estimated at around £3 billion, and much of that impact falls on business sectors that are already facing difficulties, such as the hospitality sector.
The Bill brings the UK into line with many other countries: Spain and France have statutory minimum service levels in ambulance services and they also, along with Belgium, have statutory minimum service levels in fire services. In some countries, such as the United States of America, Australia and Canada, some services are prohibited from taking any strike action altogether. However, the Government are not suggesting we go that far.
Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)
In the European countries the Minister mentioned where there is minimum service provision, is it not the case that that minimum service provision is agreed by negotiation, and that workers there do not get sacked for striking?
Kevin Hollinrake
All jurisdictions differ, and the way that minimum service levels are set differ. Some are set by the Government; we have done that, through consultation with stakeholders, and we will decide what the right level of minimum service will be. All jurisdictions differ somewhat, but the key point is that in many jurisdictions there are restrictions placed on the ability to strike.
David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)
On the issue of stakeholders and jurisdictions, may I turn the Minister’s attention to the devolved Administrations? The SNP Scottish Government have been crystal clear in their opposition to this tawdry piece of legislation. In the interests of the UK Government’s respect agenda when it comes to the devolved jurisdictions, why are they ploughing ahead with this Bill that drives a coach and horses through the fundamental human right to withdraw one’s labour?
Kevin Hollinrake
I will deal with that question in a second; it is covered by one of the Lords amendments that I will speak to, so I will address it when I come to the element of my speech relating to the devolved Administrations.
The Bill returns to us with a number of amendments made in the other place. I would like to be clear that, with the exception of our own Lords amendment 3, the Government consider the majority of the changes to be designed to make the Bill either less effective or entirely ineffective in achieving its aims. The Government will therefore be disagreeing with those amendments.
I will speak first to Lords amendment 3, which was tabled by my colleague Lord Callanan in the other place and provides clarity in respect of the matters to which an employer must not have regard in respect of trade union membership and activities when deciding whether to identify a person in a work notice. The amendment addresses a point raised by the Joint Committee on Human Rights in its report on the Bill.
Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)
The Minister and I have had some correspondence about the Bill in my capacity as Chair of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, but can he not see that many of the concerns we expressed in our report on the Bill are echoed by the amendments that the Lords have brought, and also by organisations such as the TUC and the Equality and Human Rights Commission? Why is he not giving them more weight?
Kevin Hollinrake
At times in life we have to agree to disagree, do we not? The Government feel that the Bill strikes a balance, but the hon. and learned Lady does not, and I respect her opinion. I studied carefully the letter she sent me and I responded to it.
Joanna Cherry
I am not talking about the report of the Joint Committee on Human Rights alone; I am saying that many of our concerns are widely supported by other groups such as the EHRC, the TUC and, now, the majority of their lordships. Will the Minister not reconsider the response he gave to my Committee’s report?
Kevin Hollinrake
Of course we have considered those concerns, and we considered the amendments in the other place. We feel that what we are proposing with this legislation strikes the right balance. I fully accept that the hon. and learned Lady disagrees with that position.
Mike Amesbury (Weaver Vale) (Lab)
Is it not the case that the Government’s own, belated, impact assessment suggests that the Bill is ineffective? It is just unworkable. In fact, I think both the Secretary of State for Education and the Transport Secretary have said the same. The Bill will just make matters considerably worse in terms of industrial relations.
Kevin Hollinrake
That is not what has been said, and I disagree with that perspective. The fact that other jurisdictions and other nations use this approach to making sure there are minimum service levels to protect the public, their lives and their livelihoods is indicative that it is the right thing to do. Indeed, as the hon. Gentleman knows, derogations exist in parts of our public services that do exactly what we are requiring services to do with minimum service levels; it is just that they do not work effectively all the time.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
The Minister finds himself in an isolated position. At the Health and Social Care Committee on 9 May, NHS Providers, NHS Employers and NHS Confederation all said that the Bill was incredibly unhelpful and that additional legislation could make things more difficult, rather than improving the situation. Sir Julian Hartley, the chief executive officer of NHS Providers, said so. Why is the Minister going against the employers, not just the trade unions?
Kevin Hollinrake
We do not see that as being the case and we do not agree with that position. We think the Bill is effective and that it is the right thing to do to make sure that people can go about their daily lives unhindered, without fear or concerns about not being able to access vital public services.
I turn next to Lords amendment 1, which changes the application of the Bill from the whole of Great Britain to England only. The amendment would mean that strike action would continue to have disproportionate impacts on the public in Wales and Scotland. As the Government have always maintained, the purpose and substance of the Bill is to regulate employment rights and duties and industrial relations in specified services. Industrial relations is clearly a reserved matter and therefore we consider it right and appropriate to apply the legislation to the whole of Great Britain.
I also point out that the employer has statutory discretion on whether to issue a work notice ahead of the strike, specifying the workforce required to achieve the minimum service level. We hope that all employers will issue work notices to ensure that minimum service levels are achieved where it is necessary to do so. Employers must consider any contractual, public law or other legal duties that they have.
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)
The Lords passed an extremely sensible amendment asking the Government simply to consult before they go further with this legislation. To give an example of why consultation is needed in my constituency, there is no such thing as a minimum service for air traffic controllers. In effect, that means that the Government are barring air traffic controllers from ever taking industrial action. Those sorts of consultations need to take place before the Government, as others have said, inflame the industrial relations climate in this country.
Kevin Hollinrake
As the right hon. Gentleman knows, we have already consulted. Those consultations closed around the middle of May. We will obviously look carefully at all the submissions made; it is important that we do. Ministers—I have one sat next to me: the Minister of State, Department for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Huw Merriman)—will make sure that stakeholder submissions are properly taken into account.
Several hon. Members rose—
Kevin Hollinrake
I will make some progress. Lords amendment 2 would require a consultation be carried out and reviewed before use was made of the power to make regulations setting minimum service levels. The primary stated motivation for tabling the amendment was to increase parliamentary scrutiny of the regulations implementing minimum service levels. Although there may be some merit to the intentions behind the amendment, it is, in the Government’s view, duplicative, and would ultimately delay the implementation of the policy. For those reasons, we disagree with it.
I turn to Lords amendments 4 and 5, and the associated tidying amendments, Lords amendments 6 and 7. In the Government’s view, the amendments were tabled to make the Bill inoperable.
Janet Daby (Lewisham East) (Lab)
Will the Minister explain how the legislation complies with all International Labour Organisation conventions?
Kevin Hollinrake
We believe that it does. The ILO endorses the use of minimum service levels to make sure that the provision of public services is maintained during periods of industrial action. We are happy with our position on that.
We resist Lords amendments 4 to 7 on the principle that the Government have a duty to pass effective legislation. It is regrettable that Opposition Lords have sought to undermine that principle. Lords amendment 4 would mean that there were no consequences for a worker who did not comply with a work notice. The Government disagree with the amendment, as without those consequences, employers would be powerless to manage instances of non-compliance, and strikes would continue to have a disproportionate impact on the public. That would severely undermine the effectiveness of the legislation. Given that the amendment would make the Bill ineffective, as I suspect the Opposition intended, the Government cannot support it.
Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)
It looks as though the unelected House has a better understanding of what happens in the workplace than the Government do; that should worry the Minister. Can he name other countries where a worker could be dismissed in such circumstances?
Kevin Hollinrake
In some countries, such as those I referred to earlier, strikes are banned completely for those working for some blue light services. We already have that situation in the UK for the armed forces, prison officers and the police. There would be a breach of contract if people in those positions were to strike.
Kevin Hollinrake
I will make progress, if I may. Lords amendment 5 also seeks to make the Bill inoperable. It would mean that there were no legal consequences for a union that induced people to go on strike when they had been identified, through a work notice, as needing to work, or for a union that failed to take reasonable steps to ensure that their members complied with work notices. The amendment would mean that unions had no responsibility for ensuring that their members did not participate in strike action and attended work if named in a work notice.
Bob Seely (Isle of Wight) (Con)
Minimum service levels are entirely sensible; it is an idea whose time has come, and it shows that we support the working people in this country, unlike the Opposition parties. On the awfulness of Lords amendment 5, given that we have here the Minister of State, Department for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Huw Merriman), I wanted to ask this. Secondary legislation will be used to decide which industries are to be covered by the measures. The Bill is particularly targeted at rail, but I would like at some point to have a conversation with the Minister about including the Solent ferries. They are truly a lifeline service, because unless my constituents fancy swimming the Solent, they do not have an alternative to ferries, whereas people have an alternative to rail and other services.
Kevin Hollinrake
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that point. He has raised it with me offline. I am of course very happy to have a proper discussion with him about that, and I know that Transport Ministers would also be happy to.
Alan Brown
On making unions responsible for forcing workers to comply with work notices, does the Minister not understand that unions work for and on behalf of their members, and reflect their wishes? If their members wish to go on strike, how is it just or moral to force unions to make their workers break that strike?
Kevin Hollinrake
There is a balance to be struck, and what I think is just and moral is ensuring that public services are maintained. That is the balance that we are trying to ensure. We are not at all saying that people cannot strike; we are saying that a minimum service level should be maintained during the strike.
Lords amendment 5 would mean that there were no consequences for trade unions that failed to meet their responsibilities. If we remove the consequences for trade unions that fail to take reasonable steps, we will be far less likely to achieve minimum service levels, as trade unions might attempt to persuade workers not to comply with work notices, and to take strike action instead.
Angela Rayner (Ashton-under-Lyne) (Lab)
Let me start by drawing the attention of the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Interests, which reflects the fact that I am a proud trade unionist, and have been for a very long time. As the Minister outlined, today we return to the Conservatives’ sacking nurses Bill because the other place has reached the same conclusion as us: this Bill is as unworkable as it is unnecessary. It is not just an almighty, anti-democratic attack on working people, but a threadbare Bill that does not stand up to a shred of scrutiny. Today we consider a number of Lords amendments.
Let me be clear: Labour Members oppose this Bill in its entirety, and we stand ready to repeal it when in government. That said, we thank Members of all parties in the other place who made the thoughtful and sensible amendments that we are considering tonight. They do not solve all of the very long list of issues with this legislation, but they take the sting out of its worst elements to a significant extent. For that reason, Labour Members will reject all attempts by the Government to remove the amendments.
This evening, we will hear a raft of excuses for the Bill, and for why we cannot uphold the Lords amendments. We will hear that the Bill is about protecting public safety—well, I don’t know; there are not many Government Members here and willing to defend it. We will hear that Government Members all want minimum service levels all the time, but it is Tory Ministers who are failing to provide the minimum service levels that we need in our public services.
Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough) (Lab)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that nurses are taking action in order to protect patients? We hear continually about cases in which there are only two nurses on a night shift, trying to manage a ward of 30 patients. Is that not evidence that nurses are taking action because they have been pushed to the brink? Are they not doing the right thing by holding the Government to account through their actions?
Angela Rayner
I absolutely agree. I worked alongside my hon. Friend on workers’ rights for many years. I was a care worker for many years, and had to take industrial action once. People, especially in public service, do not do that lightly. The nurses’ union took its first ever industrial action recently. We have seen an unprecedented amount of strike action, and there is an absolute crisis in vacancy numbers in our public services because of this Government. The real risk and danger to public services at the moment is from this Conservative Government. After 13 years in office, they have really run down our public services, and they are not listening to the people who are trying to deliver those services.
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)
Does the right hon. Member agree that one of the most frustrating things about the Bill, which appears to be totally ineffective, is that the minimum service levels that it sets out are very often not met in normal working times?
Angela Rayner
The hon. Member makes a crucial point, which I was trying to make to the Minister: on non-strike days, minimum service levels do not apply at the moment. Many of the people providing our public services are absolutely screaming at the Government, “We need more people working in those services. We are having record vacancies. We are having people leave the profession because of the mismanagement by this Conservative Government.” Take our fire and rescue services: how does the closure of 80 fire stations across the UK keep the public and our brave firefighters safe? Take our precious NHS: how does having 7.3 million patients left on waiting lists keep people safe? And take our overstretched schools: how do record teacher vacancies keep our children safe?
Janet Daby
Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Regulatory Policy Committee’s opinion, published on 21 February, red-rated the Government’s impact assessment for the Bill as “not fit for purpose”? Does she agree that, in fact, it is the Government who are not fit to govern?
Angela Rayner
I absolutely agree. How will threatening key workers with the sack in the middle of an unprecedented recruitment and retention crisis do anything to provide the level of services that the public deserve?
We will also hear tonight that the Bill brings us into line with international standards, but what does the Minister have to say to the ILO’s director general who slammed down the Bill in January? The Minister did not effectively answer the questions that were put to him during his opening statement. What does he say to President Biden’s labour Secretary, who also raised concerns?
We are going to hear that the Bill is the only way to bring strikes to a close. We are now in May and there is no end in sight to the current wave of industrial action, harming the public, small businesses and, not to mention, the workers who lose a day’s pay. Might I give the Minister some friendly advice? Strikes are ended by getting round the table, not by insulting the very workers who kept the country going during the depths of the pandemic.
The Bill is one of the most sinister attacks on working people I have seen, and I speak as a trade unionist, an employer and a Member of this House. It gives Ministers the power to threaten every nurse, firefighter, health worker, rail worker or paramedic with the sack. Other Government Members wanted even more people to be in scope. I do not think they want anybody anywhere to have trade union rights in this country. This is being done at their whim. They have literally gone from clapping nurses to sacking nurses.
In the words of my noble Friend Baroness O’Grady, Lords amendment 4 is about
“the individual freedoms, dignity and livelihoods of workers.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 26 April 2023; Vol. 829, c. 1242.]
Labour is proud to support that amendment. We ask any Government Member—there are not many of them here—who believes in the right to protection from unfair dismissal to vote with us tonight.
We also stand by the provision in Lords amendment 4 to require employers to serve work notices and to prove that individuals have received them. The Government’s proposal not only threatens workers, but burdens employers, including our overstretched public services and small businesses. That only goes to show the Bill’s complete unworkability and proves the point of all employers who have condemned it.
The Bill also represents an almighty attack on trade unions—unions made up of ordinary working men and women. We are all grown up enough to acknowledge the integral role they play in our economy and our democracy. I think we can all agree that attempts to attack their ability to represent their members is morally, economically and democratically wrong. In its original form, the Bill would require them to take “reasonable steps” to ensure compliance work with notices, without any clarity on what that means. The Government have effectively conceded the flaws in their drafting of the Bill in their concession on Lords amendment 3. That is welcome, but not enough. The Minister asks us to vote tonight for vague and unclear wording that gives us no idea of what they actually require trade unions to do. So we will vote to keep Lords amendment 5 and by extension, Lords amendments 6 and 7.
Alan Brown
The right hon. Lady has not really mentioned Lords amendment 1, although I note that she said that Labour Members would vote to retain it, and that is welcome. Given that Lords amendment 1 would limit the territorial extent to England, does that mean that Labour now recognises the need to fully devolve employment law to Scotland to completely protect us from Westminster?
Angela Rayner
We want a Labour Government for the whole United Kingdom, but we also appreciate Lords amendment 1 and the devolved powers. We believe in devolution. We were the party of devolution. We were the ones who gave devolution because we absolutely believe in it, but we also believe that we need a Labour Government to get rid of the Conservative Government in Westminster so that we can change the whole United Kingdom for the better.
Another one of the most troubling aspects of the Bill has been the profound lack of scrutiny. The Bill presents the Secretary of State with huge and unchecked powers to set, impose and police minimum service levels and to amend, repeal and revoke primary legislation. This is about not just laws that the Government already have passed, but even those we pass in the future, yet we have no real idea why they would need that power nor how they intend to use it.
Where there has been measly scrutiny, the wide-ranging consensus has been that the Bill is a total disaster. The Regulatory Policy Committee called it “not fit for purpose”. The Equality and Human Rights Commission and the Joint Committee on Human Rights sounded the alarm. The impact assessment was also published late, finding that this legislation could lead to more industrial action and have unknown knock-on consequences. Consultations have been launched in a haphazard way and only for certain sectors, without any explanation. There has been no meaningful consultation on the Bill as a whole, not least with the very people that it will have an impact on. If the Government had nothing to hide, they should have nothing to fear. Labour Members will vote to keep Lords amendment 2 and to protect the democratic scrutiny that the House is meant to provide.
There are serious concerns about what the Bill will mean for devolution. I have mentioned the unprecedented Henry VIII powers, which allow Ministers to make decisions about services that are entirely run by the devolved Administrations, including the elected Governments of Wales and Scotland. The Bill sets a dangerous precedent, using powers reserved to Westminster in one area of law to interfere in other areas that have been devolved. Perhaps the Minister has noticed that the Welsh Senedd and the Scottish Parliament have refused legislative consent. There has been no attempt to seriously engage with them or with devolved Administrations with powers over sectors listed in the Bill, including not just London, but my patch of Greater Manchester. This is a question not of changing the devolution settlement, but of defending it from the threat of the Bill. That is why we will vote to uphold Lords amendment 1.
This is one of the worst pieces of legislation in modern times, and looking over the last 13 years, that says a lot. But it is not just Labour Members who think that. The Bill has been widely and routinely condemned by: the Regulatory Policy Committee; the Equality and Human Rights Commission; the Joint Committee on Human Rights; NHS providers; the rail industry; the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development; the CEO of the confederation of recruitment companies; the CEO of the NHS Confederation; President Biden’s labour Secretary; the ILO; all UK trade unions; the TUC; the Welsh and Scottish Governments; the former Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for North East Somerset (Mr Rees-Mogg); the right hon. Member for Stevenage (Stephen McPartland); the Transport Secretary; the Education Secretary—what a shambles! If it was not so serious, it would be a joke. This is from a Government who are desperately trying to distract from the 13 years of their own failings and who are playing politics with key workers’ lives.
The Bill is shoddy, unworkable and unnecessary. For the sake of every nurse, teacher and firefighter across the UK, and for the sake of our British democratic institutions, I urge the whole House to join us in supporting the thoughtful and sensible amendments from the other place and to vote down the Government’s vindictive motions tonight.
Alan Brown
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. It is a pleasure to follow the shadow Minister, the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner). I agree with what she said, and I welcome her comments on devolution protecting the devolved Parliaments. I also welcome the commitment from Labour to repeal this legislation if it is in Government, but I would point out that there have already been a number of Labour U-turns recently, and now we have heard the mantra that Labour is not going to be in power to do the job of repealing nasty Tory legislation, so there is a concern that Labour will not do what its representatives have promised at the Dispatch Box. It is also amazing that in an earlier intervention from the Tory Benches, we heard the mantra that the Tories are the party of workers. The party of workers will not even have one Back-Bench contribution to today’s debate on the Lords amendments—that is how interested they are in the workers in reality.
Mary Kelly Foy (City of Durham) (Lab)
I rise this evening as a proud trade unionist, proud to declare my interest as a member of two great unions—Unite and Unison—and proud to represent a constituency that is at the heart of the labour movement. I know that every single worker who marches in the Durham miners’ gala will be opposed to this Bill, which is autocratic, undemocratic and unworkable. It is autocratic because it gives enormous powers to the Secretary of State through Henry VIII powers, reducing Parliament’s role to a rubber stamp. It is undemocratic because it is another poorly written Bill rushed through Parliament that will undoubtedly see the intervention of the courts after Royal Assent. It is unworkable because trade unions and their members will not accept this blatant attack on their rights, and nor should they.
Since the Combination Act 1799, the party on the Government Benches has tried to suppress working people’s rights, but it has never succeeded in that, and it never will. The right to strike is a fundamental human right that goes hand in hand with freedom of association. History shows us that working people are never afraid to challenge an oppressive Government. We have seen that in the recent wave of industrial action, where workers are prepared to fight for decent pay, against poverty wages, for secure jobs and for their communities. They will continue, whether or not this Bill becomes law, and the public will be on their side.
Ministers could have used this time to negotiate with trade unions, tackling the real causes of industrial unrest. Instead, they have wasted Parliament’s time with a Bill that the Joint Committee on Human Rights has said falls short of human rights obligations. Amendments made in the other place have sought to put flesh on this skeleton Bill—amendments that the Government will reject this evening.
It is disgraceful that this Bill seeks to undermine devolution using Henry VIII powers. I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Beth Winter) on her amendment in Committee, and I welcome the amendments from the other place. The British Government should not be interfering in areas where they have no responsibility. It will simply deepen the divide between London and the devolved Governments, and it is a joke that Ministers talk about public safety during strikes when the Bill itself does not even mention safety. It is all just a smokescreen to attack workers’ rights even further.
On the Government’s watch, austerity has removed 20% of firefighters since 2010, making all our lives less secure. It is the same with nurses. Tens of thousands left the job they love just last year, and now the Government want to make nurses’ lives and the lives of millions of other workers even harder. Why are Ministers not tackling the causes of this issue—the cost of living crisis that is making the lives of my constituents a misery?
David Linden
It is a pleasure to be called in this debate, and it is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for City of Durham (Mary Kelly Foy). I am glad that she touched on point that any future Labour Government would repeal this Act. I am just struck, as was my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Alan Brown), by the quote from the right hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy), who said:
“We can’t come into office, picking through all the conservative legislation and repealing it… It would take up so much parliamentary time. We need a positive agenda.”
If a positive agenda is not standing up for the principle of human rights and democracy, I do not know what is. Perhaps when the Labour Front Bencher sums up at the conclusion of the debate, they will outline exactly how quickly this Bill will be repealed from the statute book, as well as anti-trade union legislation more generally.
As others have done, I declare an interest. I am a member of the Unite trade union, which opposes this Bill, and I am happy to stand in solidarity with it. We are very much beyond the looking glass when it takes Members of the House of Lords to be the people standing up for the principles of democracy and human rights; none the less, I thank their lordships for the amendments they have made to the Bill.
As I was sitting here listening to the Minister opening the debate, I found it rather ironic that we are discussing minimum service levels when the Conservative party’s Back Benchers have literally not turned up for this debate. Other than Bill and Ben, the PPS flower pot men, there are literally no other Conservative MPs here to scrutinise this legislation. If the Government want to talk about minimum service levels, let us have Conservative MPs who campaigned for Brexit by talking about Parliament taking back control coming here to talk about the horrific Henry VIII powers that give unprecedented power to a Secretary of State who would be completely out of control.
My hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun mentioned that statistically, when we look at the amount of industrial action that has happened across these islands, Scotland has had the lowest. That is because we take a partnership approach with trade unions. Yes, there are times when the Scottish Government and local authorities in Scotland will have difficult conversations with trade unions, but by and large we understand that the best way to resolve those disputes is to come to the table, not to use legislation as a way of trying to strike down the trade unions and to big up the likes of Mick Lynch and Sharon Graham as some sort of bogeyman or Grinch. That is exactly what this Bill is designed to do. It is designed to be a wedge issue for the next general election, and that is why it is so important that Labour Members stand up and oppose this Bill, even if they cannot stand on picket lines.
Lords amendment 1 relates to the principle of devolution. I was certainly heartened by what we heard earlier about the opposition to Lords amendment 1, but the reality is that First Minister Humza Yousaf, First Minister Mark Drakeford in Wales and the Governments in both Wales and Scotland have outlined their absolute opposition to this Bill, which we consider to be an affront to democracy and to the basic fundamental human right to withdraw one’s labour. That is one reason I would like to see employment law devolved to the Administrations in Edinburgh and Cardiff. It is good enough for Northern Ireland. Let us not forget that because of the territorial application of this Bill, we will find ourselves in the ridiculous situation where healthcare staff who go on strike in Scotland, England and Wales will be subject to the sack, whereas people in Northern Ireland who choose to use their fundamental human right to withdraw their labour will not. For a Government who talk about how important the Union is and how important it is that we do not have divergence of policy, this does rather fly in the face of that argument.
Tonight we will vote against all the Government’s motions on the Lords amendments they are opposing, but when the Bill goes back to the other place, I urge their lordships to hold firm against this Government. They should not give in, because Parliament was told we would be taking back control, and all we are seeing is a Government running out of control and running roughshod over some of our most basic rights. Of course, we were told Brexit was all about strengthening employment rights. The Government talk about that, but what they have brought forward is this tawdry Bill, which once again tramples all over people, just as Thatcher tried to do.
The warning to people in Scotland is that, for so long as they continue to have Conservative Governments they did not vote for—indeed, they have not voted for them since 1955—they will continue to get legislation that tramples on workers’ rights. The only way to protect our Parliament and to protect our workers’ rights is with the powers of independence, not Tories whom we did not elect.
Christine Jardine
I rise to support the Lords amendments and to oppose the Government’s intention of rejecting them. I am no longer a trade union member, but I was, so a lot of this Bill offends my belief in the right of the individual to withdraw their labour and the rights of the trade unions.
Lords amendments 4 and 5 would tackle the unfair obligation on the trade unions to ensure that members comply with a work notice. The thought of sacking anyone for going on strike is particularly difficult for me, because I actually have experience of that. I have experience of my husband being sacked, in 1989-90 in Aberdeen, because he went on strike. I know the damage it did to us and to a lot of people’s careers. To take away the right to object to what people believe is an unfair practice or to ask for better pay is, to me, a contravention of rights that people have fought long and hard for in this country. So I will be voting no on those two motions, as will the other Liberal Democrats.
On Lords amendment 1—
Alan Brown
The hon. Member is coming on to Lords amendment 1, and I hope she will support that amendment on the Bill’s territorial extent. Has she had time to think further about the earlier point that the logical extension of the Liberal Democrats supporting amendment 1 is the devolution of employment law to Scotland?
Christine Jardine
I thank the hon. Member for his intervention, but remind him that we are here to discuss this Bill and its implications, which are very serious. Yet again, there is an attempt to divert us on to the constitutional issue, which in this particular instance is not appropriate. Yes, I will be voting against—
Christine Jardine
Not at the moment, thank you. I have not actually finished speaking—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Order. For the sake of clarity, may I say that the hon. Lady is absolutely right? This is a very narrow debate on these Lords amendments.
Christine Jardine
Thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker.
I will tell the House exactly how we are going to vote: we will vote no on the Government motion to disagree with Lords amendment 1. Like the Labour party, we are very proud of the devolution settlement in Scotland and the achievement of devolution in Scotland and in Wales, which I would remind SNP Members they actually opposed at the time. They campaigned against it, because they were in favour of independence and did not want devolution, so the commission did not involve them. But that is not what we are here to talk about. We are here to talk about this Bill.
Christine Jardine
No, thank you.
The Bill is fundamentally flawed, not least in the fact that it will do nothing to address the current shortfalls in employment in the public sector. It will do nothing to protect the rights of patients in hospitals, which as the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner) said, are what the nurses who have been on strike are seeking to protect. It will do nothing to help them.
The arguments against this Bill were rehearsed thoroughly on Second Reading, and I do not want to spend too much time going through them again, but I pay tribute to the Lords for their amendments, which do go some way to addressing the failings that so many of us identified on Second Reading. The Liberal Democrats will be voting no to the Government’s attempts to reject the Lords amendments, because they would improve what is a flawed—I believe, fundamentally flawed—Bill.
Sam Tarry (Ilford South) (Lab)
In its original form, this Bill represented what many call a sackers charter, because it was a mishmash of unworkable draconian assault on workers’ rights. I would say it is one of the biggest setbacks for workers’ rights in generations. If it passes, it will shackle trade unions, ordinary workers and a whole list of people struggling for fair wages in so many sectors of our economy. It will place unacceptable restrictions on the fundamental right for workers to withdraw their labour, and to defend their and their colleagues’ pay, which at the moment mostly seems to mean defending themselves from the Government’s inability to offer fair pay rises in so much of our public sector.
Worst of all, particularly in a sector such as the railways, the Bill will worsen industrial relations, create more delays on rail and create a worse situation for passengers. It will worsen industrial relations overall. I note that one union did successfully get a decent pay rise, because the Government clearly could not stomach the fight with it. It was our beloved firefighters who did actually get a decent raise out of this Government.
This Bill is anti-democratic because it gives the Secretary of State enormous power to define and introduce minimum service requirements. It is draconian because, in its original form, workers could be sacked for participating in industrial action supported through their own democratic processes. By the way, with trade unions facing enormous damages, we should bear in mind that they are the biggest voluntary organisation movement in this country, with more than 6 million people, and the majority of the reps do not get a single penny for the trade union work they do.
The Bill is also counterproductive, because the Government’s own analysis says that minimum service levels could lead to more strikes and more non-strike industrial action—in other words, action short of strike—so what on earth is the point of going ahead with it? It is unnecessary to its very core, because it is already custom and practice, especially in the NHS and the blue light services, for cover to be agreed by unions during industrial disputes.
Rachael Maskell
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way on that very point, because I used to negotiate those deals with employers when I was head of health at Unite. Those negotiations are about the relationship that we build between the employer and the worker, but that will not be possible under the Bill, which is why employers have asked that it does not proceed.
Sam Tarry
My hon. Friend makes a very good point. When we cast around for anybody actually supporting the Bill who is not a Minister or on the Conservative Benches, we struggle to find anyone. In fact, the Rail Safety and Standards Board chief executive has said nobody thinks this is workable and that it will worsen industrial action. The chief executive of Greater Anglia, who is obviously involved in the railway industry, has said nobody —nobody—in the whole of the rail industry has even asked for this. Then, as we heard from my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner) and many other Members who have spoken, there are the condemnations from the ILO general secretary.
This attack on rights is making our country an international laughing stock. The Government have said many times that the Bill matches or is very similar to some of the minimum service level processes in many other countries, but there is not a single person in Europe saying this is good idea, because it is not anything like what is in place in comparable countries around the world—not at all. One in five workers could be covered by this Bill’s provisions. They are the nurses, firefighters, teachers, paramedics, rail workers, civil servants and key workers the Government praised during the pandemic, who are all at risk of arbitrary dismissal. What a slap in the face for the heroes we clapped for weeks on end during the pandemic.
Let me turn to Lords amendment 4, on unfair dismissal. Currently, workers who are on strike are automatically deemed to be unfairly dismissed if they are sacked when taking part in an official, lawful strike. The Bill as introduced would remove that protection for those named by an employer in a work notice. It would mean that someone disciplined for not following a work notice could lose their job and then their livelihood. Lords amendment 4 is much fairer. It would reverse that measure and prevent the failure to comply with a work notice from being regarded as a breach of contract or constituting lawful grounds for dismissal. To be fair to the Government, I have not heard even them say that people should be sacked for trying to enact democratic rights. That would be a U-turn on what the Government said when minimum service level legislation was first brought forward. It was pledged in the 2019 Queen’s speech that
“sanctions are not directed at individual workers.”
The Bill clearly does do that, but the Lords amendment would help the Government to develop the policy set out in their own manifesto, so why not go ahead and back it tonight?
Mick Whitley (Birkenhead) (Lab)
I declare an interest as a trade unionist with more than 50 years’ experience and as a proud member of Unite the Union. I rise to speak in support of amendments 5 and 4, tabled by Lord Collins and Baroness O’Grady, among others, but before I turn to the substance of those important and thoughtful amendments, I want to say that no number of amendments could ever make the Bill acceptable to those of us on this side of the House who believe in the fundamental right of workers to pursue fair and equitable treatment at work. Its central purpose—to prevent workers from exercising their right to take strike action—is an affront to the most basic principles of democracy, and the idea of forcing a worker to cross their own picket line strikes at the heart of trade unionism.
Not for the first time, this Government have suffered the ignominy of being condemned by the international community for their deviation from democratic norms, with 121 politicians from more than 18 countries recently condemning what they described as the
“the UK Government’s attempt to limit workers’ rights and its attempt to justify it with comparisons to international norms.”
The Bill’s specific provisions, especially those that seek to make unions liable for the actions of their members who fail to adhere to work notices, betray an utter ignorance on the part of Ministers about the nature of employment relations in the UK. The Bill is opposed not just by the trade unions, but by the vast majority of the business community. Paul Nowak, general secretary of the TUC, expressed the feelings of many when he said that the Bill will serve only to poison industrial relations in this country and exacerbate the disputes that it seeks to end. This is yet another dangerous gimmick from a Government who at every stage have refused to settle demands for fair pay from public sector workers.
I want to single out Lords amendment 4, tabled by Baroness O’Grady, which would provide a much-needed safeguard for workers from the almost inevitable exploitation of work notices by unscrupulous employers. Amendment 5, tabled by Lord Collins, would excise proposed new section 234E, which would oblige trade unions to ensure that their members comply with a work notice. That is surely one of the most abhorrent measures in the entire Bill. It would in effect compel trade unions to undermine the effectiveness of their own lawful actions. It is a proposal as ludicrous as it is alarming and it should be consigned to the scrapheap.
I have closely followed the contributions in the other place concerning the Bill and salute the attempts to mitigate the worst excesses of what nevertheless remains a vindictive, anti-democratic and unworkable piece of legislation. I have no doubt whatever that Government Members will refuse altogether to listen to the concerns raised in the other place, and I say with absolute certainty that the Government will shortly come to regret this deplorable attempt to restrict the rights of their citizens.
Stephanie Peacock (Barnsley East) (Lab)
I am pleased to speak in this important debate in support of Lords amendments 4 and 5 to the minimum service levels Bill. As a proud member of a trade union, I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
The Bill is a fundamental attack on working people’s rights and freedoms, meaning that workers are at risk of being punished for exercising their right to strike. As someone who has been on strike as a teacher, I know that the decision to withdraw labour is not an easy one; it is a last resort when workers feel they have no other option; when conditions and pay are no longer tolerable.
The Bill would make seeking an injunction easier and broaden the circumstances that allow this process to take place. Therefore, where strikes are fairly balloted and otherwise lawful, employers would have more scope to be able to bring an injunction against trade unions under the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992, potentially putting a stop to fair industrial action and flying in the face of fundamental workers’ rights. As the Bill broadens the circumstances under which minimum service levels apply, that means a poor employer could issue a work notice where one is not needed, to workers they know are part of the trade union, and sack them for failure to comply with the notice when they strike, as they are likely to do. The Bill allows scope for bad employers to use loopholes to target specific employees. Amendment 4 seeks to prevent this from being possible; it would be a huge backward step. Amendment 5 aims to ensure that unions are not obliged to ensure that their members have to comply with work notices, which would undermine their own otherwise lawful strikes.
Furthermore, the Joint Committee on Human Rights says that the penalties imposed on trade unions and workers for failing to comply with work notices are “severe” and that the Bill would be likely to lead to disproportionate involvement from employers, particularly where a strike does not involve risk to life and limb. The Committee said that the Government should reconsider whether “less severe measures” would be more effective. Lords amendment 4 would prevent workers from being vulnerable to dismissal for failure to comply with a work order.
The Bill is unworkable and the Government know it. The Transport Secretary admits that it will not work, the Education Secretary does not want it and the Government’s own regulatory watchdog has called it “unfit for purpose”. It offers no solutions and it would not have prevented the recent wave of industrial action. It is a distraction from 13 years of failure. So why are the Government insisting on pushing ahead? They have rushed this through Parliament, presented the findings of the impact assessment to the Bill late and provided only four and a half hours for the Committee of the whole House.
There are serious concerns about how the Bill will be implemented in practice. In countries such as Spain and France that already have minimum service levels in place, more days have been lost to strikes than in the UK and that can lead to legal battles, which further delay solutions to industrial action.
In 1984, striking mineworkers in Barnsley were branded “the enemy within” by the Government when they went on strike to defend their industry. We still feel the economic effects of that political attack. Today, the Government are again blaming hard-working people—this time, for the Government’s economic failure.
Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)
I rise to speak in support of all the Lords amendments, but I especially want to focus on Lords amendment 4 and Lords amendments 5 to 7, because they are about protecting two key democratic principles: the rights of the worker to withdraw their labour; and the role of trade unions to represent workers—and not bosses and not the Government—when workers decide to withdraw their labour.
Lords amendment 4 would mean that a failure to comply with a work notice would not be deemed to be a breach of an employment contract, so the person could not be dismissed as a result. Lords amendments 5 to 7 would ensure that trade unions do not have any responsibility to ensure that their members comply with the work notice. We need to be clear about what the Bill is about and why the Lords amendments are necessary. The Bill is about perverting the role of trade unions in our democratic society. It is about trying to turn the trade unions into not the servants of workers, but the servants of bosses, or even the servants of a Conservative Government.
Karl Turner (Kingston upon Hull East) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on making an incredibly good speech. I was not trying to intervene; I was suggesting that, if the Minister had something to say, I am sure that my hon. Friend would be happy to give way to him.
Richard Burgon
I would. My hon. Friend is always light on his feet in the Chamber, as he has shown, but I would be happy to give way to the Minister if he has anything of merit to say as this pernicious piece of legislation passes through with no acceptance by the Government of the common-sense and democratic decency of the amendments from the other place. Their anti-strikes Bill is no one-off—this is why the Lords amendments are so necessary. It is part of an authoritarian drift by a Government who, as we have heard, are desperate to close off any challenges to their reactionary agenda, be that at the ballot box, on the picket line or on protests.
The Bill, this attack on the right to strike, follows restrictions on the right to vote through the disgraceful voter suppression strategy. It follows restrictions on the right to protest through the disgraceful Public Order Act 2023. This anti-strikes Bill, like the Public Order Act and voter ID, should be thrown into the dustbin of history.
It is deeply concerning that, in 2023, we are having to rely on members in the other place to send these Lords amendments back when we are facing such draconian attacks on democratic rights, including the democratic right to strike, the democratic freedom to withdraw labour and the democratic role of trade unions to represent their members—workers, not bosses and not the Conservative Government.
I end by refuting the Government’s empty claim that this legislation is really about bringing the UK into line with International Labour Organisation norms. That is absolutely not the case. I previously tabled an amendment, backed by 30 Members on a cross-party basis, to prevent this legislation from being enacted until a judge had certified that the UK was meeting its International Labour Organisation obligations. The Government refused to accept that amendment; I wonder why. Perhaps it is because they know that their claim that the Bill brings us into line with other countries and International Labour Organisation standards is hollow rhetoric. The truth, as the European Trade Union Confederation has said, is that
“The UK already has among the most draconian restrictions on the right to strike in Europe, and the UK government’s plans would push it even further away from normal, democratic practice across Europe.”
Members do not need to be trade unionists to understand the common sense and democratic decency of these Lords amendments, and they certainly do not need to be socialists. Any Member of this House who values the hard-won freedoms of individual workers and trade unions in our society should back these Lords amendments. Not to do so would be completely shameful and go against the hard-won democratic freedoms that we have secured in this country through struggle. Indeed, it is shameful that we have had to protest outside Parliament today and to argue for those freedoms in this Chamber tonight.
Chris Stephens
Let me start by referring the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Interests and the fact that I am a proud member of the Glasgow city branch of Unison, one of the largest trade unions across these islands.
Like many other Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow East (David Linden), I am completely puzzled as to why there seems to be industrial action on the Government Benches every time we discuss industrial action law. Could it be that Government Members are so outraged by this Bill, and indeed support the Lords amendments, that they are at the TUC rally outside? I doubt it somewhat. Or is it simply the fact—as I believe to be the case—that Government Back Benchers do not have the confidence in their own arguments for this legislation to come here and defend the Government’s position?
It seems that the unelected House—the comrades in ermine down the corridor—has a greater understanding of what happens in workplaces across these islands than the Government do, and we can see that in some of the amendments. It is quite incredible that the Government oppose an amendment that would make it the employer’s responsibility to serve a work notice. The Government then say that they want to keep the measures in the Bill for dismissing a worker. This is quite incredible.
Imagine the scene. The day after industrial action, a poor individual who went on strike goes back to their work and is asked by the employer, “Where were you yesterday?” They are going to answer, “I was on strike.” But they are then told, “Well, you were served a work notice,” and that person will rightly say, “Where’s the proof from you as the employer that I was served a work notice?” The employer is going to say, “Under the legislation, we don’t need to serve the work notice, but we have the right to dismiss you, because we think you should have been served one,” and they will end up being dismissed—with no right, incidentally, as I understand the legislation, to an employment tribunal. You really could not make this up.
The Government also oppose a sensible amendment to ensure oversight of the powers in the Bill. A Government who are confident in their own legislation should welcome an amendment to ensure oversight of the Bill and a Committee of each House to look at how the powers are exercised. Of course, as the Minister has indicated, he opposes that Lords amendment, too.
Then we have Lords amendment 1. I heard the Minister say that industrial relations is reserved. Well, not quite, Minister, because when there are elections to Scotland’s Parliament or the Senedd in Wales, political parties—at least the sensible and good ones—will have in their manifestos how industrial relations should be addressed in areas of devolved competence. That would seem the sensible approach for a good political party to take, which is why there are debates in both those devolved Parliaments about the fair work agenda. We should have more of those debates in this place—but of course, the Government would not know fair work or the fair work agenda if it crossed them in the street.
The reason I think the Lords have got it right in their amendment 1 is that the Government seem to believe, and take the position, that they know better than the Scottish Parliament or the Welsh Senedd about devolved areas of responsibility. In seeking to reject Lords amendment 1, the Government are arguing that Ministers at Westminster level have the expertise to know what the minimum service levels should be in transport, health or anything else in Scotland or Wales, when they cannot even manage their own minimum service levels in this Chamber. What chance have we got that they will understand?
If anyone seriously believes that a Minister in this place has an understanding of what the minimum service level should be in a devolved competence, then I would suggest that they must be a right Michael Blackley. Frankly, you could not make it up. It is laughable position, and the Lords have got it right. In this respect, the law should apply to England only, and then England’s representatives should decide whether, possibly, the legislation should apply at all.
Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)
My hon. Friend is making excellent points about the importance of industrial relations and Scotland having the expertise to deal with that. Does he agree that industrial relations in Scotland in recent years have been much improved on the situation under the Westminster Government, certainly in negotiating pay and conditions for workers in Scotland?
Chris Stephens
I thank my constituency neighbour for that excellent intervention, because as my good Friends the Members for Glasgow East and for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Alan Brown) indicated earlier, the area of the United Kingdom with the least industrial action is Scotland. That is because there seems to be a mature relationship between employers and trade unions in Scotland—far more mature, it would seem, than in England, for example, where we see Government Ministers bashing trade unions on a daily basis on the sofas of breakfast television.
I want to end my remarks, because I am conscious that others want to speak in this debate. The fact that the Government want to dismiss workers for exercising the human right to withdraw their labour is what makes this an absolutely despicable and disgraceful piece of legislation, which would tie them in with countries such as Russia and Hungary. We might think that those are not examples that the Government should follow. It seems quite frankly bizarre that they do want to follow them. I will be in the No Lobby tonight, because I agree with these Lords amendments.
Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab)
I would like to declare my interests as a proud trade union member all of my life.
Obviously I want to discuss the amendments from the other place, but I have to say that this should basically be classed as the anti-strike Bill. This is a Bill that very few people want, far less like. Despite the fact that there are very few people on the Government Benches, we will watch them flow through the Lobby tonight—again, to attack working people of this country. Nor should we be surprised by any of this, because when the Government are down—when they are out; when they are under pressure; when they are out of steam and have nothing left to say, after 13 years of destruction of this country—what can bring them together? The answer is attacking trade unions, attacking working people and, we should not forget—and we will never forget—attacking key workers, because that is what this Bill does. It is about culture wars and politics of distraction. Like rats when cornered, they revert to type.
The amendments from the other place are extremely important. The thinking behind each of the amendments is that people understand the real intentions of the Bill. They are not what has been suggested by the Minister and others on the Government Benches. We need to be honest about what the Bill is actually about.
Andy McDonald
Does my hon. Friend agree that, given the significant amount of industrial unrest over the last several months and, indeed, years, where people do not think they are listened to, the introduction of this legislation will deepen their resolve? They will show by their actions that they will not tolerate an attack on their freedoms and their basic employment and human rights.
Ian Lavery
It is extremely important that people understand that once we see nurses, doctors, teachers and key workers facing the sack, there will be resistance in this country. I kid you not, there will be resistance in this country like we have never seen before, because these are basic human rights. We cannot instruct ordinary hard-working people; key workers; the people who got us through the pandemic; the people who put the Great in Great Britain. We cannot, under any circumstances, allow this legislation to sack individuals.
Lords amendment 4 refers to the work notice. My friend, the hon. Member for Glasgow South West (Chris Stephens), eloquently made the point about the notification of a work notice. If someone has not had notification of a work notice, how could they ever be accused of breaching it if they are not aware that they have it? This is pretty simple stuff. I am not a barrister or a solicitor, but I understand it. And you know what, Mr Deputy Speaker, the Members on the Government Benches understand it, too. There is no doubt about that. When those people are asked the following day, “Why weren’t you here? You had a work notice,” and they reply, “I didn’t have one”, they will be told, “You did. How did you not understand that?” They can be sacked for that. Under this legislation, they can be sacked for not adhering to something that they did not even know they were part of. How bad is that?
Chris Stephens
It is actually worse than the hon. Gentleman is presenting it, because the person dismissed would not have the right to go to an employment tribunal.
Ian Lavery
Absolutely. I fully agree with those sentiments.
When employers are considering who they might wish to give the work notice to, Lords amendment 3 suggests that when deciding whether to identify a person in a work notice, an employer cannot consider whether the person “has or has not” taken part in trade union activities, made use of their services or had a trade union raise issues on their behalf. That amendment should not be needed in the UK in 2023, because everybody clearly understands that if bosses give work notices, they have a clear idea who they will give them to: the trade union reps and the people who do not have a fantastic employment record. That is why that Lords amendment about who the company identifies for a work notice is really important.
In reality, this legislation is simply a battering ram against ordinary working people. I have mentioned the resistance that will be shown in this country if we start sacking the nurses, the teachers and the posties. Blaming the posties for breaking the universal service obligation; blaming the teachers for education in their classes; blaming the nurses for the backlog—you name it, that is what the bosses will do. That will start under this legislation, as they will have the power to sack people. This is a sackers charter, no doubt about that, criminalising our heroic workers.
There will be resistance like we have never seen before. The difference is that the public are on the side of the workers on this one, so be ready. I raise a stark warning: be ready. When the bosses have the books out, ready to sack individuals, and when the Government are telling them who to sack and what the reasons might be, they should be ready for the resistance, because there will be huge issues. How can the Government expect a trade union to take responsibility for individuals who might not want to accept a basic human right? It is bizarre. It is absolutely crazy. I am trying to explain it, but it is very difficult; it is not simple. The trade unions have a huge role to play.
The Bill not only escalates an already febrile atmosphere in this country; it is a vicious attempt the pin the problems that we have on trade unions, from a party that has completely run out of steam. When will the Government start doing their job, for heaven’s sake? How many more hospital appointments need to be set back? How many teachers need to be made redundant or letters and parcels be delivered late before they stop making excuses and demonising workers, and get on with the job that they were elected to do?
Rachael Maskell
My hon. Friend is making an outstanding speech about the reality of industrial relations. Does he agree that trade unions do not have any jurisdiction over their members; it is the members who have the jurisdiction over the trade unions? Therefore, it is for the members to decide what action they take or do not take. The Government do not seem to get it.
Ian Lavery
My hon. Friend makes a good and valid point that the trade unions are the workers themselves. It is as simple as that.
In conclusion, will Government Members tell us why we are not having a minimum service Bill for non-strike days? In the past year or so, in particular when the paramedics and ambulance workers have gone on strike, efficiency has increased and has been first class on strike days. On non-strike days, like the 360-odd days other than those strike days, unfortunately what we see is people lying on pavements or having heart attacks who cannot get an ambulance. Let us look at a Bill for non-striking days so we can enhance the efficiency of all of the services outlined tonight. If the Minister did that, he would get our support.
Kevin Hollinrake
I thank all Members, on both sides of the House, for the robust debate we have had as the legislation has passed through both Houses. It is fair to say that the discussion and debate about the legislation has pretty much divided along party political lines. Our position is that this legislation strikes a balance between the right to strike and the right of the public to go about their daily business and daily lives.
It is also fair to say that we could have chosen an option that went much further. As I said earlier, the USA, Australia and Canada have completely banned strikes in certain sectors, prohibiting them completely. Spain and Belgium have similar legislation on minimum service levels. Indeed, in France there are penalties of up to six months in jail for anyone who is under a requisition notice to return to work.
It is interesting that many Opposition Members have talked about restricting the right to strike. Well, we already restrict the right to strike for the armed forces, the police and prison officers. Will Opposition Members repeal that legislation to allow people who work in those parts of our society to strike? There are already some restrictions; we are putting in place sensible restrictions that are already in place in many other countries.
The guidance from the International Labour Organisation says:
“A minimum service may be set up in the event of a strike, the extent and duration of which might be such as to result in an acute national crisis endangering the normal living conditions of the population.”
It is clear the ILO supports the kinds of measures we are putting in place. I have heard Opposition Members say that no one wants this legislation but interestingly, when surveyed, 56% of the public say that they do, against 31% who do not.
Earlier today, the deputy Leader of the Opposition tweeted her support for the 121 politicians who have condemned the Bill. May I gently urge her to look at some of the people who signed that letter? Some of those signatories are anti-Zelensky, anti-Ukraine, anti-Israel and pro-Russia. I urge her to look at that again and withdraw her tweet.
We believe the legislation strikes the right balance between the right to strike and the rights of the public to go about their daily business and protect their livelihoods. There have been over £3 billion of costs to our economy because of these strikes, which is putting many businesses and many jobs in danger. The Bill presents a fair balance between the rights of workers and the rights of the public.
Chris Stephens
The Minister is generous in giving way. He mentions balance. Can he tell me what is balanced about a piece of legislation, which he supports, whereby an employee who does not get a work notice can be dismissed?
Kevin Hollinrake
There have to be measures that employers can use to make sure people comply with the work notice—that is how it works in many other countries. The reality is that nobody will be sacked as a result of the legislation. There are other disciplinary measures that can take place. We already have derogations in place on a voluntary basis that do not always prove ineffective. We are formalising the process to allow these measures to take place in other vital public services.
The amendments would make the legislation ineffective, which is why I urge all Members on both sides of the House to vote with us and disagree with the amendments.
Question put, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 1.
Business without Debate
National AI Strategy and UNESCO AI Ethics Framework
(11 months, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Darren Jones (Bristol North West) (Lab)
I am grateful, Mr Deputy Speaker, that this Adjournment debate on the regulation of artificial intelligence has been granted. I declare my interest as set out in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
Britain is at a turning point. Having left the European Union, irrespective of what people thought about that decision, we have decided to go it alone. This new chapter in the long history of our great nation is starting to unfold, and we have a number of possible destinations ahead. We stand here today as a country with great challenges and an identity crisis: what is modern Britain to become? Our economy is, at best, sluggish; at worst, it is in decline. Our public services are unaffordable, inefficient and not delivering the quality of service the public should expect. People see and feel those issues right across the country: in their pay packets, in the unfilled vacancies at work, and in their local schools, GP surgeries, dentists, hospitals and high streets. All of this is taking place in a quickly changing world in which Britain is losing influence and control, and for hostile actors who wish Britain—or the west more broadly—harm, those ruptures in the social contract present an opportunity to exploit.
Having left the European Union, I see two destinations ahead of us: we can either keep doing what we are doing, or modernise our country. If we take the route to continuity, in my view we will continue to decline. There will be fewer people in work, earning less than they should be and paying less tax as a consequence. There will be fewer businesses investing, meaning lower profits and, again, lower taxes. Income will decline for the Treasury, but with no desire to increase the national debt for day-to-day spending, that will force us to take some very difficult decisions. It will be a world in which Britain is shaped by the world, instead of our shaping it in our interests.
Alternatively, we can decide to take the route to modernity, where workers co-create technology solutions at work to help them be more productive, with higher pay as a consequence; where businesses invest in automation and innovation, driving profits and tax payments to the Treasury; where the Government take seriously the need for reform and modernisation of the public sector, using technology to individualise and improve public services while reducing the cost of those services; and where we equip workers and public servants with the skills and training to seize the opportunities of that new economy. It will be a modern, innovative Britain with a modern, highly effective public sector, providing leadership in the world by leveraging our strengths and our ability to convene and influence our partners.
I paint those two pictures—those two destinations: continuity or modernity—for a reason. The former, the route to continuity, fails to seize the opportunities that technological reforms present us with, but the latter, the route to modernity, is built on the foundations of that new technological revolution.
This debate this evening is about artificial intelligence. To be clear, that is computers and servers, not robots. Artificial intelligence means, according to Google,
“computers and machines that can reason, learn, and act in such a way that would normally require human intelligence or that involves data whose scale exceeds what humans can analyse.”
These AI machines can be categorised in four different ways. First, reactive machines have a limited application based on pre-programmed rules. These machines do not use memory or learn themselves. IBM’s Deep Blue machine, which beat Garry Kasparov at chess in 1997, is an example. Secondly, limited memory machines use memory to learn over time by being trained using what is known as a neural network, which is a system of artificial neurons based on the human brain. These AI machines are the ones we are used to using today. Thirdly, theory of mind machines can emulate the human mind and take decisions, recognising and remembering emotions and reacting in social situations like a human would. Some argue that these machines do not yet exist, but others argue that AI such as ChatGPT, which can interact with a human in a humanlike way, shows that we are on the cusp of a theory of mind machine existing. Fourthly, self-aware machines are machines that are aware of their own existence and have the same or better capabilities than those of a human. Thankfully, as far as I am aware, those machines do not exist today.
That all might be interesting for someone who is into tech, but why am I putting it on the public record today? I am doing so because there are a number of risks that we as a Parliament and the Government must better understand, anticipate and mitigate. These are the perils on our journey to continuity or modernity. Basic artificial intelligence, which helps us to find things on the internet or to book a restaurant, is not very interesting. The risk is low. More advanced artificial intelligence, which can perform the same tasks as a junior solicitor, a journalist or a student who is supposed to complete their homework or exam without the assistance of AI, presents a problem. We already see the problems faced by workers who have technology thrust upon them, instead of being consulted about its use. The consequences are real today and carry medium risks—they are disruptive.
Then we have the national security or human rights-level risks, such as live facial recognition technologies that inaccurately identify someone as a criminal, or a large language model that can help a terrorist understand how to build a bomb or create a novel cyber-security risk, or systems that can generate deepfake videos, photos or audio of politicians saying or doing things that are not true to interfere with elections or to create fake hostage recordings of someone’s children.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I commend the hon. Gentleman on bringing this debate forward. It is a very deep subject for the Adjournment debate, but it is one that I believe is important. Ethics must be accounted for to ensure that any industries using AI are kept safe. One issue that could become increasingly prominent is the risk of cyber-threats, which he referred to, and hacking, which not even humans can sometimes prevent. Does he agree that it is crucial that our Government and our Minister undertake discussions with UNESCO, for example, to ensure that any artificial intelligence that is used within UK industry is assessed, so as to deal with the unwanted harms as well as the vulnerabilities to attack to ensure that AI actors are qualified to deal with such exposure to cyber-attacks? In other words, the Government must be over this issue in its entirety.
Darren Jones
The hon. Member is of course right. In the first part of his intervention, he alluded to the risk I have just been referring to, where machines can automatically create, for example, novel cyber-risks in a way that the humans who created those systems might not fully understand and that are accessible to a wider range of actors. That is a high risk that is either increasingly real today or is active and available to those who wish to do us harm.
The question, therefore, is what should we in Parliament do about it? Of course, we want Britain to continue to be one of the best places in the world to research and innovate, and to start up and scale up a tech business. We should also want to transform our public services and businesses using that technology, but we must—absolutely must—make sure that we create the conditions for this to be achieved in a safe, ethical and just way, and we must reassure ourselves that we have created those conditions before any of these high-risk outcomes take place, not in the aftermath of a tragedy or scandal.
That is why I have been so pleased to work with UNESCO, as the hon. Gentleman mentioned, and assistant director general Gabriela Ramos over the past few years, on the UNESCO AI ethics framework. This framework, the first global standard on AI ethics, was adopted by all 193 member states of the United Nations in 2021, including the United Kingdom. Its basis in human rights, actionable policies, readiness assessment methodology and ethical impact assessments provides the basis for the safe and ethical adoption of AI across countries. I therefore ask the Minister, in summing up, to update the House on how the Government are implementing their commitments from the 2021 signing of the AI ethics framework.
As crucial as the UNESCO AI ethics framework is, in my view the speed of innovation requires two more things from Government: first, enhanced intergovernmental co-ordination, and secondly, innovation in how we in this House pass laws to keep up with the speed of innovation. I will take each in turn.
First, on enhanced intergovernmental co-ordination, I wrote to the Government at the end of April calling on Ministers to play more of a convening role on the safe and secure testing of the most advanced AI, primarily with Canada, the United States and—in so far as it can be achieved—China, because those countries, alongside our own, are where the most cutting-edge companies are innovating in this space. I was therefore pleased to see in the Hiroshima communiqué from last week’s G7 a commitment to
“identify potential gaps and fragmentation in global technology governance”.
As a parliamentary lead at the OECD global parliamentary network on AI, I also welcome the request that the OECD and the Global Partnership on Artificial Intelligence establish the Hiroshima AI process, specifically in respect of generative AI, by the end of this year.
I question, however, whether these existing fora can build the physical or digital intergovernmental facilities required for the safe and secure testing of advanced AI that some have called for, and whether such processes will adequately supervise or have oversight of what is taking place in start-ups or within multinational technology companies. I therefore ask the Minister to address these issues and to provide further detail about the Hiroshima AI process and Britain’s contribution to the OECD and GPAI, which I understand has not been as good as it should have been in recent years.
I also welcome the engagement of the United Nations’ tech envoy on this issue and look forward to meeting him at the AI for Good summit in Geneva in a few weeks’ time. In advance of that, if the Minister is able to give it, I would welcome his assessment of how the British Government and our diplomats at the UN are engaging with the Office of the Secretary-General’s Envoy on Technology, and perhaps of how they wish to change that in the future.
Secondly, I want to address the domestic situation here in the UK following the recent publication of the UK’s AI strategy. I completely agree with the Government that we do not want to regulate to the extent where the UK is no longer a destination of choice for businesses to research and innovate, and to start up and scale up their business. An innovation-led approach is the right approach. I also agree that, where we do regulate, that regulation must be flexible and nimble to at least try to keep up with the pace of innovation. We only have to look at the Online Safety Bill to learn how slow we can be in this place at legislating, and to see that by the time we do, the world has already moved on.
Where I disagree is that, as I understand it, Ministers have decided that an innovation-led approach to regulation means that no new legislation is required. Instead, existing regulators—some with the capacity and expertise required, but most without—must publish guidance. That approach feels incomplete to me. The European Union has taken a risk-based approach to regulation, which is similar to the way I described high, medium and low-risk applications earlier. However, we have decided that no further legislative work is required while, as I pointed out on Second Reading of the Data Protection and Digital Information (No. 2) Bill, deregulating in other areas with consequences for the application of consumer and privacy law as it relates to AI. Surely, we in this House can find a way to innovate in order to draft legislation, ensure effective oversight and build flexibility for regulatory enforcement in a better way than we currently do. The current approach is not fit for purpose, and I ask the Minister to confirm whether the agreement at Hiroshima last week changes that position.
Lastly, I have raised my concerns with the Department and the House before about the risk of deepfake videos, photo and audio to our democratic processes. It is a clear and obvious risk, not just in the UK but in the US and the European Union, which also have elections next year. We have all seen the fake picture of the Pope wearing a white puffer jacket, created by artificial intelligence. It was an image that I saw so quickly whilst scrolling on Twitter that I thought it was real until I stopped to think about it.
Automated political campaign videos, fake images of politicians being arrested, deepfake videos of politicians giving speeches that never happened, and fake audio recordings are already available. While they may not all be of perfect quality just yet, we know how the public respond to breaking news cycles on social media. Many of us look at the headlines or the fake images over a split second, register that something has happened, and most of the time assume it to be true. That could have wide-ranging implications for the integrity of our democratic processes. I am awaiting a letter from the Secretary of State, but I am grateful for the response to my written parliamentary question today. I invite the Minister to say more on that issue now, should he be able to do so.
I am conscious that I have covered a wide range of issues, but I hope that illustrates the many and varied questions associated with the regulation of artificial intelligence, from the mundane to the disruptive to the risk to national security. I welcome the work being done by the Chair of the Science, Innovation and Technology Committee on this issue, and I know that other Committees are also considering looking at some of these questions. These issues warrant active and deep consideration in this Parliament, and Britain can provide global leadership in that space. Only today, OpenAI, the creator of ChatGPT, called for a new intergovernmental organisation to have oversight of high-risk AI developments. Would it not be great if that organisation was based in Britain?
If we get this right, we can take the path to modernity and create a modern Britain that delivers for the British people, is equipped for the future, and helps shape the world in our interests. If we get it wrong, or if we pick the path to continuity, Britain will suffer further decline and become even less in control of its future. Mr Deputy Speaker, I pick the path to modernity.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology (Paul Scully)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Bristol North West (Darren Jones) on securing this excellent debate and on his excellent opening speech. The issue ahead of us is an international issue, and as he said, the UK is at the forefront of AI development, with our history and with the Turing and Lovelace institutions around the country. We have amazing AI clusters, and it is right that we should be at the forefront of the solutions he talked about. It will not have escaped many of us with a long-standing interest in AI that this is a really important time for the technology’s development. Of equal note is the focus that the Government are giving to ensuring that we seize the opportunities of AI while tackling the risks that have been highlighted, along with our commitment to iterating and adapting our approach as the technology continues to develop.
I welcome the opportunity to speak about how we are delivering on the commitments of the national AI strategy, including shaping the international governance of AI through active engagement in key multilateral fora such as UNESCO. I believe we are well placed to become a global AI superpower by delivering on the foundations laid down in the national AI strategy and its three pillars: investing in and planning for the long term needs of the AI ecosystem; supporting the transition to an AI-enabled economy, capturing the benefits of innovation in the UK and ensuring that AI benefits all sectors and regions; and ensuring that the UK gets the national and international governance of AI technologies right to encourage innovation and investment and to protect the public and our fundamental values.
The Government recognise that AI has the potential to transform all areas of life, from making more medical breakthroughs possible to powering the next generation of tech such as driverless cars. In 2021 we published our national AI strategy—a 10-year vision to make the UK an AI superpower. Since 2014, we have invested over £2.5 billion in AI, including almost £600 million towards the near £1 billion 2018 AI sector deal, which kick-started the growth of the already well-established AI landscape in the UK; £250 million to develop the NHSX AI lab to accelerate the safe adoption of AI in health and care; £250 million for the Centre for Connected and Autonomous Vehicles to develop the future of mobility in the UK; investment in the Alan Turing Institute, with over £46 million to support Turing AI fellowships to develop the next generation of top AI talent; and over £372 million of investment in UK AI companies through the British Business Bank.
The AI strategy also emphasises the need to invest in skills and diversity to broaden the AI workforce. Our £30 million AI and data science conversion course and scholarship programme was set up to address the lack of diversity and supply of talent in the UK AI labour market—that is diversity not as in a tick-box exercise, as some might be, but diversity of thinking to ensure that AI products, services and development have the broader thinking that the hon. Member rightly talked about.
Alongside skills, the Government recognise the need for long-term investment in computing. In March, we announced £900 million for an exascale supercomputer and AI research resource. Building on that, last month we announced £100 million in initial start-up funding for a foundation model taskforce to invest in the AI stack to build foundation model capability, ensure capabilities for key use cases and ensure UK leadership in the safety and reliability of foundation models.
We have seen huge leaps forward in our delivery on the governance pillar of the national AI strategy. In March, we published a White Paper setting out the UK’s context-based, proportionate and adaptable approach to AI regulation, representing a world-leading step forward in this policy space. The White Paper outlines five clear outcome-focused principles that regulators should consider to facilitate the safe and innovative use of AI in the industries that they monitor. Crucially, the principles provide clarity to businesses by articulating what we want responsible AI to look like.
That is not all. In October 2022, we launched the AI standards hub to increase the UK’s contribution to the development of global AI technical standards. Through the hub, we are working with international initiatives such as the OECD’s catalogue of tools and metrics for trustworthy AI to increase global awareness of technical standards as critical tools to advance the worldwide development and adoption of responsible AI.
On that note, I turn my focus squarely to international engagement on AI, which is a key priority for the Government. As a world leader in AI, we play an important role in shaping the international development and governance of AI. We promote our interests in bilateral relationships with key partners such as the US and Japan and in multilateral fora such as the Council of Europe, the Global Partnership on Artificial Intelligence, UNESCO, the OECD, the G7, the International Organisation for Standardisation and International Electrochemical Commission.
With the US, we held the inaugural meeting of the comprehensive dialogue on technology and data in January. A key deliverable for 2023 is to strengthen the UK-US collaboration on AI technical standards development and tools for trustworthy AI, including through joint research and information sharing, and support for commercial co-operation. We had previously signed in September 2020 a US-UK declaration on co-operation in AI research and development, representing a shared vision for driving technological breakthroughs in AI. With Japan, as the hon. Member rightly said, we agreed the Hiroshima accord only recently, on 18 May. It is a landmark new global strategic partnership, signifying our intent to work together to maintain strategic advantage in emerging technologies such as AI. The accord builds on the UK-Japan digital partnership that I launched in December 2022, which established a framework for deeper UK-Japan collaboration across digital infrastructure and technologies, data, digital regulation and digital transformation.
We have also been working closely with Japan as part of its G7 presidency this year. At the end of April, I attended the G7 digital ministerial meeting in Japan, where I signed the G7 digital ministerial declaration alongside my counterparts. That declaration emphasises the importance of responsible AI and global AI governance. It endorses an action plan for promoting global interoperability between tools for trustworthy AI and for co-operating on upcoming AI opportunities and challenges.
At the Council of Europe, we are working closely with like-minded nations on the proposed convention on AI—a first-of-its-kind legal agreement to help protect human rights, democracy and the rule of law. At the OECD, we are an active member of the working party on AI governance, which supports the implementation of the OECD’s AI principles. It enables the exchange of experience from best practice to advance the responsible stewardship of AI. At the global partnership, we are a key contributor and founding member. At the 2022 GPAI ministerial summit in Japan, we announced £1.2 million of funding to develop a net zero data space for AI applications, which is in addition to a previous £1 million investment to advance GPAI research on data justice, collaborating with our world-leading Alan Turing Institute and 12 pilot partners in low and medium-income countries.
We are also leading the development of global AI technical standards in standards development organisations such as the International Organisation for Standardisation and the International Electrotechnical Commission, and we are leading the development of AI assurance techniques as additional tools for trustworthy AI. Crucially, these techniques help to measure, evaluate and communicate the trustworthiness of AI systems across the development and deployment life cycle, to enable organisations to determine whether AI technologies are aligned with regulatory requirements.
We are also aware of the increasing prominence of AI in discussions held across other UN fora, including the Internet Governance Forum and the International Telecommunication Union, and through the Global Digital Compact’s focus on AI. The Government welcome the opportunity that the compact provides for the multi-stakeholder community to set out an ambitious shared agenda, chart a path for concrete action towards delivering it, and promote the sharing of best practice, evidence and learning.
Let me turn my attention to UNESCO. The UK was actively involved in the development of its recommendation on the ethics of AI, and UK organisations such as the Alan Turing Institute have supported the development of implementation tools. As we have heard, we, along with all 192 other UNESCO member states, adopted the recommendations in November 2021, demonstrating our commitment to developing a globally compatible system of responsible and ethical AI governance.
Our work aligns with the values of UNESCO’s recommendation. For example, through our work at the Council of Europe negotiations, we are helping to respect, protect and promote human rights, fundamental freedoms and human dignity. In doing so through close collaboration with our international partners, we aim to ensure that our citizens can live in peaceful, just and interconnected societies. Through our AI and data science conversion course and scholarship programme, we are ensuring diversity and inclusiveness by addressing these issues in the UK AI labour market. Finally, as one small example of the wider work we are delivering, through our net zero data space for AI applications, funded through GPAI, we are delivering on our net zero policy objectives, ensuring a flourishing environment and ecosystem.
In summary, we have taken great strides in our delivery of the national AI strategy under all three pillars: investing in and planning for the long-term needs of the AI ecosystem; supporting the transition to an AI-enabled economy; and ensuring that the UK gets the national and international governance of AI technologies right. It goes without saying that the opportunities afforded by AI are quite staggering. Indeed, as a result of AI technologies, UK productivity could rise by up to a third across sectors, and UK GDP could be 10.3% higher in 2030 as a result of AI—the equivalent of an additional £232 billion.
But the hon. Gentleman is also absolutely right to look at the risks and talk about the dangers. We have to do this on an international basis. The AI White Paper was the first of its kind, although I would urge him to exercise caution when he says that we do not feel that we need legislation. At the moment, we are building on the layers of existing regulation, but the White Paper outlines the five principles, and we are looking at the regulatory sandboxes to test regulation with scientists, the sector and the academics involved, so that we can co-create the solutions that will be required. But we clearly have to do this at pace, because it was only a few months ago that we first heard of ChatGPT, and we now have prompt engineers, a new, relatively well paid occupation that until recently no one had ever heard of.
As a world leader in AI, it is imperative that we continue to actively engage bilaterally and in multilateral fora such as UNESCO, but also in the OECD, the GPAI and others, to shape the international AI governance landscape. Governing it effectively will ensure that we achieve the right balance between responding to risks and maximising the opportunities afforded by this transformative technology.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Register of Overseas Entities (Penalties and Northern Ireland Dispositions) Regulations 2023
(11 months, 3 weeks 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 (Penalties and Northern Ireland Dispositions) Regulations 2023.
It is a pleasure to speak with you in the Chair, Dame Angela.
The regulations, which were laid before the House on 26 April, form part of a series of secondary legislation needed to effectively implement the register of overseas entities. The register was created under part 1 of the Economic Crime (Transparency and Enforcement) Act 2022, which I will refer to as “the Act”.
The register will help crack down on dirty Russian money in the UK and corrupt foreign elites abusing the openness of our economy. Overseas entities owning or buying property or land in the UK must give information about their beneficial owners or managing officers to Companies House. Law enforcement agencies now have a wealth of new information to help them track down those using UK property or land as a vehicle for money laundering.
The register went live on 1 August last year, with the deadline for registering set for 31 January this year. There has been a high level of compliance, with more than 27,900 overseas entities registering to date. Entities that have disposed of their land are required to provide statements with information about their beneficial owners and details such as title numbers. More than 750 have provided details to Companies House, having disposed of all their interests in land before the end of the transition period. That means that just under 29,000 entities have complied with the requirements.
Although that likely leaves a few thousand entities still to register, some of them are believed to have been dissolved or struck off, and others have not kept their address details up to date with the land registries. That means they might not have received the letters that have been sent to them so far by Companies House. I know that Members want to be reassured that compliance and enforcement action is being taken. I want to reassure them that case preparation takes time, but is happening.
Companies House continues to work to increase compliance even further and is actively preparing cases for enforcement action. Any overseas entity that has failed to register is already restricted from selling, leasing or raising charges on the land it owns until it registers. Overseas entities are also unable to purchase any new UK land without registering. These are novel and severe sanctions—indeed, the most severe in the world.
It is worth reminding hon. Members that when the draft Registration of Overseas Entities Bill was scrutinised by Parliament, the Joint Committee on Human Rights warned of the severity of the restriction, in particular the “chilling effect” that it would have. The Government of course took seriously the concerns raised, but felt the sanction was proportionate given the policy objectives of the register. This shows the seriousness of the sanction and the need for the Government to get the balance right with the approach to enforcement so as not to deter legitimate investment in the UK.
Once the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Bill receives Royal Assent, a further enforcement tool will be added to the arsenal: a person who receives a financial penalty from the registrar or is convicted of an offence may be disqualified from acting as a UK director. Once the Bill receives Royal Assent, I will bring forward further regulations under new and amended powers that will further strengthen the requirements of the register.
The statutory instrument deals with two main elements: financial penalties arising from misconduct in relation to the register, and the treatment of land disposed of in Northern Ireland by overseas entities and rights of those acting in good faith.
The Economic Crime (Transparency and Enforcement) Act sets out that the registrar may impose a financial penalty as an alternative to criminal prosecution. The draft regulations set out the procedure for the imposition and enforcement of financial penalties. A financial penalty could be imposed on a variety of persons, depending on the offence—for example, where an overseas entity has failed to register, on a verifier who has knowingly submitted a false filing, or a person who has failed to respond to an information notice sent by an overseas entity.
If the registrar suspects that a person is engaged in conduct amounting to an offence, she may issue a warning notice in writing to that person giving 28 days to make representations about their conduct. If the registrar is satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the person has engaged in conduct amounting to an offence, she may issue a penalty notice in writing to that person giving 28 days to pay the penalty. If a person fails to pay, interest will accrue at 8%, the statutory interest rate.
The instrument sets out that a financial penalty imposed by the registrar may be a fixed penalty, a daily rate penalty, or a combination of both. Where the criminal fine set out in the Act is a fixed penalty, the registrar may impose more than one penalty in relation to the same conduct if there is continued contravention. That means that a further penalty can be imposed if a person remains non-compliant despite having a penalty imposed. Subsequent penalties could increase to encourage compliance.
The instrument does not prescribe the specific amounts of financial penalties that may be imposed in relation to each offence. Instead, it states that a financial penalty
“must not exceed the maximum fine that could be imposed by a court…under criminal proceedings in the jurisdiction in which the offence was committed.”
That flexibility allows proportionate and effective targeting of non-compliant persons and penalties that can be adjusted according to the seriousness of the misconduct and the specifics of the case.
Given that penalties are an alternative to criminal prosecution, the registrar should bear in mind the process a court would follow. The goal of the financial penalty regime is to encourage ongoing compliance with the requirements. When deciding whether to prosecute and what sentence to give, courts follow sentencing guidelines to ensure that it is in the public interest to prosecute and that the sentence is proportionate to the seriousness of the offence. The registrar should also consider the public interest and be proportionate when imposing financial penalties.
For the failure to register offence, the Act sets out that the criminal fine that courts in England, Wales and Scotland can impose can be unlimited. That means that, in theory, the registrar may impose an unlimited financial penalty when an overseas entity has failed to register.
As an indication of the seriousness of the failure to register offence, the registrar will review the portfolio owned by an overseas entity that has failed to register. The registrar will use a range of sources to estimate the value of the portfolio owned, including the UK house price index and data on business rate bands. The registrar will apply different starting points for the financial penalty depending on whether the estimated value of each property or piece of land falls into one of three bands. If the value of the property or land is estimated to be in the lower band, the starting point for the penalty will be £10,000. If the value is estimated to be in the middle band, the starting point will be £20,000. In the higher band, the starting point will be £50,000.
Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)
If an entity has broken the law and has been fined, does the UK have any powers to say that that entity cannot in future buy any properties in the UK, even if they then choose to declare the beneficial owner in that case? Is that fine followed up by any further sanction?
Kevin Hollinrake
If they have not registered properly, they cannot buy UK property.
If an overseas entity owns more than one property or piece of land, the penalty values will be added up to provide a starting point. Given that interest will accrue at the statutory interest rate of 8%, the penalty will rack up quickly if an overseas entity fails to pay. The registrar may also consider other aggravating factors, such as whether the person has committed the offence previously. When any financial penalty remains unpaid, it can be enforced as if it were a judgment debt, including by a charge being registered against property or land owned by an overseas entity.
The registrar will keep the model under review ahead of imposing financial penalties for failure to file the annual update on time. If the registrar finds that the level of penalties needs to be reviewed because they are insufficient to provide a deterrent, the instrument gives her the flexibility to do so. The instrument also gives the registrar the power to vary or revoke a financial penalty on a case-by-case basis—for example, if new information comes to light that may aggravate or mitigate the misconduct. The instrument also sets out the grounds for appeal and the court’s powers in relation to an appeal.
Companies House has been preparing to operationalise the regulations and will be ready to issue notices as soon as the regulations come into force. Companies House already includes in its annual report the details of financial penalties imposed in relation to UK companies, and the Insolvency Service publishes enforcement outcomes annually. The Government consider that those are appropriate places for these details to be published in relation to the register.
The second part of the instrument sets out the grounds for registering dispositions in Northern Ireland that would otherwise be prohibited. Schedule 8A to the Land Registration Act (Northern Ireland) 1970 is amended to provide a mechanism to allow the Secretary of State to consent to the registration of a land transaction that would otherwise be prohibited.
If a third party transacts with an overseas entity at a time when the overseas entity is non-compliant with the requirements of the register, the third party will be prohibited from registering the transaction; for instance, if it has bought land from an overseas entity that is non-compliant, it will be unable to register itself as the new proprietor. The intention of that sanction is to disincentivise anyone from transacting with a non-compliant overseas entity, which I think was the point that the right hon. Member for Leeds Central was making.
However, in certain circumstances, it is possible that a third party may transact in good faith, without knowing that the overseas entity was non-compliant, resulting in its acquisition of a land title that cannot be registered with the Land Registry. The Act is not intended to penalise innocent third parties and so this mechanism is necessary to allow for the effective functioning of land transactions. A similar mechanism is already available in England and Wales, and Scotland.
In conclusion, I emphasise that the measures in the draft regulations are crucial for the effective operation of the register. I hope that the Committee 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, Dame Angela. This is a very important statutory instrument and one that I am sure the Minister will agree with me is well overdue; it was seven years ago that the then Prime Minister, David Cameron, made the first of many promises to introduce a register of overseas owners of UK property.
The SI implements aspects of the register of overseas entities by conferring a power on the registrar to impose a financial penalty on a person if they are satisfied, beyond reasonable doubt, that the person has engaged in conduct amounting to an offence under part 1 of the Economic Crime (Transparency and Enforcement) Act, and by allowing the Secretary of State to consent to the registration of a land transaction that would otherwise be prohibited in relation to Northern Ireland, bringing it in line with England, Scotland and Wales.
We should remember that the Act was passed last year as emergency legislation in the light of the situation in Ukraine and the need to sanction Russian oligarchs. Its primary purpose was to set up a register of overseas entities and their beneficial owners and require overseas entities who own land in the UK to register in certain circumstances.
Back then, we said that the Government had dragged their feet on stopping dirty money flowing through our economy. These steps were first promised in 2016, and since then £1.5 billion-worth of property has been bought by Russians accused of corruption or links to the Kremlin. In 2016, the UK implemented a register of beneficial ownership of UK companies that is called the people with significant control register and provides information to Companies House about who holds significant control of UK companies. However, there was ongoing concern about overseas entities owning property in the UK to obscure their identity when concealing illicit funds or laundering money through UK property.
The establishment of the register of overseas entities introduced a requirement for any legal entity governed by the law of a country other than the UK to register the details of individuals who own property in the UK who would otherwise hide their identity behind a foreign company. There is no doubt that we need it as part of our tools to deter and disrupt economic crime and money laundering, as well as to protect our financial systems and our economic security and, frankly, to know who owns what in Britain. During the passage of the Act, we debated at length the speed with which action was required, so it is utterly frustrating that going through these important SIs to ensure that the registrar has the necessary powers is taking so long.
The provisions of this SI are common sense and we support them, but the delays have had a cost. We want to see action stepped up against those failing to comply with the new legislation who have yet to face financial penalties, and we want the system to be robust enough to operate as a deterrent against further economic crime.
The register was set up on 1 August 2022, and overseas entities had a transitional period of six months to register. Failing to update the register, failing to respond to an information notice, responding with false information, or selling land before the transitional period ended without providing information about its status are some of the offences in the Act to which the penalties that we are debating could apply.
Transparency International claimed in February 2023 that almost half of the companies required to declare their ownership—more than 18,000 companies, which between them hold almost 52,000 properties—had failed to do so. Last month, I asked the Minister how many were yet to comply, and at that point around 7,000 companies had yet to register. In our last SI debate, the Minister sought to reassure me—as he does today—that
“Companies House is…preparing cases for enforcement”—[Official Report, First Delegated Legislation Committee, 24 April 2023; c. 8.]
against some of those companies. I will come back to the respect in which that enforcement preparation is under way, and how quickly some of the powers will be used.
This is important, because a BBC investigation noted a few days ago that 5,000 firms with property in England or Wales have failed to submit their details, three months after the January deadline. The Minister says today that the figure is more like 3,000 firms. He suggested some of the reasons why, and he may have evidence for that. He also suggested that around 750 overseas entities that sold their property before the end of the transition period had complied with legislation by sending their information through to Companies House. Are there some that did not do so? It would be helpful if the Minister could update me on that and provide more information; he can do so in writing after the Committee, but perhaps he can go back over some of the figures he provided.
The 2022 Act set a fine of up to £2,500 a day for overseas companies that own UK property but do not declare their owners. That was increased in Committee from a measly £500—that figure was challenged, and an amendment was accepted that made it £2,500 a day—but I understand that, because it has taken so long since the Act was passed to implement the power to impose financial penalties, no person or entity has been issued with a penalty. That includes firms that have been linked to oligarchs such as Roman Abramovich.
I would be grateful if the Minister could confirm that it is the case that no warning notices have gone out and, therefore, no financial penalties have been issued, and that no penalties will be able to be applied in respect of the three and a half months since January. Perhaps the Minister can clarify that, because there may be something in the legislation that I have missed that suggests that it may be possible for a fine to be retrospective. Estimates from the BBC investigation suggest that had we been imposing fines since the January deadline, they could have added up to £1 billion.
I will ask the Minister about the detail of the SI, so that we can all be confident that it will be fit for purpose. First, how soon after the passing of the SI will the registrar be able to issue financial penalties? I imagine warning notices will have to be issued first, unless there has been any provision for warning notices to be sent out in advance of the SI being passed, so financial penalties can be issued immediately.
Secondly, on the warning notices the dates of appeal suggest that a period of 28 days needs to be passed. We had some debate around that previously, and I was not very clear on it then. The draft regulations state that the period contained within any warning notices
“must be at least 28 days beginning on the day after the date of the warning notice”.
Is the period within which a company or entity would have to make a representation to the registrar if they disagreed with what was in the warning notice within 28 days or a minimum of 28 days? That was not very clear, and it is important for it to be clear.
If any warning notices have been issued—I am not fully clear on the detail of the legislation, which seems to imply that warning notices and financial penalties can be issued only after the SI is passed—have any written representations been received? Draft regulation 5(2)(f) in part 2 also refers to 28 days. It would be helpful to be clear whether any payments sought in relation to a penalty, whether it is a fixed penalty or a daily penalty, have to be paid within 28 days. Is that the case prior to the interest accruing? I would be grateful for clarity on that. For those who have billions to spare, is that just what will happen? Will it be 28 days, plus the interest accruing?
How does the £2,500-a-day fine that was discussed during the passing of the parent legislation align with the bands that the Minister has talked about today? I think the amounts that he described were £10,000, £20,000 and £50,000. I think that would be significantly lower than a fine of £2,500 a day, but perhaps he can clarify how that will be calculated, and how the period since 31 January has been accounted for. What assessment has he made of the level of resources and whether they are sufficient for the analysis that needs to be done, the issuing of notices and financial penalties, and penalty enforcement, which, as he outlined, is also an important part of the SI?
As I have raised previously with the Minister, there are still issues with the register of overseas entities not covered by the SI. I thank him for responding to my concerns around the 25% threshold for beneficial ownership, on which I think we still disagree, but I note that in his written response to me dated 9 May he did not respond to my concerns about another major loophole: the use of opaque offshore trusts, which enable overseas entities to access UK property and markets behind a cloak of anonymity. I would be grateful if he came back to me on that point in my previous correspondence.
In summary, the Opposition support the changes introduced by the SI, but it is utterly vital that the Government get their act together on dealing with economic crime, tackling loopholes and ensuring that we can take action quickly. It is years since action was initially promised, and there is a financial and security cost to that delay. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Liam Byrne (Birmingham, Hodge Hill) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Dame Angela. I wish to add three points to the excellent speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Feltham and Heston. The Minister knows that I am a fan of his work. In many ways, I wish that the Government had seen fit to appoint him as a Minister some years ago. If that had been the case, perhaps we would not be the talk of the world when it comes to money laundering and kleptocracy, but here we are, and the Minister is trying to make progress and we should support him in that endeavour.
The Minister said some significant things that I want to probe him on. First, I think he told us that 15% of overseas entities are still not registered. At the end of January, the estimate was that something like 30,000 or 32,000 overseas entities needed to be registered. At the end of January just 19,000 had registered. He told us that that number has now gone up to 27,000. The implication is that there are still 15,000 overseas entities that are not registered. Will he reassure us that that very large number of overseas entities are not all organisations that have dissolved or moved on, and update us on how many overseas entities are still in business and have not met the deadline?
The Minister made a second admission. If 19,000 had registered at the end of January and we are now up to 27,000, there are 7,000 or 8,000 that registered late, yet I think he told us that there has not been a single prosecution. That is an extraordinary admission. What kind of signal does that send to kleptocrats around the world—that if they want to join the ranks of the thousands of overseas entities that cannot be bothered to comply with laws in this country, they will get off scot-free? The Committee would be sympathetic if the Minister held up his hands and said, “We just do not have the resources to enforce the rules,” and of course that would be true. That is why many of us are continuing to press him to use the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Bill, which is in the other place, to ensure that there is a registration fee that provides a proper supply of finance to tackle the outrageous level of money laundering and kleptocracy that is centred on the City of London.
The final point, which I would be grateful if the Minister could enlighten us on, is about how the penalty regime that he set out tackles the problem of rogue proxies. Let us say that someone wanted to buy a £24 million house, which is the average cost of a house on Britain’s most expensive street, Phillimore Gardens. Very often, they would buy it through a company, which may well be registered in the British Virgin Islands, and may then be owned by a trust that is held in another tax haven, but it may be controlled by proxy directors who are somewhere else. If the penalty regime that the Minister set out takes aim at the entities, the risk is that the proxy directors get away scot-free. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central said, it may well be impossible to carry on trading with entities under the regime that the Minister set out, but it may well still be possible to continue trading with proxy directors or the individuals who sit behind those proxy directors.
Finally, the Minister might also want to tell us how he is getting on with cracking down on tax abuse and bad behaviour in our overseas territories. I think there was some opposition in some of the overseas territories to the introduction of registers such as this one. If we are to crack down on the absence of beneficial ownership registers here in this country, as he is seeking to do, we want to ensure that our overseas territories are not simply a back door through which bad people can do bad things.
Kevin Hollinrake
It is a pleasure to respond to the important points raised in the debate. The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Feltham and Heston, asked when the draft regulations come into force. The date they come into force is 21 June. Companies House will be able to impose financial penalties from that date forward. On warning letters, on different occasions Companies House has written to entities that have not registered—to the property of the address they own or to the service address provided to the registry.
The right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill asked about the number of overseas entities that are not registered. We estimate that there are 32,000 entities and that 29,000 are now compliant, so it is 3,000. We think that a significant number of those might not have received the communications and might not be deliberately not co-operating. It is important that any enforcement action taken is proportionate. That is what Companies House is there for.
The right hon. Gentleman also made an important point about resources. As he knows, I am totally aligned with him on ensuring that Companies House has the right resources. We are undertaking a body of work with Companies House to determine what resources it needs and how we apply the right registration or incorporation fee—it will be a higher fee than the current £12. There are also annual fees—recurrent fees—for filing, which can also be used to ensure that Companies House has the right level of resources. We think that that is the horse before cart approach; we are seeing what resources it needs for this and its other work to ensure that the register is accurate.
The shadow Minister mentioned the £2,500—the daily fine for the failure to update offence. The other fines for failing to register are much more significant. The bands I set out earlier are based roughly on council tax bands: A to C will be the £10,000 fee, D to F £20,000 and G to H £50,000. That fine would apply to each property in the portfolio. If we imagine a portfolio of three properties in the mid-range, that would be an initial fine of £60,000, which could be doubled subsequently for non-compliance. The fines are not insignificant and we think that they are at the right level to encourage compliance.
The shadow Minister also made a point about the 750 who have provided the details as required by Companies House, in which they basically say that they no longer hold the properties—the properties have been disposed of—and we therefore feel they are compliant. The 28 days is the time to respond; that was the response time required after the request by the registrar.
On the proxy directors, I understand the point made by the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill, but that does not obviate the requirement for the beneficial owner to be named. Whatever proxy directors there might be, the requirement is for the beneficial owner to be named in any circumstance. That is in existing ownership or future ownership. Someone cannot technically hide behind the proxy director without being guilty of a false filing offence.
Liam Byrne
I am grateful for the clarification. Will the Minister also clarify whether, if the penalty regime stops people trading with an unregistered overseas entity, they could still trade with a beneficial owner who was standing behind an entity based overseas that had not fulfilled its obligations?
Kevin Hollinrake
Either way, if it were an entity established now or in future, it would be in breach of the legislation—it would be breaking the law by doing that, by not declaring who the beneficial owner was, in any circumstance. Whether that is through shareholders or directors, it is about the person with significant control. That person does not even have to have a shareholding to be a beneficial owner or a person with significant control, if they exert influence by other means. The legislation is in the right place, though enforcement is a different matter, of course, and we must ensure that the relevant enforcement agencies have the resources they need.
The final point was on concerns about trusts. The Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Bill, which is going through the Lords, includes some additional mechanisms to ensure that we get behind trusts so that they are not used as a vehicle for non-compliance or to avoid the rules. His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs has a great deal of information that is not publicly available for good reason—some people have trusts to protect individuals, such as minors.
To conclude, the draft regulations will complement the measures in the Economic Crime (Transparency and Enforcement) Act 2022 to ensure that the register is as effective as possible. I commend them to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That the Committee has considered the draft Register of Overseas Entities (Penalties and Northern Ireland Dispositions) Regulations 2023.
Energy Bills Discount Scheme Regulations 2023
Energy Bills Discount Scheme (Northern Ireland) Regulations 2023
Energy Bills Discount Scheme (Non-Standard Cases) Regulations 2023
Energy Bills Discount Scheme Pass-Through Requirement Regulations 2023
Energy Bills Discount Scheme Pass-Through Requirement (Heat Suppliers] Regulations 2023
(11 months, 3 weeks ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Amanda Solloway)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the Energy Bills Discount Scheme Regulations 2023 (S.I. 2023, No. 453).
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to consider the Energy Bills Discount Scheme (Northern Ireland) Regulations 2023 (S.I., 2023, No. 454); the Energy Bills Discount Scheme (Non-Standard Cases) Regulations 2023 (S.I., 2023, No. 464); the Energy Bills Discount Scheme Pass-through Requirement Regulations 2023 (S.I., 2023, No. 463); and the Energy Bills Discount Scheme Pass-through Requirement (Heat Suppliers) Regulations 2023 (S.I., 2023, No. 455).
Amanda Solloway
It is a great pleasure to serve under your Chairmanship, Mrs Latham. The regulations were laid before the House on 25 April 2023, and I will refer to them collectively as the EBDS regulations.
The Government responded decisively to the unprecedented rise in energy prices caused by Putin’s brutal invasion of Ukraine by delivering critical bill support to households, businesses and other non-domestic energy consumers. More than £7 billion of support has been delivered by the energy bill relief scheme alone. That equates to approximately £35 million a day, and it has helped many businesses to keep the lights on.
The Government’s emergency legislation paved the way for the support package to be delivered rapidly across the entire United Kingdom. The Energy Prices Act 2022 was introduced in Parliament on 12 October 2022 and provided the legislative footing needed to ensure that the Government could deliver much-needed support to UK businesses through the energy bills discount scheme.
These regulations are needed to implement and operationalise the energy bills discount scheme. That follows the energy bill relief scheme, which ended on 31 March, and it ensures continuity of support to cover energy consumed between 1 April 2023 and 31 March 2024. Although wholesale energy prices have fallen since their peak, many consumers may still be exposed to higher bills and be in need of support, and the scheme takes that into account. The purpose of the regulations is to reduce the charges for electricity and gas supplied by licensed and licence-exempt energy suppliers to eligible non-domestic customers, and to make payments to suppliers in respect of those reductions in Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
Each statutory instrument is a replacement for an earlier set of regulations that implemented the original EBRS. They ensure that any end user receiving energy that is supplied with the benefit of these schemes through an intermediary will get a “just and reasonable” share of that benefit. Without such intervention, non-domestic customers would no longer be provided with support. Instead, they would be exposed to the full impact of high wholesale market prices. In order to protect all eligible customers from excessively high energy bills, the EBDS will run for a 12-month period from 1 April 2023 to 31 March 2024.
I will now turn to the detail, starting with the Energy Bills Discount Scheme Regulations 2023.
Dan Carden (Liverpool, Walton) (Lab)
I want to raise an issue that has come up a number of times in my constituency. Residents in social housing are having to pay more for the electricity and gas that fuels things in communal areas, such as lighting. That is because housing associations have to buy that at a commercial rate. They then pass the cost on to residents, and sometimes it is four or five times higher than the rates that residents pay for their personal energy consumption. Is there anything in the regulations to address that? If there is not, will the Minister write to me to say whether the Government are going to do anything about the extortionate rises for residents in social homes in my constituency?
Amanda Solloway
I thank the hon. Member for that good point. I will come on to exactly what this Bill is hoping to address, but I encourage him to write to me. I am also happy to have a face-to-face meeting.
I turn to the detail. The regulations set out that, with a few exceptions, all domestic customers with electricity and gas contracts from both licensed and licence-exempt non-domestic energy suppliers will be eligible for a discount when the wholesale element of their contract is above a certain level. Licence-exempt supply includes energy taken from the public electricity or gas grid, or received via wire or pipe from a licence-exempt provider, where the customer is charged prices pegged to wholesale prices.
The Energy Bills Discount Scheme regulations for Great Britain and the Energy Bills Discount Scheme (Northern Ireland) Regulations 2023 provide for three elements of the scheme for end users of licensed suppliers, and the Energy Bills Discount Scheme (Non-Standard Cases) Regulations 2023 replicate them for end users of licence-exempt suppliers.
The first element is a baseline per-unit discount applicable to all non-domestic customer energy bills throughout the scheme’s duration. That discount will be applied if wholesale prices are above a certain price threshold.
The second element is that a higher rate of relief will be provided to non-domestic customers that carry out a substantial part of their UK activities in certain energy and trade-intensive sectors, following a review of the operation of the previous energy bill relief scheme. Those industries have been identified as being less able to pass through their increased energy costs to customers because of international competition. As with the baseline element of the scheme, the discount is applied if wholesale prices are above a certain level.
Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for giving way. I raised this in the House some time ago at business questions. Am I right in saying that the energy-intensive element will cover things such as libraries, museum activities, the operation of historical sites and buildings, and similar visitor attractions such as botanical and zoological gardens, but not recording studios, which use a great deal of energy and are subject to international trade and competition? If that is the case, why is the Minister favouring making penguins eligible but not Arctic Monkeys?
Amanda Solloway
I thank the hon. Gentleman for the question. I know of his keen interest in production studios, because we have had conversations about this before. This is for the energy and trade-intensive industries that will be receiving the additional payment. However, I am of course really happy to have a conversation, and I can assure him that I have been meeting with all stakeholders to discuss such matters.
The EBDS regulations cover the process by which the energy supplier is reimbursed by the Secretary of State for discounts that it gives. The EBDS (Northern Ireland) regulations prevent end users who are outside Northern Ireland from receiving the discount to their bills.
The EBDS regulations cover essential operational matters, including information and reporting obligations, enforcement powers and powers to impose civil penalties in respect of missing or defective declarations. The EBDS (Non-Standard Cases) regulations support the operation and delivery of grant funding to customers that receive gas or electricity from licence-exempt suppliers. They provide the Secretary of State with powers to obtain information from those involved and imply some terms into the contracts to help the scheme work more smoothly. Additionally, the regulations allow for revised EBRS terms, which expand eligibility under the EBRS to include the cohort of non-standard customers who receive their licence-exempt energy via private wire or pipe at a price pegged to wholesale rates.
The Energy Bills Discount Scheme Pass-through Requirement Regulations 2023, the Energy Bills Discount Scheme Pass-through Requirement (Heat Suppliers) Regulations 2023 and the EBDS (Non-Standard Cases) regulations require certain intermediary businesses—often landlords—that receive a benefit under the scheme, but in turn provide energy to others, to pass a just and reasonable amount of the benefit that they receive to their end users.
The regulations set out obligations on the intermediary, including calculating the amount, providing end users with information about that, and passing on the benefit, as soon as reasonably practicable. They also set out the dispute mechanisms available and provide for a robust enforcement and compliance regime.
The Chair
Order. We have a Division. If Members will come back as soon as possible, I will suspend this sitting until the Division is over and we are all back.
Amanda Solloway
To conclude, the EBDS will be a source of critical support for non-domestic customers in the UK, particularly those in energy-intensive sectors, many of which are essential to the national infrastructure. These regulations are crucial for the establishment and effective operation of the schemes. The scheme complements the existing large-scale support that the Government have provided during the energy crisis. I hope the Committee will support the measures and their objectives.
Dr Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test) (Lab)
We have been around these houses quite a few times, between us. I cannot remember exactly how many SIs we have had on the energy bill support scheme pass-through requirements—the non-domestic element of the original scheme—but I think it is well into double figures. During that period we have debated a whole range of things relating to those SIs, both positive and negative. The overwhelmingly positive aspect of the SIs has been that they provide the support people need for their bills in these times of great uncertainty and difficulty.
Today we are debating five SIs, which, secure the energy bill discount scheme for non-domestic businesses in Great Britain and Northern Ireland for a further year. The Minister will not be surprised when I repeat my concerns about the likelihood of some people getting the money they are entitled to, in view of the requirements of the SIs. She will recall our discussions about whether there should be a strict legal liability on the intermediaries responsible for the pass-through arrangements. There has been a further development in the arrangements for the energy ombudsman to become involved in matters of dispute, but he or she has no legal recourse to enforce payments. We still lack a strict legal liability for those whom the legislation makes responsible for passing through payments to the right people. I do not think we will profit greatly by having a long debate about that— I do not think we will resolve it further—but I note that I am still not entirely satisfied.
I am puzzled about how the new scheme fits in with paragraph 5 of schedule 6 to the Energy Prices Act 2022, which provides for reduced energy charges for non-domestic customers in Great Britain. It is right that the secondary legislation should concern itself with a one-year scheme, particularly for non-domestic customers, bearing in mind that the contracts they enter into do not fall strictly within any particular six-month period. One problem we had in our previous discussions about non-domestic customers was that someone might take out a contract for a non-domestic service that started before the support period and finished halfway through it, or that they might take out a contract halfway through the support period that finished outside it. There could be problems at either end. Those issues seem to have generally been resolved, but a period of a year is a more approachable proposition.
The Energy Prices Act sets out a two-year window within which support is to be provided, and states that that support
“may only provide for the reduction of charges for electricity supply that takes place during a period of six months or less;”.
As the explanatory notes to the Energy Bill Discount Scheme regulations state,
“The EBDS takes us up to the end of the third of the four successive periods.”
That means that the Act envisages a maximum of two years in four different tranches of six months. It then states:
“Support under EBDS will be provided for a year (divided into two six month periods), reflecting the limits in the Act.”
Dividing the support into six-month periods reflects the limits in the Act, but it does not make it clear—it is certainly not clear in the secondary legislation that we are debating—whether the superior legislation so limits the provision of support for a period of six months or less that putting forward a proposal that support should be provided for one year does not necessarily count, for legislative purposes.
It may be perfectly in order for the Government to set an aspiration that support should be for one year, but that may not necessarily accord with what the Act says. In order to make that right for a year, we may have to be here, yet again, in six months’ time re-legislating for the second of those two six-month periods.
I would like to know whether today’s proceedings really will be the last word on that support, or whether the proposal for a year’s support is an aspiration that will require us to go around the houses with legislation in six months’ time. If the Minister can clarify that, I will be very happy to support these regulations. In fact, I am happy to support them for the reasons I have outlined; I will not make my support conditional on the Minister’s doing that, because I am sure it will take some clarification. It is important, however, that we make it clear that we have finished legislating to give that certainty, and that as a result of today’s proceedings, we have put to bed for another year the question of price support for non-domestic customers.
Kevin Brennan
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Latham. I want to go back to a point that I made in an intervention on the Minister and emphasise that I am a little bit befuddled about why particular sectors have been chosen over others. I have read the impact assessment and the explanatory notes, and I have tried to work out why that should be the case. I am focusing on recording studios because I take an interest in and have some knowledge of them, although my questions may well apply to other sectors.
I asked the then Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport on 26 January 2023 about support for the financial viability of recording studios. They have been through some very difficult periods, particularly after covid. I give credit to the Music Producers Guild for their work, and to the Government for their response, to try to enable studios to work through that period. The Minister of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport, the hon. Member for Hornchurch and Upminster (Julia Lopez), responded to my written question with the sorts of support that might be available, and she said—this is the bit that is pertinent to today’s SIs:
“Since then, the Government announced a new Energy Bills Discount Scheme to help support businesses, like recording studios, to tackle rising energy costs.”
The Minister said, in terms, in her answer, which was submitted at 14.38 on 26 January 2023, that this scheme would be of assistance to recording studios.
I suppose that in a broad sense we could say that about any business, because in the baseline support that the Government are offering, pretty much any business —and, indeed, other non-domestic energy consuming organisations—could be eligible for support under the scheme if energy prices rise above a certain threshold. For the most part, however, that is not what is anticipated in the impact assessments or the explanatory notes, because it is expected, although we cannot be certain, that prices will not rise to a threshold sufficient to trigger that support. That is why the new scheme will offer a lower level of support than was previously available to businesses.
The implication of the DCMS Minster’s answer was that recording studios would be supported, however, and it would seem that that is not the case. As I indicated earlier, although there is no list in the impact assessment or the explanatory notes, if we dig around a bit we can find a list of industrial sectors that will be eligible for the energy and trade-intensive industries scheme under these SIs. I hope that it is up to date; the Minister for Energy Security and Net Zero can correct me if I am wrong. It is a very long list, and it includes all sorts of things that we might expect, such as the mining of hard coal, the manufacture of sugar, the manufacture of beer, the manufacture of other knitted and crocheted apparel, the manufacture of ceramic household and ornamental items, the cold rolling of narrow strip, the processing of nuclear fuel and the casting of steel.
I have worked in the steel industry myself, and I understand why such sectors are likely to be supported. Then there is a sequence of activities eligible for this higher level of support, including the list that I mentioned in my intervention earlier. They include things like libraries, archive and museum activities, the operation of historical sites and buildings and similar visitor attractions, and botanical or zoological garden and nature reserve activities. I am sure that those sectors will be very pleased to be eligible to apply for the higher-rate scheme; that is the one that is not automatic—it has to be applied for. However, I do not understand why those particular sectors are eligible but recording studios are not.
I took the all-party parliamentary group on music to the AIR recording studios in north London some months ago. Just to provide some context, that is one of the largest recording studios in the country; it is along the lines of Abbey Road. It was founded by the late, great Sir George Martin. It is a very major earner of export currency for this country, and a very major consumer of energy; by their very nature, recording studios have a lot of equipment that uses a lot of energy. Furthermore, human beings work in them so they have to be kept cool.
I will give an example. While we were there at AIR studios, we witnessed preparations for a major orchestral session. It might surprise some hon. Members to know that the session was to record not a piece of classical music or even a film score, but the score for a video game. That video game was being produced by Sony. In the control room during our visit, there was an executive over from Los Angeles, visiting AIR to help to set up the whole of that recording session. I asked that executive, “Why would you come to London to do this? You could do it in Los Angeles or in some other jurisdiction. This is not cheap. All of these people are union members. These are very expensive facilities you’ve got here.” His answer, which I think should encourage us all, was, “Because it’s the best place in the world to do this. We like coming here, and we know that what we get here will be of the highest quality.”
Those activities are significant for our trade figures. There is an industry that makes a significant impact on our trade figures—one of the few industries in the country that is a net exporter and earner of foreign currency. We are one of only two countries in the world of which that is true in relation to the music industry. It spends millions and millions of pounds yet is ineligible under the Government’s scheme, despite the high energy costs involved in running a major recording studio of that kind, that we are discussing here today in relation to these statutory instruments.
What I want to understand from the Minister—[Interruption.] I hope the in-flight refuelling will help her explain this to me. What I want to understand is why she would not include recording studios if these other cultural-type businesses are included. All the energy-intensive manufacturers are included on the list and the cultural activities, such as libraries, archives, museums, historical sites, visitor attractions and botanical and zoological gardens, all qualify, but recording studios do not.
If the Minister was able to give me an answer to that question, it might help me to decide to support what, apart from what I have pointed out, could be seen as reasonable actions by the Government to support businesses with their difficult energy bills.
Amanda Solloway
I thank hon. Members for their contributions to this debate. First, I address the question of whether these instruments are the end of the legislation in this area. I sincerely hope so. However, if there is anything to add when we meet tomorrow, I will of course let the hon. Member for Southampton, Test know, but it is very much my clear understanding that they are the end.
I turn to the point made by the hon. Member for Cardiff West about the music industry. I understand his great passion. He indicated very clearly why the industry is so important to the whole United Kingdom. He mentioned that he is very proud of our music industry—I am as well. I will attempt to explain the reason why we have these schemes. If I am unable to give a full enough explanation, as always I will be happy to offer a further meeting. Within the discount scheme, there is the universal level, which I believe is the level originally mentioned by the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Hornchurch and Upminster. On that level, support will be given across all of the non-domestic industry. That is my understanding of the support that the music industry will be receiving.
Clearly, the energy-intensive industries needed more support based on the energy that they use, and the fact that a lot of the work is international was also taken into account. The list that the hon. Member for Cardiff West referred to was the standard industrial classification list, known as the SIC list. That is the standard that we used to define the energy-intensive industries that were to have the additional discount. If I have not explained that fully, I am happy to have a meeting with the hon. Member at a later date.
Dr Whitehead
The Minister mentions the so-called SIC list. That is an interesting list in so much as it provides, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff West said, a number of categories of energy-intensive industries. Some of those categories are very narrowly drawn, and some are very widely drawn. His point, at least in part, was that some of the categories within the energy-intensive classification for the higher level of funding are very tightly drawn, and therefore they come into that level, whereas others are very widely drawn.
I mentioned the discrepancy between ornamental or leisure gardens and horticulture, which is often very intensive, and between horticulture and agriculture. Clearly, agriculture is outside the energy-intensive industry classification, but because horticulture is classified within agriculture it does not get in, even though it has similarities with things in the energy-intensive list. I wonder whether the Minister will find time, at some stage, to look at the SIC list to see whether it does the job that we think it does when it comes to ensuring that people get the assistance. Energy-intensive industries should be well enough drawn to ensure that we do not have the sort of anomalies that my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff West thinks we have.
Amanda Solloway
The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point about the SIC list. That is obviously the list we are using at the moment. We have taken a consistent approach to identifying the most energy and trade-intensive sectors with all the sectors that meet the agreed threshold to be eligible for this support. The Government are committed to continuing to provide essential energy bill support to eligible UK businesses, charities and public sector organisations until April 2024, to help avoid unnecessary financial pressures and job losses resulting from the ongoing situation in the wholesale market.
In addition to the baseline discount for all non-domestic consumers, the new scheme also provides, as we have discussed at length, much-needed targeted support for energy and trade-intensive industries and consumers on heat networks. That additional support will ensure that those most exposed to volatile energy prices and international trade are supported while limiting the fiscal burden on the taxpayer. The methodology ensures that the scheme captures those industries that have been identified as being less able to pass through their increased energy costs to customers because of international competition, as demonstrated by the level of trade intensity, and require an additional level of support. The pass-through requirement sets out how the benefit is passed on to end users in a reasonable and just way. The delivery of this calculation has been designed to ensure that it is not prescriptive but supports all scenarios.
By replicating existing civil enforcement mechanisms, we hope to avoid any complications for end users and provide clarity on how disputes can be raised. My Department has published clear guidance on gov.uk, both for intermediaries and for end users, that provides detailed information to help those affected. We are keen to ensure that all end users, including those who are vulnerable, receive the benefits of the schemes to which they are entitled. We will continue to review our pass-through requirement communication strategy, including reviewing guidance on gov.uk and offering engagement sessions to ensure that intermediaries understand their obligations and that customers receive the benefits to which they are entitled. I commend the regulations to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That the Committee has considered the Energy Bills Discount Scheme Regulations 2023 (S.I. 2023, No. 453).
ENERGY BILLS DISCOUNT SCHEME (NORTHERN IRELAND) REGULATIONS 2023
Resolved,
That the Committee has considered the Energy Bills Discount Scheme (Northern Ireland) Regulations 2023 (S.I., 2023, No. 454).—(Amanda Solloway.)
ENERGY BILLS DISCOUNT SCHEME (NON-STANDARD CASES) REGULATIONS 2023
Resolved,
That the Committee has considered the Energy Bills Discount Scheme (Non-Standard Cases) Regulations 2023 (S.I., 2023, No. 464).—(Amanda Solloway.)
ENERGY BILLS DISCOUNT SCHEME PASS-THROUGH REQUIREMENT REGULATIONS 2023
Resolved,
That the Committee has considered the Energy Bills Discount Scheme Pass-through Requirement Regulations 2023 (S.I., 2023, No. 463).—(Amanda Solloway.)
ENERGY BILLS DISCOUNT SCHEME PASS-THROUGH REQUIREMENT (HEAT SUPPLIERS) REGULATIONS 2023
Resolved,
That the Committee has considered the Energy Bills Discount Scheme Pass-through Requirement (Heat Suppliers) Regulations 2023 (S.I., 2023, No. 455).—(Amanda Solloway.)
Draft Medical Devices (Amendment) (Great Britain) Regulations 2023
(11 months, 3 weeks ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Maria Caulfield)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Medical Devices (Amendment) (Great Britain) Regulations 2023.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. Medical devices are currently regulated by the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency in the United Kingdom, which helps to ensure that they are safe and perform as intended. The past few years have been a time of great change for medical devices. The covid pandemic saw huge advances in life sciences and diagnostic tests, and the UK’s decision to leave the EU has presented a great opportunity to strengthen our regulatory regime. We in this country are lucky to have a dynamic and pioneering medtech sector, and the MHRA is a renowned regulator with an established track record of innovation-friendly regulation.
The main objective of the instrument is to give the medtech sector additional time to transition to our post-EU exit regime for medical devices. To achieve that, it extends the time during which manufacturers and importers can place CE-marked medical devices on the GB market.
Since January 2021, to place medical devices on the GB market, manufacturers have had the choice of either following the UK route to market introduced after the UK’s exit from the EU and marking their devices with a new UKCA mark, or following EU legislation and affixing a CE mark. Without this statutory instrument, that flexibility would cease on 30 June 2023, and manufacturers would only be able to follow the UKCA route. That would impact an estimated 11,000 businesses that have registered devices with CE marking and not UKCA marking. To be clear, this instrument has no impact on medical devices already on the market with a UKCA mark.
The MHRA is working to implement an extensive reform to future regime medical devices, and the intention is that that core aspect will be applied from July 2025. Therefore, this SI will give the industry flexibility to continue to use CE or UKCA markings on medical devices until that date. This instrument will not only help to minimise any loss of medical devices from the market, but will ensure that patients can continue to access safe, high-quality medical devices and to smooth the transition to future regulatory requirements until 2025.
I will summarise some of the key changes. First, the instrument provides that medical devices compliant with the medical devices directive or active implantable medical devices directive with a valid declaration and CE marking can be placed on the GB market up until the expiry of the device certificate or 30 June 2028, whichever is sooner. Secondly, in vitro diagnostic medical devices compliant with the EU IVD directive can be placed on the GB market up until the sooner of the expiry of the device certificate or 30 June 2030.
Thirdly, medical devices, including custom-made devices, compliant with the EU medical devices regulation and IVDs compliant with the EU IVD regulation can be placed on the GB market up until 30 June 2030. That is in keeping with the Government’s response to the consultation on the future regulation of medical devices in the United Kingdom, which took place from September to November 2021.
By supporting these regulations, we can help to ensure that patients and the wider public benefit from continued access to quality, safe medical devices, that the UK therefore remains an attractive market for manufacturers of medical devices, and that the wider medtech industry has adequate time to prepare for transition to the future regulatory framework for medical devices planned for 2025. I commend the regulations to the Committee.
Karin Smyth (Bristol South) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. This is one of those fairly innocuous-looking SIs that hides a multitude of problems and incompetence. Many people in our constituencies rely on these medical devices—some 600,000 every day—so it is important that they remain available on the UK market.
The Minister did not outline the range of devices that we are talking about. This is not some technical issue; devices range from blood tests to wheelchairs, contact lenses and scalpels. I am sure that hon. Members have all taken a chance to look at the list of non-invasive, invasive, surgically invasive and active devices. I will not delay the Committee by detailing all of them, but it is a long list, so it really is shocking that we are here once again. Although we have plenty of time, the Committee is being rushed by the Government to approve the draft regulations as some sort of last-minute extension of the existing regulations to mitigate the Government’s failure over exiting the European Union, some seven years after the vote. We are talking about plasters today, so the draft regulations are opportune: yet another sticking plaster over the problems that the Government have encountered and their inability to negotiate a settlement that took account of these important devices.
We will support the draft regulations because, without them, people across our country would suffer greatly from not having access to things coming on to the market and so on, but we need to ensure continuity of supply. I have a number of questions on which I hope the Minister will be able to shed some light, because I am sure she does not want to have rushed, unquestioned legislation. Turning to paragraph 7.3 of the explanatory memorandum, it would be helpful if the Minister could provide some detail on the steps being taken to build the approved body capacity to meet the demand for UK conformity assessments. With regard to paragraph 6, can the Minister share any details on the “significant amendments” that we should expect to the UK medical devices regulations, which have been discussed in this place before? Any details would be very welcome, because it is not only patients who could be affected if we fail to extend the legislation.
The Minister alluded to the number of businesses involved in this work, but manufacturers of these devices—both in the EU and here in the UK—need to have some sort of certainty. The lead-in time for some of this work is massive, as is the research and development capability needed to produce the devices. This last-minute rush is no good for businesses, and although the Minister tried to say that the draft regulations provide certainty, we contend that extending them for another few years, without a clear indication of the route to the full UKCA marking, does not provide certainty. Beyond the consultation, what conversations are the Government having with manufacturers to ensure that we have some realistic timescales about the future? As I said, this is a real worry for our constituents as well as medical professionals, people involved in prescribing the devices and those accessing them.
In paragraph 13.3 of the explanatory memorandum, the Government indicate that they do not
“expect a significant cost impact on small and/or micro businesses”,
because the draft regulations are a continuation of the “status quo”. Again, that is not good enough, because it contradicts the statement that the extended period is a “transition”. I am sure we all know that small businesses operate on tight margins. It is difficult to run a small business, so small businesses would welcome further details about what action will be taken to assist them in transitioning from CE marking to UKCA marking. I understand that there may be working groups looking at this issue, which is to be welcomed, but it would be very welcome if the Minister could inform us about that point.
It is vital that we get this right as we look to the future, so I ask the Minister: what is the Government’s long-term plan to ensure the success of the UKCA regime for medical devices? If this is the route we are going down, we want to make it a success. If the Minister could indicate—[Interruption.]
Karin Smyth
To complete the point that I was making, we are interested in what the Government’s long-term plan is to ensure the success of the UKCA regime for devices.
It would also be helpful if the Minister indicated the Government’s view on alignment. What is their intention for future alignment with the EU? Is it their intention for us to be aligned with anyone but ourselves? What impact will that have on our future businesses?
The extension of acceptance of CE-marked medical devices will act as a transition, and we would all welcome clarification from the Minister of what that transition will look like. What steps will the Government take, in the time that we are allowing them, to support the manufacturers and supply chains that are indispensable to all those who rely on medical devices, to support jobs, and to preserve our global reputation for research, innovation and high standards?
Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)
I will echo a lot of what we have heard from the hon. Member for Bristol South on the Labour Front Bench; there were some very fair points, well made. These innocuous-looking regulations actually cover a very wide range of devices, many of which our constituents find essential for going about their daily business and daily lives.
Here we are, in a Commons Committee Room, not taking back control, not doing things differently, but extending regulations that have already been in place and operating very successfully across the European Union for many years—but now with the added Brexit bonus of all the bureaucracy and resources necessary to approve a statutory instrument that has the effect of maintaining the pre-Brexit status quo. I am sure that that is what all the Conservative Back Benchers who campaigned so hard for Brexit were looking forward to when they were out knocking doors and then found themselves elected to this place. The necessity of these regulations demonstrates exactly the kind of policy and legislative cliff edge that the Government were repeatedly warned about, particularly as they brought forward the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill, which of course they are now having to retreat from in the face of amendments made by the House of Lords.
The Minister says that the Government want to bring forward their own framework for regulating medical devices, so perhaps she can give us a preview of her vision for that and how it will diverge from the European Union’s. Will the United Kingdom have higher standards than the European Union for the production and manufacture of medical devices? I am sure that she will also want to reassure us that the Government have absolutely no intention of allowing poorly made, poorly tested or otherwise substandard devices to enter the UK market, and certainly not as part of any trade deals that they might be looking to make with non-European countries.
In the meantime, we will have to continue to consume time and energy and much passion—as is visible on the Conservative Back Benches here today—dealing with these kinds of extensions, carry-overs and all the rest, because Brexit has not been the great liberation that was promised. It has made many aspects of life more difficult, more complex, more bureaucratic and more precarious for many people—particularly, in this case, people who rely on access to medical devices and want confidence in and assurance of the quality of what they are going out to access through the NHS or on the UK market. The statutory instrument is yet another example of how Brexit has not lived up to any of the promises that were made.
Emma Hardy (Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle) (Lab)
These are hugely significant regulations. As co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on surgical mesh, I want to focus my contribution on vaginal mesh.
The Minister will be aware of how medical devices have harmed and disabled tens of thousands of women, leaving them in excruciating pain and unable to live the lives that they lived previously. It has been a national scandal. I recognise a previous Prime Minister’s interest in this area: the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May) commissioned the work by Baroness Cumberlege that culminated in the report entitled “First Do No Harm”, which looked at the scandal of the use of vaginal mesh. It feels like the regulations could have been an opportunity to address some of the difficulties that her report found.
As I said, the use of vaginal mesh, due to the plastic that it is made from, has harmed tens of thousands of women. I know that the Minister is aware of the issue, because I have corresponded with her at length on it. The use of mesh was suspended in 2018, but the problems inherent then are still inherent now. The yellow card system for reporting difficulties with medical devices still is not working in the way it should, and not enough women or people are aware of it. There is concern that some medical devices are being approved based on previous approvals and therefore they are going through on the nod, without the detailed scrutiny they require.
The Government could look at creating a database of everyone with permanently implanted medical devices, including details of the device type, so that they could be tracked. We have a system at the moment whereby many different medical devices are used in our bodies. The women I have been referring to were treated like guinea pigs. These products were tested inside them and then, when they reported problems, they were ignored and belittled. There was no way of identifying the exact type of medical device that was inside each woman. No information was available about the composition of the plastic that was used.
Paragraph 6.9 of the explanatory memorandum is about the MHRA’s public consultation on the future regulation of medical devices. Are we going to start looking at barcodes or tracking numbers on devices that are put inside people, so that when someone reports a problem they can be told, “Okay, we know exactly what you have inside you and exactly what it is made of,” and we can therefore identify groups of women, in this case—or of anybody—that have been impacted by the specific device?
Another issue is how to report a problem with a medical device. At the moment, it is a lottery what ends up inside you, because different things are approved, and it is a lottery whether you are told about the yellow card system and how to report. In the future regulation of medical devices, are we looking at an automatic reporting system where people are given the information? Personally, I want to get rid of the yellow card system altogether. Those are the kinds of questions that I would like the Minister to respond to.
Maria Caulfield
I will do my best to respond to the points made by hon. Members. The hon. Member for Bristol South asked a number of questions. She is right: there is a long list of devices, which fall into various classes of device that the MHRA regulates, and there are different rules for the different types of devices. The MHRA has taken a wide-ranging approach in consulting with the industry and the medtech sector. The consultation that was developed between September and November 2021 is still being looked through. That is why we have this SI: because the MHRA has taken on board some of the concerns and suggestions of the industry.
The final regulations will be operational from 2025. We have set that date so that we have a lead-in period, and then a transition time up to 2030. The MHRA regularly engages with trade associations, for the very reasons that the hon. Lady set out. The recent consultation received more than 900 responses. The explanatory memorandum includes a contact at the MHRA; any industry people listening who have concerns or suggestions and did not manage to take part in the consultation can still make contact with the MHRA, which will be able to give guidance and support on the plans. When we are further down the road to 2025, the MHRA will issue guidance to the industry as well.
Further regulations will be introduced later this year in relation to the long-term changes, and we will keep Members updated on that. This is a big change and the MHRA is doing a significant amount of work in this space. It is taking steps to ensure that, in implementing the further changes to medical devices regulations, it has the capacity and capability to continue to perform, as it always has, to the highest level, putting patient safety first but supporting the industry as well.
The hon. Lady talked about future realignment. As part of our wider work to reform medical devices regulation and take advantage of Brexit opportunities, we will make provision for alternative routes for medical devices to reach the GB market. That will involve possible recognition of devices with approval from other trusted regulators. We will keep Members updated on that as we work towards it.
Emma Hardy
I am concerned about the point about other trusted regulators. Different countries have completely different rules for medical devices. I will not mention vaginal mesh again, but the rules in the USA are quite different from those across the European Union. The community would be incredibly concerned if we were to accept other countries’ criteria for what is considered safe or not. I hope that the Minister will explain that we will have a stricter and more thorough system for regulating what goes inside our bodies.
Maria Caulfield
I take the hon. Lady’s point, and that is exactly the point that I wanted to make: we want to have the safest regulations possible. However, that does not close the door to recognising the work of other regulators. As I say, we will keep Members fully informed of those decisions as we go forward.
I know that this is slightly out of scope, Mr Stringer, but on the use of mesh, that was done while we had the existing EU regulations for CE-marked devices. There is now the possibility to track devices—they have barcodes on them—such as breast implants or replacement hips, and we have certainly accepted almost all the recommendations of the Cumberlege review, which looked specifically at mesh. I do not wish to test the Chair’s patience by going outside the scope of the draft SI, but that is why it is important that when we set the new UK mark, we learn lessons from the past. The CE mark has served us well, but there were instances of safety being compromised.
Emma Hardy
I thank the Minister for giving way again, and I thank you, Mr Stringer, for your generosity. Will the Minister indulge me by commenting quickly on the yellow card system and on how people can report more effectively?
The Chair
Order. I have allowed the debate go beyond the scheduling and timing of the draft regulations, because I did not want to restrict it, but if hon. Members now focus on what the statutory instrument says, that will be helpful.
Maria Caulfield
Absolutely, Mr Stringer. I am happy to follow up on the yellow card outside the Committee, because it is outside the scope of the regulations.
The aim of the draft regulations, as we move away from the CE mark to the UK mark, is to give businesses time to transition to the new regulatory regime, which we are planning to introduce in 2025, with some transitional arrangements after that date. The MHRA is working hard with industry and is in regular contract with trade associations. We want to make the transition as smooth as possible, and the draft SI will allow the sector leeway so that we can introduce the changes at pace.
Question put and agreed to.
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
Cost of Living: Financial Support for Disabled People
(11 months, 3 weeks 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
Marsha De Cordova (Battersea) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered e-petitions 610300 and 617425, relating to the cost of living and financial support for disabled people.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Robert. I congratulate Rachel Curtis, Abigail Broomfield and Katy Styles for creating the petitions. Abigail and Katy are here today, and more than 40,000 people have signed the petitions. I put on the record my thanks to the Petitions Committee staff for all their work, Inclusion London and Disability Rights UK for meeting me last week, and the many organisations that sent briefings and provided advice, including Oxfam, Scope, Mencap, the Royal National Institute of Blind People and Citizens Advice.
Ahead of today’s debate, the Petitions Committee launched a survey, which 10,854 people completed—one of the biggest responses to a Petitions Committee survey. The plight of disabled people should concern every Member, as the proportion of the UK population reporting a disability has risen to 20% over the past decade. As a disabled person myself, I know how intense it can be for someone to share their story, so I thank each and every person who completed the survey for sharing their experience. In response to the ongoing cost of living emergency and energy crisis, 93% of respondents have had to limit their use of energy, 76% are limiting their use of transport, and 60% have limited their use of specialist equipment. Over half have had to reduce their use of medication.
Those results are shocking. Unsurprisingly, testimony of poor mental health was apparent. Some respondents described feelings of despair. Others even reported being pushed to consider suicide. One respondent wrote:
“My life is hard. I survived childhood cancer to become a disabled adult. I had so many hopes for my life but now each day I regret not dying of cancer. My life is not dignified.”
A mother wrote:
“My son…is allergic to the cold. He has EpiPens and I have had to use them this winter as I can’t afford the heating on all the time or I can’t afford special clothing for him. I feel like a failed mother.”
A person who regrets not dying of cancer, and a mother who feels like she is a failure; I ask the Minister how that is acceptable in the UK in 2023. Nearly half of those living in poverty in the UK are disabled or live with somebody who is disabled.
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is making a powerful speech. She is right about the figures around poverty: one in three disabled people live in poverty—twice that of non-disabled people. While I applaud the petitions’ aims, particularly the call for one-off payments as a temporary measure, does she agree that the real issue is the adequacy of social security support for disabled people, which has become emaciated over the last 12 years, and that we need to incorporate the UN convention on the rights of persons with disabilities into law? We have been a signatory to it since 2009, but are failing to provide adequate social protection.
Marsha De Cordova
I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention. She is absolutely spot on. We need a wholesale review of social security but, more importantly, the Government should commit, as Labour has done, to fully incorporate the UN convention on the rights of persons with disabilities, so that we are protecting their civil and human rights.
It is a fact that disabled people incur extra costs. Scope’s latest Disability Price Tag report found that the average disabled household faces an extra £975 a month in costs, with that figure rising to over £1,200 if accommodating the inflationary costs for the period from 2022 to 2023. The Resolution Foundation found that the gap in household income between adults with a disability and adults without a disability was 30%, including disability social security, and that the gap rises to 44% if disability social security is not included. That was across the period from 2020 to 2021. Citizens Advice data for May 2023 shows that since the first quarter of 2022 the largest cohort helped was either permanently sick people or disabled people. The Trussell Trust has reported that disabled people are hugely over-represented in food poverty demographics. And 73% of families who took part in the recent survey by the Disabled Children’s Partnership said that the cost of living crisis will have a significant impact on their disabled children.
The spending of disabled households is particularly exposed to the ongoing energy crisis, given that energy bills for medical issues, and spending on specialist equipment and food, make up a disproportionate share of all spending. In response to the Petitions Committee’s survey, 48% of respondents said that they had extra costs due to the use of specialist equipment.
In my view, there is no question that the blame lies with the successive years of a Conservative Government, whereby they have created a hostile environment for disabled people. That was compounded by the pandemic and the current cost of living crisis.
Government support has barely scratched the surface. The paltry support is woefully insufficient and the very definition of what we would call sticking-plaster politics. Of the disabled people surveyed who received the £150 cost of living payment, 80% said that it would not be enough to cover their increased costs for essentials. That prompts the question: how do the Government think that the payment will be sufficient when inflation is around 10% and official figures show the fastest annual increases in food and drink prices because of inflation in the last 40 years, at around 19% as of March this year?
The reality is that even cost of living payments are not always reaching people, for instance those on the new style employment and support allowance who do not qualify for any Government cost of living payment support. There was also the cruel decision to change the warm homes discount criteria during the cost of living crisis, despite the Government’s own impact assessment finding that 290,000 disabled people would no longer receive the discount. For them, the £150 disability cost of living payment only offsets the loss of the warm homes discount. Why?
More worryingly, the Government have not provided specific support for disabled households incurring high energy costs. Many disabled people have told me that it is pointless to prescribe medicine if a person cannot afford to run the equipment they need to stay alive.
NHS schemes in place to cover the electricity costs of oxygen concentrators and dialysis machines are currently beset with issues and the Retail Energy Code Company has argued for establishing a service tailored for those using medical equipment. On prepayment meters, 60% of the people supported by Citizens Advice between January 2022 and February 2023 who could not afford to top up were disabled people, compared with the 40% who were not disabled or who did not have a long-term health condition.
UK household energy suppliers have agreed to a new code of practice, which means that force-fitting prepayment meters will be subject to a set of voluntary restrictions, but the industry needs to go further by banning prepayment meters for disabled people and providing more help with energy debt. Why will the Government not call for an industry-wide ban of forced installations in disabled households?
The political choice of austerity has gutted our social security system, and the consequences are real. Government-funded research suggests that cuts to social care and public health caused 57,500 more deaths in England than would have been expected if spending had continued at pre-2010 trends. The long-overdue health and disability White Paper focuses on getting disabled people into work and ramping up the use of sanctions, but the Government should be focusing on improving schemes such as Access to Work, getting rid of the delays and dealing with the outstanding applications. Access to Work is one of the best mechanisms for helping disabled people—especially those living with sight loss—to stay in work. Evidence suggests that sanctions do not work and have a negative impact on disabled people’s health.
The White Paper rightly suggests scrapping the work capability assessment, but replacing it with the personal independence payment assessment is absurd, given that PIP has a totally different function. It is an extra benefit, and it does not actually meet the additional costs. We know, because we have debated this previously, that the PIP assessment is flawed and that the support that PIP offers is in many cases inadequate. The Government’s own statistics show that more than 60% of PIP decisions that are appealed are overturned in favour of the claimant. The Government have never carried out an assessment of the adequacy of PIP and whether it is fit for purpose. Will they commit to assessing its adequacy and whether it works, and make improvements to the assessment?
Disabled people who receive social care can be asked to give up to 40% of their social security income to pay for social care. That leaves many in deep poverty and forces them to make the impossible choice between meeting their basic needs such as heating or eating and essential care. Research by the BBC found that more than 60,000 people are in social care debt.
There are clear actions that the Government can take to address the situation. They must increase the disability cost of living payment, and frankly they should be making those payments now; I do not understand why people have to wait until June to receive the second payment. They should extend the cost of living payments to everybody, especially those on new-style ESA. They should bring in the universal credit uplift, remove the social security benefit cap and reverse the changes to the eligibility criteria for the warm home discount.
The Government could also push the energy industry to introduce an energy debt waiver or some sort of social tariff. We know, however it is designed, that a social tariff is in isolation unlikely to meet the needs of disabled people, so it should be developed alongside a tailored cost support policy. The Government should also look at the feasibility of the warm home prescription, which aims to help people on low incomes and those with severe health conditions that are made worse by bad weather.
Energy suppliers must improve access to information for disabled people, especially blind and partially sighted people and those with a learning disability. It is their legal duty to do so, so what pressure can the Government put on them to ensure they are compliant?
The changes outlined in the White Paper are designed to get more disabled people into work, but are the Government removing barriers to help disabled people access the labour market? Are they addressing the disability employment pay gap? Disabled people are paid an average of 21% less than their non-disabled colleagues.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams) outlined, changes need to be made to the social security system to make it less cruel, unfair and hostile, and to restore it to its original purpose, which was to provide a safety net for those in need. Disabled people are not asking for more; they are asking for equity. The Government should be ashamed that disabled people are dying or reporting that they want to commit suicide. Today should be a watershed moment for the Government.
Many are angry and frustrated. They feel that the Government have abandoned them, letting down the very people they should be seeking to protect the most. An example of that was the long overdue, or late, national disability strategy, which was ruled unlawful last year. Many of us did not believe that it was credible in the first place, but what have the Government replaced it with? There needs to be a fundamental rethink and change in the Government’s approach to serving disabled people. The approach must be about making their lives better and not about causing preventable harm.
As I close, I thank the petitioners. I encourage hon. Members to say hello to Abigail and Katy after the debate. I had the opportunity to meet them last week, and hearing about the experiences that led them to start the petition was pretty harrowing. As I said, I hope that today can be a moment when the Government acknowledge their flaws and failures on the part of disabled people, seek to draw a line and bring about changes that will improve their lives.
Paul Maynard (Blackpool North and Cleveleys) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Robert, to follow the hon. Member for Battersea (Marsha De Cordova) and, indeed, to have a second bite of the cherry in speaking about this topic, given that last Tuesday I could not make it to the debate secured by the hon. Member for Motherwell and Wishaw (Marion Fellows). It is always good to have a second coming, I have to say—although in my case perhaps not. We have had an eloquent debate so far.
I am sure that we will hear many numbers in the course of the debate. Two stick out to me. One comes from Kidney Care UK, which cites the average annual extra cost to an individual facing dialysis as £1,918. The second big figure comes from the charity Contact a Family, which works with disabled children. It says that the average cost of the energy needs for the disabled children that the charity works with is £1,596. That covers such matters as pumps, monitors, hoists and electric wheelchairs, all of which are related to an individual’s health condition. That is one type of extra cost that the disabled face in regard to energy needs.
The second type of cost does not really relate to health needs but is a consequence of a person’s disability. I chair the all-party parliamentary group for assistive technology. Many people with profound and severe disabilities, particularly cerebral palsy, rely on computer or some sort of IT aids to engage with the wider world. They are vital to their quality of life. Such aids can be voice recognition software, eyeball-controlled software and so on. All that relies on electricity, which of course costs money as well. Those needs are a consequence of their disability but are not health needs per se.
The third sort of extra cost is that those with any sort of disability need to maintain their home at a higher temperature than might otherwise be the case merely to keep themselves warm. On that point, I give a small plug to my Westminster Hall debate at 4 pm on Wednesday, which is about furniture poverty and affordability. One area that I will focus on is the fact that all too often new tenants move into social housing and find that floor coverings have been removed, and they cannot afford to replace them. They end up with a much less well-insulated property, which for many of them affects their health. Those are the three areas that we need to consider.
Having read the Hansard report of last week’s debate online in preparation for this debate, and listening to questions, I think a consensus is emerging. The phrase “social tariff” crops up time and again, and there is much discussion about the role of personal independence payments and a recognition of the £150 that the Government have made available. There is also a lot of talk about the lump sum of £650, which one of the petitions refers to. There are positives and negatives with all of those, in my view.
I am always interested in how the personal independence payment works. It clearly has an important role to play, and is designed to meet the additional costs that people face due to their disability in their day-to-day lives. There has been a long-term debate over the extent to which it fulfils that goal. The purple pound—the premium that so many people face—is not always reflected in PIP. Whether a non-means tested benefit, which PIP is, is the right avenue to support the energy needs of the most vulnerable in society is a debate worth having. We should not automatically assume that PIP is the answer to every problem. If that is the argument, Members have to justify to me why millionaires should benefit equally to some of my poorest constituents, and why those constituents should not get more intense and focused support.
The second issue is around the social tariff. Social tariffs sound all well and good; everyone thinks they are a wonderful idea. A social tariff has to be paid for, and that subsidy is often taken from other bill payers’ accounts, where it often ends up on a standing charge. What we risk doing by our continual focus on solving every problem with a social tariff is that it then gets put on a standing charge, and there is an ever decreasing circle where more people will see their standing charges go up and then have cause to revert to a social tariff themselves because they cannot afford their bills, thereby increasing the standing charges. In reality, that would not occur, but it is a logical inference. Once again, we cannot keep solving every problem in our energy system and our cost of living crisis by placing them on a standing charge—other ways have to be found.
I accept that the intention behind the £650 payment is a good one. My point is that it is an arbitrary figure. It certainly does not reflect the overall costs experienced by many of the people I just mentioned, which go far above £650. While good, I do not think it is necessary the answer either.
The hon. Member for Battersea briefly made mention of the Retail Energy Code Company, and its report. I am going to give it a bit more of a plug, because I think it is much more exciting than the hon. Member suggested.
Paul Maynard
The hon. Member mentioned the Retail Energy Code Company only briefly, and I wanted to talk a little more about it because the detail in it is actually quite interesting. I am not mocking the hon. Member at all, I just have the time to cover it in more detail, whereas she had more to cover. I urge her not to take offence unnecessarily.
The Retail Energy Code Company advises energy companies on the code of conduct they must adopt towards their customers. Given some of my casework, I am not sure how much the energy companies are listening to it, but that is its role within the energy sector. Andrew Mower, who has been working with it on a set of proposals on how to deal with energy costs for disabled people, has done a superb job in exploring this area and finding some of the flaws in the proposals that have been made in recent months.
In particular, it is worth looking at the NHS schemes that exist at the moment for those on oxygen concentrators and dialysis machines. It is a perfectly good model; I am glad to see the NHS recognising that it has to help people meet energy costs, but it is not universal. It goes back to my old friend the postcode lottery. In addition, the subsidy does not go up when energy prices go up, so people are always playing catch-up. People are paid in arrears, so they have to stump up the cash to pay their bills in the hope that they will get the money back at some future date. That money may not actually reflect the bill they have to pay.
It is interesting how the NHS model, which we think may be the answer to many things, actually causes as many problems as it solves. Similarly, with social tariffs, Mr Mower points out the immense difficulty they have found in the broadband sector when trying to come up with a social tariff that actually works and does not disrupt the market in perverse ways with unintended consequences that could see social tariffs costing more than the one that is available on the market to families now. Social tariffs by themselves are quite difficult to get right and need to be extremely flexible. I am not convinced that Ofgem spending hours each week reinventing what this week’s social tariff should look like every time the energy cap changes is actually the answer either.
Hannah Bardell (Livingston) (SNP)
The hon. Gentleman is very informed and detailed on this topic so I defer to his superior knowledge, but does he not agree that the Retail Energy Code Company, Ofgem and all those involved in the market are clearly failing the most vulnerable in our society? I have vulnerable and disabled constituents who are turning off their energy just so they can survive, yet the disaster of the structure and the standing charges—which the hon. Gentleman mentioned —means they are no better off, but they are freezing cold.
Paul Maynard
I share the hon. Lady’s view about the reality that her constituents, and indeed mine, are facing. I share some of her criticisms of the energy companies themselves. The Retail Energy Code Company is trying to provide an answer, which I hope the energy companies will listen to and I hope might just persuade her that it is worth a second look, but I do not know. Time will tell, perhaps.
When coming up with proposals for the disability sector, many charities emphasise the broadness of eligibility and auto-enrolment. That is entirely logical and sensible for them to do. They have learned from the reality of the priority services register. In my constituency, I find that the people who really ought to be on that register are the least likely to be on it, so charities are right to be concerned about whether some sort of voluntary enrolment would actually get to where we want it to go. At the same time, they are missing out the potential for a more tailored scheme, which goes back to my earlier point. Everybody’s energy costs are going to be different, and one-off payments do not necessarily meet that challenge.
Liz Twist (Blaydon) (Lab)
The hon. Gentleman is making a very thoughtful speech about a complex issue. Does he accept that having some money, while imperfect, has to be preferable to being left without that amount of money?
Paul Maynard
Something is better than nothing. However, part of the art of speech making is building an argument, as I hope the hon. Lady understands. I have not yet culminated my argument in what I think we should do. By all means, she can agree or disagree with my critique of what is being proposed, but I am about to come on to what I think should be done, which I hope might just persuade her yet again.
Mr Mower looked at what is being done in the Australian states. They have gone into great detail on this topic, looking at all the different forms of medical equipment that people are using and their energy intensity. Each piece of equipment has a different energy consumption rate. It cannot just be measured by minutes or hours; some of them are more energy intensive than others. Australian states have done calculations enabling them to oblige energy firms to discount the energy at the point of consumption. There is then no need to request a rebate from an energy company, or some supplementary top-up, because it occurs at the point of consumption of that energy. That helps to solve the problem of how we support those with energy-intensive equipment needs. However, I agree it does not meet the needs of those who have to heat their properties generally for their own health benefits.
The hon. Member for Battersea briefly mentioned the issue of the warm home prescription, which the Energy Systems Catapult has been introducing. It has had a limited roll-out in Gloucestershire, and I think it is now operating in four areas as a pilot. It has great potential, but where I issue caution is that we need to understand, if we do not already, whether it is actually saving the NHS money. The idea is that a social prescriber looks at a person’s energy consumption, the insulation in their home and their energy needs, and works out whether a form of prescription to help with energy prices is a way of forestalling more expensive treatment for more severe health conditions at some future date. That is quite hard to capture in a short period of time because we have not seen the long-term consequences yet, but that measure seems positive to me. It would deal with the issue of people needing to warm their homes over a longer period of time, so it is a twin-track approach.
I have tried to put Mr Mower’s report into my own words and not read it out verbatim, because that would be a boring way to make a speech. In his conclusion, he said that the electricity costs of these consumers—in other words, those who rely upon equipment—would best be met through a scheme that can tailor support to the needs of each eligible consumer, rather than a policy targeted at a wider range of vulnerable consumers, so that they can have full confidence that the costs of the relevant equipment are being met. To me, that is the key word in this debate: confidence. The hon. Member for Battersea mentioned it, as did other Members in interventions. Individuals with severe health conditions who do not continue to heat their properties and run their equipment are running the risk of disadvantageous health outcomes because they do not have the confidence that they will be able to afford their bills.
I urge the Minister, and the Minister for Energy Consumers and Affordability, who was present briefly, to really engage with the Retail Energy Code Company and look at the matter in great detail to bring together the NHS and the Social Prescribing Network—I know that social prescribing is the answer to everything in life these days, but in this case it might just be—and try to work out with Ofgem whether the twin-track approach could solve the problem that we are seeking to solve.
Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to speak with you in the Chair, Sir Robert. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Marsha De Cordova) on leading this important debate. We know that the serious implications of rising prices for fuel, transport and food have fallen much harder on some people. People with disabilities face a higher risk of poverty. The poverty rate for individuals who live in families where someone is disabled is 28%—nine percentage points more than those who live in families where no one is disabled. They are also less likely to be able to make savings on their bills for reasons related to their disability. We have heard a great deal about how the size of bills impacts many people.
I will talk about one of the petitioners: Katy Styles, who is here today. She is an unpaid carer for her husband who has motor neurone disease, and she is a campaigner for improved support for carers. She put it like this:
“It’s not a question of putting on an extra jumper for us. When someone has a muscle wasting disease their ability to stay warm is compromised, so homes need to be heated for longer and at higher temperatures. Not heating your home can lead to chest infections and in turn this can lead to a stay in hospital”.
We are focusing an awful lot on households with someone with a disability, but the extra costs for heating are borne by not only the person with a disability but their unpaid carers. Well over a quarter of all unpaid carers are living in poverty, and research from Carers UK found that more than three quarters of carers said that the rising cost of living is one of the main challenges that they would face in 2023, which is hardly surprising.
Rosie Duffield (Canterbury) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend for mentioning my fantastic constituent Katy Styles. Does my hon. Friend agree that campaigns such as We Care and people such as Katy make a real difference to us because they talk about the impact on real lives, and how the decisions that we make here affect them on a daily basis? It is not just statistics that we receive from charities and others: we know how each decision that we make here impacts on people’s real lives.
Barbara Keeley
I very much agree. It is good that Katy Styles is here today, because I have learned a lot from her about the role of carers. It is something that I care deeply about. Like her, I would like to see improved support for carers.
Returning to the point about maintaining higher temperatures in the home, people with disabilities, as we have heard, are also being hit with the increased costs of vital high-energy equipment, additional laundry and bathing needs, and transport for visits to medical appointments, which can be very costly. As my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea said, the charity Scope has found that, on average, households with at least one disabled adult or child need an additional £975 a month to have the same standard of living as households without somebody with a disability. In fact, those extra costs—she gave this figure too—rise to £1,122 a month after accounting for inflation. In this debate, we are throwing around the amounts of £150 and £650, but we should think about those figures, because £150 is nowhere near the increased costs.
The petition asked for disabled people and unpaid carers to be included in the one-off £650 cost of living support payment. We should reflect on the fact that unpaid carers are more likely to live in poverty than those without caring responsibilities: 29% compared with 20%. The Government responded to both petitions for today’s debate stating that 6 million people in receipt of a qualifying disability benefit would receive a £150 payment last September, but only those in receipt of a qualifying benefit would receive the £650 payment. I understand that that excluded 568,000 personal independence payment and disability living allowance claimants and 523,000 carer’s allowance claimants. Carers such as Katy Styles and the We Care Campaign argue that although the one-off £150 payment was welcome—as discussed earlier, any extra amount is welcome—given the additional energy costs that disabled people and their families are bearing, it was completely inadequate in the context of the ongoing cost of living crisis. We have all seen our bills: £150 hardly goes anywhere. The We Care Campaign recommends that the Government introduce a social tariff for energy that discounts energy bills for those most in need, automatically enrols eligible households and is mandatory for all suppliers, as advocated by the charities Age UK and Scope.
I am afraid I will not be able to get into all the ins and outs of the argument we heard earlier from the hon. Member for Blackpool North and Cleveleys (Paul Maynard). To a certain extent, I disagree with him: it does not matter how many hours Ofgem spends on this issue. Ofgem should be spending time on it, because it is vital that we have a solution.
I want to talk a little about the work by Age UK. Research by Age UK found that cost of living pressures this winter led to more than half of older people cutting back on heat and power, and more than a quarter feeling too cold at home most or all of the time. Around 800,000 older people had left their home to seek warmth in a public space, such as a shopping centre or library. I heard from older constituents who were using their free bus passes to ride around in buses during the day, just to keep warm. That is a scandal. It is also not an option for some people, because people with disabilities and their carers will not be hopping on and off different buses just to try to keep and warm.
I turn to eligibility for the warm home discount, which is important. The We Care Campaign recommends that the Government extend eligibility for the warm home discount to include people with disabilities and unpaid carers. The warm home discount was changed by the Government this winter, but it was not extended to include people with disabilities and unpaid carers; in fact, quite the opposite. Money-saving expert Martin Lewis estimated that 290,000 existing claimants who have disabilities and who claim only personal independence payment, attendance allowance or disability living allowance, which are not means-tested, will no longer get the warm home discount.
As a constituency MP, my experience of the changes made by the Government is of being contacted by constituents who formerly received the warm home discount but found that they were no longer eligible. In most cases, the reason given by the Government was that the discount is now targeted on properties that have a high energy cost score based on their characteristics. In my experience, however, some newer properties can be cold and difficult to heat, so we cannot just base it on the age of a property. I understand that the procedure involved using Valuation Agency-set characteristics and then pushing them through an algorithm, but Martin Lewis has shown that that is mistaken.
I say to the Minister that I know from my experience that some people on very low incomes have been denied the warm home discount this winter. I feel that the changes are wrong, and I urge the Government to look at this issue again. It is time that there was extra support for people with a disability and their unpaid carers to help them cope with the unprecedented financial pressures due to the energy bill crisis and the cost of living crisis, and I hope the Government will think again after this debate.
Liz Twist (Blaydon) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve with you as Chair, Sir Robert. I thank the Petitions Committee for arranging this important debate.
We know that many people are struggling at the moment as a result of the cost of living crisis generally, but, as we have heard, disabled people are struggling more than most, and households that include someone with a disability spend more on food, face higher energy costs and are more likely to have a lower household income. It was really interesting to hear my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Marsha De Cordova) talk about a survey that showed some tragic results for those experiencing such conditions, and I thank her for referring to that.
As we have heard, analysis by the disability charity Scope suggests that, on average, disabled households need an additional £975 a month to have the same standard of living as non-disabled households. That rises to over £1,100 if we account for this year’s inflation.
The figures account for disability payments such as PIP, which are designed to help address those costs. For some families, the costs have a shocking impact. Disabled people are almost three times as likely to live in material deprivation than the rest of the population, and 80% of households with a disabled person say that Government cost of living payments are just not enough to meet the increased costs that they face. Families might accrue costs due to expensive dietary requirements, running medical equipment or being unable to cut back on their heating because they need a higher temperature. Low temperatures can have adverse effects on the vulnerable.
This time last year, many of us would have attended a Marie Curie drop-in. Marie Curie published its report “Dying in Poverty” a year ago, which presented its research on the impact of poverty on terminal illness. At the drop-in, I and others met a lady with a terminal cancer diagnosis and her husband. They had a water meter and, without me asking, they said that they were running up huge costs because of the need to do constant washing in order to limit the risk of infection. What struck me from that meeting was how little is known about the help that is available for people through water companies and other initiatives. It is not enough to meet the general need, which is a tiny proportion in that case. Some people have much more significant costs than others.
The hon. Member for Blackpool North and Cleveleys (Paul Maynard) spoke about social tariffs. I am co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on water, and we have been looking at the proposals for a social tariff for water and the impact of that. We have been working with the Consumer Council for Water. I am very disappointed to hear that the Government have dropped the idea of pursuing that social tariff, as was revealed in answer to a written parliamentary question I submitted recently. I acknowledge some of the difficulties the hon. Gentleman mentioned, but I think we need to look at something that supports people much more generally. He also talked about proposals for an energy social tariff and whether that is the best idea. I genuinely think he made a thoughtful argument about that, but we need to look very closely at how people—including disabled people, who we are focusing on today—can be supported.
The rising cost of energy is affecting disabled families the most severely. One respondent to a Guardian survey said he had stopped using a CPAP machine during the day, even when he was short of breath, in order to limit his bills. Ventilators, suction pumps, feed pumps, power chairs and electric beds are all pieces of equipment that cost money to run, and families are going days without heating or showering so that they can keep this equipment turned on. It seems that there is very little understanding of what may be covered. Assurances can be given that these costs will be covered, but in many cases they are not. We need to make sure that support is available.
For some families the extra costs are coming at a time when they are desperately trying to make memories with their loved ones who have terminal illnesses. Marie Curie has reported that the costs of energy bills can rise by as much as 75% in the aftermath of a diagnosis. It has also found that 90,000 people die in poverty every year. During Department for Work and Pensions questions in December, I raised with the Minister the issue of changes to the warm home discount scheme, which removed eligibility from 300,000 disabled people, leaving many families afraid of being unable to meet their heightened energy costs.
For goodness’ sake, £150 will not address the problem anyway, but it is better to have that money than to lose it as part of the system. That happened quite quietly and was little known about at the time, and it is important that we address it. The changes suggest that the Government were not willing to address the disability price tag. Excluding disabled households from the bulk of cost of living support, unless they are on means-tested benefits, forces them to absorb the additional costs themselves by emptying their pockets.
The £150 payment is equivalent to just £2.88 per week across the year. It does not do enough to reduce the costs down to the already staggering costs faced by households that do not have a member with a disability. Why should these families be worse off because one of them lives with a disability? This is a disparity that Government policy is failing to address.
Speaking in these general terms is great for drawing attention to the broader issues, but the reality is that in our constituencies each of us as MPs meets and supports people with disabilities who face exactly these problems—that is before we start talking about PIP assessments and eligibility and the support people need there. These are real people: individuals and families living in our constituencies. They are like those I and other hon. Members meet and the people we met at the Marie Curie drop-in. They deserve not to have the additional worry of struggling to meet their energy bills or of being cold and further damaging their health.
I hope having the debate will cause the Government to look again at the issue and reconsider the support they are providing. I hope they will ask themselves how much less money and resources they are comfortable with households with people with disabilities having compared to other families. Unless the answer is tens of thousands of pounds a year, there is still a huge amount of work for the Government to do. I believe people need much more support and there is much work to do.
Sir Robert Syms (in the Chair)
I call Amy Callaghan. You can speak seated if you would be more comfortable.
Amy Callaghan (East Dunbartonshire) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Sir Robert, and thank you for your welcome help on that. I thank the Petitions Committee and the petitioners here today for shining a light on this important issue. I consider the word of the debate not to be “confidence” as the hon. Member for Blackpool North and Cleveleys (Paul Maynard) suggested, but “abandoned”. People right across these isles feel abandoned by this Tory Government. That applies even more so to disabled people—abandoned by an unkind, uncaring Government who fail to recognise their individual needs and to tailor financial support accordingly.
We need to remember and reflect on what we are actually debating. The cost of living isn’t a neat wee slogan to describe the tough times we are living through; we are debating how much it costs to live. We have all lived through the 2008 financial crash, and things are considerably bleaker now than they were back then. Currently, 46% of people right across these isles think their kids will be worse off than them, which, while shocking, is hardly a surprise, given interest rates, the soaring costs of goods and 13 years of Tory austerity. Food prices are up more than 19%, electricity is up 16% and gas is up 129%. In energy-rich Scotland, these price increases are harder to take. I have constituents desperately clutching energy bills at every surgery.
The cost of living is proving increasingly challenging for our constituents living with a disability. The Government’s £150 disability cost of living payment is, of course, welcome, but it is a drop in the ocean compared to the astronomical bills people face. What does the Minister expect disabled people to spend the £150 payment on—a weekly shop, half or less of some assistive technology, or to mitigate sanctions from his Department? Does he really think £150 is enough to make a tangible difference in the lives of disabled people?
Disabled people are disproportionately affected by the cost of living crisis. The disability pay gap means they earn an average of almost £2 less an hour than those without a disability. The rising disabled population makes that even more pertinent; it is a damning indictment of this unkind Tory Government. In-work poverty is real: because of the policies of austerity, folk the length and breadth of these isles are living in it.
On a recent visit to Deafblind Scotland, based in Lenzie in my constituency, my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell and Wishaw (Marion Fellows) and I had a roundtable discussion with service users. We heard how challenging life can be for deafblind people, particularly given the increased cost of living and the cost of assistive technology. Across the UK, we have a public health service free at the point of need, but access to healthcare is still a class issue: 70% of people have had to limit access to medical appointments due to the lack of financial support with the increased cost of living, and we know that disabled people are less likely to be able to afford those increased costs.
I despise the word “mitigate”. The Scottish Government are not and should not be there to mitigate bad decisions made in this place. They are there to stand up and provide for our people—to lead, not mop up the mess of bad policy decisions and bad governance by the Government of Westminster. Unfortunately, that means that they now need to shield folk from the policies of austerity.
We forget that the Scottish Government are not just providing new policies relating to the social security system; they spend £594 million each year mitigating bad policies from this place, including the bedroom tax and the benefit cap. If those Tory welfare reforms had not been imposed, it is estimated that each family in Scotland would be £2,500 better off each year. The cost of living crisis would be much harsher for people in Scotland if it were not for those mitigations.
Now for the clear blue water between the Tory Government down here and the Scottish Government up the road—a tale of two Governments. The Tory Government have removed the very welcome £20 a week increase to universal credit, whereas the Scottish Government have not just uprated social security but introduced brand new payments, including the Scottish child payment, lifting children out of poverty. We do not pay for prescriptions in Scotland, which means that everyone can access the medication they need to manage their health conditions. The Government down here have failed to do likewise, which means that 51% of people have had to limit their access to medication.
The Tory Government are failing our constituents, and Labour has no policies to turn that around. Fortunately, although Westminster continues to fail the people of Scotland, they can rely on the Scottish Government to deliver fairness and equality. Of course, we look forward to our future as an independent nation within the European Union.
Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to speak in this debate and serve under your chairship, Sir Robert. I thank my constituency neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Marsha De Cordova), for her very powerful opening speech, in which she set out many of the issues faced by thousands of people across this country, including in my constituency of Putney. I thank Rachel, Abigail and Katy for starting the petitions and enabling thousands of people to say that not enough Government time is spent in this place debating these issues on behalf of the people who are affected by them.
I want to highlight the difficulties faced by three groups of people who have come to me in my constituency: young people with cancer, people who have myalgic encephalomyelitis or chronic fatigue syndrome, and people who have had stem cell or bone marrow transplants. All of them face unique situations. The cost of living crisis is worsening people’s physical and mental health conditions and driving them into poverty. These situations are also faced by many other people with long-term illnesses and disabilities.
Research suggests that tens of thousands of 18 to 39-year-olds with cancer are struggling to pay basic living costs. More than half of the 18 to 39-year-olds with cancer surveyed by Macmillan and Virgin Money said they needed more financial support to manage the rising cost of living. One in four young people are getting further into debt or have fallen behind paying their rent or energy bills because of increased living costs, according to a survey of 2,000 people. The research found that almost three quarters of younger people with cancer were worried about the cost of food over the next 12 months. It is hitting them particularly hard at a time of life when they have not been able to save up and do not have a safety net of their own to fall back on. They were looking forward to a different kind of life from the one they are suddenly facing. More than a tenth of those surveyed said that they have to delay or cancel medical appointments because of the rising cost of petrol to get to those appointments. That is a false economy: people will be iller for longer because of the payments that they are not receiving.
People with cancer already face significant extra costs of nearly £900 when they are diagnosed—for example, for buying extra clothes or food or because of increased heating costs—but now inflation has driven those costs up. Macmillan has seen a surge in demand for its means-tested financial grants to help cancer patients with costs. Macmillan and Young Lives vs Cancer are calling on the Government to give more financial help to cancer patients. But this is not just about money. Macmillan has found that delays in the payments are also causing financial crisis. Surely that can be rectified. There is on average an 18-week wait to claim a disability allowance that could help young people with travel and heating costs. The money is there; they are just not able to get it because of that 18-week delay. Macmillan is asking the Government to take “urgent steps” to reduce those delays.
The second group of people that I want to highlight is those who have ME or CFS. I am a member of the all-party parliamentary group on myalgic encephalomyelitis, which has produced a report on this issue, which I recommend to all hon. Members and all those reading the record of this speech. It is clear from the evidence presented to the all-party group that too many people with ME are being refused the payments that are being allocated to others. They are being refused PIP by the DWP. They can decide to appeal, and many people with ME who have taken that action have gone on to win their case, but that indicates that there are flaws in the system. However, many are not able to go through the appeals process, which is complex and requires a considerable amount of preparation by the claimant, which would exacerbate their symptoms. As a result, many people with ME are existing without the financial support that they need.
There are some issues with the welfare assessments that are particular to the condition of ME. As the condition is variable throughout the day, a snapshot can sometimes not be applicable to people’s general circumstances. The next issue is the length of time for which an activity can be maintained. People with ME are often scored by assessors as being able to carry out a task even though they would not be able to carry it out for a long time because of their fluctuating symptoms. Also, there are after-effects from carrying out tasks. People with ME may be able to carry out a task for an assessment but then have extreme post-exertional malaise following the completion of that task, but that does not get assessed as part of it. And people with ME are being pressured by their private health insurers to undertake a course of graded exercise therapy, or GET, in many circumstances—despite detrimental effects for many—in order to keep their insurance-based health and disability payments.
There are many recommendations from the all-party group, which I urge the Minister to look at, in relation to the ways in which people with ME are assessed and whether they are receiving the payments that will allow them to meet their needs in the cost of living crisis.
The third group of people that I want to highlight is made up of those who have stem cell therapy or bone marrow transplants. A recent survey by Anthony Nolan found that two thirds of people who have had stem cell therapy struggled to heat their home. More than half struggled to afford food. Half struggled to afford travel to hospital. Half have taken on debts or had to move home because of this. Three quarters have had to give up work or cut their hours because of their stem cell therapy, but then are not able to get back into work. Ninety per cent. say that their physical health has worsened as a result of the financial problems that they are facing.
Often, people who have had stem cell therapy have to have very regular check-ups—once a week—after the original operation, and they may have to go further away to specialist hospitals as well, so they incur greater costs. One parent of a stem cell transplant patient said:
“The rising cost of living has crucified me…I’ve had to walk 12 miles a day to take my children to school.”
That was because she was not able to afford the transport. There is a healthcare travel costs scheme for certain patients, but it has a very high threshold for eligibility. As well as increased heating costs, this group of people highlights increased travel costs. A patient travel fund for stem cell patients—there are about 4,000 a year in the UK—has been recommended, as has the extension of the warm home discount. They also highlight timely access to benefits as one of their top three financial problems with the cost of living crisis.
People being on long-term sick leave presents a cost to our economy and a personal cost to people with disabilities and their families. The Government need to understand the needs and extra costs incurred by people with disabilities and the physical and mental health results of those, which drive more people into poverty.
To conclude, will the Minister meet with me and the affected groups of people with additional needs who are facing the cost of living crisis? Will the Government review the impact of the cost of living crisis on people with disabilities, which is highlighted by these petitions and so many others? Will the Government increase travel and heating payments in the short term to alleviate the current crisis, but in the long term will they overhaul the social security payment system to put the needs of people with disabilities at its centre?
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
Thank you very much for giving me the chance to speak today, Sir Robert. I thank all those who signed the petitions to enable us to discuss these issues. In particular, as I always do, I sincerely and honestly thank the hon. Member for Battersea (Marsha De Cordova) for setting the scene so well. She is a lady with compassion and understanding, and she delivered a message with which, as she said, we can all concur. I also thank all hon. Members who have made contributions and those who will follow, whose contributions I very much look forward to. I also look forward to the Minister’s contribution. I think the Minister understands the issues, and I wish to ask him a number of questions. I hope that we can achieve the goals that we wish to achieve and get the answers as well.
I have stated many times, as have many others, that the cost of living impacts on many people. The issues have not yet subsided: we still see incredibly high costs for the most basic needs and many struggle to afford them. I also wish to give a Northern Ireland perspective on debates—hon. Members expect it and they will get it. My observations and contributions will reflect what others have said.
The debate is specifically about the cost of living and support for disabled people, and I wish to focus on that. I see this every day in my office, more so over the last period of time. I am not blaming the Government, by the way; that is not what this is about. It is about solutions. I am always about solutions—I am solution-led and solution-driven. That is what I wish to see.
Many people, especially those who are disabled and are financially challenged, are struggling to afford things in the current climate. It is important that exceptions are made for them and that their specific needs are taken into consideration. I see poverty every day in my constituency. I see families struggling to deal with it and mums who starve themselves so that their children can get food. Those are the realities of where we are, and that is why I look to the Minister and the Government to make these important changes so that we can address the issues that we see every day. Every hon. Member in the Chamber sees those issues as well.
As the hon. Member for Putney (Fleur Anderson) said, the DWP needs to expedite its system and address the fact that progress takes so long for those who are disabled. We have asked this before in the Chamber, and we ask the same question today: can it be expedited? The week before last, on the front page of my local paper, there was a report on food bank referrals in my constituency. The manager of the food bank, which is the first Trussell Trust food bank in Northern Ireland, and a very active one, said that referrals were up as much as 50% in one year—wow, I need to take a deep breath when I say and understand that. Christians Against Poverty also states that referrals are significant. All those people come together to help, and I am encouraged by the number of churches and individuals who help such organisations.
The hon. Member for Putney also referred to benefit issues and ME as one example of how people cannot cope with the systems, and she spoke about how long the DWP appeals process takes. I would add to that those with anxiety, depression and emotional issues. People who come to my office can be quite anxious and extremely confused about the system. What is being done to help people with anxiety, depression and the emotional overtures that affect their everyday lives? I know the Minister wants to help, and I certainly do.
Complex physical needs compound the issues and sometimes confuse the DWP’s interpretation of what is needed when a person sits in front of them. I see it very clearly. I have a member of staff in my office who does nothing but benefits because not everybody understands the benefits system. People need coaxing, help and support, and we try to provide that.
One of the petitions that we are discussing concerns the £650 payment, which people with disabilities should be eligible for. People who suffer with disabilities have very specific needs, some in relation to their diet and the food that they eat. There is an important cost factor in a specialised diet.
Jim Shannon
The hon. Lady sets the scene very well. I thank her for that intervention because it reminds us all of the impacts on a section of the community across this great United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. We see the impacts every day, and we are trying to convey that to the Minister so that he can grasp what we are focusing on and give us the answers that we seek.
Inflation rates for food have gone up in the last year by 13.1% in Northern Ireland. Expanding the payment to people who suffer with disabilities would help them to stick to their routines and be able to rely on what they need to stay alive. I am not exaggerating the matter—they need it to stay alive. That is what I see in my constituency on a regular basis.
In addition, I have had numerous constituents raise concerns with me regarding the amount it costs to run certain types of medical equipment; the hon. Member for Blackpool North and Cleveleys (Paul Maynard) said the same thing. I deal with these matters every week: people with stairlifts, pumps for feeding tubes, electric wheelchairs, bath seats, and, more than ever, mobility scooters. Those of us who are able-bodied do things for ourselves, but we have constituents who cannot, without help, deal with the extra charges that come their way. I compassionately and respectfully urge the Minister and the Government to provide some form of grant to help ease the costs for the many people who must run medical equipment. Such issues are not momentary; they are there for a lifetime. The sad reality is that some people require those pieces of equipment to survive and continue to live. It is often a matter of life or death for them. That is the cold reality of where we are today with some of my constituents and those of others who have spoken.
Those constituents are no stranger to the increases in electricity and gas, and it is unfortunate that so many of my constituents have to deal with the impacts of that. We must do more to speak on behalf of those who are disabled and struggling to pay the increased cost of electricity and heating payments. There is certainly a conversation to be had about disabled people and employment. We need to air that today as well—today’s debate is perhaps a chance to do so—but in a constructive way. For some of those on non-means-tested benefits, there is an option for getting into employment, which must be made accessible to them. I welcome the many employers who have made a constructive and positive decision to be disability friendly. It is wonderful to see so many encouraged into work by so many, but there is still more to do.
Amy Callaghan
On that point about accessible work spaces, it is very hard to get this place, which legislates for equality, to adapt for people with disabilities, so how can we expect other workplaces to take the onus themselves and make work spaces more accessible for people?
Jim Shannon
I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention. She speaks with knowledge, understanding and a really deep request for change that she has put forward clearly and capably. When the Minister responds, perhaps he can say how this place can improve its disability access. I know that much has been done, but we live with an old building and a lot more probably needs to be done than would normally be the case.
Being able to reliably apply for extra money will always be of help to people. I understand Government policy, I welcome it and think it is positive, but will the Minister outline the Government’s strategy for those with a disability who are returning to part-time work, if possible? Again, I speak with knowledge and experience. I am not smarter than anybody else—definitely not—but in such debates I just try to reflect what people tell me.
Some of those disabled people have a fear about returning to work, because they are not quite sure if they can do it. They want to go back to work, but the reality is that some of them cannot. Whether they have three days a week or perhaps two weeks together for which they cannot cope, for some people the return to work is not an option. Real compassion and understanding has to be paramount in trying to give people with disabilities the option to return to work. I seek from the Minister a clear understanding of Government policy on how that will be done in a way that reflects what people need. The fact is that they want to work, but the days and weeks that they are unable to work mean that they cannot, and we need to make that right.
In January 2023, the Resolution Foundation found that for the financial year 2020-21 the gap in household income between adults with a disability and adults without a disability was about 30% if disability benefits were included, which is quite a significant gap, and 44% if disability benefits were excluded. Furthermore, a third of adults in the lowest income group are disabled. Those figures are not the Government’s fault, by the way. Those are facts. That is where we are. That is the data. But it is about how we respond in a positive fashion.
One-off payments are all very well and good, and the hon. Member for Blackpool North and Cleveleys referred to that. It is good that the Government have reached out and given that extra money, but perhaps what we really need is an ongoing vision for the next year or the next period of time, whereby those benefits and the help with energy payments and so on are provided in a constructive and statistical way, to ensure that there is a vision for the future for those people who are disabled? The assessment is good when it comes to whether there is a positive impact on the efficiency of paying bills, and the one-off payment takes pressure off, but I believe that it needs to be negotiated in a different way. Of course, the Government have reached deep into their pockets to ensure that there is help for people. However, the benefits must be felt over a longer time to truly help.
I will conclude with this comment. There is no doubt that the cost of living crisis has had an impact on everyone, but we do and we must look to the Government to consider the specific impacts right now. Again, I request the Minister and the Government to support people when times are increasingly difficult—and they are really not only difficult, but very uncertain.
Marion Fellows (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Robert, and I thank the Petitions Committee for securing this really important debate. More importantly, however, I thank the petitioners and those who signed their petition.
I pay tribute to the We Care Campaign, which provided me with an excellent briefing for today. The hon. Member for Blackpool North and Cleveleys (Paul Maynard) mentioned that I had a debate in this Chamber last week—it was last Tuesday. I immediately reprised that debate during our Opposition day on Tuesday afternoon. Some of my contribution I could probably give without notes, and I am not going to repeat every statistic that I brought up. Nothing, however, has changed since last week. Even I would not have expected it to happen that quickly.
The cost of living, and how it affects disabled people and their carers, is something that this Government have to take seriously and do something about. Everyone who has contributed already has said most of what I was going to. I am going to repeat some of it because it is far too important not to repeat. There is real agreement across the Chamber today that the Government must do more to support disabled people, who are far more likely to live in poverty than those who are not disabled. They are particularly vulnerable to the rising cost of living.
Households across the UK and Scotland continue to face extremely challenging economic conditions. We know that food inflation is still at 19.1% a year, and for many disabled people on special diets the costs are even higher. We know that inflation disproportionately impacts lower income groups, and that is certainly true of disabled people, who spend a relatively higher proportion of their income on eating and keeping warm. According to Scope, disabled people are almost three times as likely to live in poverty than the rest of the population. That includes any disability benefits they get. Disabled households have to use a lot of their money to run powerful machines to help them live a more normal life. They have to pay more to get to hospital because they cannot generally use public transport. The list of things that cost more for disabled people and their households is incredible. The Government have to take it on board.
Jim Shannon
The hon. Lady is absolutely right, and has just brought to my mind the issue of being unable to travel. Some of my constituents cannot travel on buses because of their anxiety issues. They may have panic attacks when they are out; whenever they see a crowd of people they automatically focus on where they are. They panic, and that is why they cannot use public transport. What they need is taxis. Can they afford them? No, they cannot.
Marion Fellows
The hon. Member is, as usual, absolutely right. Oh, how we missed him last week.
Last week, Scope issued its latest Disability Price Tag report. I was privileged to go to its reception last Thursday, along with the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Vicky Foxcroft). It has always been the case that it costs more just to live if someone is disabled. In times when the cost of living is rising, however, and with huge inflation, it is even worse. Scope said that for a disabled household it can cost an additional £975 a month to have the same standard of living as non-disabled households. If we account for inflation, that cost rises to £1,122 per month. Not one single person in this Chamber believes that disabled households and people are actually getting that kind of money.
Against that worrying backdrop, the SNP remain deeply concerned about the UK Government’s welfare policies. The cost of living payments in 2022 and 2023 were designed to help families meet rising prices. However, according to Scope, 80% of disabled people said those payments were not enough to meet the increased costs they face. That support is welcome—no one is going to say, “No, thank you”—but one-off payments, such as the £650 petitioned for, are only a temporary fix when permanent solutions are needed. Rather than offering one-off payments to shore up the incomes of struggling families, the Government should reverse the damaging policies that are impacting our most vulnerable.
Legacy benefit claimants during the pandemic did not even get the £20 a week increase. They should have had it, they should have had it restored and it should have been increased in the meantime. In its recent submission to the UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, Human Rights Watch not only gives a damning review of the UK Government’s restrictive social security policies, such as the two-child limit and the failure to reverse the cut to universal credit, but highlights:
“It is worth noting that the £20 weekly increase was never applied to an estimated 2 million people on ‘legacy’ benefits, who were still waiting to transition to the Universal Credit system”.
The Government have to take on board the lives of disabled people. The continual refusal of the UK Government to fix the extensive known problems with the social security system is unacceptable. I know that in the health and disability White Paper, the Government have looked at promising to do things later, but that is not good enough. We need changes now that actually help vulnerable people.
I always get a bit emotional when I speak in these debates and that is a fault of mine, so please forgive me, Sir Robert. I really think that the Government should look at examples from other places. In Scotland, we try really hard with a fixed budget to make life better for our citizens. The Scottish Government run their social security system on the idea of dignity and fairness, and look to deal more on a daily basis with people who have lived experience. I know that the UK Government are now doing that, and I commend the Minister for it, but they really need to do something along the lines of what the Scottish Government have done; a new disability equality strategy is in preparation, and they will keep working with disabled groups to make it worthwhile and to do stuff that really impacts the lives of disabled people. Recently, the Scottish Government also doubled the fuel insecurity fund to £20 million and confirmed another £20 million for 2023-24. They have introduced a new winter heating payment, which replaces the cold weather payment and provides a stable amount every year to help around 400,000 low-income individuals with heating expenses. Even though there was no statutory requirement to do so, they uprated the winter heating payment by 10.1%.
The Scottish Government have a scheme whereby they look at energy efficiency and fuel poverty. It is important that the UK Government do that, because we leak energy across the UK, especially in the parts that do not have the schemes that the Scottish Government have put in place. The Scottish Government have done everything in their limited powers, but every time they mitigate some of the policies that the UK Government impose on us, they have to take the money from somewhere else. The only answer, as far as I, the SNP and almost 50% of the Scottish population are concerned, is independence.
A social tariff for energy is something that we would support, and it is necessary. The hon. Member for Blackpool North and Cleveleys, who is no longer in his place, said it might not work, but we have to grasp every opportunity possible to help disabled households, carers and families who are struggling on a daily basis with the cost of living. Politics is about choice and political will. Can we please see better choices and greater political will from the Government? Will they listen to disabled people and their carers and do better? The personal independence payment, for example, is meant to enhance disabled people’s lives. As has been said already, such payments do not even touch the sides. I ask the Minister to talk about this issue and to comment on social tariffs for energy. Can we please also consider that the best solution for disabled people is to spend less money on things such as replacing Trident and to use the money saved for social benefits, so that people with disabilities, their carers and their families can live better and more cheaply?
I do not think that anyone in this room does not agree that things have to be better for the disabled community, and it is up to the current Government to try their very best, to take on board what other countries are doing, to improve lives and to grant the wish of the petitioners, who were very modest in asking for a £650 one-off payment. That will not be the answer going forward; we need solutions.
Vicky Foxcroft (Lewisham, Deptford) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Robert, and I am grateful for the opportunity to respond on behalf of the shadow Work and Pensions team. Like the hon. Member for Motherwell and Wishaw (Marion Fellows), I may repeat some stuff from last week, but it is important to do so, because we need changes so that we do not have to keep coming back and debating this issue. There is no doubt that disabled people are being disproportionately impacted by the cost of living crisis, and it is right—sadly—that we are debating it again in this place.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Marsha De Cordova) for her passionate opening contribution, for sharing the experiences of so many people and for explaining why it is unacceptable that people live in those situations in 2023. Like her and others, I thank Abigail and Katy for organising the petition. I also pay tribute to the countless disabled people, friends, families, advocates, disabled people’s organisations and charities who signed the petitions that triggered this debate and who campaign tirelessly to promote disabled people’s rights.
The hon. Member for Blackpool North and Cleveleys (Paul Maynard) eloquently put forward the extra costs of having a disability. As he said, the costs will vary, depending on an individual’s specific disability, but they may include assistive equipment, care and therapies. As noted in one of the petitions that triggered the debate, some people may need to run ventilators, pumps for feeding tubes and CPAP machines, and so the list goes on.
Disabled households tend to spend more on essential goods and services such as heating, food and travel, and some disabled people find it difficult to keep warm if their movement is restricted. As my hon. Friend the Member for Worsley and Eccles South (Barbara Keeley) said, those costs are also borne by unpaid carers, and we must look at the We Care Campaign. Some disabled people might need to purchase more expensive foods if they have specific dietary requirements or have difficulty preparing raw ingredients. As we know, high inflation in 2022 and 2023 has been driven by high food and energy costs. It stands to reason that disabled people are among those most affected by the cost of living crisis.
Last month, as my hon. Friends the Members for Battersea, for Worsley and Eccles South, and for Blaydon (Liz Twist) said, disability equality charity Scope released updated research on the extra costs associated with having a disability—the so-called disability price tag. When Scope last calculated the price tag in 2019, it stood at £583 per month; over the past four years, it has risen to a shocking £975 per month, equivalent to 63% of household income. That means that disabled households need to find almost £12,000 extra per year to achieve the same standard of living as non-disabled households.
My hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Fleur Anderson) articulated the challenges for young people with cancer: not having built up a safety net; the extra costs they face; and, particularly, many missing hospital appointments due to not being able to afford their travel costs. That is wasting money in the system, as well as delaying essential treatment. It is heartbreaking.
[Sir Mark Hendrick in the Chair]
The impact of such rising costs is exacerbated further by the fact that disabled people also tend to have lower than average earnings. In a January 2023 report, the Resolution Foundation found that the gap in household income between adults with and without a disability was about 30% including disability benefits and 44% excluding them.
As we know, disabled people who are not able to work are entitled to claim income replacement benefits. In addition, all disabled people can claim extra-costs benefits to help cover the extra costs of having a disability. I am sure that the Minister, when he responds, will remind us that in his autumn statement the Chancellor committed to uprating benefits in line with inflation. That, however, only took effect from the start of the 2023-24 financial year. No doubt, the Minister present will also tell us that the Government have taken steps to support disabled people through the crisis by delivering the disability cost of living payments. As my hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon said, however, 80% of disabled people said that that was not enough to live on.
At a similar debate last week, I reminded the Minister that hundreds of thousands of people are no longer entitled to the warm home discount—many Members have mentioned that today—since the Government excluded those who claim disability living allowance, the personal independence payment and attendance allowance. I therefore hope he responds to our many questions about that.
In addition, Disability Rights UK and many others have said that the lack of meaningful increases in disability benefits over recent years means that the extra support given to disabled people has barely touched the sides. Trussell Trust figures show that even in early 2020, 62% of working-age people referred to food banks were disabled. A Mencap survey revealed that 35% of people with a learning disability have skipped meals to cut back on costs and that 38% had not turned on their heating despite being cold.
My hon. Friends the Members for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams) and for Battersea talked of the importance of incorporating the UNCRPD into law, so I will finish with what I said last week, because it relates to that: I ask the Minister to commit to work closely with disabled people and disabled people’s organisations to find a solution to this crisis.
Sir Mark Hendrick (in the Chair)
I remind hon. Members that there may be a Division shortly. If that is the case, I will suspend the sitting for 15 minutes.
The Minister for Disabled People, Health and Work (Tom Pursglove)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Mark. May I begin by thanking the hon. Member for Battersea (Marsha De Cordova) for introducing this debate? We do not always agree on everything, but she undoubtedly speaks with great passion about these issues. I also thank Abigail and Katy for the work they have done to bring forward these petitions.
I thank Members from across the House for their heartfelt and thorough contributions. There is no question that any right hon. Member or hon. Member is not acutely mindful of the enormous pressures and challenges that people feel in the current climate. It is right that we come together and debate these issues. We debated them last week and are doing so again. I have no doubt there will be further opportunities going forward.
I want to set out the picture on disability benefit spending more generally to put the debate in context. Then I will go on to explain the package of support we have in place and the work that is ongoing to respond to the many issues that have been raised today. It is worth saying that we will spend around £77 billion in 2023-24 on benefits to support disabled people and people with health conditions, which is around 3.1% of GDP. In 2023-24, spending on PIP, DLA and attendance allowance will be £12.5 billion higher in real terms than in 2010. Total disability benefit spend in 2027-28 is forecast to be over £39.8 billion higher in real terms compared to 2010. This is despite Scottish disability spend being devolved in 2020-21.
That is not to minimise for a moment the challenges that households face in the current climate, particularly those that include members who are disabled. The difficulties they are experiencing at this time, particularly around energy affordability and the cost of living, are pressing. All of us are familiar with the root causes of costs being higher. The situation in Ukraine is a significant one, and it has resulted undoubtedly in energy market volatility. That has translated into households here in the UK being put under real strain.
I said this last week, but it is important to get it on the record again: we as Ministers are not complacent. We are adamant that vulnerable energy users must be able to afford their bills, and we recognise that there are inevitably higher costs associated with many of those households’ usage. That is why the Chancellor and the Prime Minister acted decisively to introduce the cost of living payments and provide structured support worth over £94 billion in 2022-23 and 2023-24. That is an average of over £3,300 per UK household.
As was mentioned in a number of contributions, we have also uprated benefits in line with inflation at 10.1%, which was the right thing to do. We listened to the views of disabled people, their representative groups, Members in this House and our constituents across the country, regardless of which party we represent. We concluded, having listened to the compelling arguments, that the right thing to do was to uprate benefits in line with inflation.
The Government prioritised paying cost of living payments worth up to £1,100 for some households during the 2022-23 financial year. The Department for Work and Pensions can be proud of the work that officials did to help us to ensure that the payment hit people’s bank accounts. Some 30 million cost of living payments were paid during the course of last year, including 8 million households receiving up to £650 across two payments, over 8 million pensioner households —[Interruption.]
Sir Mark Hendrick (in the Chair)
Order. As I said earlier, the sitting is suspended for 15 minutes for a Division in the House. If there is another Division, we will suspend for 25 minutes.
Sir Mark Hendrick (in the Chair)
Order. The sitting is resumed. The debate may now continue until 7.45 pm.
Tom Pursglove
Resuming from where I left off, over 8 million pensioner households received an additional £300 on top of their winter fuel payments in 2022-23, and 6 million who were entitled to an extra cost benefit, such as a personal independence payment or an adult disability payment in Scotland, received £150.
The wider package of support for the financial year included the energy price guarantee, which capped fuel bills at £2,500 for average use. Colleagues from across the House will recognise that that support has been extended until next month. The package also included the £400 off domestic electricity bills received by every household in Great Britain, and the council tax reductions for bands A to D in England.
One part of our overall package that I think is particularly important is the household support fund, which we extended twice. Including support for the devolved Administrations in terms of consequential funding, the total has been £1.5 billion since October 2021. It is important discretionary help, which is designed specifically to allow local authorities to work with people in their communities whose particular needs are not necessarily able to be met through the wider structured package of support. This sensible, discretionary support can be provided locally on a case-by-case basis to the people who need it. It is a significant and important part of the support package, which reflects the fact that people’s circumstances are often complicated and do not fit into neat boxes.
I will turn to cost of living support for 2023-24. Again, colleagues will recall the Chancellor setting out in the autumn statement our intentions for the support package for the year ahead. Eight million low-income families on means-tested benefits will get £900. My Department has already delivered 99% of the first cost of living payment of £301 to the 7.3 million households in receipt of a means-tested benefit such as universal credit. That represents payments to a value of £2.2 billion.
The hon. Member for Motherwell and Wishaw (Marion Fellows) suggested that not much has changed since we met last week. However, I am able to provide one update that last Friday, my hon. Friend the Minister for Social Mobility, Youth and Progression laid in Parliament the regulations that will allow us to pay an additional £150 to more than 6.5 million people on an extra cost disability benefit. Those payments will land in people’s bank accounts starting from 20 June. That is important help, and I am pleased that we are now able to give certainty around the timetable. We have also laid regulations that will allow pensioner households to get an additional £300 on top of their annual winter fuel payment this winter, as they did last year.
I recognise that one of the petitions focused specifically on the disability cost of living payment, and arguments about its adequacy. I want to reiterate what I said in the debate last week, because the statistics on this are quite significant. I want to stress that the rationale for each of the cost of living payments is different. The Government believe it is right that the highest amount goes to those on means-tested benefits, given that those on the lowest incomes are most vulnerable to rises in the cost of living. Having said that, we estimate that nearly 60% of individuals who receive an extra cost disability benefit will receive additional support through the means-tested benefit payment. Over 85% will receive either or both of the means-tested and pensioner benefits, which goes in some ways to the heart of the debate.
I assure hon. Members that we are absolutely committed to ensuring that disabled people and people with health conditions receive the support that they need. That is why in 2022-23 we spent nearly £69 billion in real terms on benefits to support disabled people and people with health conditions. We will continue that throughout 2023-24 by uprating disability benefits in line with last September’s CPI inflation figure, as I have set out, meaning that we expect to spend around £78 billion in 2023-24—3.1% of GDP.
Jim Shannon
The Minister is setting out very clearly the Government’s support, which we all acknowledge is there, but some of the questions asked by Opposition Members, and indeed by the hon. Member for Blackpool North and Cleveleys (Paul Maynard), were about those who have equipment such as mobility scooters, lifts to get in and out of the bath, pumps and other extra medical costs. The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Vicky Foxcroft), the hon. Member for Putney (Fleur Anderson) and I also asked about those who have dietary issues. In other words, there is an extra cost factor. Will the Minister please tell us whether the money that he has just spoken about will get to those who need it the most at this time?
Tom Pursglove
I will happily elaborate on those points. A lot of points were raised during the debate that I will respond to directly, but we are of course determined that the support must get to those who need it the most. That underpins the entire ethos behind the package of support that is being provided, and I will come to some of the specifics that have been raised shortly. As I said earlier, by 2027-28 total disability benefit spending is forecast to be over £41 billion higher in real terms compared with 2010-11. Spending on the extra cost disability benefits will alone amount to some £35 billion this year, all paid tax-free in addition to any other support, financial or practical, that disabled individuals may receive.
On the point raised by the hon. Member for Putney (Fleur Anderson), I will happily meet her and the charity to which she referred. I am always happy to meet colleagues. I think that colleagues would say that I am always willing to engage as a Minister, and that I try my best to say yes to as many requests as possible. It is really important to hear the experiences of disabled people and their representative organisations, so that we have a constructive dialogue, as the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Vicky Foxcroft), indicated is important. I completely accept that, and it is reflected in the work that I do, and the engagement that I have week to week. I will happily say yes to that engagement with the hon. Member for Putney. She talked about evaluation of the adequacy of the cost of living payments. I can confirm, as I did in our debate last week, that the Department is planning to do an evaluation relating to the cost of living payments later this year.
Vicky Foxcroft
What the Minister says about an evaluation is interesting. I have asked many parliamentary questions and made freedom of information requests and so forth around the Government publishing and being open and transparent with their evaluations. When that evaluation takes place, will he ensure that it is published?
Tom Pursglove
I will happily take away the shadow Minister’s request for publication of the evaluation.
Tom Pursglove
The Secretary of State and I, and other Ministers in the Department, have been very willing to try to provide more information to the House. The hon. Lady shakes her head, but that is not right: we have come forward, for example, around the structural reforms in the White Paper. The decision that I have made within the Department, because I think that it is important for Parliament to have this information, is to provide a significant statistical release around it so that colleagues on both sides can look at the reforms and reach informed decisions when it comes to votes on the specifics of the policy. There are good reasons for the policies that we intend to pursue, and that statistical release will allow colleagues to form their judgments. I will happily take away her specific request around publication.
We provide significant statistical releases as a Department, as well as reports that are put into the public domain at their conclusion. We are in the early stages of that work, but I am happy to look at it through that lens. We provide information to support parliamentary debate and to support those we work with to get packages of support right, and it is not unhelpful, wherever possible, to provide that information in a way that is accessible beyond the Department.
The disability unit is also seeking to understand and evidence the full impact of the current cost of living on disabled people across a range of sectors. That work is ongoing. There is good dialogue and engagement with disabled people and their representative groups about it, so that we can look at the situation in its totality, understand the interventions that we have made to date and understand the needs that exist. That is relevant to some of what I will go on to say about the other points that were raised in the debate.
Let me turn to energy costs specifically. It was helpful that the Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero, my hon. Friend the Member for Derby North (Amanda Solloway), was here, albeit for a short time. She heard some of the debate, and I will happily relay to her the contributions that were made, because of course the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero leads on energy policy. Many hon. Members understandably referenced energy costs, particularly in relation to the cost of equipment. The Government supported families across the UK last winter through the energy price guarantee, which places a limit on the price that households pay per unit of gas or electricity. As announced at the spring Budget, households continue to be supported throughout the spring with the extension of EPG at £2,500 per year for the average household until June 2023. That will give the average British family an average saving of £160 per household throughout this period. Support is also provided through cold weather payments and the warm home discount.
I want to touch, as I did last week, on the priority services register, which is run by energy suppliers. It offers additional free services to people who are of pensionable age, are registered disabled, have a hearing or visual impairment, or have long-term ill health. The register helps to ensure that people in vulnerable situations can access extra help when needed, such as when there is a power cut.
Barbara Keeley
I wonder whether the Minister will say more about the warm home discount, which many of us raised on behalf of people who found that they could not get it, including people who had the discount before: I felt that that was very harsh this winter. It is unacceptable that people were excluded from it because of assumed characteristics of their bills. We had quite a long exposé of various ideas about how to calculate it, but I hope that the Minister will admit that the scheme that he adopted is pretty crude. I know that it has left people on very low incomes in cold homes, and it should be looked at again.
Tom Pursglove
Again, I am happy to deal directly with that point, but I want to touch on the longer-term thinking around energy costs, which is led by the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero.
Marsha De Cordova
I want to take the Minister back very briefly to what he said about priority customers and those who are elderly or disabled. In my speech, I mentioned that accessible information is not being provided to a number of disabled people, whether those who have a learning disability or those who are blind or partially sighted. What analysis or work is the Department doing on that? Providers have a legal duty to ensure that information is being provided to people in the right format. There is no point in having a priority scheme if providers are not meeting the needs of those they are prioritising.
Tom Pursglove
I will ask the Minister who was here earlier to provide an update to the hon. Lady on that particular point. Given that it relates to interaction with energy companies, it is important that the Minister is given the opportunity to comment on the point in question.
Before I move on to energy costs, I want to touch on the point that the hon. Member for Blaydon (Liz Twist) made about water schemes. Again, I am happy to take that away. I recognise that, as she said, water companies provide support, and I am happy to raise that issue with ministerial colleagues with a direct responsibility for water policy.
The hon. Lady mentioned the work that Marie Curie is doing and spoke about people at the end of life. I want to put on the record my thanks to Marie Curie for its brilliant advocacy and campaigning, and the work it did with my Department and officials at the DWP to help us get the changes to the special rules for end of life right. That will be a significant help to many families across the country; they should be spending that time with their loved ones—their family and friends—not worrying about their finances. The changes to the special rules for end of life, which allow the fast-tracked help to be provided for longer, are important. Members of this House and the charitable sector campaigned for them—I am proud that we introduced them collaboratively —and gave us fantastic insight, guidance and support to help us get that policy right. The changes were introduced a few weeks ago, and will be helping families across the country today. The second tranche of benefits is now subject to the changes. I am pleased to say that when those applications come in, they are dealt with very quickly—within a matter of days—so that people can get that important help. I am grateful for the opportunity to highlight that.
Looking to the future, the Government recognise that we need to consider energy affordability in the longer term, and as part of that we intend to move away from universal energy bill support and towards better targeted support for those most in need. As set out in the 2022 autumn statement, we are working with consumer groups, charities and industry to explore possible options for a new approach to consumer protection, such as a social tariff from April 2024 onwards as part of wider retail market reforms. There is ongoing engagement between Ministers and disabled people’s organisations and representative groups to understand what that might look like. We will ensure those views are included as we do that work.
That work includes thorough engagement with disability organisations to consider the costs for people with medical equipment and assess the potential need for specific support for vulnerable and disabled people using energy-intensive medical equipment in the home. That new approach will be aligned with our objectives of delivering a fair deal for consumers, ensuring the energy market is resilient and attractive to investors over the long term, and supporting an efficient and flexible energy system. Any new approach will also need to promote competition within the energy markets and be consistent with our wider objectives of improving energy security and delivering net zero.
We are looking at medical equipment on a cross-Government basis. The Department of Health and Social Care and NHS England are supporting the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero’s review of the energy rebates and refund schemes that are currently available for users of medical equipment at home. They are also supporting the Department’s policy development work in this area, which they plan to publish for low-income, vulnerable energy consumers post April 2024. I understand that there are arrangements in place involving specialised NHS services and integrated care boards, which we will no doubt want to consider carefully as we move forward with the energy reforms I have described.
Tom Pursglove
Again, we had a good debate about awareness last week. One of the things I undertook to do was to see what more we could do to increase awareness. That is why having such thorough engagement, including with disabled people and their representative bodies, is key, because we want to ensure the reforms reflect their views, experiences and needs. The awareness piece is fundamental to ensuring that people are aware of the support available to them. With that in mind, as set out in the energy security plan released in March, the Government intend to consult on options for this new approach this summer. We will invite and welcome the public and our stakeholders to use the consultation to feedback on our proposals.
Jim Shannon
Further to the point made by the hon. Member for Blaydon (Liz Twist), who quantifies or decides what amount of electricity or energy is used by someone with a medical device? Will there be input from the charity and from organisations to agree the figure? I welcome the Minister indicating that that will be the case. Who will agree what the final figure will be?
Tom Pursglove
I entirely recognise the challenge of identifying that figure because inevitably people’s circumstances will differ, which is exactly why, as I explained earlier, we introduced the discretionary household support fund to ensure there was that discretionary support in place in the wider health landscape to capture those circumstances. I cannot give the hon. Gentleman a specific figure today, but I go back to the point that this is exactly why the engagement piece is so important. These are issues we will no doubt want to explore in conversations to work out precisely what people need, what the average cost is and how costs above that average might best be met.
There are also other variables at play. We talked about how the situation in Ukraine has played into the higher costs that people are experiencing, particularly around energy. All of us hope the conflict will come to an end in short order, but inevitably the timings and nature of the conflict play into the levels at which those costs come through and the ways in which they are presented to people here in the UK. They are reflected in the energy bills turning up in people’s letterboxes or in their emails, which people are often worried about and, of course, are having to find the money to pay. We need to look carefully at these issues in a way that tracks the nature of the energy market and how it is being affected by what is going on in the world. It speaks to the Prime Minister’s determination to get inflation down and, as a Minister in his Government, I absolutely support him in that because, again, that plays into the costs people are experiencing.
I want to touch on the warm home discount scheme, which has been mentioned. We reformed the scheme in England and Wales to provide more rebates automatically and to focus the support on households in fuel poverty and on the lowest incomes. As the overall funding for the scheme is limited, we have focused support towards those on the lowest incomes and those who receive means-tested benefits. Disability benefits are not means-tested.
Overall, our analysis showed that 160,000 more households where a person is disabled or has a long-term illness would receive a rebate. In addition, the proportion of rebates received by households where someone has a disability or a long-term illness would remain higher than the proportion of the fuel-poor population with a disability and higher than the proportion of the overall population with a disability. Again, I will happily take away and reflect on the views expressed in the debate and will ensure that Ministers elsewhere in Government are aware of them.
On prepayment meters, which were briefly touched on, Ofgem published a new code of practice on 18 April. That has been agreed with energy suppliers to improve protections for customers being moved to a prepayment meter involuntarily. That is, of course, a step in the right direction, with better protections for vulnerable households, but the code of practice is not the end of this process. We have always been clear that action is needed to crack down on the practice of forcing people, especially the most vulnerable people, on to prepayment meters. The Department for Energy Security and Net Zero will continue to work closely with Ofgem and the industry to see that the code leads to positive changes for vulnerable consumers and will not hesitate to intervene again if necessary. And I have no doubt that if we do not see the progress that we want, we will have more debates in this House around this issue. I know it is of real concern to people, having seen egregious cases reported in the media, which is also reflected in our inboxes as constituency MPs.
I also want to say something about energy efficiency, because the best way of protecting households is by lowering the costs of the energy that we consume and reducing our usage, and that means taking further steps on energy efficiency. This Government have set a new and ambitious target to reduce final energy demand from buildings and industry by 15% by 2030, and we have created the new energy efficiency taskforce, which is charged with driving improvements to bring down energy bills for households and businesses.
Based on proposals announced last year as ECO+, our new energy companies obligation scheme will deliver £1 billion of additional investment by March 2026 in energy efficiency upgrades, such as loft and cavity wall insulation. It will extend help to a wider group of households in the least efficient homes in the lower council tax bands, as well as boosting help for those on the lowest incomes.
Marsha De Cordova
The Minister is absolutely right to talk about energy efficiency in one context. On the other hand, however, it is important to truly acknowledge that disabled people face additional energy costs because of their disability. Energy efficiency is one thing, but really this issue is about addressing the challenge faced by disabled people right now in relation to the costs of living, in particular energy costs.
Tom Pursglove
I entirely accept that, and I do not think that I have suggested otherwise, but of course where we can help with people’s energy costs in the whole, we should do that. It is right that as a Government we do our bit to try to help, through those schemes, to provide that insulation support, which inevitably assists with some of those challenging costs that we are dealing with through the wider support that I have described.
We plan to lay legislation by the summer to take forward those measures that I have just set out. Energy efficiency measures in the fabric of our buildings, such as loft and cavity wall insulation, will lead to less demand on the electricity and gas grids, which in turn could help us to mitigate the impact of high and volatile international gas prices. This could also reduce energy bills for consumers, as well as helping vulnerable households out of fuel poverty.
Finally, I wanted to say something about the White Paper reforms that the Government proposed six weeks or so ago. It is absolutely right that we unlock the potential of those who wish to work and to do that with the right support. I mention this issue because there have been a few comments about it and I was able to say that we will be providing that statistical release, which I think will give colour to those reforms and allow people to make judgments about them and understand the rationale behind the direction of our proposals.
However, I regularly hear from disabled people who would like the opportunity to work, but that structural barrier within the system—that worry, or jeopardy, about trying work and it not working out, and then having to go through reapplication and reassessment processes—just cannot be right. Undoubtedly, though, that is getting in the way of so many people unlocking their potential and taking on work, if that is something they want to do.
The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) touched on opportunities for part-time work. Those are exactly the sort of opportunities that we want to unlock for people. Getting rid of the jeopardy that people feel is in the system and, undoubtedly, that work opportunity will help with households’ resilience when it comes to the costs that they experience more generally.
The hon. Gentleman asked specifically what sort of support we are putting in place around that. For example, there was the announcement that the Chancellor made around universal support. The pioneers for that are the individual placement and support in primary care. We know that works; it has a 68% success rate with the supported employment model of identifying an employment opportunity that is right for someone, supporting them into that role and then helping them to retain it.
Schemes such as Access to Work Plus are also exciting and provide great opportunities. We are currently evaluating some of our initial testing of that scheme, but it is about crafting a job role and working with an employer that is keen to take on a disabled person, ensuring they are able to unlock that opportunity in a way that is right for that individual. It is about working with them on a tailored, personalised basis, which is exactly the basis that I am determined we will progress the White Paper reforms on. The overarching sentiment, and the fundamental safety net, is that we would never ask anyone to do something that is inappropriate for them.
Alongside those measures, we also want a better journey through the benefits system for people who need support. I am not complacent about that. There have been contributions today that touched on PIP journey times, and I can confirm that they are down to 14 weeks. That is where we wanted to get to. Previously, people were experiencing unacceptable waits. I am also asking officials to stretch and see what more we can do to take that further and get certainty for people as early in that journey as possible.
Some of the measures we talked about in the White Paper speak to the wider effort we want to make to improve experiences of the benefits system. With the severe disability group, for example, I hope to be able to say more about the work we will do to kick that on and test that model. We think the model is right, because it reduces the assessment burden on people, particularly where their conditions are unlikely to improve. I would argue that scrapping the work capability assessment provides a good opportunity. We have many debates in this House on that over the years. I am also thinking back to debates before my time here—that was a very controversial issue. Scrapping that assessment is the right thing to do, and it allows us an opportunity to focus on quality decision making over and above the current picture.
We want to better gauge fluctuating conditions in the benefits systems, and we want to test that to see what we could do to provide better-quality support and help for people navigating the benefit system with fluctuating conditions. That is as well as the feedback that came through loud and clear in the responses to the Green Paper: they said that they wanted to see the Department matching expert assessors with their particular conditions, because they think that greater understanding will lead to better outcomes. I am looking forward to the opportunity to debate those issues in the weeks and months ahead.
Barbara Keeley
It seemed like the Minister was winding towards his last few sentences, so I did not want us to end the debate without once again thanking carers and the We Care Campaign, who have done such a wonderful job. The Minister has not mentioned carers much, which is disappointing given that carers were mentioned such a lot previously. The Minister talked about people with disabilities wanting to get back into work, which is admirable, but we ought to be constantly thankful for the hundreds of thousands of people who have given up work so that they can care. We owe them a massive debt.
I think I am right in saying that his Government have not done anything like as much work as previous Governments have for carers. They do not have a national carers strategy any more, which we did under previous Governments. It is a pity that, it having been raised so many times in this debate, he has not mentioned carers more.
Tom Pursglove
I have not finished my remarks yet. It is important to thank carers, who do a remarkable job and provide incredible support, often to loved ones, family members, and friends. I recognise that is often very challenging, which is why we provide support through the carer’s allowance. The hon. Lady was not in last week’s debate, but I committed to look at carer’s allowances and the thresholds. It is an issue that is being raised fairly regularly in the context of these debates, and I repeat that commitment today. I want to see if the balance relating to carer’s allowance is right, and whether there is more that we can do.
Fleur Anderson
I would just like to add the needs of young carers to this conversation. There is an all-party parliamentary group on young carers and young adult carers, and we have heard powerful testimonies from young carers, as I have from my constituents. It is welcome that the delay to payments is being reduced from 18 weeks to 14, but that is still over three months’ rent, which is unaffordable for many people. They will often lose homes and have to give up many opportunities, and it is very crippling. I have been to the national assessment centre for PIP, and I do not know what the barrier is—I do not know why the delay is not coming down further and why the process cannot be streamlined. I wonder whether the Minister could say what is stopping it coming down any further. Has the national PIP assessment centre been set a target date?
Tom Pursglove
Where we are at the moment is that the journey time for PIP is 14 weeks. I am happy to provide the hon. Lady with some more information separately, and I will gladly write to her, but the whole thrust of the reforms that we are seeking to introduce is about trying to get journey times down as much as possible and getting more decisions right the first time. I think all of us would want to see greater certainty for people as quicky as possible, and I am keen to hear people’s experiences and expertise about how we can best do that, which is precisely why the tests and trials were included in the White Paper package. The package features a holistic set of reforms and is undoubtedly the largest welfare reform that we have seen for over a decade, but we have to get it right, because there is such an opportunity here. I really hope that over the course of the coming weeks, months and years, we can have a constructive debate in the House about how we take such opportunities forward. I think that would be a valuable insight as we progress with that work.
Marsha De Cordova
Can the Minister elaborate a bit more? We all know that an personal independence payment is an extra costs benefit, but under the proposals in the White Paper, the Government are seeking to use that assessment framework as a replacement for the WCA. We have called for it to be scrapped for years, and we are really pleased that the Government have finally listened to disabled people, the Opposition and others, but does he recognise that PIP is an extra costs element of support? Therefore, using it to try to replace an income replacement form of social security cannot be right.
Tom Pursglove
The feedback that we hear time and again is that people want to see the assessment burden considerably reduced. I would like to hope that all of us can rally round and say that we think that is the right thing to do, so that we can respond to the feedback and act on it. I am not envisaging fundamental change to the PIP assessment being required but, again, what we will do within the new system—we will come forward with more detail about the specifics and the mechanics of how it will work—is to see greater tailoring and a greater opportunity to work with people to understand their needs, aspirations and requirements.
Where work is appropriate, we will work with people to try to explore that work outcome. Things such as universal support and IPSPC—individual placement and support in primary care—are important parts of that. The additional work coach time commitment that we have made, which has just gone live in the second third of jobcentres and will go live in the final third in very short order, is really important in helping to set out the direction of travel that we are looking to take, and it will give a feel for the system that will be in place. But we obviously require primary legislation to deal with the fundamental challenge, which is the jeopardy that people feel within the current system around trying work, it not working out and then having to go back through reassessment and reapplication processes, which is highly undesirable. It is right that we address that, but I am not anticipating there being fundamental reform to the PIP assessment.
I want to add a bit more on carers before concluding, because it is a theme that came up consistently during the course of the debate. We are focusing support on the carers who need it most, and about 380,000 carer households on UC can already receive around £2,000 extra through the carer element. Where a household is in receipt of UC with a carer element, they will be entitled to up to £900 in cost of living payments and, if the disabled person lives in the same household, a £150 disability cost of living payment. For carers who can undertake some part-time work, we increased the carer’s allowance earnings limit to £139 a week from April.
But I hear the arguments that the hon. Lady makes. I made a commitment last week that I would go away and really think hard about the thresholds and the levels at which they are set. I will consider the wider context of these debates and also the structural reforms and the wider picture. Undoubtedly, the learning from covid and opportunities for people around work are perhaps markedly different from what they were prior to the pandemic, and different people’s care and responsibilities will take a different form. Fundamentally, I am willing to look at that issue. There is a lot of cross-Government work going on around a host of issues relating to disabled people and people with health conditions. I am very willing to raise her wider points with DHSC colleagues.
I agree with the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool North and Cleveleys: there is a lot more consensus in these debates than is often credited. All of us want to see the same outcome, which is that people are properly supported and receive the help that they need to get them through these difficult times. As I said earlier, it is right that the Prime Minister wants our Government to focus on getting inflation down, because inflation is playing a significant part in the costs that people are experiencing.
We have been responsive to date in the support that we have provided, but our minds are not closed. We continue to engage and will continue to keep under review the package of support. There are some important measures coming down the track and there will be a lot of opportunity for colleagues and disabled people and their organisations to help influence that to make sure we get it right.
Marsha De Cordova
I start by briefly thanking all of the speakers. It has been a good debate. I thank my neighbour and hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Fleur Anderson), my hon. Friends the Members for Canterbury (Rosie Duffield), for Worsley and Eccles South (Barbara Keeley), for Blaydon (Liz Twist), and for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams), and the hon. Members for Strangford (Jim Shannon), for East Dunbartonshire (Amy Callaghan), and for Blackpool North and Cleveleys (Paul Maynard). I thank them all for their contributions.
The Minister outlined a lot in his response. He mentioned a lot of work that he is looking into, taking back or that is being done, but what has been overwhelming in this debate is that disabled people need support now and any further delay will not help them. If he has not read the survey responses, I ask him to please take time to read them because they really signify the urgency of this debate and the urgency of the support that disabled people need. I highlighted in my speech that this is on the back of 13 years of austerity and the hostile environment that his Government have unfortunately created, compounded by the pandemic and now the cost of living crisis. Although I appreciate some of his words, it is really important that he takes that on board.
Everybody has mentioned the warm home discount, but the Government’s impact assessment highlighted that nearly 300,000 disabled people will lose out. What about those people? We did not hear anything about how we are going to support them. We all know the challenges that disabled people face. I hope that the Government will use this debate as an opportunity to think hard and fast and introduce proposals to provide immediate financial support.
The Minister did not acknowledge the UN convention on the rights of persons with disabilities, which was signed by the previous Labour Government and will be implemented, but why will his Government not implement it now, given that they no longer have any strategy in place to support disabled people?
I want to thank our petitioners Katy and Abigail, who are here this afternoon, for their tireless hard work and for sharing their own experiences. I know the challenges that they face and how difficult it is to live independently with a disability, so I thank them once again.
Finally, we need to look at the social model of disability as opposed to looking at the medical context. If we think about it from a social model perspective, we recognise that it is the societal barriers that need to be broken down to enable disabled people to live an independent life with their human rights preserved.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered e-petitions 610300 and 617425, relating to the cost of living and financial support for disabled people.
Written Statements
Defence Estate Update
(11 months, 3 weeks ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Defence Procurement (James Cartlidge)
The Ministry of Defence (MOD) continues to review its estate with a view to securing better value for money. The MOD therefore welcomes the High Court’s decision dismissing the recent challenges from Annington.
In 1996, the Ministry of Defence, in what was effectively a sale and leaseback agreement, granted a 999-year lease of over 55,000 service family accommodation homes to Annington Property Ltd and immediately leased the homes back on 200-year underleases. In 2018, the National Audit Office concluded in its review of the arrangements that taxpayers are between £2.2 billion and £4.2 billion worse off as a result of the sale and leaseback arrangements.
In January 2022, the then Minister for Defence Procurement informed the House of the steps MOD was taking to explore the extent of its statutory leasehold enfranchisement rights. MOD sought to test these rights through the issuing of enfranchisement notices for eight properties. These notices were designed to explore the extent of the MOD’s statutory rights, which are available to all qualifying leaseholders, and to help determine whether enfranchisement can secure better value for taxpayers. Annington was aware that the MOD could seek to enfranchise and had previously referred to that possibility in public facing documents.
Since then, claims have been brought against the Secretary of State for Defence by Annington, Annington Limited and Annington Holdings (Guernsey) Limited in respect of these test notices on both private law—declaratory—and public law—judicial review—grounds in relation to the notices and MOD’s right to enfranchise more generally. The ensuing trial was held in February 2023 and judgment has now been handed down.
We welcome the decision of the High Court, which has dismissed all the challenges brought against MOD. The High Court has confirmed that the MOD acted lawfully, that the MOD was entitled to issue the enfranchisement notices and that those enfranchisement notices were valid.
Given our obligations to secure value for money, this decision has the potential to provide the MOD with more flexibility in the management of its estate to the benefit of service personnel and their families and potentially wider Government objectives. I note three points:
Firstly, no formal decision has been taken on further enfranchisement of the estate, but the MOD will consider further the potential implications for securing better value for money for the taxpayer in light of the High Court’s findings. The MOD will consider relevant factors, including the ongoing operational requirement for the properties and the economic case for enfranchisement, which may differ between sites.
Second, if the MOD does pursue enfranchisement of other units and the parties cannot agree the enfranchisement premium, the relevant premium will be determined by an independent tribunal in accordance with the relevant legislation by reference to a market value, with both parties having the opportunity to present their respective views. If the tribunal were to determine that the cost of enfranchising the units is less than the present value of the rental liabilities, then enfranchisement is likely to represent value for money for taxpayers.
Third, we continue to work with Annington and, most importantly, the MOD is focused on providing good quality, desirable homes for service personnel and their families.
[HCWS789]
Global Health Framework
(11 months, 3 weeks ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Health and Secondary Care (Will Quince)
We are pleased to announce the publication of the “Global Health Framework: Working together towards a healthier world”. The framework sets out our vision to play a leading role in improving health globally and in building resilience to future threats. It outlines the actions we will take over 2023-2025 in support of health and for a safer and more prosperous UK and world. It is available here: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/global-health-framework-working-together-towards-a-healthier-world.
The pandemic shone a spotlight on the importance of global health and the need for strong health systems to protect nations and economies from future global health threats, not least the need for collective action to deliver the third sustainable development goal—to “ensure healthy lives and promote well-being for all at all ages”.
The framework aims to harness capabilities across Government to deliver our global health aims as set out in the international development strategy and recently published “Integrated Review Refresh”. Historically, the UK has been a proud leader in global health. We are well placed to continue this leadership by building on our strengths such as the UK’s health system, our expertise in public health and our excellent health science and research sector.
We will use this leadership to achieve the key aims of the framework.
We will strengthen global health security through improving our preparedness and response to future epidemics, pandemics, drug-resistant infections, and climate change.
We will reform the global health architecture, including through a strengthened World Health Organization, to drive more coherent governance and collaboration across the international system.
We will strengthen country health systems and address key risk factors for ill health, working towards ending the preventable deaths of mothers, babies and children in the world’s poorest countries, and enabling women and girls to exercise their rights.
Finally, we will advance UK leadership in science and technology, strengthening the global health research base of UK and partner countries, while supporting trade and investment.
Our global work contributes to the UK’s ability to handle health threats and strengthens our life sciences sector. A significant part of the solution to the challenges we face at home will come from overseas and having strong relationships with other countries. The global health framework therefore sits alongside the wider international engagement conducted by the Government to achieve better domestic health outcomes. For example, our involvement in global health research means we can be at the forefront of technological innovation and bring those benefits to our own population, while being part of global disease surveillance systems ensures we have access to early evidence of health risks that could affect the UK directly or indirectly.
Over the next two years we will collectively progress key activities across the four objectives set out in the global health framework. We will work across Government to maximise the impact of these ambitions. Now is the time to act to realise the importance of health for all by treating it as a global priority.
[HCWS786]
Interpol General Assembly 2024
(11 months, 3 weeks ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Security (Tom Tugendhat)
I am pleased to inform the House of the date and location for the UK hosted Interpol General Assembly in 2024.
Interpol and the UK have agreed that the General Assembly will take place between 4 and 7 November 2024 in Glasgow. The city brings experience of hosting COP26 in November 2021, the largest event of its kind that the UK has ever hosted. The agreement followed consultation with the NCA, Scottish Government, Police Scotland and other delivery partners and stakeholders.
The Government are committed to global safety, protecting our citizens, and working with the rest of the world to combat criminal threats. Hosting the Interpol General Assembly highlights this steadfast commitment to make the world a safer place. It is a key opportunity to drive innovation and leadership in international police co-operation and tackle major crime trends and security threats facing the world, including serious and organised crime, counter-terrorism and fraud.
The event at Glasgow’s Scottish Event Campus (SEC) next year will be Interpol’s 92nd conference, bringing together over 1,000 senior delegates from across Interpol’s 195 member countries. The General Assembly is Interpol’s highest governing body and the largest global gathering of senior law enforcement officials and heads of ministries. The General Assembly meets annually and is responsible for major decisions affecting general policy and resources. This event will include elections for 10 key leadership posts, including the new Secretary General.
In the run-up to November 2024, the UK Government will continue to work with key stakeholders to make the event a success for the whole of the United Kingdom, for Glasgow and for Interpol.
[HCWS785]
Police Covenant Annual Report
(11 months, 3 weeks ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Suella Braverman)
I am today laying before Parliament the first annual report concerning the police covenant. The report will also be available on www.gov.uk.
There are few jobs that are as physically and mentally demanding as those found within policing. Every day police officers and staff put themselves in harm’s way, standing between the public and those that would do them harm. These roles, and the single-minded attitude it takes to excel at them, are rightly appreciated by law-abiding members of the public. It is only right that we recognise the demands that are placed on those who work in policing and do all we can to support our police in minimising the impact on those in the police force, their families, and those who have left the service.
The police covenant is a pledge by Government, and by society as a whole, to ensure that members of the police workforce suffer no detriment as a result of their role. The covenant acknowledges the sacrifices made by those who work or have previously worked in our police forces. It is intended to ensure that current and retired officers, staff, volunteers and their families are all included and seeks to mitigate any impacts on their day-to-day life and their future health.
Since we launched the covenant over a year ago, significant progress has been made on all of the priority areas of work. The police covenant has delivered several new pieces of work, including pre-deployment mental health training for new recruits and improved occupational health standards for officers in service. Bereavement counselling has also now been established for the families and close colleagues of officers who have taken their own life or been killed on duty. The covenant has established a chief medical officer role whose initial priorities will be NHS engagement, reviewing the processes surrounding ill-health retirement, and suicide prevention.
As a clear measure of our progress, three of the original priorities for work have been completed, following significant changes to improve the working experience for the police workforce in those specific areas. First, the officer and staff safety review has successfully influenced changes to legislation around assaults on emergency workers brought in by the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022. Secondly, the focus on successful implementation of Operation Hampshire was increased to combat assaults made against officers. Data collection on these assaults is now improving and we have now created an annual data requirement (ADR) for forces to collate data for assaults on police staff. Finally, mental health training has now successfully been included as part of the policing education qualifications framework (PEQF) pre-deployment training for new officers and staff.
These early successes are a reflection of the constructive collaboration and combined efforts of policing partners and others involved in the covenant, such as the College of Policing, National Police Chiefs’ Council, the staff associations and unions, the interim chief medical officer, His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire and Rescue Services (HMICFRS), the Welsh Government and non-Home Office forces.
While it is right to recognise these achievements, this is just the start and there remains much to do. As the nature and challenges of working in the police are constantly evolving, so too is our commitment to support the police workforce. As we close the three completed priorities, we have created three new ones to continue to make progress in further improving the working environment and supporting the police. These new areas of work include supporting police leavers, engaging with the NHS and improving roadside safety for police officers and staff.
We will maintain our drive to improve policing for the public and, through the police covenant, we will ensure that we continue to deliver for the police.
[HCWS788]
Semiconductor Strategy Publication
(11 months, 3 weeks ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology (Paul Scully)
I am repeating the following written ministerial statement made on 19 May in the other place by my noble Friend, the Minister for AI and Intellectual Property, Viscount Camrose:
Since the new Department for Science, Innovation and Technology was created, we have been clear on its mission to make the UK a science and technology superpower.
Today we are taking further decisive steps towards that objective through the publication of our National Semiconductor Strategy.
This strategy demonstrates how fundamental technology is to the UK and the exciting opportunities it presents. We will build on the UK’s deep foundations and core strengths in semiconductor technology, as part of our commitment to become one of the most innovative economies in the world.
Semiconductors are one of the five technologies of tomorrow, along with quantum, AI, engineering biology and future telecoms. They are critical to the UK’s economic and national security and to the strategic advantage we will secure on the global stage.
Semiconductors underpin our ambitions elsewhere: to lead the way on artificial intelligence, to enable advances in quantum computing and telecommunications, to power high performance computing, and to facilitate progress towards net zero and in life sciences. Advances in all of these areas will bring tangible benefits to the lives of the British people, whether that is using quantum computers to discover new life-saving drugs, or high performance computing to more accurately predict the weather. All of this will rely on semiconductors.
But we are clear-eyed about the risks given that semiconductors are fundamental to so many technologies—from ventilators to fighter jets—and their supply chains are vulnerable. Meanwhile, hostile states can seek to acquire semiconductor technical advantage to the detriment of our national security. And a compromise to the cyber security of the hardware behind every device powering modern life is not acceptable.
The semiconductor industry exists in a fiercely competitive global landscape. A number of countries are spending vast sums on their own industries, from the US to the EU to China. The costs are colossal; a single new, advanced fabrication facility can cost £10 billion. That is roughly the cost of 20 new hospitals.
The UK has enormous strengths in the sector: in compound semiconductors, in R&D, and in IP and chip design. Our approach, informed by and delivered hand in hand with industry, is to focus on those strengths and to take them even further.
Our vision is that over the next 20 years, the UK will secure world leading positions in the new semiconductor technologies of the future by focusing on these fundamental strengths. We will foster new discoveries and technological innovation. We will bolster our international position to improve supply chain resilience and protect our security. And we will grow the UK’s sector, tapping a market of huge potential.
This is why we are launching the UK Semiconductor Infrastructure Initiative and investing up to £200 million into our semiconductor sector over the years 2022-25, and up to £1 billion, over the next 10 years. This is also why we are launching a new UK Semiconductor Advisory Panel, to ensure that Government, academia and industry are all working together to deliver on the priorities set out in this strategy.
Our strategy represents the culmination of what Government, industry and academia have already done in this sector. And it sets our vision for its future. It is rightly differentiated from the approaches other countries are taking to build large-scale silicon manufacturing capabilities, instead focusing on what is right for the UK. A wealth of exciting opportunities lie ahead: to grow the economy, to create highly skilled jobs, and to be at the cutting-edge of technology that revolutionises every aspect of modern life.
I will be placing copies of the strategy in the Libraries of both Houses, and it will also be made available on www.gov.uk.
[HCWS787]
Grand Committee
Arrangement of Business
The Senior Deputy Speaker (Lord Gardiner of Kimble)
My Lords, if there is a Division in the Chamber while we are sitting, this Committee will adjourn as soon as the Division Bells are rung and resume after 10 minutes.
Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022 (Extraction of information from electronic devices) (Amendment of Schedule 3) Regulations 2023
(11 months, 3 weeks ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Sharpe of Epsom
That the Grand Committee do consider the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022 (Extraction of information from electronic devices) (Amendment of Schedule 3) Regulations 2023.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Sharpe of Epsom) (Con)
My Lords, the extraction of information powers introduced in the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022 have provided a statutory basis for police and other authorised persons to obtain information from electronic devices to support investigations.
These powers came into force last November, along with a code of practice that provides guidance to authorised persons to ensure that the powers are used appropriately and effectively. They can be exercised by the authorised persons named in Schedule 3 to the Act. This is divided into three parts, which set out the different purposes for which authorised persons may exercise the powers. It is crucial that authorised persons extract information only for the purposes set by the part of the schedule in which they are placed.
At present, the Royal Navy Police, the Royal Military Police and the Royal Air Force Police can extract information only for the purposes set out under Section 37 of the Act:
“preventing, detecting, investigating or prosecuting crime … helping to locate a missing person, or … protecting a child or an at-risk adult from neglect or physical, mental or emotional harm”.
These regulations will amend Schedule 3 so that the Royal Navy Police, the Royal Military Police and the Royal Air Force Police are moved from Part 2 to Part 1 of the schedule. This change will allow these police forces also to extract information from a deceased person’s electronic device, using the power in Section 41, for the purpose of an investigation or inquest into that person’s death.
Electronic devices such as mobile phones contain a wealth of personal information and can be helpful in an investigation when someone has died in unexplained circumstances. Although data protection regulations do not apply to deceased persons, we must still ensure that information extracted from an electronic device where the user of the device has died is handled appropriately and sensitively. Additionally, an electronic device such as a mobile phone or laptop is almost certain to contain information about living people, so the authorised person will still need to be satisfied that extracting such information is necessary and proportionate.
The powers under Section 41 of the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022, much like the powers under Section 37 of the Act, can be exercised only where the authorised person reasonably believes that there is information on the device that is relevant to the purposes set out under this section—in this case for an investigation or inquest into a person’s death. It is vital that these intrusive powers are available only to the authorities that need them. When the Bill was passed, it was not yet agreed that the Royal Navy Police, the Royal Military Police and the Royal Air Force Police had sufficient investigative requirement to use Section 41 powers or that their investigative needs could not be met with other existing powers.
Having taken time thoroughly to consider their case, we are now in agreement with these police forces that their investigative duties meet the requirements for use of the powers and that, without access to them, there may be a gap in their ability lawfully to extract information in these circumstances. For this reason, we are amending their position in Schedule 3 to ensure that they can investigate the death of a person as thoroughly as possible. This amendment will ensure that the Royal Navy Police, the Royal Military Police and the Royal Air Force Police have the same powers to extract information from electronic devices as civilian forces. It will also provide them with the ability to carry out their investigations as thoroughly as possible by giving them the ability to extract information from a deceased person’s device for the purpose of an investigation or inquest into that person’s death.
I very much hope that noble Lords will support this amendment to Schedule 3 of the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022. I commend the regulations to the Grand Committee and I beg to move.
Lord German (LD)
My Lords, this is a straightforward piece of secondary legislation, adding the Royal Military Police, the Royal Air Force Police and the Royal Navy Police to the list of people who can exercise extraction of information powers under Section 41 of the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022.
First, I declare what may be a tangential interest: I have a son-in-law who flies jets for the RAF. I would never have thought about it, but it is possible that his and my family would be affected if Section 41 powers were to be used in the event of his untimely death, if that were to happen.
I have two questions to ask the Minister. They relate to the guidance in the extraction of information code of practice, which was provided in relation to the Act and as a result of the words of the Information Commissioner, who believed that this was necessary. I am pleased that it is provided.
My first question relates to paragraph 69 of the guidance, which talks about the use of a mobile phone device “around the time of” the death of the person concerned. It uses the words “the user”. Earlier, in relation to Section 37 of the Act, the code of practice talks about where people are not necessarily the owner of the phone or mobile device. It distinguishes clearly people who own a phone from people who have a phone which is owned by somebody else—something we parliamentarians know because we have a parliamentarian phone that is not our property but is used for all sorts of communication, as well as for the business of Parliament. I do not expect the Minister to have an answer yet, but could there be some clarification of paragraph 69 that refers back to the earlier information given in the code of practice to say exactly what it means about a shared-user phone?
My second question is about paragraph 90 of the code and current practice among police forces to keep up to date with technology in order to separate personal information from necessary information related to the event being investigated—the death, criminal event or whatever. Does the Minister have any information about whether police forces of all sorts are using similar technology? The real problem, which is quite obvious, is that there is a variety of technological options available to police forces and they may all be using different ones. That means that they may not necessarily be able to do what is required in the code of practice and keep up to date with
“the technology options available in their organisations”.
There may be a question here—again, the Minister may not be able to answer it now—about whether the technology available to police forces is of sufficient robustness to allow them to be ahead of the game and whether there is one piece of software that is recommended for police forces to use.
With those two questions, I am perfectly satisfied that this is a sensible piece of legislation.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
My Lords, I too am happy to say that this is a straightforward statutory instrument, and we are happy to support it from the Labour Party’s point of view. The SI adds members of the Royal Navy Police, the Royal Military Police and the Royal Air Force Police to those given the power to extract information from a device after a user of that device has died, as part of an investigation or inquest into the death, to investigate crime and to safeguard others.
I think it is fair to ask the Minister why these police forces were left out of the original Bill. Was there a particular reason, or was the consultation process not complete?
The Labour Party tabled a series of amendments to the PCSC Bill creating new checks on police powers to extract data from electronic devices. This was due to concerns about vulnerable people and the intrusive nature of these searches—in particular, for rape and sexual abuse victims, who can feel that requests for information, including digital information taken from their phone, can be overly invasive and collect highly personal information that is not relevant to the inquiry. It may make people more reluctant to come forward to the police if they know that they will get this interrogation of their phones.
I understand that this SI covers something different—cases in which the owner of the device has died—and we are happy to support this amendment. However, I would still like to ask the Minister what assurance he can give about how devices and information taken from them will be handled sensitively so as not to discourage potential victims and witnesses from coming forward.
There have also been serious concerns about digital resources and the use of digital information by the police, outlined in the report last year from His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire & Rescue Services. Can the Minister give any update on what action is being taken and whether any specific concerns have been raised about the use of digital items by the forces being given additional powers today? That is a more general question; the two questions raised by the noble Lord, Lord German, are very pertinent, so I shall be interested to hear the Minister’s response on shared-user phones and what impact the measure would have on them, as well as on the interoperability of different technologies and different police forces, as I am sure that that will be a tripping block. I am sure that it is not the intention to create any problems but it is always difficult, in my experience, to get different sources of technology to work together in a seamless way. That seems to be a challenge facing businesses, police forces and everybody battling with new digital technologies. However, overall, we support this SI.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, I thank both noble Lords who have spoken in this very short debate. I shall address all the questions asked of me shortly. Before I do that, I make the general point that the introduction of extraction of information powers in the 2022 Act and its code of practice are just the start of changes being made to improve the experiences of victims involved in the criminal justice system. These specific powers were introduced to ensure that victims and witnesses who report crime can be confident that their personal information will be handled appropriately and that their privacy rights will be respected.
As has been discussed, the amendment relates to the extraction of information from electronic devices when the device user is deceased, so some of the issues debated during the passage of the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill are not available there.
The noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, asked why it was not introduced with regard to these police forces in the original iteration. As I said in my opening remarks, at the time it was not agreed that the Royal Navy Police, the Royal Military Police and the Royal Air Force Police had a sufficient investigative requirement to use Section 41 powers or that their investigative needs could not be met with other existing powers. We have now taken the time thoroughly to consider their case and are in agreement with those police forces that their investigative duties meet the requirements for the use of the powers. In short, it is about ensuring that giving those police forces those powers is indeed the proportionate and correct thing to do, which is why it has taken a little bit of time.
On some of the more technical questions asked of me by the noble Lord, Lord German, there is a broader debate here about whether extraction of information from a personal device is always necessary, given the risks to privacy. Of course, there is a balance to be struck, which must be achieved when undertaking any investigation. All reasonable lines of inquiry must be followed to guarantee a fair trial with the right to privacy. As I said in my opening remarks, it is vital that victims and witnesses feel confident to come forward, but it is equally important that police and other agencies have access to the evidence that they need—I accept that there is no disagreement about this—including mobile data, to fully investigate crime and guarantee a fair trial.
Where information is being extracted from a deceased person’s device, the authorised person must have reasonable belief that the information on that device is relevant to an investigation or inquest into that person’s death, and be satisfied that extracting the information is necessary and proportionate. In answer to the specific question about “the device”—whether it is the owner’s own or one that just happens to be in use—I think it is any device that happens to be in the deceased’s possession. If I am wrong on that, I will of course come back and clarify. By the way, I sincerely hope that it is never a personal matter.
Lord German (LD)
Just to interrupt the Minister for a second, I was asking whether a common set of software is used across police forces.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
I am coming to that. There is a digital evidence programme, because the Government are determined to address the challenges associated with selectively extracting, analysing and reporting digital evidence gathered in criminal investigations, as we have been discussing.
We are supporting the Police Digital Service with £1.36 million in 2023-24 to undertake work to better understand the challenges in this area and to work with the private sector to develop and test new technologies. The evidence programme has been set up with a wide range of deliverables, including landscape reviews of force capabilities and gaps; creation of a new RASSO tech partnership board, bringing actors across policing together with the private sector—please do not ask me what the acronym RASSO stands for; development and testing of a range of private sector tech products within police forces; and, through the ACE impact lab process, working with technology companies to develop innovative solutions to key RASSO problems. The work is focused on solving the problems that victims experience and the selective extraction, analysis and reporting of digital evidence. It is fairly safe to say that all the questions asked of me by the noble Lord will be covered under that piece of work.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
I am sorry to interrupt the Minister again, but the acronym RASSO stands for rape and serious sexual offences.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
I thank the noble Lord very much for that.
On the progress being made on recommendation 5 of the HMICFRS report, which relates to budgets and the funding of digital forensics, we have also set up a commissioning board, jointly led by policing and the Home Office, to enable joint decision-making around prioritisation and to increase the transparency of funding decisions, including those in digital forensics, in line with that recommendation. In addition, we are investing £11 million into providing forces with technology that will enhance their capability to carry out rape investigations quickly and to provide a better service to victims.
I thank noble Lords very much for their questions. I hope I have answered them; I think I have. In closing, I repeat my thanks for the time taken to discuss and consider these issues. I once again commend the regulations to the Committee.
Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) (Amendment) (England) Regulations 2023
(11 months, 3 weeks ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Benyon
That the Grand Committee do consider the Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) (Amendment) (England) Regulations 2023.
Relevant document: 36th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee (special attention drawn to the instrument)
The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Benyon) (Con)
My Lords, the purpose of this instrument is to make nine minor amendments to the environmental permitting regulations 2016 as applied to groundwater activities. Groundwater is a critical national resource; it provides a clean and reliable source of drinking water, plays a vital role across many industry sectors, and supports ecosystems. The Government are committed to ensuring that the quality of our groundwater resources is protected.
In the face of growing pressures from climate change and population growth, it is important to optimise the regulatory tools available for managing and protecting groundwater quality. The environmental permitting regulations 2016 are an effective tool for managing groundwater activities. However, several limitations with the way the regulations implement groundwater protections have been identified, which has led to inconsistencies in approach within the wider environmental permitting regulations regime. These limitations can be resolved by the nine amendments, which will support many industries by reducing regulatory burden and costs, facilitating green energy production from geothermal and ground source heat, promoting growth and accelerating permit delivery. These amendments also create the right regulatory conditions to promote and allow innovation within the circular economy, allowing the appropriate and safe reuse of materials where it is environmentally acceptable. I now turn to the detail of these amendments.
Currently, groundwater activities can be permitted only through the use of bespoke environmental permits, which are the highest level of permits. This results in higher than necessary costs and an unnecessary level of regulatory burden to businesses. This instrument will give the regulators the ability to grant other types of permits, such as standard rules permits and mobile plant permits. Those non-bespoke permits are significantly less costly and reduce the administrative burden on businesses while maintaining environmental standards.
The instrument will also introduce exemptions from the requirement of an environmental permit for new cemeteries that pose a low risk of pollution to the groundwater environment. The public consultation received 264 responses and almost all the proposals received majority support. Following feedback on the cemeteries proposal and further discussion with key stakeholders, adjustments have been made to the cemetery-specific amendments to enable greater clarity and ease implementation issues.
Another aspect of this SI is that controls will be applied to prevent groundwater pollution from currently uncontrolled pollutants such as heat and micro-organisms. As heat will be added as a pollutant, the majority of closed-loop ground heat pump activities will be exempt from the requirement of an environmental permit. The instrument will also help to fix a loophole in the general binding rules for small sewage discharges, which are currently being exploited, resulting in harm to nearby environmental habitats and local water quality. These new rules will reduce the risk of groundwater pollution.
The current wording of the environmental permitting regulations 2016 is unclear on the breach of permit conditions. The instrument will help to bring clarity around the liability of sewage undertakers following a breach of permit conditions due to specific circumstances beyond their control. To bring the regulations in line with current operational practices and facilitate energy recovery and the latest green technology, the current list of exemptions from the prohibition on direct discharges to groundwater needs to be updated. This instrument will update the list.
Finally, there will be a requirement for operators of onshore oil and gas facilities to apply to surrender their groundwater activity permits. Regulators need to be satisfied that any pollution issues are remediated and there are no ongoing risks to the groundwater environment at the point of decommissioning or that may arise in future. This will ensure that the environment is better protected.
These amendments will bring about benefits for groundwater quality, will reduce unnecessary costs to businesses and will also help to ensure that government resources are being used most effectively to protect and preserve groundwater quality for future generations. I beg to move.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for presenting the regulations before us this afternoon and the opportunity to put one or two questions. He will recall the history of the attempt to frack—the use of hydraulic fracturing—in North Yorkshire, and that the one reason it was not allowed to happen was because no permit was given for the water supply and the reuse of water.
I am very grateful to the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee for its 36th Report, which says that Defra has no intention of revisiting that issue. Can I press my noble friend the Minister to ensure that there will be no end to the current moratorium on hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, in any part of England, to the extent that it might fall within the regulations before us this afternoon? If there was to be an end to the moratorium, can he give us an undertaking that the Government—whichever department it happened to be, as departments come and go—would actually come before both Houses with revised permitting, with regard to fracking?
I now turn to the Explanatory Memorandum, starting with paragraph 7.16 onwards, relating to groundwater activities and the use of geothermal and other green technologies. Could my noble friend explain whether, if there is a significant risk of introducing microbial pollution, no permit would actually be issued in that regard, whether it is close to a sensitive habitat or not? That is just to understand what the purposes of the permitting are. I understand, in the second paragraph of 7.18, that it does look as though this is going to become a regulated activity, so I would just like to understand entirely what the remit of the department in relation to the regulations would be.
On paragraph 7.22, and an unauthorised illegal third-party discharge into a sewer network, could my noble friend highlight specifically what activity is in play there? Obviously, there is a situation where there is a heavy rainfall and sewage can flow on to a highway and then into someone’s house. I understand that highways authorities currently have no responsibility for any sewage overflow, or do not contribute in any way to reducing flood risk in this regard. Is that a loophole, if you like, that the Government would like to close? Obviously, it is unfortunate at the moment that there are not sufficient sustainable drains in place and that there is no end to the automatic right to connect, which may mean that sewage flowing as wastewater from a four- or five-bedroomed house which has been given planning permission can come into a combined sewer and unfortunately spill into houses, either directly into an existing development, or off a highway. So there does seem to be this loophole that highways authorities are not covered. Is that what my noble friend means by an unauthorised illegal third-party discharge? I am just trying to understand what paragraph 7.22 of the Explanatory Memorandum would cover.
With those few remarks, I otherwise welcome the regulations before us this afternoon.
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his introductory remarks to this SI. The Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee looked at this instrument in April and raised concerns about groundwater quality and sub-surface energy proposals. As a result, Defra revised the Explanatory Memorandum. Those amendments helped to clarify the instrument, but I have some comments and questions.
As the EM states, groundwater “plays a vital role” for food manufacturing, brewing, wetland ecosystems and the agriculture industry, to which the Minister referred in his opening remarks. The quality and purity of this water is vital to many of these, especially chalk streams, the protection of which was debated last week during the passage of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill. This instrument indicates that it will update and clarify the existing control measures within the EPR for protecting groundwater from site-based activities. Will this include the discharge of chicken slurry into the River Wye, for instance, or is this classified as not groundwater but surface water? Perhaps those are the same.
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
My Lords, I have a heavy cold, so if I start sneezing I apologise in advance.
I thank the Minister for his overview of these regulations. His Majesty’s Opposition agree that the management and protection of our groundwater is vital for sensitive ecosystems and a range of key industries that have already been outlined, so we support these proposed changes to the regulatory framework. However, I have a few questions for the Minister following on from the debate held in the other place.
The environmental permitting regime came into force in 2010, and the amendments made by this SI are described as minor tweaks which
“provide a more proportionate, risk-based regulatory approach”.
Although the changes might be considered minor, and although we have no major objections, could the Minister outline when during the last 13 years various deficiencies referenced in paragraph 7.10 of the Explanatory Memorandum were identified and why it has taken so long for the revisions to be brought forward?
As highlighted by the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee’s comments on the SI focus in part on its potential implications for the use of technology such as hydraulic fracturing. Although Defra says that it is not currently aware of any proposals for low-volume, low-pressure fracturing in deep formations containing groundwater in the onshore oil and gas industry, can the Minister outline any specific stakeholder engagement on the issue and say how long it will be kept under review and reported on should the situation change?
In the House of Commons, the Minister, Rebecca Pow, committed to write in response to specific questions on sewerage undertakers’ liability for certain offences under the EPR. Does the Minister have a copy of that correspondence that could be read into the record? If not, is he able to provide a copy to participants?
Finally—without sneezing—this new suite of potential exemptions will require enhanced monitoring and enforcement arrangements. How confident is the Minister that the Environment Agency has the resources to oversee the additional workload, given that research published by Unchecked UK states that the EA has seen cuts equivalent to 25% of its staffing base and 63% of its funding since 2009?
Protection of our delicate ecosystems in the coming decades is a responsibility that falls on all of us, especially given the challenges posed by climate change, so it is vital that we get the regulatory framework correct and have the enforcement structures in place.
Lord Benyon (Con)
I am grateful to your Lordships for your important contributions to this debate and for what I sense is support for the amendments to the 2016 environmental permitting regulations. These amendments will optimise the regulatory tools available for managing and protecting groundwater quality. I am delighted that we are delivering on the Government’s commitment to ensuring that the quality of our groundwater resources is protected.
I will now address the points made. First, my noble friend Lady McIntosh and the noble Baroness, Lady Anderson, raised hydraulic fracking. The Government’s moratorium on high-volume, high-pressure hydraulic fracking for shale gas is very much still in place. Hydraulic fracturing is already permittable in some geological formations. The amendment will allow control through permitting of stimulation techniques including hydraulic fracturing in all formations that have the potential to release heat and energy, but only where it is demonstrated to be environmentally accessible. I make the point to my noble friend and all noble Lords that there is no change or diminution in protections; it just allows us to have a system that is more suitable to the problems with which we are dealing.
Treated sewage effluent discharges can contain high numbers of microorganisms, including harmful pathogens. Where such discharges occur very close to private drinking water supplies, the risk of potential harm to health increases. This amendment provides the ability for the regulator to apply proportionate, risk-based controls to prevent microbial pollution where the risk deems it necessary.
The existing environmental permitting regulations specify that a water company sewerage undertaker is not guilty of an offence relating to discharging sewage effluent under certain conditions, such as if a third party made an unauthorised discharge into the sewer, resulting in a discharge from the works breaching the permit conditions at that site. That is fair. However, the defence applies only to the offence of operating without a permit, not the offence of contravening permit conditions, which is more commonly the case.
This change is necessary because that situation creates uncertainty for water companies and enforcement difficulties for the Environment Agency. The amendments provide legal clarity for the Environment Agency to be able to take enforcement actions, including prosecutions, with more certainty of success, and do not reflect the previous legal position where the defence was open to both offences of operating without a permit and in breach of permit conditions.
On the point about chicken slurry in the River Wye, that is not classified as groundwater so these regulations do not apply in those circumstances. However, we are tackling that issue through a variety of different actions to protect that important river environment.
The noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, also asked what we are talking about here. An example would be a SSSI, which we have a vital duty to protect. We want to see 75% of them in good condition in just a few years’ time.
The noble Baroness asked about the definition of a mobile plant permit. It is a type of environmental permit used to regulate shorter-term, temporary activities which utilise equipment that is designed to move from site to site. Discharges into river are separate from discharges to groundwater; both need permits to discharge pollutants into the environment.
On the question of geothermal schemes, only proposed systems in sensitive groundwater locations will need a permit from the Environment Agency. This means that the use of this green energy technology is still an option in locations that cannot meet the exemption conditions, and any potential impact on groundwater quality can be controlled.
On the questions relating to the consultation, the public consultation was held from September to December 2021 to seek views on the nine amendments. The draft statutory instrument was published on 23 March 2023. As I said, there were 264 responses to the consultation. Overall, there was majority support for the consultation, except for the proposals to mitigate potential groundwater impacts from cemeteries, which showed clear opposition. I have some knowledge of this issue. When I was in the other place there was an application to create a green burial ground—the sort of land use which I think many of us would support; it is a type of burial that is particularly attractive to individuals and their families who want one which is perhaps more environmentally friendly. Some of the misunderstandings about the impact of that resulted in me, as the MP, receiving letters saying that body parts would be found floating down the river, and things like that. That is not the case. These burials are very much in keeping with the environment. They need licensing, as do any such schemes, and this will allow us to have better systems of protection.
The noble Baroness raised a point about garden burials; I may have to contact her with details. Due to the low intensity of the impact of such burials, I do not think that is important.
On the question of why this SI has been brought forward and why it has been delayed, I am absolutely happy to explain to the Committee that the current changes are a long-standing issue that has been delayed several times due to reprioritisation during EU exit and Covid. Improving the regulatory regime for groundwater is a priority for this work by reducing regulatory burdens and freeing business to grow and invest.
I will find out about the letter from my honourable friend Rebecca Pow. We are not sure where it is in the process, but I am certainly happy to share it with Members of the Committee.
In conclusion, I hope I have addressed the points raised by your Lordships and thank you again for your contribution. I commend the regulations to the Committee.
Energy Bills Discount Scheme Regulations 2023
(11 months, 3 weeks ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Callanan
That the Grand Committee do consider the Energy Bills Discount Scheme Regulations 2023.
Relevant document: 38th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee (special attention drawn to the instrument)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (Lord Callanan) (Con)
My Lords, these regulations were laid before the House on 25 April this year, as were the Energy Bills Discount Scheme (Northern Ireland) Regulations 2023, the Energy Bills Discount Scheme Pass-through Requirement Regulations 2023, the Energy Bills Discount Scheme Pass-through Requirement (Heat Suppliers) Regulations 2023 and the Energy Bills Discount Scheme (Non-Standard Cases) Regulations 2023.
These instruments ensure that essential energy bill support continues to be provided to eligible UK businesses, charities and public sector organisations, following on from the energy bill relief scheme support, which ended on 31 March this year. Each of them is a replacement for an earlier set of regulations that implemented that original scheme. Together, they cover UK businesses that are supplied by both licensed gas and electricity suppliers and licence-exempt suppliers. They also ensure that any end user receiving energy that is supplied with the benefit of these schemes through an intermediary will get a “just and reasonable” share of that benefit. In the absence of an intervention of this kind, energy bill support would no longer be provided to non-domestic customers where they were exposed to the impact of high wholesale market prices.
The Energy Bills Discount Scheme Regulations for Great Britain, the Energy Bills Discount Scheme (Northern Ireland) Regulations, the Energy Bills Discount Scheme (Non-Standard Cases) Regulations, the Energy Bills Discount Scheme Pass-through Requirement Regulations and the Energy Bills Discount Scheme Pass-through Requirement (Heat Suppliers) Regulations, which I will refer to collectively as the “EBDS Regulations”, have been created under the Energy Prices Act, which the Committee will recall gained Royal Assent on 25 October last year.
The Energy Prices Act, introduced in Parliament on 12 October last year, provided the legislative footing needed to ensure that businesses across the UK receive support with their energy bills through the energy bills discount scheme. The EBDS regulations are essential secondary legislation needed to implement and operationalise the scheme. The purpose of the regulations is to provide a discount on the wholesale costs for electricity and gas supplied by licensed and non-licensed energy suppliers to eligible non-domestic customers, and to make payments to suppliers in respect of those reductions in Great Britain and Northern Ireland. To protect eligible non-domestic customers from excessively high energy bills, the EBDS will run for a 12-month period from 1 April this year to 31 March 2024.
I thank the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee for reviewing these regulations. We welcome the conclusion it reached and that it took some assurance regarding the effectiveness of the energy bills relief scheme pass-through requirements. I reaffirm that we will continue to monitor the effectiveness of the EBDS and that we expect to publish a report on both the Great Britain and Northern Ireland EBDS before the end of 2024, including the effectiveness of the pass-through requirements. We will continue to review our pass-through requirement communications strategy, including reviewing guidance on GOV.UK and offering engagement sessions to ensure that intermediaries understand their obligations and that customers receive the benefits that they are entitled to.
I turn to the details of the regulations. The EBDS regulations set out that, with few exceptions, all non-domestic customers with electricity and gas contracts from both licensed and licence-exempt non-domestic energy suppliers will be eligible for a discount when the wholesale element of their contract is above a certain level. Licence-exempt supply includes energy taken from the public electricity grid or received via wire or pipe.
The EBDS GB and EBDS Northern Ireland regulations provide for three elements to the scheme for end users of licensed suppliers. The EBDS (Non-standard Cases) regulations replicate this for end users of licence-exempt suppliers. First, there is a baseline per unit discount applicable to all eligible non-domestic customers’ energy bills throughout the scheme’s duration. The discount will be applied if wholesale prices are above a certain price threshold. Secondly, a higher rate of relief will be provided to those non-domestic customers that carry out a substantial part of their UK activities in certain energy and trade-intensive industry sectors—so-called ETIIs.
Thirdly, there is the support aimed at domestic customers on heat networks. There will be a specific higher EBDS rate for heat networks supplying domestic customers set at a level to ensure that these customers do not face disproportionately higher prices than other domestic customers receiving the energy price guarantee. The EBDS regulations set out the process by which the energy supplier is reimbursed by the Secretary of State for the discounts that it gives. The EBDS (Northern Ireland) Regulations prevent end users who are outside Northern Ireland receiving the discount to their bills.
Finally, the EBDS regulations set out essential operational matters, including information and reporting obligations, enforcement powers and powers to impose civil penalties in respect of missing or defective declarations. Customers who receive gas or electricity from non-licensed suppliers—non-standard cases—will be supported under agreements on standard scheme terms. Due to the complexity of some licence-exempt supply chains, the non-standard cases regulations provide the Secretary of State with powers to obtain information from those involved and imply some terms into the contracts to help the scheme work more smoothly. Additionally, the regulations allow for revised EBRS terms, which expand eligibility under EBRS to include the cohort of non-standard customers who receive their energy via private wire or pipe, at a price pegged to wholesale rates.
The EBDS Pass-through Requirement Regulations, EBDS Pass-through Requirement (Heat Suppliers) Regulations, and EBDS (Non-standard Cases) Regulations provide for certain intermediary businesses, often landlords, that receive a benefit under the scheme but in turn provide energy to others to pass a just and reasonable amount of the benefit that they receive on to their end users. The regulations set out obligations on the intermediary, including calculating the amount and providing end users with information about this, as well as passing on the benefit as soon as reasonably practicable. They also set out the dispute mechanisms available.
To accompany the regulations, we have published a suite of non-statutory guidance, which provides further detail on how the schemes work. The objectives of these regulations are to protect businesses and non-domestic customers against the volatility of the variable market and avoid firm closures and redundancies, particularly for ETIIs. They also ensure that domestic end users on qualifying heat networks are offered appropriate support.
In conclusion, the EBDS schemes will be a source of critical support for non-domestic customers in the UK, particularly those in energy-intensive sectors, many of which are essential national infrastructure. I emphasise that the measures in these regulations are crucial, because they bring the schemes into legal existence. The EBDS Great Britain, EBDS Northern Ireland and EBDS non-standard cases schemes complement the existing large-scale support that the Government are providing during the energy crisis.
I hope the Committee will support these measures and their objectives, and I commend the regulations to the Committee.
Lord Teverson (LD)
My Lords, that is quite a long introduction, and I thank the Minister for it. I have to admit to him that I was looking around at the pictures, and thinking that it was interesting that Moses managed to base Judaeo-Christian law on 10 paragraphs, whereas here we have about 100 pages on energy. We will perhaps move on to that.
I wanted, while not trying to be disingenuous, to actually congratulate the Government on something in these particular instruments. In the instrument on heat suppliers, no. 455, on page 12, in paragraph 1E(6)(c), we actually have the court being able to apply a fine of up to £5,000 in terms of enforcement, which is how I read it. I thought, “bingo”: there is actually a way in which, when we go through all these pass-through regulations, we could actually have something which might appear like a civil on-the-spot fine, which is a way to deter or provide some jeopardy if these pass-through arrangements are not adhered to. But needless to say, in instrument no. 463, we are back to the 2% on the outstanding amount. I am not asking the Minister to go through that again, but I genuinely believe that there was a sensible solution in terms of enforcement and that sort of approach, which could have been used in the other SIs.
On the energy and trade-intensive industries, one of the sectors that is not there is agriculture. I know that the Minister has a very good relationship with Defra, but I wondered whether he could perhaps take back again the fact that the horticulture sector—poultry, I understand, as well—is equally energy intensive, yet that primary industry sector has been left out. I realise, clearly, that this SI cannot be amended to do that, but I show my regret in this context that the agricultural industry has been left out of that. Perhaps the Minister would like to offer an explanation of why.
There is a cap here, which I am not necessarily against, of £5.5 billion. Is it on a first come, first served basis, or are the Government completely assured that that limit will not be hit?
Lastly, my only other question is whether the Northern Ireland situation has been sorted out with the European Union, in terms of approval, which I understand is in process.
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)
I also add my thanks to the Minister for his fulsome explanation of the regulations before us today. I think we are on record as saying that we were disappointed with the delay at the beginning, but I think we can now say that it seems as though the mechanisms are up and running, and delivering for the people who desperately need this support provided.
I do not want to go over all of the points that have been covered and raised, but I have a couple of questions, particularly with reference to the Energy Bills Discount Scheme (Non-Standard Cases) Regulations. The noble Lord, Lord Teverson, raised the agricultural sector; that is one to consider. Could the Minister anticipate whether there will be other areas coming forward that are struggling and are not covered under this provision? As we know, this area is regarded as a relatively small part of the market. “Relatively” is a very broad definition, and I would like to know whether the Government actually know the precise size of this area as we go forward.
One area that we have raised on several occasions is the whole area of implications for vulnerable customers and the provision that is laid out for intermediaries to cover. We recognise that the Government are developing a guidance and communication strategy to ensure those intermediaries are aware of their obligations, and therefore pass on the support as required.
Lord Callanan (Con)
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, and the noble Baroness, Lady Blake, for their valuable contributions. I start by saying that the Government have implemented the EBDS to protect businesses and non-domestic consumers from the volatility of the market and, of course, to deliver critical energy bill support, while also taking account of the fact that wholesale prices are now well below previous levels seen during the peak of the energy crisis. The schemes have been designed to operate robustly and guard against fraud and gaming. We will continue to monitor the schemes to ensure that this support is provided to the people and businesses it is designed to help.
I will now respond to the questions raised by both noble Lords. As the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, pointed out, the regulations require that relevant intermediaries, including landlords, claim the benefit and pass it on to end-users. Intermediaries must take all such reasonable steps necessary to ensure that they are provided with the energy bills discount scheme benefit to which they are entitled, so that they may pass it on to their end-users.
We have taken a consistent approach to determine ETII eligibility. Organisations that operate primarily within an eligible sector will be eligible for the support. This means that about 50% of UK revenue generated in the relevant period must be from activity in an eligible sector. I am sorry to tell the noble Lord that the Government currently have no plans to review the eligibility criteria for the energy and trade intensive element of the EBDS. The Treasury-led review of the energy bill relief scheme took account of many contributions from the private sector, trade associations, the voluntary sector and other types of organisations, and the list is what we ended up with following that.
Finally, I can confirm to the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, that discussions with the European Commission are ongoing, and we hope to reach a conclusion on them soon.
The noble Baroness, Lady Blake, also raised the role of intermediaries and pass-through. As she said, we will continue to monitor the effectiveness of the pass-through regulations as well as our communications strategy for communicating to end-users. Detailed guidance has been produced on GOV.UK to help ensure that consumers and intermediaries, and those who advise them, are aware of the specifics of the scheme.
With regard to the noble Baroness’s point on non-standard cases, we have engaged with a range of stakeholders, and the extended eligibility announced on 1 April means that non-domestic customers on private wire networks are now supported. This includes businesses receiving energy from biomass and waste, to give two examples. The Government remain committed to ensuring that consumers continue to receive help with the rising cost of living, which at the moment includes energy bills. These regulations are vital in ensuring that support is delivered to non-domestic customers and, crucially, to domestic heat network consumers. I therefore commend them to the Committee.
Lord Teverson (LD)
On Northern Ireland, I am interested to understand whether the Commission is being difficult and finding objections or whether it is just a question of it taking the time that it takes.
Lord Callanan (Con)
The noble Lord will understand that I do not want to go any further at the moment. It is a sensitive area. We are engaging in discussions with the Commission and hope to reach a decision soon. I very much hope that it is not just being deliberately difficult but is seeking the necessary reassurances with regard to the state aid regulations.
Energy Bills Discount Scheme Pass-through Requirement Regulations 2023
(11 months, 3 weeks ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Callanan
That the Grand Committee do consider the Energy Bills Discount Scheme Pass-through Requirement Regulations 2023.
Relevant document: 38th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee (special attention drawn to the instrument)
Energy Bills Discount Scheme Pass-through Requirement (Heat Suppliers) Regulations 2023
(11 months, 3 weeks ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Callanan
That the Grand Committee do consider the Energy Bills Discount Scheme Pass-through Requirement (Heat Suppliers) Regulations 2023.
Relevant document: 38th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee (special attention drawn to the instrument)
Energy Bills Discount Scheme (Non-Standard Cases) Regulations 2023
(11 months, 3 weeks ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Callanan
That the Grand Committee do consider the Energy Bills Discount Scheme (Non-Standard Cases) Regulations 2023
Relevant document: 38th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee (special attention drawn to the instrument)
Energy Bills Discount Scheme (Northern Ireland) Regulations 2023
(11 months, 3 weeks ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Callanan
That the Grand Committee do consider the Energy Bills Discount Scheme (Northern Ireland) Regulations 2023.
Relevant document: 38th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee (special attention drawn to the instrument)
House of Lords
South West Rail Resilience Programme
(11 months, 3 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Berkeley
To ask His Majesty’s Government whether they intend to provide funding to ensure the timely completion of the works to protect the rail line at Dawlish from flooding, including Phase 5 of the South West Rail Resilience programme.
Lord Whitty (Lab)
My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Berkeley, and with his permission, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in his name on the Order Paper.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Transport (Baroness Vere of Norbiton) (Con)
My Lords, I can confirm that Network Rail has delivered two phases of the south-west resilience programme, providing protection to the railway at Dawlish from coastal flooding. The third and fourth phases addressing cliff protection measures are in delivery, with a combined budget of £85 million. Network Rail is being funding to deliver a detailed proposal for the fifth and final phase, which addresses cliff protection for a mile-long stretch of the railway.
Lord Whitty (Lab)
My Lords, I am glad to see that Members are so keen to speak. I thank the Minister for her reply, but it does not really answer the Question—or it does so only partly—and it does not reflect the importance of this line to the already existing problems of transport links to west Devon and Cornwall. Can she reassure us that the vital fourth and fifth phases—she mentioned the fourth, but not the fifth—will indeed be fully funded by Network Rail and the department? Can she give us an estimated date of completion to restore full resilience to this vital link to the far south-west?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
As I mentioned in my opening Answer, Network Rail is working on the fifth phase of the works in some detail; we need to establish detailed proposals for this mile-long stretch of the railway. Local consultations have happened, and there was some reluctance around some of the proposals put forward. Therefore, Network Rail is looking at the scope and costs of the fifth phase.
Lord Swire (Con)
My Lords, I apologise for being a bit too quick, which is more than you can say for any of the trains travelling to the south-west. In the south-west, we look and listen in envy to talk of chopping off bits of time on the cross-Pennine railway and others. That is not a luxury we have; we have only one railway beyond Exeter linking the whole south-west peninsula. If Dawlish goes down, we have no connectivity at all. While I very much welcome all the money and the moves the Government have made with the resilience surrounding Dawlish itself, until such time as we have a second railway bypassing or connecting Plymouth—either west of Dartmoor or in line with some of the other options—we can never be sure that we can keep the south-west connected 365 days a year.
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
I welcome my noble friend’s interest in this Question; I know that he raised this issue in the other place many times. I assure him that delays on the line as it currently stands are significantly down, from 53.6 minutes per 1,000 services in 2018-19 to just 36.1 minutes per 1,000 services in 2022-23, so it is important to note that the resilience of the line is improving. The department has looked at alternatives—additional routes through to the south-west that might provide additional resilience. However, we are focused on improving the resilience of the line as it currently stands. In proposals for restoring elements of railway that previously existed, the case was not set out sufficiently.
Baroness Randerson (LD)
My Lords, this example is one of many similar schemes. A few weeks ago I asked a Question about news reports that Network Rail’s future funding was so limited that we could expect that basic infrastructure may not be repaired. The Minister dismissed my inquiry, saying that you should
“never believe everything that you read in the newspaper”.—[Official Report, 26/4/23; col. 1214.]
Now we have sight of Network Rail’s own business case for the next five years. It warns that funding constraints mean that the condition of the rail infrastructure will deteriorate and there will be a decrease in reliability. Does the Minister think that I should not believe everything I read in an official Network Rail document?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
I say, absolutely, that one should not believe everything one reads in the newspaper. It is the case that Network Rail has to work within its funding envelope for CP7, which goes from 2024 to 2029. We are investing a record £44.1 billion in our rail infrastructure—a 4% increase on CP6—so the Government are providing significant funding. As with many elements of the railways, it is important that Network Rail and others look at what funding they have and obtain efficiencies to ensure that the reliability of the railway is maintained.
Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)
My Lords, I looked at a recent exchange between my noble friend Lord Berkeley and the Minister on this subject. Essentially, he asked whether funding for phase 5 will be withheld and she gave the heroic non-answer that she has just repeated. Can we be absolutely clear where we are on funding? Will funding be available for phase 5? If not, does the Minister accept that building phases 1 and 4 and not phase 5 is a complete waste of money?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
I do not accept the latter point. We have invested £165 million to date, and of course some of that was to ensure the resilience of the seawall itself. Other elements of that funding went into cliff protection measures. This final section of cliff protection measures is highly complicated and there has been some local reluctance around the plans that Network Rail originally put forward. That is why it has had to go back to the drawing board. At this stage we do not know the scope of the works or the costs, and therefore it is impossible to speak further about the funding.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, the Minister refers to keeping within the funding envelope. Is there any connection between the Government’s determination to cut taxes before the next election and the refusal to provide additional long-term funding for long-term investment? As a Government concerned with the national interest, should they not be more concerned with long-term investment than the short-term political advantage that a tax cut might provide before the next election?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
The Government are always cognisant that we must provide value for money to the taxpayer. As I outlined in a previous answer, the amount of funding going into our railways is going up. We are very cognisant of the impact of that increased funding and the sorts of deliverables that we want to see out of it. I assure the noble Lord that the rail network enhancements pipeline, or RNEP, will include some of those enhancements and will be published soon.
Baroness Watkins of Tavistock (CB)
My Lords, does the Minister accept that if we do not proceed with the fifth part of this protection, we should look again at the west Devon line going via Tavistock, because we could be left with absolutely nothing again?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
I do not accept that those two issues are necessarily linked. It is very important that we have resilience on the existing line, which has been in place for many years. That is why we are very focused on improving its resilience and have invested heavily in it. As I said previously, we looked at some proposals. For example, in round 3 of the Restoring Your Railway project, Devon County Council produced a strategic outline business case for reopening the line from Bere Alston to Tavistock. There was also a proposal to open the line from Tavistock to Okehampton. Neither of those was really viable enough to take forward.
Lord Lexden (Con)
My Lords, what are the effects of the difficulties in the rail links on tourism to the particularly beautiful part of our country to which this Question referred?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
As I noted earlier, the delays on this line have actually reduced; it is quite a reliable line, and the train operating company is very effective. I encourage all tourists to get on the railways and visit the south-west.
Baroness Walmsley (LD)
My Lords, talking about delays, of the many reasons my Avanti West Coast train has been delayed—it was 40 minutes this morning—points failures and signal failures are high on the list. Does this not indicate that the network is falling apart?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
I do not accept that the network is falling apart. In whichever country one is in the world, there are occasional technical issues that cause trains to be delayed. The Government are investing £44.1 billion in the next control period. That will ensure that our railways are fit for the future.
HGVs: Charging and Refuelling
(11 months, 3 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Randerson
To ask His Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to encourage and develop a network of public charging and refuelling sites for zero-emission HGVs, and what policies are they adopting to encourage and facilitate the development of charging and refuelling infrastructure at commercial HGV depots.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Transport (Baroness Vere of Norbiton) (Con)
My Lords, the Government recognise that charging and refuelling sites required to support zero-emission HGV uptake will need to increase before 2040. Last year’s future of freight plan committed to convening industry stakeholders to develop a plan for rollout, which is happening through our Freight Energy Forum. Extensive stakeholder engagement will begin later this year.
Baroness Randerson (LD)
My Lords, it is accepted that a very large number of electric vehicle charging points, particularly ultra-fast ones, will be required in the near future, and that those will mainly be needed in depots. However, the National Grid is giving applicants for extra grid capacity completion dates and access dates that are well into the 2030s. What are the Government doing to ensure there is sufficiently large grid capacity throughout the UK to enable this logistics revolution to proceed apace?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
The Government are taking a two-phased approach to this, and those phases are happening concurrently. The first is that we need to discuss with industry stakeholders exactly how they feel the strategy for the rollout of zero-emission vehicles will go, particularly at the heavy end. That is why we will publish the zero-emission HGV infrastructure strategy later this year, once we have been able to discuss it with those stakeholders. The Government are confident that the grid can cope with the increased demand, and the next step is to ensure that depots can connect to it. We are working with the DNOs to find the most cost-effective solution to that.
Lord Howell of Guildford (Con)
My Lords, can we pause and reflect for a moment on the implications of this situation? As has already been suggested, would not a fleet of HGVs all topping up with electricity add a colossal load to our electricity supply and transmission system, even to the point, some say, that the existing cables could melt, causing local outages? Where is this enormous extra volume of electricity going to come from and where is the investment to generate it; and where is the investment for the National Grid transformation required to get any of this to work?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
My noble friend raises a very important point. That is why, as part of the decarbonisation of HGVs, the Government are investing £200 million in the zero-emission road freight demonstrator programme, which will look at all the different technologies available. For some vehicles, battery electric will be the best option, but for others we expect hydrogen fuel cells to be far more relevant. Therefore, we need the zero-emission HGV infrastructure strategy, which will examine what a network of green hydrogen sites would look like, as well as the impact on the grid and where on it the additional electricity will be needed.
Lord Lansley (Con)
My Lords, a number of HGV fleet operators I have talked to in Cambridgeshire just want decisions to be made and a strategy to be progressed. Many of them think that hydrogen fuel cells will be the best technology for large HGVs, but there is no infrastructure for that, and they are looking for support for infrastructure well before the date on which they have to stop buying new diesel trucks.
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
I accept it is most likely that a hydrogen refuelling infrastructure will be needed. That is exactly why the Government are taking time, over the next six months or so, working with the stakeholders who sit on the Freight Energy Forum to establish exactly what that might look like. We need to set the strategic direction to ensure that the infrastructure is in place for 2040, but we also need to look at the evidence that will come from the zero-emission road freight demonstrator programme so that it can feed into that strategy.
Lord Hannan of Kingsclere (Con)
My Lords, I am encouraged by my noble friend the Minister’s reply to my noble friend Lord Lansley. It takes up to 10 hours for an HGV to plug in and recharge from one of these stations. More to the point, China controls 75% of battery production, but hydrogen is a race we are well placed to win. What plans does my noble friend have to work with producers of HGVs—not only fuel rod producers but producers of internal combustion engines that run on hydrogen—to achieve a workable rollout which will cover our transport networks?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
My noble friend is right that working with stakeholders is key. The Government cannot solve the industry’s issues in this regard by centralising the decision-making for them, and it will be up to the stakeholders to decide what sort of vehicles they believe will be taken forward. I believe it will be a combination of battery electric and hydrogen fuel cells, and that is why the infrastructure strategy we are working on is so important. My noble friend mentioned hydrogen internal combustion engines. We believe that they are not zero-emission engines as they produce trace carbon dioxide and NOx. They also have very low energy efficiency in real-world applications, at about 25%, compared to 90% for battery electric and about 60% for hydrogen fuel cells.
Baroness Walmsley (LD)
My Lords, will the Government ensure that there are sufficient dedicated recharging facilities available for commercial vehicles so that large and small commercial vans are deterred from using the often scarce recharging facilities for private cars available at motorway services?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
The Government are working at pace on electric vehicle chargers, for both commercial and private use. We are focusing on Project Rapid and the rapid charging fund, which looks at long-distance journeys. The second area is local electric vehicle infrastructure, including on-road charging in local areas, which can be used by commercial vehicles as well.
Baroness Hayman (CB)
My Lords, I declare my interests as set out in the register. The problems with the grid and the urgent need for both investment in and strategic planning for the grid emerge as more and more of an issue. That is one of the reasons why this House supported an amendment to the Energy Bill, to give Ofgem an objective to contribute to the achievement of net zero. Would the Minister be kind enough to talk to her colleagues and make sure that the Government do not try to reverse that amendment in another place?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
I will certainly ensure that my colleagues are aware of the noble Baroness’s interest. The price controls being used by Ofgem are very helpful in encouraging investment. There is new, agile regulation called the net zero reopener, which allows network operators to apply for additional funding for zero-emission projects.
Lord West of Spithead (Lab)
The noble Lord, Lord Howell, is absolutely right about the exponential increase in demand for electrical power. Does the Minister agree that the only way we can really achieve this and have the right amount of baseload power is through the use of nuclear? We really must put all our weight behind producing nuclear power, developing SMRs and getting it available; otherwise, there is no way we will meet this requirement.
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
My colleagues at DESNZ, as I believe it is called nowadays, will be cognisant of our need to produce a significant amount of renewable electricity in future, and I hope that nuclear is part of that.
Baroness Deech (CB)
Does the Minister see a connection between the previous Question and this one, and will she acknowledge that public transport in this country is in a dire condition? I drive electric. There is still nowhere to charge up here; one dare not go on a long journey because there is nowhere to charge. The train between Didcot and Oxford has been out of action for months. The main road from the west of Oxford to the station is being closed for 12 months. We are virtually prisoners in our own home. I dread to think what this is doing for the tourist trade and business generally, but nobody seems to care.
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
I am very sorry to hear that the noble Baroness has experienced those issues in her local area; they are certainly not replicated across the country. She may be talking about the Nuneham viaduct, where there has been some subsidence. It closed on 3 April. We understand the frustration, but we are working very closely with GWR, CrossCountry, Chiltern and Network Rail to ensure that we get passengers moving. Engineers are working on the project, and we hope to have good news for the noble Baroness soon.
Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)
My Lords, I think the noble Baroness said that the grid said it was confident it could meet the challenges of HGV electrical supply. The problem is extremely sophisticated: it is likely to be grouped in hubs and there is likely to be very high demand. Electrical systems are basically rather fragile, and this needs a very sophisticated approach. Is the National Grid part of the Freight Energy Forum, and if not, why not?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
The Freight Energy Forum feeds into the Department for Transport and, indeed, across government. While I accept that HGV depots will have significantly high demand for renewable electricity, other areas, particularly hard-to-abate sectors, will need much more. We are confident that with continued investment in the grid, we will be able to meet the needs of all the elements that need to be decarbonised, and that will uptick their electricity usage. As I mentioned previously, we have done that with a range of price controls, but also strategic planning for the future.
Land Use Commission
(11 months, 3 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Roborough
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the report of the Land Use in England Committee’s recommendation to establish a Land Use Commission to help landowners and managers make the most appropriate decisions for their land.
The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Benyon) (Con)
My Lords, I declare my farming interest as set out in the register. We welcome the committee’s report and agree with many of its findings. The land use framework programme led by Defra is aligning thinking on land use across departments. We have yet to be convinced of the value of a commission.
Lord Roborough (Con)
I thank my noble friend for his Answer and refer to my interest as a landowner, as set out in the register. The Royal Society recently highlighted that government policies could require up to one-third of England’s land to be repurposed by 2050. England is a densely populated nation with multiple overlapping stakeholders on every acre of our country. That makes change in land use complex, time-consuming, expensive and risky for the land manager. How else can the Government help to streamline this process and highlight the optimal uses of different types of land to those who manage it?
Lord Benyon (Con)
My noble friend raises really important points. In its Multifunctional Landscapes report, published this year, the Royal Society referred to the UK rather than England; of course, we have to operate within the system that we have. It bases its assumptions about the total areas required by government targets on figures that it describes in the report as “illustrative”. However, we do not want to prescribe particular uses to landowners or land managers from a national level. We would rather make sure that they have the information and guidance they require to make efficient decisions based on local knowledge. I give the example of local nature recovery strategies, which help to steer nature restoration projects to the areas where they can be most beneficial.
Lord Cameron of Dillington (CB)
My Lords, in devising a continuous renewal of their land use strategy, how will the Government recruit and accommodate the necessary expertise in areas such as energy, leisure and housing—to take a few—which are outside Defra’s normal remit? How will they arrange for interdepartmental co-operation or even an interdepartmental commission or committee?
Lord Benyon (Con)
I compliment the noble Lord on his leadership of the committee that produced this excellent report. We are involved in discussions right across government, including with the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero, the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, and the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology. The noble Lord’s crucial point about skills and expertise is completely understood. In line with the recommendations on skills from the Independent Review of Net Zero, the renewables industry is working with the Green Jobs Delivery Group to develop net-zero skills and a workforce action plan. We are definitely considering the necessary skills and expertise as we prepare the land use framework.
The Lord Bishop of Chelmsford
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his responses so far. Can he clarify whether the Government will encourage Defra to give regard to land tenure and, in particular, to ensuring that the tenanted sector is considered within the land use framework?
Lord Benyon (Con)
The right reverend Prelate raises a crucial point. We talk about farmers and land managers, but those descriptions are too simple and generic, because we have owner-occupiers, registered tenants under the 1986 Act, graziers and farm business tenancies; it is an incredibly complex system of tenure. We are considering the Rock report and will respond to it.
Of course, the Church is a very big landowner. We want to make sure that it works alongside a great many other landowners, both large and small, to tackle these important issues, including feeding the population; tackling net zero; reversing declines in species; building homes; and providing space for people—all on a single piece of real estate. This is a complicated process, but it is one that we are determined to tackle.
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)
My Lords, as a member of the land use committee, I know just how many detailed evidence sessions and discussion there were on the proposals for a land use commission. As the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, indicated, the proposed commission is to cover all aspects of land use and more than one government department, not just Defra. However, there has been no indication of when this report will be allocated time for a debate in this Chamber. Can the Minister please put in a good word for it to be expedited before the Summer Recess?
Lord Benyon (Con)
I would love to spend hours talking about this issue; it is one of endless fascination. I have the zeal of the convert on this because I was always sceptical about what I felt was a very top-down process but, having read the report, I now see the need for it. That is why we are tackling the issue in a meaningful way right across government; if we can find time for a debate on the report, I am certain that I will be dragged in to give the Government’s view.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
My Lords, as we have heard, there are many pressures on land: housing; food production; tackling biodiversity; and climate change. Clearly, the recommendation to set up a land use commission to oversee progress on this is the best solution. Are the Government going to take that recommendation forward and set up a commission? If not, how does the Minister envisage not just being in discussion with departments but delivering on this issue across government so that we get the land use we need for the future?
Lord Benyon (Con)
My concern about a commission is that it would probably have to be a creature of statute. That would take time. We would have to have consultations and pass legislation, and another factor is the cost, which the report said should be similar to that of the Scottish Land Commission, at £1.5 million, and the Climate Change Committee, which is about £4.5 million. The most important thing is that Ministers want to drive and be held to account in both Houses on this very important piece of work. We are yet to be convinced about parking it with a commission, but I am happy to have further conversations with Members of this House to get to the bottom of that.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, my noble friend the Minister mentioned tenant farmers and graziers. When will the extent to which they will benefit from ELMS become clearer?
Lord Benyon (Con)
They are already benefiting from ELMS. We are working hard to ensure that they can benefit from not just the sustainable farming incentive but all the other parts of the schemes that we are bringing forward. Areas of countryside stewardship have always been a problem with landlord and tenant. We are trying to iron those things out and ensure that we are providing a future of support for all parts of the farming sector.
Lord Berkeley of Knighton (CB)
My Lords, to what extent does the Minister see a connection between this problem and the dearth of people going into agriculture as a job, compounded by the problem that those people find, especially in less favoured areas, in getting housing at an affordable price?
Lord Benyon (Con)
The noble Lord identifies a strange social phenomenon which is going on, where people who can afford to live in villages are driving into towns to commute or work there, and they are passing people who cannot afford to live in the villages but who work on the farms or in the countryside around them. We have a very clear, determined policy to extend the exception site housing scheme and support local authorities, parish councils and those communities which want to grow organically. Providing affordable housing in rural areas is key.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, does the Minister agree that there are some existing land uses that are simply too environmentally destructive, too carbon emitting, and have too little benefit for human and non-human animals, and that this needs to be addressed? Is that something the land use commission could address, or will the Government address it in other ways?
Lord Benyon (Con)
I am not entirely sure what the noble Baroness is talking about; she might have given me some examples. It is important that a land use framework gives land managers the ability to plan into the future, knowing what is predisposed from the land, where it is best to plant trees, where we will concentrate our desperate economic and environmental imperative of reversing the declines in species, and where we will produce food. We will have a real attempt at giving land managers the understanding they need to take their businesses forward in this new and changing world.
The Earl of Caithness (Con)
My Lords, we welcome Defra’s appreciation of the need for land use. It has taken some years in getting there, but it appears that no other department is as keen as Defra to do this. Can my noble friend tell us a bit more about his discussions with the other departments and whether they are looking constructively at this matter?
Lord Benyon (Con)
We are having very good discussions across government. You cannot have a land use framework that does not address planning—I know that we will be talking about planning later today and into the night. You cannot have this conversation without talking to that department, for example, and you cannot have net zero without talking about trees. There is an absolute link-up. I reassure my noble friend that we are very serious about our conversations across government.
Former Chief Constables: Gross Misconduct
(11 months, 3 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Lexden
To ask His Majesty’s Government how many former chief constables are awaiting police gross misconduct hearings.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Sharpe of Epsom) (Con)
My Lords, since 2020-21, the Home Office has substantially increased the data that it collects and publishes on police misconduct as part of the police misconduct in England and Wales statistical bulletin. It is working closely with the sector to improve the overall quality and consistency of the data that it collects. This does not include cases which have been referred to misconduct proceedings where those proceedings have not concluded.
Lord Lexden (Con)
My Lords, how can it possibly be right for former Chief Constable Mike Veale to have been able to dodge a gross misconduct inquiry in Cleveland for almost two years, while tarnished officers of lesser rank have been brought to account? May I remind the House that arrangements for the Veale hearing in Cleveland were the sole responsibility of a legally qualified chair, whose name is unknown, even though the law does not permit this individual to remain anonymous. What does that say about public accountability of the police in Cleveland? Finally, when I met my noble friend the Minister and Mr Chris Philp, the Policing Minister, recently—I thank them for that meeting—I made it clear that, unless the mysterious chair has now fixed a date for the start of the hearing, I would call on the Government today to use their reserve powers under Sections 79 and 91 of the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act 2011 to end the impasse. Is it not time that this matter was finally resolved?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, the law is not being flouted. Arrangements for the misconduct hearing of the former Cleveland chief constable Mike Veale are a matter for the Cleveland PCC and not the Government. Any questions regarding who has been appointed as the independent, legally qualified chair would need to be directed to the PCC accordingly. As noble Lords will expect me to say, I will not comment further on that particular case. However, in answer to the second part of my noble friend’s question, I can say that operational policing is, as he knows, not a Home Office matter—it is for chief constables—but he is correct that the Home Secretary has powers under the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act 2011 to ensure an efficient and effective policing system that protects public safety. That includes the power under Sections 40 and 40A of the Police Act 1996. However, these are for use only when either the police force or the local policing body itself is failing or will fail to discharge its functions in an effective manner. They are very much a last resort, and we do not believe that the current situation in Cleveland requires these powers to be used, as the PCC has appointed an LQC to the panel for Mr Veale’s misconduct hearing.
Lord Bach (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for the meeting he arranged, but will he please guarantee that the Home Office will never again stand idly by in a situation where a police and crime commissioner, in this case Leicestershire’s, employs as it chief adviser, and then as its chief executive, a twice-disgraced ex-chief constable facing an allegation of gross misconduct—all with substantial public money? Do the Government understand how offensive this is, both to the police force in question and to the general public?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
The noble Lord makes a very good point. As he knows, in the case he describes, the usual and correct procedure was not followed in that county. I am very pleased it has finally been followed, so I agree with him.
Lord German (LD)
My Lords, this House owes a debt of recognition to the noble Lord, Lord Lexden, for his perseverance in this matter. Of course, there are obviously serious matters relating to the relationship between police officers and the law. I wonder if the Minister would care to comment on the words of the chief constable of the BTP, the transport police, who says:
“If I was to commit a crime, get arrested and give my details, there is no obvious system check that would flag that I’m a police officer if I didn’t choose to tell them”.
Does the Minister think that is an issue? If it is a problem, what are the Government doing to solve it?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
I join the noble Lord in praising my noble friend’s commendable tenacity on this subject. Regarding the circumstances the noble Lord describes, I was not aware of them. Of course, he will also be aware that we have launched a review, which concludes this month, into the whole misconduct and dismissals process. With a bit of luck, it will report back in the next month or two, according to the Policing Minister in the other place. It will include a number of these issues, and I hope that will be dealt with then.
Lord Cormack (Con)
My Lords, if there were a gold medal for stonewalling, my noble friend would deserve to win it. The answers that he gives are obfuscatory and reveal nothing. Will he please consider again the questions asked by both my noble friend Lord Lexden and the noble Lord, Lord Bach? Will he also reflect on the point that came up during the debate we had in the Moses Room a week or two ago? I suggested to him, and he completely ignored the suggestion, that we should have a police ombudsman in this country: somebody who can exercise the sort of authority—dispassionate and impartial—exercised by the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, in Northern Ireland.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
I thank my noble friend for his praise, which is very welcome. I remember that debate in Grand Committee and I am afraid I did not ignore his suggestion; I dismissed it. In fact, a number of bodies oversee policing, including the College of Policing, the IOPC, HMICFRS and a variety of other alphabet-soup organisations.
The Lord Speaker (Lord McFall of Alcluith)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, is contributing remotely.
Lord Campbell-Savours (Lab) [V]
My Lords, why can we not have anonymity in accusations of sexual offences, particularly rape? They are a special category of criminal offence where the reputations of the innocent can be destroyed, even by chief constables like Mike Veale. The law is unfair, and I have raised this issue repeatedly over the years. I too congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Lexden, on his unrelenting campaigning on this issue; the House is deeply indebted to him.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
Obviously that strays well outside the remit of this Question and the department, but I will make sure that the noble Lord’s reflections are taken back to the appropriate people.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
I will follow on from the good idea of the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, about having a police ombudsman. In their original Answer to this, the Government rather washed their hands of the whole issue of police and crime commissioners, which did not seem appropriate, as this Government set them up and put in the rules, parameters and laws—rather poorly, I think, but they did so. It is therefore wrong to throw away all feelings of guilt after things have gone wrong.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, as the noble Baroness is aware, we have conducted a two-part review of PCCs. The second part is due to be enacted soon.
Lord Howell of Guildford (Con)
My Lords, behind all this is the question of Operation Conifer, in which the reputation of a former Prime Minister and statesman was deeply and horribly smeared by the lies of a convicted paedophile, whose views were described by the police as “credible”. Given the obvious misdemeanours, mistakes and mishandling of the whole case, operations within the police seem to have been incredibly slow. The noble Lord, Lord Lexden, has asked endless questions over the years and this issue has never been brought to a head. Is it therefore not time for the Government, while not interfering with police operations in detail, to endorse and set up a completely independent inquiry to bring this appalling libelling and slandering of a now-deceased Prime Minister to an end? It is totally out of accord with the normal standards of justice and fairness in this country.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
Many noble Lords have raised similar, very good points in recent debates. I shared this opinion with my noble friend Lord Lexden when we met last week. Having said that, there have been four inquiries into this case and all concluded that there was nothing more to do. However, I heard my noble friend Lord Howell’s concerns and will reflect them back to the department.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
I join other noble Lords in congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Lexden, and my noble friend Lord Bach, who have been campaigning on these issues for a considerable period of time. The Minister’s answers are simply not satisfactory. The noble Lord, Lord Lexden, has raised time and again the misconduct of Mike Veale, the former chief constable. The Minister simply comes back with a list of regulations, sends up smoke and does not answer the question. This is a really serious matter that deserves the highest priority from the Government, but we are not getting it. When will the Minister give us the answers that the noble Lord, Lord Lexden, is demanding?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
I hope very soon. The noble Lord is also aware that there are a large number of things that I absolutely cannot say—a point I have reinforced from the Dispatch Box on a number of occasions. That will remain the case until this is concluded.
Public Service Vehicles (Accessible Information) Regulations 2023
(11 months, 3 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Vere of Norbiton
That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 30 March be approved. Considered in Grand Committee on 16 May.
Insider Dealing (Securities and Regulated Markets) Order 2023
(11 months, 3 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Penn
That the draft Order laid before the House on 17 April be approved. Considered in Grand Committee on 16 May.
Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill
Monday 22nd May 2023
(11 months, 3 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Act 2023 View all Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Act 2023 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 139-I Marshalled list for Third Reading - (19 May 2023)
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord True)
My Lords, I have it in command from His Majesty the King to acquaint the House that His Majesty, having been informed of the purport of the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill, has consented to place his interest, so far as it is affected by 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 am disappointed to inform the House that both the Scottish Parliament and the Senedd Cymru have voted to withhold consent for the REUL Bill.
Lord Callanan (Con)
I am sure we are all shocked to hear that. We acknowledge the concerns of both Parliaments regarding the Bill and the potential impacts on devolved areas. However, it is right and constitutionally appropriate that the REUL Bill applies UK-wide. This will ensure that the benefits of Brexit can be realised by citizens and businesses throughout the whole United Kingdom. The Government therefore intend to proceed with the Bill without their consent. As noble Lords will be aware, the ongoing absence of the Northern Ireland Executive and the Assembly means that it has not been possible to seek legislative consent from the Northern Ireland Assembly on this Bill.
I reassure the House that it was never our intention to proceed with the Bill without consent in place. Our preference would have been to secure legislative consent Motions from the devolved legislatures. The Government have sought to engage proactively with the devolved Administrations on the REUL Bill since March last year. We have listened to their concerns and sought to make meaningful changes to the Bill in response. This includes the amendment to the sunset and the conferral of the powers to make consequential and transitional, transitory and savings provisions to the devolved authorities and devolved Ministers.
The decisions of the Scottish Parliament and the Senedd, while regrettable, will never mark the end of our engagement with the devolved Administrations on retained EU law. We remain committed to supporting sustained engagement with them on the REUL Bill and the REUL reform programme going forward.
Amendment 1
Baroness Noakes
“Retained EU law dashboard and report(1) The Secretary of State must within the period of 30 days beginning with the day after the end of each reporting period—(a) update the retained EU law dashboard;(b) publish and lay before Parliament a report on the revocation and reform of retained EU law.(2) The report must—(a) provide a summary of the data on the retained EU law dashboard (as updated under subsection (1)(a));(b) set out the progress that has been made in revoking and reforming retained EU law during the reporting period to which the report relates;(c) set out His Majesty’s Government’s plans to revoke and reform retained EU law in subsequent reporting periods.(3) The reporting periods are—(a) the period beginning with the day on which this Act is passed and ending with 23 December 2023; (b) the period of 12 months beginning with 24 December 2023;(c) the period of 12 months beginning with 24 December 2024;(d) the period of 6 months beginning with 24 December 2025.(4) If the Secretary of State does not meet the requirements in subsection (1) in relation to a reporting period, the Secretary of State must—(a) explain why in a statement made in writing, and(b) publish the statement and lay it before Parliament.(5) In this section—“retained EU law dashboard” means the database on retained EU law maintained and made publicly available by the Secretary of State;“revoke” has the same meaning as in section 14.(6) In subsection (2), “reform” includes “replace”.(7) In relation to the report under subsection (1)(b) in respect of the period ending with 23 June 2026, ignore subsection (2)(c).”Member's explanatory statement
This new Clause requires the Secretary of State to update the retained EU law dashboard and report on the revocation and reform of retained EU law in periods up to 23 June 2026.
Baroness Noakes (Con)
My Lords, Amendment 1 introduces a new clause after Clause 17. Amendments 2 and 3 in this group are consequential.
I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Callanan for adding his name to the amendments and I am even more grateful to my noble friend’s officials, who have produced these amendments at great speed in response to the less elegant amendment which I moved on Report last week. It is a great privilege to be given the opportunity to table these amendments in my name.
The underlying concept behind these amendments is transparency about the progress that the Government are making in dealing with retained EU law. This Bill now revokes only a portion of that law, but it will remain an important task for the Government to decide what to do with the rest of the laws on our statute book and ensure that they support the needs of the UK economy and our citizens. It represents a once in a generation opportunity to achieve significant regulatory reform.
Amendment 1 builds on the retained EU law dashboard, which pulls together all retained EU law and shows progress in reforming that law. While some have criticised the dashboard because the number of items of retained EU law continues to increase, the core information that it contains, including visual representation of progress, has been a great achievement. Subsection (1) of the proposed new clause places an obligation on the Secretary of State to update the dashboard. It also requires the Secretary of State to publish and lay before Parliament reports on the revocation and reform of EU law.
These reports will do three things: they will summarise the dashboard; they will set out progress that has been made in revoking and reforming retained EU law; and, importantly, they will set out the Government’s plans for revocation or reform. Information on the Government’s plans does not currently get reported in a comprehensive way, and so this should be a valuable data source both for parliamentarians and for those outside Parliament. The first report will be for the period up to 23 December this year, and there will be three more reports, the first two covering the years to 23 December 2024 and 23 December 2025 and a final one for the six months until 23 June 2026. The end date is, of course, the 10th anniversary of the great referendum vote and coincides with the final expiry of the powers in this Bill to reinstate or revoke EU law.
I know that noble Lords support effective accountability of the Executive to Parliament, and I believe that this new clause will improve Parliament’s ability to oversee how well the Government are delivering on their Brexit promises. I very much hope that by the time of the final report, 23 June 2026, if not earlier, the Government will have demonstrated that all retained EU law has been dealt with, whether by a positive decision to keep it intact or by revocation or reform. Last week the noble Baroness, Lady Chapman, and the noble Lord, Lord Fox, were less than enthusiastic about my amendment on Report. It is perhaps wishful thinking to think that this new and improved version will result in a change of heart, but none the less I commend it to them. I beg to move.
Lord Hope of Craighead (CB)
My Lords, this amendment, which I fully understand, places a lot of emphasis on the capacity of the retained EU dashboard, but there are some important deficiencies in its capacity, the most important of which is that it does not contain any post-devolution legislation. That can be demonstrated by looking at the schedule that has just been introduced into the Bill. There is not a single item of post-devolution material on it.
When the Common Frameworks Scrutiny Committee, of which I am a member, invited some officials who work on the dashboard to address us and explain how it works, we asked them whether there was any post-devolution retained EU law on the dashboard. They told us that there was not, that devolution material was not there. We asked whether it was the intention that it should include post-devolution material and they said that it was not and that it was not designed to do that.
So there is a question I would like to ask, and I think it is fair to ask the Minister, about what the position truly is on this. I do not think he has ever fully acknowledged, at least in this Chamber, the fact that the dashboard does not contain post-devolution material at all. Is it intended that the dashboard should be updated, as is the obligation in the amendment, to include post-devolution material? If so, when will that be done and is it clear that the devolved Administrations are able to do that in time to meet the first deadline, which is the end of this year? They have a great deal to do already with the amount of work which is required of them by the Bill, and to have to work on updating the dashboard as well might be beyond their resources. This is a very important issue. I am not trying to undermine the amendment, but I want to understand its capacity to do what the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, told us it is intended to do.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
I re-echo and endorse entirely the comments of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope. I also echo the regrets that the Scottish Parliament and Welsh Assembly have withheld their consent. Quite a broad area of retained EU law will remain by default on the statute books, which I welcome. However, following the comments of my right honourable friend the Environment Secretary over the weekend—particularly those relating to retained EU law and the wine sector—there remains a huge lack of clarity which, regrettably, the amendments in the name of my noble friend Lady Noakes and my noble friend the Minister do not address.
The fact that Defra will be able to revoke and amend large swathes of retained EU law—probably the bulk of outstanding retained EU law, as this relates to the Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs—poses great uncertainty for practitioners as well as the businesses that they are trying to advise. So I echo the question put by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, which I too have asked on a number of occasions, as to the up-to-dateness and comprehensiveness—particularly as regards devolved legislation—of the dashboard. Also, regarding the legal status of the dashboard, is it just a signpost or does it have greater significance than that?
I am sure that my noble friend will share my concern as a Minister in his department that there is, regrettably, a great lack of clarity for practitioners and business going forward as the Bill leaves the House today.
Lord Pannick (CB)
The noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, introduced Amendment 1 by saying that it is designed to promote transparency and accountability. Who could possibly disagree with those objectives? They are vital to this Bill. It seems to me that subsection (1) is modest in its requirements: the updating of the dashboard and the publication of a report. My question to the noble Baroness and, indeed, the Minister is: why, then, is it thought necessary to include in Amendment 1 subsection (4), which provides that:
“If the Secretary of State does not meet the requirements”—
that is the basic requirements—in subsection (1), then certain consequences follow?
It is, I would suggest, very unusual to include in an important provision of a Bill a set of obligations on Ministers but then recognise in another clause of the same provision that they may well not satisfy the important requirements that the noble Baroness rightly suggests should be imposed on them. Should we understand from this that the Minister contemplates that there is a real possibility that Ministers do not intend to comply with the very obligations that this amendment imposes? If they are going to comply with these obligations, surely we do not need subsection (4).
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, I am afraid that a few amendments will not improve this Bill. It is a disastrous Bill, and not because of the laws that are being taken out this time—those few hundred do not seem significant. The big problem is the power grab by Ministers; that is really quite unnerving. I wonder what will happen when the Labour Party forms a Government. Will the Conservative Opposition go into trauma every time a Minister decides something?
When I voted for Brexit and taking back control, I did not mean taking back control for a small number of Ministers, who may or may not have their own ideas of what democracy is or what is appropriate for the people of Britain. The fact is that this is a bad Bill. It gives powers to Ministers that they ought never to have, and now, of course, it raises problems with the devolved authorities.
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, on persuading the Minister—though I am not sure how much persuasion was required—to incorporate the spirit of her amendment, and I congratulate the Minister on making it more elegant. The noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, has invited me to like it; I will do my best, but I do not think I will manage that.
The most interesting thing about the amendment, in my view, is not what happens to the list but what is on the list. The nature of the Bill has been turned on its head. At one point, being on the list was essential to try to avoid being revoked. Now, being on the list makes a law a target to be revoked. So we are in a world that has revolved 180 degrees; we have passed through the looking-glass.
I have two questions for the Minister, and I ask the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, to excuse me but I suspect it is the Minister who can answer them. First, to pick up on the point made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, which I was also going to make, is it the Minister’s understanding that no post-devolution legislation will now get put on to the list? We do not have legislative consent from the devolved authorities. They are apparently the authorities that would put post-devolution legislation on the list—if they had access to the database, although there is some question over whether they do. Can we assume that there will be no post-devolution legislation on the list?
Secondly, when will the list be fixed for these purposes? Is work still under way in all the departments of government in order to add new things to the dashboard, or is that it?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, commented that we were rather less than enthusiastic when we discussed this issue last week. I can see why we have got to the position where this amendment has been agreed between the noble Baroness and the Government, and I am very happy for her that she feels satisfied with the movement that the Government have made in getting here. I am afraid that the concerns we have had throughout this process are a long way from being satisfied by the amendment. We do not oppose it particularly, but we are not particularly in favour of it. It does not really do all that much to the substance of what we have been disagreeing about during the passage of the Bill. However, if it helps with some internal political management on the government Benches, that is something that the Minister is entitled to attempt to do.
Lord Callanan (Con)
Well, my Lords, if the Opposition are not enthusiastic about my noble friend’s amendment, I am.
Before I address the amendment, I shall deal with some of the points that Members have raised. First, on the point made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, the noble Lord, Lord Fox, and my noble friend Lady McIntosh about post-devolution rule, that is rule for the devolved Administrations. The reality is that they have not wanted to add anything to the dashboard, and of course we are in no position—and do not wish to force them—to do so. If they wish to add some of their rule to the dashboard then they can, but for now it is just rule made by Her Majesty’s Government. It of course contains UK government legislation that has been made post devolution—just not the rule made by the devolved Administrations.
To answer my noble friend Lady McIntosh’s point, the dashboard has no legal status as such; it is just a list of retained EU law.
Moving on to the main points about my noble friend Lady Noakes’s amendment, the Government have already reformed or revoked over 1,000 pieces of retained EU law, but that is not the limit of our ambition. Departments will continue to review the rule that is not already revoked, reformed or planned for revocation this year in order to identify further opportunities for reform, and we are committed to reducing the burdens on businesses and unlocking the economic growth that will flow from that. As a down payment on our commitment to deliver meaningful reform, the 10 May policy paper Smarter Regulation to Grow the Economy set out our intention to reform regulations and remove burdens on businesses.
We announced changes that will reduce disproportionate EU-derived reporting requirements and could save businesses around £1billion a year. This will just be the first in a series of announcements that the Government will be making in the coming months on reforming regulation in order to drive growth. In addition to the revocation schedule, the powers in the Bill will still enable us to revoke, replace or reform any outdated EU laws that remain on our statute book right through until 2026. This new approach will provide the space for longer-term and more ambitious reforms and the Government intend to do just that. It will also mean that fewer statutory instruments will be required to preserve EU laws that are deemed appropriate or necessary to maintain.
The Brexit Opportunities Unit, spearheaded by the Secretary of State for Business and Trade, has been pivotal in driving the development and delivery of the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill and the wider associated retained EU law reform programme. These efforts are being supported by specialist legal expertise from outside government. Parliament will be able to easily monitor government progress on REUL reform, as we update the dashboard every quarter. That answers the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Fox: we will continue to update the dashboard.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
Did I understand the Minister correctly? Has he just boasted that there will be less parliamentary scrutiny and that we can look it up online?
Lord Callanan (Con)
You can look up progress online, but of course there will be parliamentary scrutiny. If we propose to make any changes to retained EU law using the powers in the Bill, they will come to Parliament in the normal process of the examination of secondary legislation.
The Brexit Opportunities Unit drove the aforementioned 10 May regulatory reform announcement, setting out a long-term plan to reform UK regulation over the coming months. Furthermore, we have committed to future announcements on how we will reform regulations to reduce the cost of living, deliver choice to consumers, establish trailblazing regulation to catalyse innovation and make the UK a science superpower, and remove obstacles to building world-class infrastructure.
However, it is crucial that Parliament and the public are able to hold the Government’s feet to the fire and ensure that our momentum continues with regard to the retained EU law reform programme. I am therefore delighted to support Amendments 1, 2 and 3, tabled by my noble friend Lady Noakes, to which I have added my name. These amendments insert a new clause into the Bill requiring the Secretary of State to update the retained EU law dashboard and to report on the revocation and reform of retained EU law in periods up to 23 June 2026, at which point, of course, the main powers in the Bill will sunset, and the vast majority of retained EU law reform will have been completed. The reports will summarise the REUL dashboard data, provide an update on whether and how REUL on the dashboard has been revoked and reformed, and detail future plans for further revocation and reform.
I thank in particular my noble friend Lady Noakes for her collegiate engagement in preparing the amendments that she has tabled today. I also extend my thanks to my noble friends Lord Frost, Lord Jackson and Lady Lawlor for their valuable engagement on this matter. These amendments will hold the Government to account in providing the additional transparency both Parliament and the public need to scrutinise the Government’s progress and future plans on retained EU law reform. I therefore hope the House will join me in supporting these amendments.
Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)
I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. He has just told us that these amendments will hold Parliament to account. If Parliament is not satisfied with the account it is given under these amendments, what advice would he give to Parliament as to how Ministers can be prevented from carrying out what they have tried to do?
Lord Callanan (Con)
Well, they will hold the Government to account. Of course, Parliament is able to hold the Government to account in many different ways, but particularly, with the reform programme, there would be an extensive programme of statutory instruments. Parliament would be able to debate and accept those instruments or not, as it usually does.
Baroness Noakes (Con)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate. I thank my noble friend Lord Callanan in particular for answering the points raised on devolution. I do not think he answered the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, on subsection (4), which is a useful addition because it means that if a report is not laid, we get another opportunity to be told that it has not been laid, and thereby to trigger any accountability mechanisms. I regard it as an important additional subsection, and I shall certainly be using it as a precedent in amendments to other Bills in future.
Baroness Noakes
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential upon Baroness Noakes’ new Clause.
Baroness Noakes
“(3A) In section (Retained EU law dashboard and report) (retained EU law dashboard and report), for “retained EU” (in each place it appears, including the heading) substitute “assimilated”.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential upon Baroness Noakes’ new Clause.
Lord Callanan (Con)
My Lords, this Bill is crucial in ensuring, as I said earlier, that we can seize the regulatory reform opportunities of Brexit. It is the next step in reasserting the sovereignty of Parliament and untangling the United Kingdom from nearly 50 years of EU membership. Through the Bill we will improve legal certainty, removing confusion from our statute book where EU principles of interpretation overlap with those of UK domestic principles. This fulfils an important constitutional objective: that our law is clear and accessible, so that citizens can understand it and regulate their conduct accordingly.
There is a long list of people whom I wish to thank for their help on the Bill. Let me start with my noble friend Lady Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist. Sadly, my noble friend is leaving the Front Bench and she will be missed by us all. My chances of getting to the Chamber on time are greatly reduced without the hurry-up texts from my noble friend Lady Bloomfield, who has kept me right many times in this Chamber and when we have debated statutory instruments in the Grand Committee. I am hugely grateful for all the help and support that she has given to me; I am sure other members of the Front Bench feel the same. She will be a great loss to the Government.
Let me also thank my noble friends Lady Neville-Rolfe and Lord Benyon, and my noble and learned friend Lord Bellamy, for their support during the Bill’s passage. I fear I would have continuously sat on this Bench for a great many days in addition to those when I did without their help and support, which has been greatly appreciated.
Let me also give my thanks to the Bill team. All the Bill teams I have worked with have worked extremely well and tirelessly, but I can tell the House that this Bill team in particular has gone above and beyond the call of duty. I said this when there were some frankly ill-considered remarks about the Civil Service while we were on Report, but many of them really did work all weekend to get the explainer out for the benefit of noble Lords when we were discussing the schedule. Their assistance has been great and their legal advice superb. If there were legal errors in anything that I said, I can assure noble Lords that it was not their fault. The fault was entirely mine, as they did a great job in trying to explain some of these complicated concepts.
I also thank members of the Opposition, including the noble Baroness, Lady Chapman, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, my noble friend Lord Hodgson—who is of course not a member of the Opposition but is on our own Benches and played a big role in the Bill—and the noble Lord, Lord Fox, among many others who contributed to its passage. We did not always agree on many parts of it, of course; I apologise if, from my point of view, I sometimes expressed a little bit of irritation with some of the speeches that were made. Nevertheless, I do accept that it is the job of the House to scrutinise the Government, to look at our legislation closely and to propose amendments. If we could perhaps have a bit more constructive opposition sometimes, I would appreciate it.
Lord Callanan (Con)
Nevertheless, the contributions are appreciated.
The Government have of course sought to address the concerns raised, notably around the sunset and courts provisions. We listened to the points made in the House and addressed those concerns via the amendments that we brought forward on Report. I hope that the House recognises how significant a move this was from the Government and takes that movement in the spirit in which it was intended. We really did try to alter the Bill to take account of many of the concerns that were addressed.
The House has also made its views known on some other areas of the Bill on which the Government do not agree, including the reform and repeal powers we believe are crucial to the ambitions we have in this space. Our work in producing the retained EU law dashboard highlighted that there are many defunct laws on our statute book relating to activities that the UK does not conduct, such as my famous example of regulating reindeer herdsmen in Lapland. Now that we have taken back control of our statute book, it is appropriate to update it by amending, repealing or replacing REUL that is no longer fit for the UK.
I do not think there is much argument on all sides of the House about the list of measures we have produced that deserve to be repealed. This will allow us to create new pro-growth, high-standard regulatory frameworks that give businesses the opportunities and confidence to innovate, invest and ultimately to create jobs. This Bill delivers, in addition to providing clarity and certainty. It provides the powers for the Government to make legislative changes that will benefit all of us in the United Kingdom. With that, I beg to move that the Bill do now pass.
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his speech. His answer to the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, indicates why what I will call the Hope-Hamilton amendments are so important. I hope it is clear to the Minister that your Lordships’ House considers these to be very important and that they should be retained rather than reversed when they head to the other place.
Any Commons reversal of Amendment 48 will be seen as a show of intention by the Conservative Party on environmental legislation. Again, it would not be wise, given the very good reassurance we have had from the noble Lords, Lord Benyon and Lord Callanan, on retaining that legislation. Pushing out Amendment 48 would be moving things in the opposite direction.
Overall, the work of this House has achieved a major change and a U-turn. As I said before, it has achieved a reverse in the polarity of this Bill, and noble Lords should be very proud of that. It has been a fraught debate at times. I owe a mea culpa to the noble Baroness, Lady Fox. In the hubbub I misrepresented her use of the term “blob”, and I am happy to put the record straight—so apologies there. During that debate there was also a to and fro, which was very important. The Minister is right to say that that is the role of this House.
I thank the Ministers—the noble Baronesses, Lady Bloomfield and Lady Neville-Rolfe, and the noble Lords, Lord Benyon and Lord Bellamy—for their hard work in trying to bring us along; they have not often or always succeeded, of course. The Bill team, when we have met, have always been very helpful and courteous; they are a credit to their service. I hope that, for those of the team who want to visit the Cheshire salt mines, I have in some way helped them head that direction.
His Majesty’s Opposition have been a pleasure to work with: I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Chapman, the noble Lord, Lord Collins, and of course the team in their Whips’ Office. Many Cross-Benchers and other noble Lords across the House have participated fully. It would be difficult to mention them all, but for his virtuoso display during Report, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, deserves the full gratitude of your Lordships’ House.
Quite a few Liberal Democrats have participated in the Bill, not least those who were mobilised over the weekend to try to review 600 laws and work out what they did. I am not going to name them all, but I thank them for their support. I will name my noble friend Lady Ludford, who unfortunately cannot be here; she has been able company for me on the Front Bench. Finally, I thank Elizabeth Plummer in our Whips’ Office, whose grasp of this Bill has been beyond compare.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
My Lords, we have never argued with the Government’s right to want to find a way to assimilate fully some EU-derived pieces of legislation and to revoke or restate others. We have never had cause to fall out over the Government’s stated aims, but the Bill has been the definition of using a sledgehammer to crack a nut. I am quite sure that Ministers regret having attempted to undertake this task in this particular way. I am also very sure that the Minister is glad to see the back of the Bill, having sat through hour upon hour of deliberation in this place.
The Bill was designed to appeal to a group of people with a certain perspective, and as we have said repeatedly—I say it again—that is not the right way to initiate legislation; the Government have learned that lesson very publicly. It is slightly surprising to hear the Government say that they wish the opposition to the Bill had been more constructive, given that we were pleased to see the Government accept the substance, if not the letter, of our amendment on the sunset, which we tabled at the beginning of Committee. The Government moved substantially on that issue; we recognise and welcome that, and we give them credit for it.
We thank all noble lords who have contributed to our deliberations on the Bill. The noble Lords, Lord Hamilton and Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, and, in particular, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, deserve our thanks and recognition for the work they have done to improve parliamentary scrutiny and oversight. These amendments are vital to the Bill, and I hope the Government welcome them and will support them in the other place. I do not believe that anyone thinks the new amendments tabled today are adequate responses to the concerns we have raised, so we hope that our concerns are protected as the Bill proceeds.
Having said that, I very much thank the Minister for his constant patience, charm and warmth across the Dispatch Box—it is never in doubt—and I look forward to many such exchanges in the future. I also acknowledge the sterling work the noble Baroness, Lady Bloomfield, has done throughout the passage of the Bill. I echo what the Minister said about wishing her well in the coming months; I hope she has a wonderful summer. We value very much the work she has undertaken on the Bill. I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, the noble Lord, Lord Benyon, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Bellamy, who were all corralled in as part of the support act on the Bill; they all did their best, did they not?
On these Benches, I especially thank my noble friend Lord Collins, who has been an absolute star; he has supported everything we have tried to do on these Benches throughout and has made some fantastic contributions. I also thank my noble friend Lady Hayman, who brought her experience and expertise on the environment to our deliberations; we have benefited hugely from her contributions.
I also thank the Opposition Bill team. Milton Brown, Tom Raines and Dan Stevens provided expert advice and have been extremely helpful in helping us prepare amendments. I thank both the Government Whips’ Office and my own Whips’ Office.
We are glad that the Bill leaves this place in slightly better shape than when it arrived. We hope the Government are able to receive in good grace the amendments we have made and will retain them, and that we do not need to consider the Bill further.
Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill
Monday 22nd May 2023
(11 months, 3 weeks 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-XIV Fourteenth marshalled list for Committee - (18 May 2023)
Baroness Hayman of Ullock
“(2A) Designations under subsections (1) and (2) may only be made following consultation with the local community.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would require designation of a high street or town centre to be consulted upon.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
My Lords, before I start, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Fox, for all his work on the REUL Bill, on behalf of my noble friend Lady Chapman.
Welcome back to the levelling-up Bill. We have a large number of amendments in this first group today. They address vacant high street premises and provide us with an opportunity to consider how best we can address our declining high streets and town centres, so I beg your Lordships’ patience: there is quite a lot to say here. Recent data from the British Retail Consortium shows that shopping centre vacancies are running at nearly 19% and high street vacancies at around 14%. These are significant figures, and communities need the tools to improve the situation. There are clearly a number of reasons why this has been happening, and we cannot ignore the impact of online shopping. That was already a significant area of growth before the pandemic, which of course increased the amount of online shopping that people were doing. Vacant shops are also a symptom of a weak economy, and we have had slow economic growth for more than a decade.
That said, there are things we can do to get vacant shops into use and create the conditions for the growth of community enterprises, social enterprises and co-operatives, all of which are good business models and generally more resilient to global events; this certainly proved to be the case during the pandemic. First, I will look at a number of amendments we have tabled that specifically look at how the high street has declined. Amendment 431 probes the impact of business rates and council tax on the number of vacant high street premises. We know that business rates have become extremely problematic for many retailers and other small businesses on the high street, and we believe it is time for the Government to review business rates. I hope the Bill is an opportunity for the Minister to explore that further than we have so far.
Amendment 432 probes the impact of pedestrianisation on the number of vacant high street premises. How people feel about their high streets when they do not have traffic going up and down them is an area of real interest. Evidence shows that it makes it a nicer place to shop. Maybe if we looked at pedestrianisation within the context of vacancies and business rates, we could see how we could make improvements.
Amendment 433 probes the impact of vacant pubs on high streets. Unfortunately, a lot of public houses are closing and I know from public houses on the main street near where I live that business rates are a major problem in that area. Perhaps we can look at business rates around pubs particularly, because they have had specific challenges during the pandemic.
Amendment 434 is about the impact of access to cash and high street banks. Unfortunately, too many banks have been closing high street branches and often we also lose the cashpoint and the ability for small businesses to manage their finances effectively and efficiently. One of the problems is that banks seem to think that bringing a van and parking it in the supermarket car park every now and again is providing a sufficient service. We do not believe that to be the case; we think we need to look at how we can stop the loss of banks on the high street.
Amendment 435 probes the impact of disparity in costs between online and high street retail. We know that online shopping is having a major effect on our high streets which, again, is why we need to look at business rates. Surely the way to resolve that disparity is to see how it can be ensured that retail on the high street is not put at a disadvantage through business rates, and that online retailers are properly taxed and there is a better balance between the two.
Amendment 436 in the name of my noble friend Lady Taylor of Stevenage looks at how increasing dwell time can support regeneration. Dwell time is how long you actually spend there. We have asked for a Minister to publish a report on how leisure, culture, sport and tourism in town centres can increase dwell time for the purpose of regeneration. For example, if retail is not going to fill every shop unit, how can we use leisure, culture, sport and tourism to do so? How will that encourage more people to come into the town centre and shop more?
Looking specifically at some clauses in this part, Clause 176 sets out the arrangements for local authorities to designate where our town centres and high streets are—in other words, the places that will be in scope for premises to be subject to rental auctions, which come later under Clause 188. This is an important first step in the process. Amendment 415 in the name of my noble friend Lady Taylor of Stevenage would require any designations of high streets or town centres to be consulted upon. This is a pretty modest proposal, we believe. It just means that local communities affected by the designation of high streets and town centres would be consulted. We believe that is the right way forward; nobody knows what is or is not a high street or a town centre. Who knows better than the people who use it and live near it?
Amendment 416 in the name of my noble friend Lady Taylor of Stevenage probes the possibility of new incentives to fill empty shops. This develops that previous amendment further by including consultation with local businesses on possible incentives as to how empty shops can be filled. Again, they will know their local community well and may have some interesting ideas as to how the local situation can be improved.
Amendment 417 allows the local community to apply for a street or an area to be designated as a high street or a town centre. This builds on the previous two by adding a protection to ensure that any local community is empowered to seek that a street or an area of their choosing could be designated as a high street or town centre—in other words, giving the community the right to initiate. We believe that communities should have some say as to where their high streets are.
Amendment 437 in my name defines “local community”. To make Amendments 415 to 417 make sense, Amendment 437 defines what is considered “local” in this regard. We have specified people “in the vicinity” to add in protection from potential outside interference. This is an important point. It is about demonstrating that levelling up should not be something done to communities but is something done with them. As part of that, there need to be protections and powers for our communities; our amendments would ensure that these exist.
I will now turn to what constitutes “vacancy”. My Amendment 419 removes the Henry VIII powers for the Secretary of State to alter the circumstances of vacancy. Amendment 424 removes the Henry VIII power that allows the Secretary of State to add or remove grounds of appeal. In general, though, we think the Government have got this right. According to the Bill, vacant premises must have been vacant for a year or for 366 days in the previous two years. We think this is a sensible balance between detriment to the local community and commercial pressures. Our issue is with subsections (5) and (6). Subsection (5) reads:
“Regulations may amend this section so as to alter the circumstances in which the ‘vacancy condition’ is satisfied in relation to premises”.
Subsection (6) says:
“Those circumstances must relate to the time during which premises are or have been unoccupied”.
So, essentially, Clause 178 legislates for what “vacancy” is, but the Government want to reserve the power to change it later. The arguments for and against Henry VIII powers are well known and I am not going to repeat them again today, but I will say why this part of the Bill is inconsistent with what we think levelling up needs to be.
As we have discussed previously in Committee, levelling up should be about the devolution of resources and power. It should not be about Ministers and officials in Whitehall holding all the cards and making decisions about which town centre or high street will benefit from government investment or involvement. Amendments 419 and 424 seek to remove those Henry VIII powers and give us protection in the future.
My Amendment 421 reduces the period after which an initial letting notice would expire to 28 days. Clause 180 is the first clause in this part of the Bill which provides the detail about how the process is likely to work. It is important that the state does not act in an overbearing way and that there is a balance between private and public interests. Currently, this tilts entirely towards landlords, which can lead to long-running vacant and derelict premises blighting our communities and high streets.
Clause 180 sets out that an initial letting notice will be in force for 10 weeks and that a final letting notice can be served only while the initial notice is in force. Our view is that 10 weeks is too long. If we add on the 14 weeks of the final notice period, that makes it a 24-week process, and if the premises has already been vacant for at least a year, or 366 days in the preceding two years, that is a long period of time for it to be empty. We want the Bill to deliver swift action to bring about the change that people want in their communities, so we do not want to see such a long process. Our amendment seeks to rectify that by specifying a shorter notice period of 28 days. We think that four weeks is enough time for landlords to understand the implications of the notice, to act promptly, and to find new tenants as a last opportunity before that process then kicks into being.
In a similar vein, Amendment 423 would reduce the period before a final letting notice can be issued to two weeks. Clause 183 establishes the final notices. As I have said, these are used when a premises has laid vacant for a year or 366 days over two years and has been served its initial notice but no action has taken place and it is still lying vacant. Obviously, that has a huge impact on the local community. On the face of the Bill, final notice has to take place after eight weeks have elapsed from the serving of the initial notice, but not before the notice itself expires after 10 weeks. As I have just said, we feel that this period is too long. Amendment 423 would allow for the final letting notice to be served after two weeks have passed following the serving of the initial letting notice.
My Amendment 422 would prevent the landlord from transferring the premises between related entities while the initial letting notice is in force. Clause 181(1) prohibits landlords from entering into contracts for the building, other than for the sale of the site, without the consent of the local authority. However, the local authority, as covered in Clause 182, must grant approval, provided that the landlord has agreed a lengthy tenancy that meets the conditions. We welcome that the restrictions aim to prevent landlords from trying to escape their obligations; for example, by entering into a bogus tenancy that includes an immediate break clause. In this case, the new tenant—possibly a friend or family member—might be a tenant for a day, and they could then execute a break clause and vacate the premises, and the clock can restart. It is right that the Government are looking to close these kinds of loopholes. However, the purpose of this amendment is to probe whether the clause still leaves a gap where a landlord might seek to pass ownership of a premises to a friend or family member, or perhaps a related company, in order to establish new ownership and restart the clock, when in reality nothing has changed. The amendment may not be the best way to close such a loophole, but I tabled it for the Minister to consider the matter and see whether a better way could be created.
My Amendment 427 requires the Secretary of State to lay any regulations under this clause before Parliament within 90 days. It reflects our belief that it is important to get as much of the Bill as possible on to the statute book in good time. We support rental auctions so that landlords can use their properties, or other groups can seek to, and we want the powers to have teeth so that they are not easily circumvented and are usable.
My Amendment 429 would exempt from compensation damage that is caused when the authority or its agent needs to force access to a site following the failure to allow such access by the landlord. If Clause 201 is used proactively by local authorities and communities, it will of course mean that it is disruptive: it is meant to be. I have no doubt that there will be cases where some landlords think that the best course of action is to ignore the process entirely, especially if they are based a long way away from the communities where the premises are situated. There have to be powers for the local authority to enter premises, and we fully support that.
Lord Etherton (CB)
My Lords, I draw attention to my amendment, co-signed by the noble Lord, Lord Thurlow—and I am very grateful to him for doing so. The amendment is to Clause 178(4).
Clause 178 is dealing with the vacancy condition, which is one of the conditions for permitting letting or rental auctions by local authorities. My question is probing, to do with certainty. Clause 178 (4) mentions
“Occupation by … a trespasser, or … a person living in premises that are not designed or adapted for residential use”,
but goes on to say that
“this is not to count for the purposes of this section”.
Since the section deals with both what is occupied and what is not to count as occupation, it is unclear what that means. I ask the Minister to make it clear.
I think the intention must be that where a trespasser is in occupation or there is
“a person living in premises that are not designed or adapted for residential use”,
the premises are not to be treated as unoccupied for the purposes of Clause 178(1). That is my understanding. If that is incorrect and it is intended that they should be treated as unoccupied, the amendment provides that if a landlord has taken possession proceedings, they are not to be treated as unoccupied. It is really a question of clarity as to what Clause 178(4) is meant to do here. If the Minister can give a clear explanation from the Dispatch Box, that would help me and may be the end of the matter.
Lord Thurlow (CB)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton, for identifying what I believe to be an unintended consequence in connection with the proposed forced auctions of high street property. I am pleased to add my name in support of Amendment 418.
Following many years of practice as a chartered surveyor, specifically in the commercial property market, I am well aware that one of the most difficult challenges that landlords of vacant property can face is that of the unauthorised or illegal occupation of their premises. Securing legal and legitimate possession from an occupier who refuses to leave is expensive and time-consuming and can easily—and unfairly—add to the long list of bad landlord stories.
If that unauthorised occupation involves residential property, the problems of cost and delay can increase significantly. I appreciate that the clause we are referring to does not refer to residential occupation, but commercial shops are frequently let to sole traders who use an upper floor storage space informally as residential accommodation. It is outside the terms of the lease, but it may remain a fact, so it is worth pointing out that residential occupation comes into this amendment.
Amendment 418 is designed to protect a landlord from enforcement by the local authority of the auction process when they are already doing their very best to secure vacant possession. They are trying to get rid of an unauthorised occupier. Without this possession, it becomes impossible to let the property. Who would conceive of signing a lease for a shop as a tenant with an illegal trader already in place? Surely it is wrong to penalise the landlord who is keen to let their property but is unable to do so. While legal action is under way, that landlord receives no rent and is probably paying interest on a commercial mortgage. They are likely in breach of their rental income covenants with the bank, so may be verging on defaulting on that loan, and are likely employing costly solicitors to pursue legal action for recovery of their property. Yet, by this Bill, they could be accused of keeping a property vacant.
The clock should not start on the period defined as “lying vacant” until the property is vacant and is in the landlord’s gift to be let to a tenant. I do not believe that it is the Government’s intention to auction off commercial premises that are the subject of legal action to recover possession, so I ask the Minister to ensure that, while legal proceedings are under way to secure possession, the landlord does not inadvertently fall into the trap of effective confiscation by the authorities.
This amendment is not a matter of policy or principle. It does not dispute the intention of Clause 178. It is simply a practical matter that, unamended, will lead to confusion and conflict between vested interests, which, I am sure, is unintended.
The Earl of Lytton (CB)
My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendment 426 in my name. I start by declaring an erstwhile interest as a former property manager of retail premises. It had a high street address, but the main shopping area had ceased to be in the high street some 30 years prior so, when we talk about high streets, it requires a little care in what one is actually referring to.
I pay tribute to the British Property Federation, which the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, mentioned in her excellent and substantial introduction to this group of amendments, but I must stress that these views are mine and not those of the BPF.
I observe that 27 clauses and a schedule is a lot of stuff to have in a Bill of this sort for something that I am advised is a really quite narrow application. However, I am looking in the direction of the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, because I suspect that she may have other views on this matter that she will doubtless enlighten us on.
The Government seek to attract overseas inward investment at scale, and UK real estate is one of those attractive asset classes across the world which has a great deal of further potential. I am told by the chief executive of Savills that commercial property investment in the UK runs at about £60 billion annually, about £30 billion of which comes from overseas, so this is a matter of considerable moment. However, we risk serial policy interventions, with a potential adding of burdens, increasing uncertainty and raised investor risk, which threaten to undermine this success story. Commercial rent collection moratoriums were one such thing. While I recognise that they were essential in the circumstances, they did not help.
High streets and retail properties are particularly challenged by the burdens from business rates referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, and from floor space oversupply, loss of important anchor tenants, major shifts in shopping habits and general changes in work/life balance. Many properties in regions with the highest vacancies suffer from historic business rates levels, with instances of rates liability being in excess of 100% of the rent. That makes tenancies as unattractive as private sector investment and must be addressed.
Any measure that threatens investment should be looked at critically. As far as the retail investment sector is aware, according to the information that I have from the BPF, there is little pressure across the country to introduce these auctions, and the Government admit that they will be relevant in only a minority of cases to deal with empty properties. I appreciate that if a property is creating a particular problem, it must be dealt with, but given what we are being asked to put into this Bill, I wonder whether we are not using a very large sledgehammer to crack a small nut. The BPF tells me that the likely costs of each high street rental auction to a local authority alone would exceed £6,000. At a time when strained local authority finance is prevalent, this is unlikely to make them a priority. That figure, if correct, is just the local authority’s cost—never mind the other costs for the other parties.
The Bill proposes a scheme which I find complex, with exacting compliance criteria and where decisions of local authorities in their own cause appear to be incontestable, such as a refusal of consent under Clause 184(1). Appeals under Clause 187 would be to the county court, which has its own problems of delay and cost, and may not stop there. Therefore, a potential liability to pay compensation assessed by the First-tier Tribunal on top of that makes this look like quite a chancy operation. None the less, if Ministers wish to press ahead with this measure, the Bill should better distinguish between those property owners seeking a tenant but who have been unable to find one, having used all reasonable endeavours, and those who are just being plain unco-operative, where I can see that there is a perfectly good explanation. I pay tribute to the points made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton, and the noble Lord, Lord Thurlow, in that respect.
Schedule 16, which sets out the grounds on which landlords might have to appeal against a local authority’s final letting notice, should therefore be amended to include a new Clause 8, as set out in my amendment. It provides a facility for the landlord to demonstrate reasonable attempts to market the property at or below what might be described as a reasonable market rent for at least a nine-month period. That is to provide a safeguard against any capricious approach to the matter. We know that there are difficulties on the high street, and in dealing with certain types of shop premises—their shape, their configuration, their position in the high street, and other things that are going on at any given time, possibly to do with planning policy.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I apologise that I have not been in Committee in recent sessions; I had amendments on housing. I have discovered that, as a non-affiliated Peer, it is difficult to organise the division of labour when there are so many hefty Bills going through the House.
I have a particular interest in a couple of groups of amendments being discussed today. High streets and businesses are a core levelling-up issue for so many people outside of London. The decline of the high street can illustrate viscerally the feeling of being neglected and left behind. Boarded-up shops and closing community resources such as banks and pubs can be demoralising, making it feel like the heart of a community is being ripped out. Amendments 433 and 434 from the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, are important in this regard; she summed up in a compelling way why this is an important group.
A number of the amendments refer to consultations, which are very important. I was interested in the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Thurlow, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton, and the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, regarding incentives. They show that we cannot simply declare a commitment to reviving the high street; it is a bit more complicated than that, to say the least.
I want to raise the dilemma that arises when government policies with different priorities, in completely different areas from this Bill, inadvertently make matters worse for high streets. I will reflect on and support Amendment 432, from the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Stevenage, on assessing the impact of pedestrianisation.
Pedestrianisation can intuitively seem like a good idea for high streets—a positive contributor to a community atmosphere, with increased footfall and increased likelihood of people popping into premises and so on. But stop and consider Naz Choudhury who, for many years, ran the successful Temple Bar, a halal Lebanese grill and Indian food restaurant in Oxford, which permanently closed recently. Why did it close? Mr Choudhury blames a certain form of enforced pedestrianisation in the council-imposed low-traffic neighbourhoods, specifically car restrictions in the Cowley Road area of east Oxford. Mr Choudhury says:
“The council’s decision to put these bollards up along Cowley Road was the main reason people don’t want to travel here anymore”.
Obviously, that is a subjective view, but there are a lot of controversies surrounding the Government’s active travel policies, which emphasise cycling and walking over driving. Businesses are saying that policies such as LTNs are having a negative impact on them. In Haringey, where I live, many shop owners say that LTNs are causing them to lose business.
The controversy around LTNs in Cowley Road in Oxford even hit the national newspaper headlines, largely because of opposition by Clinton Pugh, who is the father of the brilliant “Little Women” actress Florence Pugh. Clinton Pugh said:
“The council have literally strangled the life out of the Cowley Road and it is having a very negative effect on businesses.”
Mr Pugh, who is the owner of two or three cafés and restaurants on the road, even put up a banner accusing Oxford of censorship, quoting Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty-Four. Rather than talking to or listening to him, the council’s response was to threaten to fine him for not getting planning consent for the banner.
Beyond the celebrity stories, a serious point for this group of amendments on the high street is to note that policies such as LTNs, which I am sure are very well intentioned, can create a type of pedestrianisation that is bad for business. Too often, councils just will not listen to the complaints or look at the evidence. Cowley Road traders became so exasperated that they produced their own business impact survey of the effects of traffic-reducing measures. It revealed that at least eight shops had closed where LTNs are located; that 153 shops had been directly or indirectly affected through a loss of customers and logistical problems with deliveries to businesses and customers; and that business owners reported a decrease in turnover of 30% in some instances, with some claiming 50%. A letting agent said that the tradespeople they use had increased their call-out fee from £45 to £65 due to the time it takes to get around in a van, the extra fuel used and so on. Hospitality businesses are particularly affected. A staff member at a specialist supermarket, which people travel a long way to get to, noted:
“We don’t sell many large bags of rice now because they’re too heavy to take on the bus”.
Something that looks like “Let’s get everyone walking or on the bus, and it will all be lovely and pedestrianised” is actually destroying businesses and having a bad effect on consumers, who cannot get what they want to buy. We can see parallels between pedestrianisation and the removal of free—or any—parking spaces in town. This is a double blow to both shoppers and SMEs alike, again in the name of anti-car, active travel policies.
Oxford traders say:
“We’ve been asking for an independent business impact assessment to be carried out but the council have ignored us, so we had to do our own”.
If we are to have a levelling-up discussion, Amendment 432 would be a sensible way to sort out the pros and cons of pedestrianisation in local areas. In other words, you cannot have top-down policies that undo any possibility of local residents or businesses having a proper say. LTNs illustrate that.
Lord Etherton (CB)
My Lords, I apologise to the Committee: I should have disclosed before I spoke that I have an interest as the owner of high street retail premises.
Baroness Thornhill (LD)
My Lords, there is so much that can be said regarding high streets that is very well evidenced, and in fact there is consensus about what does and does not work. Our concern on these Benches is that the various measures in the Bill, even when combined—it is important to see that—probably do not go far enough or are bold enough to really level up or regenerate. However, this is not Second Reading. I am pleased to speak positively to this part of the Bill and to this group of improving and strengthening amendments, which have been well described in appropriate detail by their proposers, particularly the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, as has already been mentioned.
I have to confess to becoming mildly excited about the prospect of local government being able to oblige landlords to rent out persistently vacant high street premises through the rental auctions process. As the elected Mayor of Watford, I inherited a high street shamefully branded in a tabloid headline as “Ibiza on acid”, and where the national crime survey showed one of our town centre side streets as one of the worst crime hotspots in the country several years running. Yes, more bad headlines, but more importantly it was backed up by local people’s opinions, experiences and—never to be forgotten—their perceptions. There was much work to be done, and it took years.
Thus I have bitter experiences of first, and most importantly, trying to track down the landlords of vacant premises—in other words, those who have real legal responsibilities and can actually do something and not just pass the buck. It was rarely straightforward, and any improvement that the Government can make to ease that part of the process would be very welcome and undoubtedly strengthen this policy.
For us, the formation of a business improvement district was critical to eventual success, and one hopes that they continue to be supported. In fact, it was the BID team which was able to do much of the footwork that is going to be needed of continuously monitoring vacant units and all the other premises on the high street. Given the skills and capacity issues in local councils that have been mentioned, this is definitely going to further stretch resources, particularly in district councils. Will the Minister reassure us that the Government have plans to target these issues?
On further investigation, we found that there was often a wide range of reasons why properties were empty, many of them legitimate and often complex and challenging. Amendment 426 in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, essentially speaks to that dilemma. He may be surprised to learn that I can empathise. I say to him that any good council would and should seek to work with a landlord in the circumstances outlined in his amendment and help and support the landlord in getting the premises re-let. But I recognise that this is not always the case and despair when I hear case studies such as that from the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, of when things have clearly gone awry and councils have not listened. I do not believe in being prescriptive about it because I could stand here and tell noble Lords how pedestrianisation revitalised our high street. My instincts are always to say, “Let councils decide what suits their circumstances”, but in the full knowledge that sometimes they mess it up.
What was key was the partnership approach—agents, landlords, businesses, the council and the community working collaboratively to get things to a point where a compulsory rental auction would not be necessary. That would be a measure of its success. But all too often we found that the landlord was not the kind of one described by the noble Earl but a pension group or similar investor with a wide range of holdings and for which a couple of shops in Watford High Street were small beer. For a wide range of commercial reasons it did not “suit their circumstances at the moment” to re-let. I sincerely hope that these are the landlords that this legislation will drive to the table.
The word “community” in my list of partners is important. Amendments 417 and 437 emphasise the involvement of the community, which is the heart of any place, as we know—the hub for getting together to enjoy a wide range of activities and events. In short, it is hard to imagine that a local plan would be found sound if it did not involve a policy for the high street and significantly involve the local community in its formation. Can the Minister confirm this?
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, I start by addressing Amendments 415, 416 and 417 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Stevenage. Clause 176 sets out the criteria and conditions that must be met before high street or town centre designation can be made. Local authorities are uniquely placed to make this designation based on their deep knowledge of their area and we must empower them to do so. The needs of both local people and local businesses may have also been considered by local authorities in the development of their local plans and regeneration programmes. These amendments add complexity and burdens for local authorities, so the Government are not able to support them, or Amendment 437, which is consequential on 415 and 417.
Amendment 418 in the name of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton, seeks to clarify what is meant by “occupied” for the purpose of assessing the vacancy condition. Clause 178(4) is aimed at excluding occupation by trespassers or property guardians for the purpose of this assessment. Amendment 418 would refine that position so that this type of occupation can count where the landlord is taking steps to remove such occupiers through possession proceedings. The Government see these exclusions as necessary to ensure the policy aims of filling commercial premises for high street uses. We also consider it reasonable to expect landlords to keep their premises secure to prevent squatters, or to take court action where necessary. The Government recognise that there may be more complicated cases of trespassers, but we also consider that many local authorities are unlikely to conduct a high street rental auction on a property that has such complications. While the Government do not feel able to support this amendment at this time, I would add that we do recognise that there may be many challenges caused to landlords by trespassers. We trust local authorities to use these permissive powers sensibly where there are complications caused by certain types of trespassers. I have listened to the noble and learned Lord, and I will give his amendments further consideration.
Amendments 419 and 424, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, seek to remove the Henry VIII powers for the Secretary of State to alter the circumstances of vacancy, and the flexibility within grounds of appeal, which are set out in Schedule 16. This power may be needed in future in the light of experience in operation: for example, to alter the vacancy period to ensure that it is targeting the right premises and can respond to changing market conditions; or, in the case of grounds of appeal, where there may be a need to increase the safeguards available to landlords, or to revise these grounds where they are found to undermine effectiveness. We appreciate the importance of parliamentary scrutiny regarding the grounds of appeal, and any amendment will be subject to the affirmative procedure. In the light of that, the Government are not able to support this amendment.
Amendment 420 amends the local benefit condition in Clause 179 so that a property can be let only if it supports regeneration. Currently, the local benefit condition will be satisfied if the local authority considers that occupation of the premises for a suitable high street use would be beneficial to the local economy, society or environment. The local benefit condition is framed by reference to aims that are usually associated with regeneration. Another statutory example demonstrating the use of similar language is Section 226 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. We wish to avoid introducing further considerations for local authorities, inadvertently narrowing the scope; so the Government cannot support this amendment.
Amendments 421 and 423 reduce the period after which an initial letting notice would expire and the period of time after which a final letting notice can be issued. We consider that making the process too quick will place an unreasonable strain on local authorities that are looking to exercise these powers. We also do not consider that these reduced timescales will provide the landlord with a reasonable amount of time to let the premises themselves and, in appropriate cases, to work with the local authority, increasing the risk that high street properties go through the auction process unnecessarily.
Amendment 422 would prevent landlords from transferring premises between related entities while an initial letting notice was in force. An initial letting notice is not affected by any change in landlord, as made clear by Clause 199(7). We do not want high street rental auctions to prevent landlords from selling their interest in the property, provided that the initial letting notice continues to bind.
Amendment 426, in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, would add a further ground for appeal against the use of a high street rental auction. Schedule 16 sets out the grounds on which a landlord can appeal against a final letting notice. The amendment would require local authorities to consider whether a landlord had taken reasonable steps to rent the property before undertaking a high street rental auction, preventing them from taking place where a landlord has done so. The amendment would introduce a complex test which could place significant burdens on a local authority and would likely discourage use and lead to it becoming ineffective. There is already a wide range of grounds for appeal, which ensures fairness for landlords. The amendment also raises matters that should feed into a ground of appeal, such as planning. These matters are already being given careful consideration by the Government. In the case of planning, the Government are currently consulting on extending permitted development rights.
Amendment 427 would require that regulations relating to the rental auction process were laid within 90 days of Royal Assent. Clause 188 sets out the principles of the rental auction process. Significant detail in relation to the process will need to be provided, which will be more appropriately dealt with through regulations. While we will make regulations as soon as possible, it is not possible to commit to a timeline of 90 days because the regulations will be informed by extensive engagement with the sector, which will then need to be reflected in the drafting of those regulations. The Government are therefore not able to support this amendment.
On Amendment 429, we consider it more appropriate to provide landlords with a general entitlement to seek compensation for damage where local authorities have exercised their power of entry and to let the Upper Tribunal decide whether there are any circumstances affecting the landlord’s entitlement to compensation, rather than providing specific exemptions. That is the approach adopted in other legislation, such as the compensation provisions in Section 176 of the Housing and Planning Act 2016, which relate to the power to enter and survey land. The Government do not feel able to support this amendment.
On Amendment 430, I assure noble Lords that high street rental auctions are being designed to minimise costs incurred by local authorities by streamlining the process and through distributing the costs across landlords and tenants. We agree with the intention of the amendment, which is why the high street rental auction consultation contains questions relating to the distribution of the associated costs and details of a standardised lease, and it would be inappropriate to pre-empt the result of the consultation. We are also making up to £2 million of funding available for support with the costs of rental auctions, and full details of this will be announced in due course. The Government are therefore not able to support this amendment.
On Amendments 431, 432, 433, 434, 435 and 436, the measures in the Bill seek to support lively high streets with activity that attracts people and businesses and avoids long-term vacancies, complementing existing government support that directly addresses the concerns raised in these amendments. There is support available to regenerate high streets, including £3.6 billion-worth of investment in the towns fund, a £4.8 billion investment in the levelling-up fund and a £2.6 billion investment in the shared prosperity fund. That is together with the £13.6 billion support package, announced in the Budget this year, to protect ratepayers facing bill increases over the next five years.
The High Streets Task Force continues to provide essential support to local leaders, with 123 local authorities having received expert advice in topics such as place-making and planning. I recognise that these amendments highlight key issues faced by many of our high streets, but I hope I have provided enough reassurance that these concerns are, or will be, addressed through current government actions.
Finally, in response to the noble Baroness, Lady Fox—
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
I apologise to the Minister for interrupting, but before she sits down, can she address this point? One of the key arguments made—in that group of amendments to which the noble Baroness referred—by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, and by myself and my noble friends Lord Shipley and Lady Thornhill, was about the huge disparity in business rates between online retailers and high street town centre retailers. I will repeat a comparator that I have mentioned previously. A well-known online retailer—not many miles distant from me—pays £45 per square metre in business rates on its premises, whereas a small town high street shop near me pays £240 per square metre. It is that vast difference that is penalising our town centre shops. This is the heart of the problem that this clause is trying to address, and we are supportive of that—but unless we deal with this big difference, nothing much will change. I would be glad to hear from the Minister what the Government intend to do about business rates.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
We are simplifying the issue of the high street. I have listened a number of times to what has been said about business rates, and I have explained how much the Government are putting in to supporting properties in the high street through the revaluation process, et cetera. The Government provide rate relief to help property owners all the time, but the issue of empty properties in the high street is much more complex than that, so there are a number of things we want to address, and one of them is what we are doing in this Bill.
I was saying that I will write to the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, because I would like some further information from the Department for Transport.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate, which covered an important part of the levelling-up agenda. I am just thinking about the Minister’s comments. A number of times she said that it was not appropriate to accept the amendment at the moment because it pre-empted the findings of the consultation that was going on. I have said this before, but I think it would be helpful if legislation were brought forward after consultation, rather than during or before it, because that consultation could then inform the legislation. It just seems a bit backwards, as if it is around the wrong way.
Also, there are the levelling-up funds, the towns fund and various other funding pots, but they do not necessarily always go to the most needy or provide the long-term support that is needed. It is how we provide that long-term change that is important. Too often there are sticking plasters with bits of pots of money.
Workington is obviously a town near me; I used to be the Member of Parliament for Workington in the other place. An industry report by planning consultancy Marrons showed that Workington was near the bottom of the 360 provincial towns that it looked at. It has had some funding recently, for example from the levelling-up fund, and we are of course grateful for that, but the money is going to be spent on improving key routes, bringing in new cycling routes and building a new café. Well, that is lovely, but it will not solve the fact that Debenhams and Laura Ashley have gone. If people find they do not need to come into the town centre because those key shops have now closed, they are more likely to go somewhere else to shop. We really need to look at this in a much broader way. Again, that is why business rates are so very important and they are one of the main sticking points.
Again, on the issues around corporate landlords and pension funds, I absolutely agree with everything the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, said on those. We are pleased that the Government are looking to do something about empty shop units. As an example from where I used to live, two shops next door to each other are owned by the same landlady and have been empty for over 20 years, purely and simply because when her shops failed she did not want to let them out to anybody else. So the fact that the Government are trying to do something about this is important, but it has to be done with the support of local authorities and the local community and it has to be done in a way that genuinely makes a difference. It is also important, as other noble Lords have said, that we do not end up with exploitable loopholes or unintended consequences but do have proper oversight. Having said that, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook
“Power to require provision of certain classes of information(1) Regulations may require the provision of information that is within the scope of a permitted purpose.(2) So far as the regulations are to extend to England and Wales, the permitted purposes are—(a) the beneficial ownership purpose (see section (The beneficial ownership purpose)),(b) the contractual control purpose (see section (The contractual control purpose)), and(c) the national security purpose (see section (The national security purpose)).(3) So far as the regulations are to extend to Scotland or Northern Ireland, the only permitted purpose is the national security purpose.(4) Regulations under this section must, for each requirement they impose, specify—(a) the person on whom the requirement falls,(b) the occurrence or circumstances that gives or give rise to the requirement,(c) the time limit for complying with the requirement, and(d) the person to whom the required information is to be provided.(5) The occurrence or circumstances specified under subsection (4)(b)—(a) must, in the case of a requirement to provide information within the scope of the national security purpose, and(b) in any other case may,be (or include) the giving of a notice in accordance with the regulations to the person on whom the requirement falls.(6) In relation to such cases, the regulations may also make provision deeming notice to have been given at a certain time in certain circumstances.(7) The person specified under subsection (4)(d) must be—(a) the Chief Land Registrar, or(b) another person exercising public functions on behalf of the Crown.(8) Regulations under this section may—(a) make provision about how information is to be provided (including provision requiring it to be provided by electronic means specified in the regulations);(b) provide for, or make provision about, the application of the regulations to persons outside, or information held outside, the United Kingdom; (c) relate to things done or arising before the coming into force of this section.”Member's explanatory statement
This new Clause and the other new Clauses in the Minister’s name before Clause 204 recast the powers in Part 11 so as to make them exercisable only for stated purposes (along with other minor changes).
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, I am pleased to introduce government Amendments 438A, 440ZA, 440ZC, 440B and 440E, which provide clarity and certainty about how the powers relating to interests and dealings in land can and will be used.
First, the Secretary of State will have the ability to require by regulations the disclosure of beneficial ownership information, where it is not already available. These changes will supplement and reinforce the current transparency regime. Secondly, the amendments give the Secretary of State the ability to create regulations to require information on certain arrangements which control land, short of outright ownership. This will enhance the available information on those arrangements. Thirdly, the amendments would allow regulations to enable the Secretary of State to require certain details of ownership and control about a property, where it appears to the Secretary of State that there is a national security threat linked to that property. That could apply, for example, to critical national infrastructure or sensitive sites.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her clear explanation of the government amendments here. From what she said, it seems to me that there is a dual purpose to the amendments. One is contained in the section relating to national security, which I understand but I wonder why it has appeared in this Bill and not in other Bills related to national security, one of which went through this House not long ago.
The second group of amendments is about aiding the development of land where land ownership is not known. I would like the Minister to help here, because the ownership of a lot of land is not yet recorded by the Land Registry—it is recorded only following a change of hands, through a sale or transfer in some way. I would like to understand from the Minister quite how ownership of land is to be established without the Land Registry having already had that recorded. I understand the direction that the Government intend here, but it seems to me that there is a gap, unless I have misunderstood the purpose of some of those amendments.
Will she explain, first, why this national security element has appeared in a levelling-up Bill, unless it is to do with regeneration? Secondly, if she could help with establishing land ownership that has not yet been recorded by the Land Registry, I would be grateful.
Lord Hope of Craighead (CB)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 440A in my name. This amendment is intended to draw attention to a recommendation by the Constitution Committee, of which I am a member, in its report on the Bill. Part 11, of which Clause 207 forms part, gives power to the Secretary of State to make regulations requiring the provision of information on transactions and other dealings in land if the Secretary of State considers
“that the information would be useful”
to identify the owners of the land and those with the right
“to control or influence … the owner of a relevant interest in land”.
Clause 207(1) states that these regulations may also provide for
“the sharing of such information with persons exercising functions of a public nature, for use for the purposes of such functions”.
Clause 207(3), to which my amendment is directed, addresses the risk, which is understandable, that there may be an inaccuracy or omission in the information that is provided, arising from the sharing or publication of this information. It states:
“No civil liability is to arise from the sharing or publication of information under regulations under this section by reason of any inaccuracy or omission in the information as provided further to a requirement imposed under section 204 or 205”.
The question then is: who needs this protection? As the Constitution Committee understood it, the intention of this clause is to give that protection to the persons to whom that information has been provided by the Secretary of State. That is because they are the people who will be required by the regulations to share or publish that information. It is obviously desirable that they should have that protection against civil liability if the information that they have been required to share or publish by reason of these regulations is misleading or inaccurate.
It is on that understanding that the suggestion was made by the committee that Clause 207(3) should be more tightly defined in the interests of legal certainty. The suggestion is that it should make it clear that our understanding is correct. That would be achieved if the words
“as respects those persons to whom the information is provided”
were inserted into the clause. As the clause stands, it might be thought to extend the protection further down the line as the information is shared more widely by persons who are doing this not because they are required to do it by the regulations but for some other reason, which may be unrelated to the regulations themselves. However, if it is the intention that the protection should extend that far, the committee suggests that the wording of this provision should be looked at again to make this clear.
I hope this explanation for the amendment may be helpful. It is intended to assist the Government and make it absolutely plain how far the protection the subsection is intended to give should extend.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
My Lords, I have a couple of amendments in this group. We have heard that Part 11 sets out a framework for creating powers to require disclosure of certain relevant information relating to ownership and control of land in England and Wales, including transactional information. Of course, if this is implemented, it is another significant layer of disclosure around land ownership and control in England and Wales, supplementing the information that is currently held or is going to be held in a number of public registries. It appears that the Government’s ultimate goal here is to ensure transparency around land ownership and control in England and Wales. We would support this aim.
My Amendment 440 probes the retrospective application of this section. As drafted, the provisions could require the disclosure of information relating to events prior to the enactment of the Bill. Clause 206(4) says:
“Regulations under section 204 or 205 may relate to things done or arising before the coming into force of this Part”.
This amendment probes the benefits of doing this retrospective application and what the Government are aiming to achieve through this.
My second amendment, Amendment 439, probes how local communities can request land ownership information. It would be really helpful if the Minister could provide a bit more information for us to understand how communities are expected to access this information and how that fits in with the role of the Secretary of State.
I thank the Minister for her thorough introduction to the government amendments. Amendments 438A, 438B, 438C, 438D and so on insert clauses before Clause 204. They
“recast the powers in Part 11 so as to make them exercisable only for stated purposes”.
Do these provisions apply to government agencies, such as Homes England, as well? If conditions are attached, they can get in the way when regeneration schemes are being considered. It would be good to have some clarification on that point.
We would support the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, in what he is trying to achieve in Amendment 440A. If the Minister could either provide clarification to the noble and learned Lord or look at tightening up the wording, as he suggests, that would be extremely helpful.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, in response to Amendment 439 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, I confirm that it will be in the public interest for some of the information that is collected to be published. For example, we intend to publish data on arrangements such as option agreements that developers and others have over land. However, there is some information that we will not be able to publish, so we need to strike the balance between transparency, legitimate privacy, confidentiality and practical or security considerations. Therefore, some information will be shared only
“with persons exercising functions of a public nature, for use for the purposes of such functions”.
At this stage, I want to answer a couple of questions from the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock. She asked why we need beneficial ownership. We believe that the property market in England and Wales should be fair and transparent. A lack of transparency can make it hard to identify rogue landlords, the owners of empty properties and those liable under the Building Safety Act, and it can leave the market vulnerable to criminal activity. We believe that this will deter individuals from using complex structures to obscure ownership of property, and it will provide criminal offences and sanctions for failure to comply.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook
“The beneficial ownership purpose(1) Information is within the scope of the beneficial ownership purpose if it appears to the Secretary of State that the information would be useful for the purpose of— (a) identifying persons who are beneficial owners of land in England or Wales, or(b) understanding the relationship of those persons with the land that they beneficially own.(2) For the purposes of this section, a person beneficially owns land if either of the following subsections applies.(3) This subsection applies where—(a) the land is owned by a body corporate or partnership, and(b) the person is, in relation to that body corporate or partnership, a beneficial owner within the meaning given by regulation 5 of the Money Laundering Regulations.(4) This subsection applies where—(a) the land is owned as part of—(i) a trust, foundation or similar legal arrangement, or(ii) the estate of a deceased person in the course of administration, and(b) the person is, in relation to that trust, foundation, arrangement or estate, a beneficial owner within the meaning given by regulation 6 of the Money Laundering Regulations.(5) In this section—(a) expressions that are also used in regulation 5 or 6 of the Money Laundering Regulations have the same meaning as in that regulation;(b) references to ownership of land (except references to beneficial ownership) are to the legal ownership of a freehold or leasehold estate in the land;(c) “the Money Laundering Regulations” means the Money Laundering, Terrorist Financing and Transfer of Funds (Information on the Payer) Regulations 2017 (S.I. 2017/692).”Member's explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement for the first new Clause in the Minister’s name before Clause 204.
“The contractual control purpose(1) Information is within the scope of the contractual control purpose if it appears to the Secretary of State that the information would be useful for the purpose of understanding relevant contractual rights.(2) For the purposes of subsection (1), understanding relevant contractual rights includes identifying the persons holding them and understanding the circumstances in which they were created or acquired.(3) “Relevant contractual rights” are rights that—(a) arise under a contract,(b) relate to the development, use or disposal of land in England or Wales, and(c) are held for the purposes of an undertaking.(4) In this section—“contract” includes a deed (whether or not made for consideration);“undertaking” includes—(a) a business,(b) a charity or similar endeavour, and(c) the exercise of functions of a public nature.”Member's explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement for the first new Clause in the Minister’s name before Clause 204.
“The national security purpose(1) Information is within the scope of the national security purpose if— (a) the information relates to land that is within subsection (2),(b) the information is within subsection (3), and(c) it appears to the Secretary of State that requiring the provision of the information under section (Power to require provision of certain classes of information) would be justified in the interests of national security.(2) Land is within this subsection if it appears to the Secretary of State that a threat to national security arises in connection with the location of the land or anything situated or done on it.(3) Information is within this subsection if it appears to the Secretary of State that the information would be useful for the purpose of—(a) identifying persons who—(i) own relevant interests in the land,(ii) have relevant rights concerning the land, or(iii) have the ability, or are in a position that may involve the ability, to control or influence (directly or indirectly) the owner of a relevant interest in the land, or a person with a relevant right concerning the land, in the exercise of that ownership or right, or(b) understanding the relationship of those persons with the land.(4) In subsection (3)—(a) references to ownership include legal and beneficial ownership;(b) “control or influence” includes control or influence by reason of interests or rights in or under a company, partnership, trust, foundation, or legal structure or arrangement similar to any of those.”Member's explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement for the first new Clause in the Minister’s name before Clause 204.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment makes it clear that details of transactions involving land can be obtained under Part 11 (notwithstanding the recasting of the powers of that Part by the new Clauses in the Minister’s name before Clause 204).
Baroness Scott of Bybrook
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the first new clause in the Minister’s name before clause 204.
“(1A) In the case of a requirement to provide information within the scope of the national security purpose, regulations under subsection (1) may be made so as to apply to information provided further to the requirement only so far as appears to the Secretary of State to be justified in the interests of national security.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment provides that information obtained under Part 11 in the interests of national security may only be dealt with in those interests.
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the first new Clause in the Minister’s name before Clause 204.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the first new Clause in the Minister’s name before Clause 204.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook
“Offences(1) A person who, without reasonable excuse, fails to comply with a requirement imposed under section (Power to require provision of certain classes of information) commits an offence.(2) A person commits an offence if—(a) the person provides information in response to a requirement imposed under section (Power to require provision of certain classes of information),(b) the information is false or misleading in a material particular, and(c) the person knows that the information is false or misleading or is reckless as to whether it is. (3) But an offence under this section is committed under the law of a given jurisdiction only if the requirement in question is imposed by regulations extending to that jurisdiction.(4) A person who commits an offence under subsection (1) is liable—(a) on summary conviction in England and Wales, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding the maximum term for summary offences or a fine (or both);(b) on summary conviction in Scotland, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months or a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale (or both);(c) on summary conviction in Northern Ireland, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months or a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale (or both).(5) In subsection (4)(a), “the maximum term for summary offences” means—(a) if the offence is committed before the time when section 281(5) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 comes into force, 6 months;(b) if the offence is committed after that time, 51 weeks.(6) A person guilty of an offence under subsection (2) is liable—(a) on summary conviction in England and Wales, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding the general limit in a magistrates’ court or a fine (or both);(b) on summary conviction in Scotland, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months or a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum (or both);(c) on summary conviction in Northern Ireland, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months or a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum (or both);(d) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years or a fine (or both).(7) If—(a) an entity within subsection (8) commits an offence under this section, and(b) a person who is, or is purporting to act as, a relevant officer of the entity authorises or permits, participates in, or fails to take all reasonable steps to prevent the commission of the offence,that person also commits the offence.(8) The entities within this subsection are those specified in the first column of the following table; and “relevant officer”, in relation to such an entity, means a person acting in a capacity specified in the corresponding entry in the second column.
Entity | “Relevant officer” |
A company. | A director, manager, secretary or similar officer. |
A partnership. | A partner. |
A body corporate (other than a company) or unincorporated body whose affairs are managed by a governing body. | A member of the governing body. |
A body corporate (other than a company) or unincorporated body whose affairs are managed by its members. | A member. |
This new Clause provides offences of non-compliance with regulations under Part 11.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment removes provision superseded by the new Clause in the Minister’s name after Clause 207.
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the first new Clause in the Minister’s name before Clause 204.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment removes a definition that is no longer required as a result of the new Clauses in the Minister’s name before Clause 204.
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment and the third amendment in the Minister’s name to Clause 209 are consequential on the extension of Part 11 to Scotland and Northern Ireland as well as England and Wales (see the second amendment in the Minister’s name to Clause 221, page 250, line 32).
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Haskel) (Lab)
My Lords, there is an error in Amendment 440H on the Marshalled List. The text being left out of the Bill says “England or Wales”, not “England and Wales”.
Amendment 440H
Baroness Scott of Bybrook
Member's explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement for the second amendment in the Minister’s name to Clause 209.
“(2) Schedule 18 may not come in to force until an assessment has been made of its impact on accessibility.”Member's explanatory statement
This means that schedule 18 does not come in to force until an assessment has been made of the impact on accessibility.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, during the Covid pandemic, the catering industry suffered huge disruption, and, with the support of local councils, some innovative solutions were found to create outdoor eating, drinking and dining spaces, which helped to provide some opportunity to relieve the pressure on businesses, but also to give some much-needed social space which met the constraints of Covid regulations.
In many communities, this brought a new dimension to high streets, with outdoor seating and catering creating more of a continental feel, which was, for the most part, welcomed by communities. The regulations relating to pavement trading were relaxed, and there was the opportunity to test the impact of these less formal spaces on supporting the regeneration of our high streets. So we welcome the overall aim, which is to encourage a more relaxed approach to pavement trading.
The Nationwide Caterers’ Association website states:
“The past two years have been incredibly difficult for the hospitality industry, and the hope is that refurbished outdoor spaces will help to attract customers with new offerings and a ‘continental culture that will hopefully bring Britain’s high streets to life’”.
However, as ever, the implementation of these street trading spaces during Covid highlighted some of the issues that arise, and the amendments in this group address many of them with sensible additions to the Bill that do not seek to reimpose an overbureaucratic regime.
Our Amendment 448 refers to the critical issue of accessibility. One of the main causes of complaint relating to pavement trading during the Covid crisis was that there was occasionally an inconsiderate approach to the needs of all highway users. Those with disabilities, for example, found that not enough space was left for wheelchairs or mobility scooters to get through and, for those with sight impairment, the unexpected obstacles on the highway presented major challenges. Although we support the overall drive for a more relaxed regime, it is essential that it does not create a street scene which excludes, or impairs access for, some of our community. Amendment 448 would ensure that accessibility is considered, by assessing the overall street scene and then ensuring that any pavement trading offer was compliant with keeping access routes clear.
Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Stevenage. I congratulate her on the efficient and effective way in which she dealt with 17 amendments; she did so with such clarity. I rise to speak to Amendments 449 to 460, all of which bar one are in my name.
In speaking to my amendments and thanking all the organisations that have sent helpful briefings to noble Lords, I want to cover something before we get into the detail: I simply wish to reassert the primary purpose of the pavement. It is not a place for excessive A-boards, advertisements, marketing materials or sprawling seating. It is a place to connect people. It is a place where we can meet on our streets. Yet, all too often, we experience inaccessibility, obstacles and problems when we are simply trying to go about our daily business. This is bad enough for anybody, but for those of us who use guide dogs or wheelchairs it can often be an impossibility. Add to that the excessive dumping and the discarding of e-scooters and you can hardly say that the current usage of our pavements is in any sense optimal, accessible or inclusive.
Let us take a step back to the Business and Planning Act 2020, in which sensible measures were brought in at a time when we were facing a once-in-a-century pandemic. It cannot be right that the lessons we take from that are to roll over some of those provisions in perpetuity now that we are, fortunately, in such a different set of circumstances.
The amendments in my name can be split into three categories: accessibility and inclusion; payment for our pavements; and healthy environments. First, on accessibility and inclusion, the principle of “inclusive by design” should be the basis on which we base everything that we do, be it physical infrastructure or things way beyond. It should be the heart and soul—indeed, the very fabric—of our communities. Yet, as we see with this set of amendments, this is all too often not the case when it comes to pavements.
As has already been set out, Amendment 455 puts the case that, when pavement licences are to be granted, the flow and access needs of users and pedestrians should be thoroughly taken into account. We can call this, if you will, the amendment that goes to the heart of the purpose of our pavements.
Amendment 460 talks about the need for tactile markings and physical barriers to demark seating areas. This is not only to enable them to be safe and demarked for people who may use white canes to navigate and may have buddies who need to get through; crucially, it will also stop the sprawl of seating. Amendment 460 can now be known as the “prohibition of sprawling seating amendment”.
Amendment 458 seeks to put the case that, where licences for seating and other ephemera are granted, such seating must be removed from the pavement when it is not in use for the reasons that the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Stevenage, has already set out.
Similarly, Amendment 450 puts a real case that not only the pavement should be considered for such licences. If the circumstances fit and are safe, it could be quite proper to include part of the carriageway in that pavement licence. We have already seen schemes to skinny highways; this could be an effective part of that where, in effect, the load of sharing the licence is more equitably shared between pedestrians and the users of the carriageway.
However, access and inclusion are not just about the physical environment; “inclusive by design” is just as important for practices, policies and procedures. That brings me to Amendments 454 and 456, which look at the application and consultation processes for the granting of pavement licences. In 2020, when we passed the Business and Planning Act, there was a particular need for increased speed. Businesses were facing an extraordinary set of circumstances, as were local authorities and, indeed, all of us. Those circumstances have now changed and there can be no case for that consultation not to be returned to 28 days. In fact, I put it to my noble friend the Minister that, if the consultation period is reduced as currently set out in the Bill, it could very well represent a prima facie breach of local authorities’ public sector equality duties and contravene wider equalities legislation; I welcome her view on that point.
I turn to payments for our pavements. Although we can all be supportive of a certain level of pavement usage, such as for cafés, eating and the like, it should be clearly understood that the pavement is our pavement. It is operated and administered on our behalf by the local authority. Amendments 451 and 452 speak directly to this point, not only in terms of the cleansing and maintenance of pavements as a result of the granting of these licences but in terms of the potential profit share. I believe that sharing the profits generated on those pavements—our pavements—should be strongly considered. As the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Stevenage, pointed out, a formula could well be constructed within the licence itself, not least for cleansing and maintenance, but I believe that the profit share point is a critical one. We want to support our local businesses but, when they have a licence and are generating business on our pavements, it is only right and proper that, through the local authority, we should share in that profit.
Finally, these amendments would enable not only safer but cleaner, more accessible and more inclusive pavements, and therefore in all senses much healthier spaces. This cannot be inordinately difficult. It is simply about properly considering and balancing the needs of restaurants and residents, cafes and the community. Unfortunately, this clearly is not happening at any level to the extent it should. If this Bill is about levelling up, if it is about regeneration, then this starts with our streets and with the primary purpose of the pavement. That is what these amendments are all about. I very much look forward to my noble friend the Minister’s response.
Baroness Randerson (LD)
My Lords, I support the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, and thank him for the lead he has taken on this issue. I was pleased to add my name to his Amendments 456, 457 and 458.
I recall our debate on the regulations that were introduced during the pandemic. We were assured that this was a temporary reduction in the notification required and in the rights of local people to object. We all understood that this was an emergency, that businesses were fighting to survive and that restaurants and pubs were doing their best to carry on providing a service at a time when it was clearly unsafe for people to be gathering inside, even if the Government had allowed it. However, there was a debate about this and as I said, we were assured that this this would be temporary.
These amendments are a modest way of ensuring that residents are still given a reasonable opportunity to object to such applications. To this day, the usual way in which people find out about planning applications is via a local notice attached to a lamp post. Most people are not sitting at home scanning council websites on the chance of finding a planning application that applies to their area. Most people object because they see a notice on a lamp post, or their neighbour tells them about it. If you have sight loss, for example, you will need longer to ensure that you are aware and can write in response, because it is not as easy as it is for people with good eyesight.
Therefore, Amendment 457 is particularly important because it would remove approval by default, which is an indefensible approach to local planning. Amendment 458 is important because it would ensure that street furniture is not left cluttering up the pavement, where people fall over it. Also, as the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, has just pointed out, guide dogs have difficulty. I have a neighbour with a guide dog and if cars are parked on the pavement, the dog takes him around them or stops. So, life is made much more difficult.
Finally, public understanding of smoke drift has been transformed in the last decade. As a keen viewer of old television series, every time I watch them, I realise how different our view and tolerance of other people’s smoke is nowadays, compared with 10 or 15 years ago. What is in these amendments is well within accepted and reasonable expectation, so I support them.
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
My Lords, I have enormous sympathy for the case made by my noble friend Lord Holmes and very much hope that the Government respond as positively as they can.
The background to my Amendment 459, to which Peers from other parties have added their names, is the arrangements made during the pandemic to support the hospitality industry. In the interests of progress, not all four of us will be speaking, and it is good to see today’s Marshalled List down to a mere 68 pages for this last day of our debate. Noble Lords may recall that during the pandemic, when it was not possible to go into enclosed premises such as pubs, arrangements were made to grant pavement licences. When the Business and Planning Bill, which introduced this concession, came before the House in 2020, I added my name to a cross-party amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, saying that a condition of licence would be that outdoor seating areas were required to be 100% smoke-free, paralleling the arrangements inside the premises.
Noble Lords across the House supported that amendment, but sadly it was not accepted by the Government, who instead inserted a requirement in the legislation that
“the licence-holder must make reasonable provision for seating where smoking is not permitted”.
Amendment 459 would reintroduce the requirement for all pavement licences to be smoke-free, which was the view of your Lordships’ House three years ago. This would contribute to the Government’s ambition to make England smoke-free by 2030—an ambition we are currently on track to miss by nine years, according to Cancer Research UK. The current temporary requirements, which are being made permanent in this Bill, would mean that councils have two options on smoking: to implement the national condition to provide some smoke-free seating, or to go further and make 100% smoke-free seating a condition of licence at local level.
Since then, two-thirds of the public, polled in 2022, did not think that the current legislation went far enough. They wanted smoking banned from the outdoor seating areas of all restaurants, pubs and cafes. Fewer than one in five opposed such a ban. That was a large sample, of more than 10,000 people, in a survey carried out by YouGov for Action on Smoking and Health.
Some councils are already doing what the public want, with 10 councils in England introducing 100% smoke-free requirements. These are a mixture of Conservative, Labour and Lib Dem-led councils in counties such as Durham and Northumberland, cities such as Newcastle, Manchester and Liverpool, unitary authorities such as Middlesbrough and North Lincolnshire, and metropolitan boroughs such as North Tyneside, South Tyneside and the London Borough of Brent. Therefore, in response to the point about practicality made by the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, practicality has already been well established by those local authorities.
When we initially tabled our amendments, the then Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government wrote to Manchester City Council, the first council to introduce the requirement for pavement licences to be 100% smoke-free, warning it that this would damage local hospitality businesses and could lead to the loss of thousands of jobs. We do not know whether that letter had the approval of Health Ministers. However, the experience from Manchester and elsewhere shows exactly the opposite: that these bans have proved popular with the public, leading to high levels of compliance, and have not been shown to cause any decrease in revenues. At the time, I reluctantly agreed to the Government’s decision to include the current smoke-free seating requirements, which, while better than nothing, do not go far enough. The current system is not only much more complicated to implement than a blanket ban; it ensures that non-smokers and children continue to be exposed to tobacco smoke, which is both toxic and unpleasant. Of course, those who work for these establishments cannot go elsewhere and will continue to be exposed to smoke.
The Local Government Association of which, uniquely, I am not a vice-president, supports our amendment for 100% smoke-free pavement licences on the basis that
“it sets a level playing field for hospitality venues across the country and has a public health benefit of protecting people from unwanted second-hand smoke … If smoking is not prohibited, pavement areas will not become family-friendly spaces”.
That is why Dr Javed Khan’s independent review of smoke-free 2030 policies, commissioned by the Department of Health and published last year, recommended that smoking be prohibited on all premises, indoors and out, where food or drink is served, as well as a ban on smoking in all outdoor areas where children are present. This 100% smoke-free pavement seating has strong cross-party support from Peers across this House. When the regulations were extended in 2021, the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, tabled an amendment to regret that the regulations were not revised to take account of the evidence of the benefits of 100% smoke-free pavement licences. That amendment was agreed by 254 votes to 224.
Last year, the Government announced several new tobacco control measures and said that in place of the long-promised tobacco control plan to deliver a smoke-free 2030, tackling smoking would be core to the major conditions strategy currently in development. The measures announced today are welcome but fall far short of the comprehensive approach that Dr Khan made clear was essential if we are to achieve a smoke-free 2030. When my noble friend sums up, can she confirm that the Government intend to bring forward further measures to reduce smoking in the upcoming major conditions strategy? We should now take this opportunity, provided by this amendment, to move towards implementing Dr Khan’s recommendations for all hospitality venues to be smoke-free indoors and out—a small but important step towards a smoke-free 2030.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, last week, my esteemed colleague, the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, asked whether I would support his amendments on pavement accessibility. I trusted him completely so I said, “Yes, of course, I would love to support them”. Then I read them and, actually, they are quite tough and strict in places, but the more I read them, the more I liked them. I particularly liked Amendment 450, which is about taking bits of the road—I love that idea—and reducing the space for traffic, as well as Amendment 459 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, and others, because that is so tough on smoking and I loathe smoking. I support many of these amendments. Obviously, I support all the amendments from the noble Lord, Lord Holmes. There is, perhaps, some space to bring in the fact that cars park on the pavement. I hate pavement parking and I hate loads of rubbish bins being heaped up on the side of pavements because they inhibit free access.
My local shopping street has gone absolutely bananas with this, and it has changed the whole feeling of the street—it is so much more friendly. At the moment, only the Co-op, Iceland and Boots, I think, do not have tables and chairs outside them, with people eating, drinking and having fun. I am all in favour of this section and look forward to Report, when I would be happy to vote on many of them and perhaps even sign up to them as well.
Lord Blencathra (Con)
My Lords, it is always a delight to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb. She did say that some of my noble friend’s amendments were quite tough but that she liked them. I think the Committee would agree that the noble Baroness is quite tough and we rather like her as well. I congratulate my noble friend Lord Holmes of Richmond on the initiative he has undertaken in tabling these important amendments. He is to be congratulated by all disabled people, fighting our corner—or narrow strip of pavement, as the case may be.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, it is normal to say what a pleasure it is to speak after a previous speaker, but it is impossible to speak after my noble friend and provoke as much of the Committee’s interest as he has.
I will speak in support of the amendments in the name of my noble friend Lord Holmes of Richmond to which I have added my name, and I do so on the basis of too many years spent on a local authority, much of it responsible for administering legislation that relates to the management of our highways. Much of that legislation dates to the 1980s, but one of the duties in it goes back to the Middle Ages and really to the beginning of having local authorities at all: that is the obligation on the local authority to keep the King’s highway clear. The reason for that is simple: if you operate commercial premises and are a frontager on the highway, you are very attracted by the prospect of trading from that highway, because you can expand your premises rent-free. That makes a great deal of sense commercially.
For centuries, it has been the sad task of local authorities to try to push back people who are trying to trade on the public highway because—here I make two points—the public highway is, first of all, a public asset. It is maintained at public expense primarily for the benefit of the public and not for the private use of frontagers. Secondly, my noble friend Lord Holmes referred to the purpose of the highway, but he was not quite as precise as I would have liked. There is a precise understanding in law of the purpose of the highway—that it allows people to go to and fro. Any use of the public highway for the purpose of trading—in this case we are discussing trading in front of refreshment businesses, restaurants and cafés, but the same applies to shopkeepers—can exist only as a concession by the local authority. In my experience, this is generally a contentious matter with local people and one should be very cautious about granting such licences.
All such caution was thrown to the wind as a result of the Covid pandemic. The Government switched from a carefully balanced system, where local authorities which understood their communities had a clear say in the matter and knew from experience how to balance various demands, to one in which the advantage was given heavily in favour of the commercial frontager, who has the right to do this. The Bill, in effect, seeks to make that even more expansive and practically to continue it permanently. I think this is a dangerous thing to do. It is and should very much be a matter for local authorities, which understand their local communities. The balance should be adjusted back to where it was before—more on the neutral part of the scales rather than heavily weighted, as it is now.
What harms arise? First, it is impossible for me to add to the harms that arise to people with various disabilities, about which we have heard. I cannot and do not intend to add anything to what my noble friends Lord Holmes and Lord Blencathra said from their own experience, but there are other harms as well. To some extent, they arise from the conceptual model that arises when we talk about “the high street”. We talk about the high street as if it were a distinct thing or use but, in most urban areas, if you lift your eyes above the gaudy shopfront, you will see lots of other things happening in the high street above ground, many of which are people living there. If you are overlooking a pavement and there are licences that allow people out on the pavement, you will suffer a harm directly in relation to that.
Some harms are quite acceptable. If the closing hours and hours of operation are sensible, perhaps you can live with that. You want to get on with your neighbours and do not want local businesses to fail, but you are entirely dependent on the licensing regime and the attitude of local councillors as to what hours should be allowed. You are also exposed to poor management and exposed, outside your window—here I speak from a degree of experience—to people talking loudly and having parties, some of which are louder than others. It is impossible to expect any management to control that properly; they simply cannot go around doing that. However well intentioned, they have to work with noisy and difficult people.
We need to get back to understanding what the highway is for, what a public asset is, paid for at public expense, and what its primary purpose is. We need to understand that local authorities are probably the best determinants of this and we need to reset the dial, so that they have the chance to do that.
I cannot sit down without referring to the amendment in the name of my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham. No chance goes by in your Lordships’ House for him to propose something restrictive of smoking without him dashing at it very much like a ferret up a trouser leg. Here we are again with yet another restrictive amendment proposed on smoking, and it is purely vindictive and entirely punitive. He endeavours to put a gloss of public interest on it, and maybe he thinks he is contributing to people giving up smoking. I gave up smoking last year and I assure your Lordships that at no point in my consideration did the possibility of being denied access to a pavement café arise, nor would I have given it any weight had it come into my mind. There were other reasons why I gave up smoking last year.
One of the problems with these vindictive approaches is that the people who make them simply do not understand smokers. The noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, who I think said that she “loathed smoking”, possibly does not want to understand them; she just wants to give vent to the loathing. I do not know. My noble friend offered a few other reasons. The first was generosity in favour of the business success of the premises. He said that they would be much happier, attract more business and be family friendly. I do not think that that is sufficient reason to impose restrictions on a lawful activity, because it is not the business of this House to make businesses successful. That is their job: we set a framework and they try to make the businesses successful. That is not our motivation nor should it be, in my view.
I very much hope that the Minister who, in the course of this Committee, has developed a great deftness at turning away suggestions made by Members of your Lordships’ House, maintains that deftness in respect of this amendment and finds a way of saying that this is not an appropriate place for the Government to pursue yet more vindictive legislation against smokers.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
I did not say that I loathe smokers—both my parents were smokers. I loathe smoking because of the impact it had on my parents, both of whom died from smoking-related disease.
Lord Moylan (Con)
I did say—and I think Hansard will show—that the noble Baroness said she loathed smoking. I was careful not to say that she loathed smokers. I hope she did not mishear that, because it would have been a mishearing.
Baroness Northover (LD)
My Lords, I will speak in support of Amendment 459, led by the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, to which I have attached my name. As noble Lords will know, this amendment has strong cross-party support, and countering smoking has long had cross-party support in this House. The amendment seeks to ensure that all pavement licences are smoke free. I hear what noble Lords have said about such licences, and this amendment would apply if a pavement licence is granted. It seeks to ensure that the rules inside a bar, restaurant or café apply equally to their outdoor area.
These outdoor areas were expanded in the pandemic so that there was more space between people; outdoors thus became an extension of indoors. The same smoke-free rules that apply inside should apply outside, for exactly the same reasons. As the noble Lord, Lord Young, pointed out, the Local Government Association agrees. That makes these areas more family friendly, and I point out to the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, that the LGA argues that it makes it easier to implement if this is applied nationally.
The Government have had several opportunities to make pavement licences 100% smoke free over the last three years and have opted not to do so. The noble Lord, Lord Young, has specified those instances. This is despite the clear evidence of the health harms of second-hand smoke, strong public support for smoke-free pavement licences and examples from various councils, including Manchester, of this measure being introduced successfully.
The public health case for this policy is very clear. The scientific evidence indicates that there is no risk-free level of exposure to second-hand smoke. Associated health effects include stroke, lung cancer and coronary heart disease. The noble Lord, Lord Moylan, who has just spoken, probably gave up to protect his health. We are seeking to protect others’ as well.
If we continue to allow smoking in pavement seating, passers-by, customers, staff and above all children will keep being exposed to significant amounts of tobacco smoke. The risk is particularly acute for staff, as the noble Lord, Lord Young, specified, who have no choice but to be exposed to people smoking when they work. Of course, children are particularly susceptible to harm from second-hand smoke; we all know that. In Canada, where most provinces have had laws to implement smoke-free patios outside hospitality venues for years, these laws have been popular, easy to enforce and had a positive impact on health. Where smoke-free patios were introduced, second-hand smoke exposure went down by almost a quarter.
Fortunately, the world is changing, as others have said, and smoking is no longer the norm. In the United Kingdom, this House over the last 20 years or so has led the way by helping to reduce smoking—for example, by banning smoking in public in settings, and the noble Earl played his part in that. In 2019, the Government set themselves the worthy ambition of seeking to reduce the number of smokers to below 5% of the population by 2030. While the Government have announced some measures to help deliver this ambition, we are still waiting for the comprehensive strategy needed. Expanding the number of outdoor spaces that are smoke free helps to deliver what the Government say they wish to do.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, raised some of the problems that mean that pavements cannot be pavements. My particular bugbear is cyclists on pavements; they drive me mad. The noble Lord, Lord Moylan, raised some of the tensions when deciding how we regulate public spaces, drawing attention to residents who live on streets where maybe there are pavement cafés.
Those things are worth considering but I want to return to the points made at the start of this group, so well explained by the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Stevenage, and to reference the earlier group on reviving the high street. One of the very few positive outcomes of the dreadful lockdown period was the emergence of imaginative ways of creating social engagement outdoors. When lockdown was such an antisocial action that kept us apart from each other, we found ways of connecting.
Café society is indeed a positive innovation, and regardless of the differences between the weather and climate in the UK and, for example, continental Europe, Brits have taken to this way of enjoying hospitality services. It is a great boost to that industry, which suffered so badly under lockdown.
One of the advantages of this spilling out of café society on to pavements is that it has allowed smokers and vapers to have a coffee or a drink alongside a cigarette, which I consider—shock, horror—to be all very civilised. It is certainly better than huddling outside in doorways in between sips of a drink.
I find it rather galling that Amendments 458, 459 and 461—all of which, one way or another, involve restricting smoking outdoors and making those restrictions a precondition of the licence—have been added to this group. Amendments 458 and 461 emphasise that where there is consumption of food or drink, the licence holder must ensure that smoking or vaping does not affect others. This seems an impossible duty. How could it ever be monitored? It is a degree of micromanagement of the life of communities. It seems the licensee is being threatened—they must prevent smoke drift affecting those in the vicinity, or they will not get a licence.
Tobacco smoke in outdoor areas is highly diluted and dissipates quickly in atmospheric conditions. I worry about moves towards such punitive restrictions on people smoking outside, when all they are doing is indulging in a legal, personal activity. Do we need to overregulate in such a fashion? Smokers, a minority no doubt, are perfectly respectable and considerate citizens and it would be wrong in any way to imply that in some or most cases they wilfully blow smoke into people’s faces or are not mindful of others in the vicinity.
As to involving vaping in this, targeting an anti-smoking device seems just wrong-headed. So many people I know who have stopped smoking did so by taking up vaping, and they improved their health in the process. If the proposers of the amendments are worried about any exposure to tobacco smoke outdoors, this would require that a proper scientific study be brought before the House, or at the very least a national consultation. Amendment 459 goes the full hog and states:
“Pavement licences may only be granted by a local authority subject to the condition that smoking is prohibited”.
It seems that an attempt is being made to use this Bill as a backdoor route to banning smoking in public places per se.
This Bill has been packaged as empowering local decision-making. Can we note that local authorities already have the powers at their discretion to regulate smoking in licensed premises and on pavements outside pubs, bars and restaurants with exterior tables and seating? It is up to them. How can we justify using this Bill to bring in central government legislation that threatens that if pubs and cafés do not ban smoking outside, no licence will be given to them? This seems wholly disproportionate.
We should note that such prescriptive rules could well lead to fewer customers, more high street closures and, certainly for many citizens who as adults choose to smoke, less freedom. It goes against the spirit of a levelling-up Bill when you have an imposition from the top of a kind of “we know best approach” to local matters and individual matters such as smoking, and it will grate with many people.
I appreciate that some people do not like people smoking. Some people find it loathsome. One noble Baroness has boasted about not tolerating smoke drift. There are a lot of things that I do not like and that I would rather not tolerate. I am not keen on people chewing gum or putting on make-up in public or eating with their mouth open or talking loudly or on babies crying when I want to sit quietly with my latte and read my book outside a café, but—my goodness—this is society. We tolerate each other; we rub along. There is something really positive about a café society. We should not use it as an excuse to bring in unnecessary regulations that set us at odds with one another as a means of policing and supervising personal, legal behaviour.
To finish, I do not know whether this will encourage or discourage, but I have noticed that smoking on the Terrace outside the Lords has been banned but somehow smoking on the Terrace of the other place is perfectly okay, and guess what? It is packed with people who work in the House of Lords or sit as Peers in the House of Lords because it is the only place to go—not to damage people but just to relax and have a cigarette with a coffee. They are not breaking the law.
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
Before my noble friend gets up to respond to this debate and at the risk of upsetting the mood of the Committee, I remind noble Lords that we have done three groups. We have another 19 to go and we are going to finish tonight, so unless anybody does not wish to have any sleep, I suggest we perhaps cut our speeches down just a little bit if we can.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
I do not know whether I dare speak now, but I am going to. I will not dare venture into the issue of smoking or non-smoking, except to say that I agree with my noble friends Lady Northover and Lady Randerson and the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham.
I want to raise two issues because they were raised in the Business and Planning Act and the regulations that we discussed at the time and have been raised by the noble Lords, Lord Holmes and Lord Moylan. The noble Lord, Lord Holmes, rightly brought to our attention Amendment 460, about the use of barriers to delineate a pavement licence from the rest of the highway. It was agreed at the time, and we should ensure that it is included in the regulations under this Bill. It is vital that there is a clear line between where a pavement café ends and the pavement for other users begins, because it stops drift by people using the pavement café area and helps everybody, particularly those with disabilities, so I totally support that argument and I am sorry that it is not included in the Bill.
Secondly, I support Amendment 451, about payment to local authorities for the use of the highway. Hard-pressed local authorities are apparently having to give away public assets for businesses to use without any payment. We would not expect that of any other commercial arrangement, so why should we expect local authorities to support businesses without any payment for the use of the public asset, i.e. the highway? I totally support the argument made by the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, on that score. I hope that when the Minister responds he will be able to say that local authority highways, which local authorities have to clean and maintain, are worthy of a fee from those who use them.
Earl Howe (Con)
My Lords, this has been a full debate on the numerous issues bearing on pavement licences. I shall begin by addressing Amendments 449 and 450 in the name of my noble friend Lord Holmes of Richmond, to whom I listened with great care and respect. These two amendments relate to the definition of “relevant highway”. The Government support making it as easy as possible for businesses and local authorities to facilitate outdoor eating and drinking through the use of the streamlined pavement licence process. We believe that local authorities should maintain the flexibility to control pavement licences on highways which are both publicly and privately maintainable. The Business and Planning Act 2020 does not currently distinguish between those two types of highway, and as such any enforcement powers available to local authorities would apply equally, ensuring that local authorities can take appropriate action where there are issues with licences.
There are already a number of ways a local authority can consider the pedestrianisation of a street, including to facilitate the placement of furniture on the highway for alfresco dining. They include consideration of important issues such as whether vehicular access is required. Pavement licences can then be granted to highways that have been considered under those processes. We have seen the success of this in practice across the country, including in Soho in London and in the Northern Quarter in Manchester.
Turning to Amendments 451 and 452, which relate to fees and are also in the name of my noble friend, I can say to him that in developing proposals to make the streamlined pavement licensing process permanent, we have worked closely with local authorities, businesses and leaders from the hospitality sector and communities, and many of the points made in this debate have been raised during that process, including the issue of fees. We are increasing the fee cap from £100 to £500 for first-time applications and to £350 for renewals, having undertaken a detailed analysis of actual costs, to create a sustainable process which will cover the costs to local authorities in processing, monitoring and enforcing the process, while remaining affordable and consistent for businesses around the country, which were seeing inflated fees reaching thousands of pounds per application under the previous process. Local authorities maintain flexibility to set fees at any level under the fee cap to respond to local circumstances. For example, we have seen some areas making licences free to support their local high streets. At a time of rising costs, we are not seeking to impose additional charges on businesses, particularly given that the hospitality industry was one of the hardest hit by the pandemic.
My noble friend asked specifically whether we could include maintenance and schemes for profit-sharing in the licence. The fee cap, on which we have consulted extensively as I have mentioned, is set at a level which will cover the costs to local authorities for the administrative burden that they undertake in issuing licences. As I have emphasised, we are not looking to impose additional costs at this time.
On Amendments 453, 454, 456 and 457, also in the name of my noble friend, the pavement licence process that we are seeking to make permanent has been successful in the past few years because it provides a simpler, more streamlined process to gain a licence. Amendment 453 would introduce an unnecessary new administrative process for local authorities in requiring that receipts are sent to all applicants. It also has the potential to create a delay in the process, meaning that licences could take longer to be determined should receipts not be processed in reasonable timescales. However, we are seeking to double the consultation and determination periods compared to the temporary process to ensure that communities have sufficient opportunity to comment on applications. The total period allowed for consultation and determination will change to 28 days.
We have worked closely with stakeholders, including groups representing disabled people, local community groups, businesses and local authorities, in considering the consultation period when making the streamlined pavement licence process permanent. In working with these groups, we have sought to achieve a balance between a quick and streamlined process and ensuring that the process is sustainable for the long term and gives communities an opportunity to comment on applications. That is why we are setting the consultation and determination periods at 14 days each—double that of the temporary process. Amendments 454 and 456 would create a slower process than that which it would replace.
Regarding Amendment 457, the deemed consent provision would encourage local authorities to make determinations within the 28-day window from submission. In the rare circumstances where local authorities do not make a determination and the application is deemed to be granted, this will be subject to all national and locally published conditions, including the “no obstruction” condition, which seeks to ensure that the pavement remains accessible for all. Where this condition is not met, local authorities can revoke licences.
I turn to Amendments 455, 458 and 460, also in the name of my noble friend Lord Holmes. Free flow of pedestrians and other users of the highway is important, which is why the Business and Planning Act 2020 already requires that local authorities take this into consideration when determining applications through Section 3(5) and (6)(a), and prevents licences from being granted where they would prevent pedestrians or other non-vehicular traffic from entering or passing along the highway, or having normal access to premises adjoining the highway.
With respect to Amendment 458, we are aware anecdotally of conditions which would, for example, require that licensed furniture be removed when not in use, and conditions which go further than our national smoke-free condition. We consider that local authorities have local knowledge and appropriate powers to impose such conditions should they consider it necessary. We do not think it is necessary or appropriate to create national conditions for these issues, as there are circumstances where it may not be necessary or appropriate.
With regard to Amendment 460, I thank my noble friend Lord Holmes for raising the very important issue of accessibility and impact of pavement licensing on disabled users of the highway. I listened carefully to the powerful speeches of my noble friend Lord Blencathra and the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, among others. The existing legislative framework requires local authorities to take these matters into account and they cannot grant a licence if pedestrians are prevented from using the highway as they usually would.
We have taken this issue very seriously in the light of experience since the pandemic. The Business and Planning Act 2020 sets out that all licences are subject to the “no obstruction” condition, which protects pavement users to ensure that they are not prevented from using the highway. In particular, it states that local authorities must have particular regard for disabled people when considering applications, and must have regard to the guidance published by the Secretary of State. This guidance, developed in close collaboration with Guide Dogs and the RNIB, sets out considerations that local authorities should take into account, including whether they should require barriers separating furniture from the rest of the highway—such as colour contrast and tap rails—or more rigid physical barriers. I hope that, taken together, these comments are helpful to my noble friend Lord Holmes and, indeed, to the Committee.
I turn next to Amendment 459 tabled by my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham. The streamlined pavement licence provisions under debate may be granted, as he will know, subject to any condition that the local authority considers reasonable, as set out in Section 5(1) of the Business and Planning Act 2020. As he rightly mentioned, we are aware that a number of councils across the country, including Manchester and Newcastle, have put in place local conditions that ban smoking in pavement licence areas. We believe it is important to allow local areas to make the decisions that are right for them, using local knowledge and the powers that they already have to impose conditions.
But that is not all. Any licences granted under temporary pavement licence provisions will be subject to a smoke-free condition whereby the premises will need to make reasonable provision for seating outdoors where smoking is not permitted. This condition ensures that customers have greater choice so that smokers and non-smokers are able to sit outside. As I have indicated, local authorities are also able to consider setting their own local conditions where appropriate and where local decision-makers believe that it is reasonable to do so.
I turn next to Amendments 462 and 463 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Stevenage. The Government recognise the importance of having a system that can be properly enforced to both deter and tackle the unauthorised placement of furniture. Powers introduced in the Bill enable local authorities to serve notice requiring that businesses remove furniture that has been placed on the pavement without a licence. If this notice is contravened, local authorities can remove the furniture themselves or instruct to have the furniture removed, and can then recover the costs of this and sell the furniture and retain the profits.
It is the Government’s position that the introduction of the powers proposed will lead to appropriate protection of our communities by giving local authorities powers that both work as a deterrent and directly tackle where notices are ignored, ensuring that the licensing system operates appropriately. Highways authorities already have powers in the Highways Act 1980 to tackle obstructions on the highway, including Section 148, which creates an offence of depositing, without lawful authority or excuse, things on the highway that cause interruption to users of the highway.
I turn finally to Amendment 448, 464 and 465 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Stevenage. These amendments seek to introduce requirements for assessments of impacts relating to various aspects to be taken by local authorities, by businesses or by government in advance of the measures being made permanent through the Bill. The Government agree that accessibility is incredibly important, and that our towns and city centres should continue to be accessible for all residents. As I set out earlier, we have made it a requirement—set out in Section 3(5) of the Business and Planning Act 2020—that the local authority must consider the impact of the proposed licence on accessibility of the highway to non-vehicular traffic before granting a pavement licence. As I also mentioned a second ago, we worked closely with the RNIB and Guide Dogs on the guidance that supports this.
We also recognise the importance that these measures will have on the vitality and vibrancy of high streets across the country, and encourage businesses and local authorities to embrace the opportunities that this regime offers while considering the impact of new licences on the community. We do not think it necessary or appropriate to require, through legislation, local authorities to consider to what extent a licence will increase high street footfall for the purpose of regeneration, because this would introduce additional burdens on both businesses—in the form of likely needing to undertake analysis and provide evidence of this—and local authorities in assessing this.
Finally, on Amendment 465, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for raising these important issues, which reflect previously tabled amendments that we have discussed on consultation periods, the introduction of tactile markings and the removal of deemed consent. We do not think it appropriate to require a report to be published on these matters as they have already been actively considered, as I have made clear. I hope these comments are helpful to her as regards the amendments in her name and that, specifically, she will feel able to withdraw her Amendment 448.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for, as ever, a thorough response to the issues that have been raised during this interesting debate. I am grateful to all noble Lords who have participated.
I appreciate the frustrations of Government Whips, but the purpose of your Lordships’ House is to give proper scrutiny to legislation that comes before us. This is a long and complex Bill with diverse issues, many of which go right to the heart of our communities’ concerns, and it is only right and proper that we raise the issues that we know they would want us to probe and explore in this House.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)
My Lords, I rise to argue that Clause 213 should not stand part of the Bill, as it has absolutely no place within this Bill. That is partly because it has nothing to do with levelling up or regeneration, but it is also because it gives the Government the right to interfere in the activities of an independent, non-statutory, standard-setting members’ organisation—indeed, a chartered body.
It is strange that, of all the actions being taken around increasing regulation, the target is a respected, self-regulatory body with an independent standards board. I am mystified as to why, if Ministers really want to help the residential sectors—tenants, owners and leaseholders—they are not implementing the report of the noble Lord, Lord Best, on the regulation of property agents which, after enormous work with great detail, has come up with some extraordinarily useful proposals covering areas of considerable consumer detriment. Much work went into that report and I then chaired a group, in full collaboration with the department, developing codes of conduct covering letting and estate agents as well as managing agents.
Indeed, back in 2018, the then Housing Secretary announced measures to professionalise the estate agent market, driving up standards and bringing an end to rogue managing agents. As he said at that time, more than six out of 10 buyers and sellers experienced stress. Therefore, he promised, estate agents would be required to hold a professional qualification, with the Government undertaking to bring this industry up to
“the same professional standards as conveyancers, solicitors and surveyors”.
At that point, the department was really keen on regulating that group of residential agents to bring them up to the quality of surveyors. What a shame that this Bill does not implement the report of the noble Lord, Lord Best, and the commitment given by the department at that stage, which would bring high standards and proper protections to users of all property agents.
Instead, the Bill proposes a statutory power for the Secretary of State to instigate a review of an independent, member-funded, non-statutory body: any time, any place, with no excuse or cause and no threshold for such an intervention. All this comes with no rationale for the interference in such an independent and professional body, whose standards and enforcements are key to the safety of our built environment as well as to the market valuation of property, which has to be free—like interest rates—of any Treasury interference. So what, one might ask, is behind all of this?
RICS was one of the first professional bodies to split off its member representation role from its regulatory function following the Carsberg review, well before the Law Society and the Bar Council did the same. Since then, RICS and its thousands of members abroad has played a vital role in independent standards setting as well as in the enforcement of those high standards. Across the world, regulators and clients depend on RICS standards of ethics and good practice, as well as RICS technical standards. RICS valuers are recognised and admired worldwide and perform a vital service for a swathe of industries. RICS works with Governments, regulators and international standards setters to adopt common, transparent standards. This fuels the influence of UK professionals and business globally, supporting inward investment. About one-fifth of RICS members work outside the UK, many of them in large, global businesses.
It is, perhaps, for this reason that a firm such as Savills worries about the possible end of true independence of RICS and thus a loss of confidence that it is acting in the public, rather than Ministers’, interests. As James Sparrow, CEO of Savills UK, writes:
“A strong and independent RICS remains key for the well-being and effective operation of the real estate sector ... Any actions which have the effect of undermining RICS or compromising its independence as a free-standing professional institution would … be detrimental. ... RICS plays an important role internationally … influencing the development and standards required of the surveying profession globally. Its independence is fundamental to this”.
Indeed, the UK’s global role could well be at risk if RICS and its standards are seen as being supervised by the Government. Self-regulation via a hived-off independent oversight board, chaired by the redoubtable Dame Janet Paraskeva, gives confidence to consumers that standards will not be lowered to satisfy either RICS members or government requirements. It gives confidence to mortgage lenders that a valuation of a property is robust and a figure that they can rely on in considering the security backing to any loan that they give.
The Earl of Caithness (Con)
My Lords, I support the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, in what she has said. I have put my name to the opposition to this clause standing part. I declare an interest, such as it is, in that I was a chartered surveyor. It took me six years to qualify as one, and I gave up being a chartered surveyor when I was asked to join the Government in 1984. I subsequently gave up my membership of the RICS, because I was not doing that work any more.
I totally agree with what the noble Baroness said about the institute’s independence and reputation, which are hugely important. I found that from personal experience, because I was asked to appear as a specialist witness in a court case. It was my evidence as a professional surveyor that turned the case. Surveyors need to have their independence and a strong reputation to perform their job in the best possible way.
I take a slightly different tack from what the noble Baroness has said. Perhaps I should put it on record that I have not been in contact with the RICS about this. What I say now are entirely my own views; I have not even talked to it, because I thought it was better that I did not.
Ministers have three powers. The first is a statutory power under an Act of Parliament; the second is the law of prerogative, such as Neville Chamberlain used to declare war in 1939; and the third power under which Ministers act is a common-law power, which is applicable not just to Ministers but to every single one of us, and it does not require legislation. Perhaps I could give as an example the ability to buy or sell a building of one’s own without legislation; that is a common-law power.
Clause 213(1) is a classic common-law power. Anybody can set up an inquiry into the RICS—I could, if I had the money, or the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, could. My noble friend the Minister could set up an inquiry into it. While the RICS does not have to co-operate with us—it can if it wants to—we already have that power. It does not need to go into legislation. Clause 213(3) can be done by contractual obligation, while if we did not have subsection (4) it could be judicially reviewed. The point is that an Act of Parliament is to change the law, but this clause does not change any law. It does not give the Minister any new powers or require the RICS to take any action whatever. It is an otiose piece of legislation.
Time and time again, we have been told that any amendment which we put forward has not been necessary because it is covered by existing legislation. Indeed, my noble friend Lord Howe used precisely that argument against my noble friend Lord Holmes of Richmond on one of his amendments with regard to pavements, which we discussed a few minutes ago: it was covered by existing legislation—the 2020 Act, if I remember rightly—which meant that there did not need to be any further legislation.
As the noble Baroness said, the general council of the RICS commissioned the noble Lord, Lord Bichard, to do a review by its own will. He undertook that review within a very short time, and it reported in June 2022. By the end of November 2022, eight out of 36 amendments had already been implemented and the rest were on their way to being so. If the Government acted with a quarter of the speed with which the RICS acted, that would be a revelation and a bonus for this country.
This clause is a dreadful piece of legislation. It has nothing to do with levelling up or regeneration. It is worthy of the Governments of Moscow and Beijing; it is not worthy of a Conservative Government in 2023.
The Earl of Lytton (CB)
My Lords, it is a privilege to be a co-sponsor of this proposal, so ably introduced by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter of Kentish Town, and spoken to by the noble Earl, Lord Caithness. The noble Baroness has far greater knowledge of regulation, which goes back a long time. Especially on the regulations of bodies, that surpasses anything that I could do.
I am a fellow of the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors; I have been a member for 48 years and was at one time chair of one of its expert panels. I am also an RICS-registered valuer. Although I am semi-retired, I still pay a subscription to the RICS. I am governed by its rules and its requirements for continuous professional development, and so on. I must make it absolutely clear that the views I express are my own and are not to be taken as any statement by the RICS on its policy, or as its acquiescence in any way with the conclusions that I draw. Although I have spoken at length with the RICS, my views are essentially my own.
I will give your Lordships a few facts. The RICS has a membership of 130,000, 20% of whom are foreign-based. It has international and national status. It sets standards of technical compliance in areas of valuation, measurement, physical assessment and methodology of appraisals in many areas. It does that within a framework of ethical and competence standards, backed by disciplinary powers over its own membership. Other bodies and sectors have frequently and voluntarily adopted the standards that it sets. It has members who survey the ocean floor and others who auction fine art; such is its range and scope.
Lord Thurlow (CB)
My Lords, I declare my interest as a former chartered surveyor—I was one for some 35 years; I resigned when I left private practice—and my comments now, which will be brief, are entirely my own.
Why do the Government want to interfere with an independent professional body? I do not believe that architects, civil engineers, solicitors, doctors, nurses or any of the other many noble professions have this sword of Damocles hanging above their professional organisations as is proposed here. The noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, and my noble friend Lord Lytton have mentioned the worldwide influence of the RICS. I was slightly involved with it many years ago; it is extensive and has done ground-breaking work across the world in bringing together the numerous different property-related organisations in the advisory field to try to create common standards internationally. This is the stuff of soft power; it has a royal warrant.
I accept that the RICS has had its own internal issues—pretty serious ones—but it instigated robust, independent reviews and accepted all recommendations. Why does His Majesty’s Government want this power? It is inappropriate. As we have heard, the Bill has all the characteristics of a hybrid Bill anyway, so what on earth is this clause doing in the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
My Lords, I start by thanking my noble friend Lady Hayter for her very detailed and clear explanation of the concerns felt by a number of noble Lords about why this clause is in the Bill at all. I thank the noble Earls, Lord Caithness and Lord Lytton, for their very detailed knowledge and perspective from their professional point of view; that was extremely helpful and I think this is a very important debate.
I added my name to the clause stand part notice because we are also extremely concerned by the wording of Clause 213 as currently drafted. As we have heard, it provides a power for the Secretary of State to instigate a review of RICS at any time and with very few limits in terms of scope, rationale or process. At the same time, it fails to set out any related statutory protections for RICS or for the chartered surveying profession more broadly. Our concerns stem from the fact that this seems a very significant step for a Government to take—to actually create powers to instigate reviews of an independent, member-funded institution, which does not itself, as we heard, exercise any statutory powers. Noble Lords have said they are concerned that this could risk creating a perception of RICS’s inability to act independently and in the public interest. As the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, said, it has nothing to do with either levelling up or regeneration and could set a highly unusual precedent for any other royal chartered body in the future.
We have heard about the independent review by the noble Lord, Lord Bichard, and the previous review mentioned by my noble friend. She went into the detail of what the independent reviews have said. Also, recommendation 14 of the report by the noble Lord, Lord Bichard, required an independent review of RICS to take place every five years. My noble friend said that it has agreed to do that even more frequently, every three years, so I do not really understand what the Government’s concerns are. It strikes me that, despite the concerns the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, laid out about recent issues within RICS, it has taken concerns raised extremely seriously, has accepted the recommendations in this report and is amending the RICS charter and by-laws to reflect the recommendations in full, subject to the approval of the Privy Council.
So my first question to the Minister is: why do the Government feel the need to interfere in this process? RICS itself, having accepted the recommendations in the review, is looking to ensure that it is held accountable in a transparent, orderly and appropriate manner, so I genuinely do not understand why the Government feel they need to legislate, as other noble Lords have said. It would be extremely helpful if the Minister could properly explain.
I also found it very concerning to hear from my noble friend Lady Hayter that there do not seem to have been any recent meetings between RICS and the Government. Can the Minister confirm that and explain what meetings have been held to discuss this and when? It does seem quite an extraordinary step. We support either the removal or the amendment of this clause so that it aligns with the wording of recommendation 14 of the review of the noble Lord, Lord Bichard, if it is going to stay in here. Surely the regulation of professions should be overseen by independent governance and decision-making that uphold the public interest and also guard against any risk of improper interference. Can the Minister explain why this clause is in the Bill? Will he also comment on the suggestion of hybridity, because this is extremely concerning?
Earl Howe (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful for the discussions my noble friend Lady Scott and I have had with the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, and the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, prior to this debate. I appreciate that they and others have hesitations and reservations around this clause; however, I hope I can persuade the Committee that those reservations should not be given weight.
The Government consider that Clause 213 should remain in the Bill because retaining the Secretary of State’s power in legislation to initiate reviews demonstrates that the Government are committed to supporting RICS in regaining and retaining its reputation after some very serious public failings in 2018-19. The clause also gives the Secretary of State discretion to set specific matters for the independent reviewer to consider that are connected to its governance and effectiveness. The noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, said that there was no rationale for this. The provision is to ensure that a review could specifically include issues that become a public concern, such as providing leadership to the market for the benefit of consumers, rather than always seeking to satisfy members.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, indicated that she viewed the clause as interfering with an independent, free-standing institution. The noble Earl, Lord Lytton, made a similar point. While the clause clarifies the Secretary of State’s power to initiate a review, it would create no power to intervene in the workings of RICS, so I disagree with the premise that Clause 213 interferes with the independence of RICS. Indeed, the clause is clear in clarifying the independence of any proposed reviewer and, with regard to the review itself, mandates only the remit and a requirement to publish, and not, for instance, how the review is undertaken.
I point out to the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, that the power conferred by the clause is strictly limited. The Secretary of State would be required by the clause to publish the independent reviewer’s report but, as he mentioned, the Government are not legislating to act on the review’s outcomes or the independent reviewer’s report, because we cannot, as he said, pre-empt any findings or recommendations. Should the Government require any legislative powers to enact any of the recommendations from a review, we will need to return to Parliament for permission. Once again, this approach will ensure RICS’s ability to operate independently from government while strengthening its accountability to Parliament. The noble Earl asked whether any report would be made directly to the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities. The answer is no: the report would be independent and the Secretary of State is simply required to publish it.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, said that there would be no reason for the Secretary of State to establish an inquiry under the terms of this clause. RICS is uniquely influential across construction sectors and their links with financial service markets. It is the sole body for bestowing chartered surveyor status in the UK and its reputation took a big hit as a result of the failings of 2018-19, which, given its unique role in these matters, is a very serious issue. We cannot and should not gloss over those failings. Historically, RICS took a very limited view of providing leadership to the market for the public good, being constrained by its internal practices and policies, such as on EWS1 forms, and this contributed to difficulties for leaseholders in selling their flats.
My noble friend Lord Caithness said that the Government do not need this power: he asked what the point was of including the clause. In this clause, we are setting out the scope of any review, and this should act as a reassurance as to the limits of what the Secretary of State is empowered to do. I say again: RICS’s independence of working is not in question. At the same time, the Government are signalling the importance we attach to RICS in protecting consumer interests through its guidance and standards, as well as the regulatory functions it undertakes across the market, improving and managing the built environment and land.
The Earl of Caithness (Con)
My Lords, I regret that my noble friend has done absolutely nothing to reassure me. He said that the reason for the clause was to set out the conditions and parameters of any review. That can be done under common law now; we do not need a piece of legislation. This clause does not alter common law or the powers of the Secretary of State in any way. Can my noble friend tell me in what way it does alter the powers?
Earl Howe (Con)
As I mentioned, the way the clause is phrased should give reassurance to those who feel that there might be a danger of the Government interfering with the operation of RICS. The clause does not permit that.
The Earl of Caithness (Con)
My Lords, that does not answer my question. Could my noble friend answer my question?
Earl Howe (Con)
I believe I have done so. The clause is justified for all the reasons I have mentioned.
Lord Lucas (Con)
My Lords, I am fascinated by the possibility of using this same mechanism on the chartered accountants, of whom I am a fellow and whom government often wishes would conduct themselves otherwise when looking after and examining the health of companies on behalf of shareholders; and on bodies such as psychiatrists’, which are currently adopting some very strange policies that seem to run counter to the national interest. But do we really want to rob these bodies of their independence, in a way that this clause starts us down the road to doing? Or do we want to encourage—and I have nothing, I am glad to say, to do with the role of the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors—these bodies to heal themselves when they are sick, as appears to have happened in this case? There are a lot of bodies that have grown up over the years doing very important work within their segments of British public life. Are we really saying that this is the start of bringing them all under the Government, or are we happy to say that they may go wrong sometimes but what matters is that they sort themselves out and stay independent?
Earl Howe (Con)
My Lords, I would simply encourage my noble friend to read my remarks in Hansard. There is no promise in this clause to the effect that the current or a future Secretary of State will initiate a review, but that there should be a power for them to do so. I would encourage my noble friend to reflect on the justification I gave in the terms that I gave it, which is that we are clear that the independence of RICS in operating as it does is not in doubt.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Earls, Lord Caithness and Lord Lytton, the noble Lords, Lord Thurlow and Lord Lucas, and my noble friend Lady Hayman, for their contributions on what I think is a rather significant and important issue. I also thank the Minister; “nice try” is how I would summarise what he has tried to do. Much more serious than that, though, I think he gave the game away.
I did not talk about EWS1, quite deliberately, at the introduction of this because I thought it would put the Government on the wrong foot. I felt that that was not a debate we should get into. I must declare an interest, as I live in a cladded building, so I was very involved from day one with the issue of cladding. I remember EWS1 and I remember before that. I remember when the threshold was 18 metres, which affected where I live. The Government asked RICS whether it would say a building was safe below, I think, 14 metres. RICS felt it could not, in all seriousness, give that assurance. I, as a consumer and a resident of a tall building, was reassured that a standard setter—a surveying organisation—did not give in to the Government and did not say that a building would be safe when it was not.
I deliberately did not use that at the beginning of this debate because I did not want to start a ding-dong about something in the past that I thought the Government had got wrong at the time. They were trying to put together a package, which was very complicated after Grenfell. There was the matter of how much money would go towards the buildings that would be affected, and that would come out of a £6 billion fund that was not there at the time. I understand the Government were having difficulties, but it is giving the game away that the Minister has mentioned that, because it is a row that happened then.
RICS may have been completely wrong—it could have been absolutely safe. It could have said that all these buildings under 14 metres that are cladded are absolutely safe. RICS could have been absolutely wrong, and the Government could have been right to ask them to sign off the form. I think we were on Advice Note 14 at the time, so we have been through a lot of these. I, as the consumer, would prefer an independent organisation, even if it is wrong, to tell me whether my dwelling house is safe, rather than the Government, who obviously had a vested interest because of the amount of money they were going to put into it. I was not going to raise that issue, because I thought it was going back. I do think this has given a lot away.
The noble Earl, Lord Caithness, has asked why we need this, because the Government can do it anyway. The Minister has said that the Government have no powers to do anything; even if they set up an inquiry and it proved everything, they still cannot do anything. So the only thing it does is give a chill factor, a threat factor. I think it was the noble Lord, Lord Thurlow, who called it the sword of Damocles. We have had this from the Government before; twice, I have had to deal with it. I dealt with it once before I was in this House, when I chaired the Legal Services Consumer Panel. At that stage, the coalition Government tried to make us—the consumer panel and the Legal Services Board itself—put our websites on GOV.UK. That may not sound very serious, but for an independent regulator of lawyers, it was seen as a real threat to the independence of regulating lawyers. We fought the Government off and just refused to do it.
We then had it again during the passage of the Bill on the mutual recognition of professional qualifications, when the noble Lord, Lord Grimstone, was the Minister. The Government were trying to take a power over the regulators to decide whether they should, for example, accept nurses, vets and other professionals as part of a trade deal, so they would have been regulating the recognition of the qualifications of people coming here from another country as part of a trade deal. We saw off the noble Lord, Lord Grimstone, at the time, and the Bill was much changed, as he admits. We wrote into that Bill a clause saying that the regulators must remain independent of government. So, here we have the itchy fingers of government trying to tell independent regulators what to do. The Minister says there is no power to intervene, and so there is no interference—but the threat is a power to intervene.
I am not going to answer all the points that have been made, because I think they speak for themselves. The Government will understand the unease around the Committee about this proposal. I do not think they have made any argument for the need for this. Frankly, if the Government intervened in every organisation that had gone a bit awry, we would have them looking at the CBI at the moment, which is another important institution in civic society. It is going through much more of a meltdown than anything poor old RICS did, but I assume that the Government are not going to try to interfere in any chartered institute or anything else, or just an independent organisation that has had some troubles.
I do not think the Government have answered how this clause is going to promote the levelling-up agenda. Indeed, if there is any loss of confidence in surveyors, it will do exactly the opposite. The Minister has failed to give assurances that it will not be used as a big stick to make RICS do their bidding in the future.
I am delighted that the Minister has reported, finally, that there will be a meeting between his oppo in the Commons and the chief executive of RICS. It is a bit late, frankly, when we already have a clause in a Bill—I am not going to push it to a vote now, so within a minute or two it will be in the Bill—to have a meeting. We need this self-regulation; that is the right way for independent regulation. I think the Committee and the Minister will not be surprised by me saying that I will return with an amendment to delete the clause on Report.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the amendment in the Minister’s name inserting new subsection (6A) into Clause 214.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, Amendments 467B and 467C address consequential amendments to the marine licensing cost recovery powers. Clause 214 gives the Secretary of State fee-charging powers for post-consent marine licence monitoring, variations and transfers. We are now adding a consequential amendment to clarify the position where there is an overlap between the general post-consent marine licensing fees and oil and gas marine licensing fees for the same activity, to provide that the oil and gas fees will apply in those circumstances.
Amendments 467D, 467E, 504GK, 504M, 509D and 513 will support the Government’s response to the eventual recommendations from the Grenfell Tower inquiry. The Building Safety Act 2022 set up the building safety regulator and its functions within the Health and Safety Executive. We continue to support the Health and Safety Executive in delivering these new functions, and I take this opportunity to thank it for its work over the last two years. To future-proof the building safety regulator and its critical work and protect the other important work of the Health and Safety Executive, the Government consider it essential that we have the option to move the building safety regulator to an existing or new body in the future. This will allow the Government to respond quickly, if needed, to the Grenfell Tower inquiry, which we expect to be published at the end of this year. I recognise that there will be concerns about how broad these powers are. To provide reassurance, the powers are affirmative and include a 24-month sunset provision, which can be extended only if needed and only after Parliament’s consideration.
In speaking to Amendment 467F, which introduces a new clause after Clause 214, I will speak also to Amendments 509C, 504N and 514. This new clause addresses a concern of schools that occupy premises held on special trusts for the purposes of those schools. Local authorities have a discretionary power to provide premises for academies, but there is currently no requirement to transfer the land, as exists for maintained schools. Instead, the local authority tends to offer the academy trust company a lease. If trustees hold particular premises specifically for a school and the school moves to other premises, they cannot carry out the purpose of their charity if nothing else is done, as their premises end up without a school.
The new clause ensures more consistent treatment across the system, where the local authority must transfer the new premises it is providing to the charitable school trustees. In exchange, the trustees must pay the local authority the proceeds of sale from the existing premises—or, if the local authority agrees, the trustees can simply transfer the existing premises to it.
I turn to Amendment 504HA. In the light of the successful passage of the Historic Environment (Wales) Bill through the Senedd Cymru, the Government are giving further consideration to the approach to the power under paragraph 7(2) of the new schedule to be inserted after Schedule 15 by government Amendment 412B. As such, I do not intend to move Amendment 504HA at this time.
Lastly, I turn to Amendments 504K and 504L. The United Kingdom faces constant threats to its national security, as Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has made us all too aware. These amendments will ensure that Ministers can require information about properties that may be used to threaten national security, wherever they are in the United Kingdom.
I beg to move.
Lord Stunell (LD)
My Lords, I want to comment on and ask some questions about the amendments in this string that relate to the building safety regulator: Amendments 467D, 467E, 504GK, 504M, 509D and 513. The Minister somewhat skated over their significance; I have some serious questions to ask. It is worth pointing out that these amendments tabled by the Government are so out of scope that one of the amendments is seeking to extend the Bill’s scope so that they can be included.
Briefly, these amendments would give the Secretary of State powers to scrap the building safety regime set up by the Building Safety Act, which was passed just 12 months ago. That regime, with a new building safety regulator under the auspices of the Health and Safety Executive, was a specific and central recommendation of the Hackitt review, which the Government accepted in full at the time and which had the sustained support of your Lordships’ House at every stage of the Bill’s passage. There was criticism of that Bill as it went through this House but it centred on the inadequate compensation provisions and the uncertainty created by the delay in bringing the regulatory regime fully into force, which does not actually happen until later this year. No concerns were expressed about the regulatory mechanism being set up.
The 18-month delay in the coming into force of that regulator was said by the Government at the time to be necessary to allow time for the regulator to set up shop and because of the need for the construction industry to train up qualified personnel and then deliver, in accordance with the regulator’s requirements. Bringing the building regulation system under the Health and Safety Executive was warmly welcomed on all sides. Again, the criticism was that its reach was too limited and should not be confined to high-rise and high-risk buildings; it was said that the regulator’s remit should be expanded. No voice was raised that this was the wrong model, still less that it was unfit for the essential job of upgrading building standards drastically and rapidly following the Grenfell Tower fire.
Last year, the Government resisted the expansion of the regulator’s role on the grounds that it had to learn to walk before it started to run. Since the regulator was appointed, multiple workstreams and training programmes have begun throughout the construction industry in what is undoubtedly one of the most challenging catch-up operations that it has ever faced. The industry has faced up to it because of the unflinching, no-holds-barred approach of the regulator—strongly supported, of course, because of the certainty that primary legislation gives it—means that it had no choice. There is no risk—or, in some quarters of the construction industry, no hope—of the regulator going soft over time because it is there through primary legislation with a very strong remit.
The Earl of Lytton (CB)
My Lords, it was with concern that I read the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee’s 31st report in relation to the very matter that the noble Lord, Lord Stunell, with his usual precision and excellence, has outlined: namely, the question of the building safety regulator.
It cannot be very often that a committee comes up with statements such as:
“We consider that the Supplementary Memorandum provides wholly inadequate justification for giving the Secretary of State such a broad Henry VIII power to—”
and the third bullet point under that is,
“determine what functions the regulator will have”.
It could have added “and modify them at will”, because that is in fact what the situation is. It goes on to say,
“we consider that Amendment 467D contains an inappropriate delegation of power that should not form part of the Bill”.
It could not be clearer.
The noble Lord, Lord Stunell, set about providing a whole series of logical and technical explanations to this. However, there is another explanation, and this is my take on the back story of what is really going on here. Throughout the process, post the Grenfell tragedy, the Government have sought to manage risk and control what might otherwise be seen as unacceptable political and economic fallout. Ever since their own consolidated advice note of January 2020, admitting in so many words that many of the issues found at Grenfell Tower could affect other buildings of any height, they have sought to delimit the ongoing and subsequent damage that that caused.
This spawned a reference to the department’s technical advisers and a resultant independent expert’s statement of July 2021. That sought to identify and justify that buildings under 11 metres were of an inherently lower risk. This in turn triggered an approach to RICS to amend its EWS1 scheme and its advice to mortgage valuers. We know the outcome of that was greeted with significant ministerial disapproval.
Clause 213, on at least one level—I am not going back over all that—could be seen as an attempt to silence or modify the views of independent professionals to align with the Secretary of State’s thinking or to cancel concepts of commercial risk assessment. Amendment 467D, for its part, could be interpreted as seeking to make sure that risk assessment and remediation via the building safety regulator is toned down. This would at least fit with differing standards under the Government’s pledged remediation contract, of which we have heard a great deal in recent months, and a fair interpretation of the Building Safety Act 2022 standards.
I leave it to your Lordships to consider whether these are, as I suspect, connected in some discrete or perhaps not so discrete policy aimed at managing risk and potentially seeking to outrun market sentiment. All I say is that Governments will never succeed in outrunning market sentiment; to suppose that that might happen is tantamount to saying that you can walk on water. From that point of view, I do not get it.
I remind the Committee, first, that low-rise does not equate to acceptably low-risk. The independent expert’s statement came 11 months after a disastrous fire at four-storey Richmond House in the London Borough of Merton, which was apparently not seen as fit to mention. Secondly, whatever the various machinations, blame-shifting, smoke and mirrors or other activities, it is government policy that has resulted in hundreds of thousands of home owners, many of whom have written to me, being unable to mortgage or sell their properties and facing enormous recurring charges for insurance and other measures. If the Financial Times is to be believed, leasehold flats are now falling seriously out of favour in the marketplace. This is just when increasing densities, and indeed more housebuilding and better use of scarce urban sites, are called for. It is a matter of government policy that we should build more homes.
The genie is out of the bottle and is not going back in. Around 15 months ago, I said in the context of the Building Safety Bill, as it was then, that the Government needed to get ahead of the curve in dealing with this. They have not done so; they are labouring in the wake of events. This is not good enough. It makes the building safety regulator substantially the sole control of the department, as opposed to being an independent body like the Health and Safety Executive. I just add that it was changing the health and safety regime a few years ago that radically changed injuries and fatalities on construction sites. Therefore, it has form and a track record. This approach to the building safety regulator is totally unacceptable, as far as I am concerned.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow what I have to say are two very important speeches. They were from two expert contributors and I have nothing to add except to say that they have certainly convinced me that there is grave cause for concern here.
I want to speak about another government amendment, Amendment 467F, about requiring local authorities to transfer land to academy trusts. We have to look at this in the context of the huge privatisation of public land—2 million hectares, 10% of the entire British land mass—over the past few decades. In 2018 prices, that was estimated to be worth £400 billion. It is also in the context of the Government in the past month having apparently won—certainly in the High Court anyway—a legal tussle with Annington Homes, owned by the private equity firm Terra Firma, over the privatisation of the Ministry of Defence housing portfolio, which the National Audit Office estimated had left the Government between £2 billion and £4 billion worse off.
The amendment is quite long and quite technical and I have done my best to grind my way through to make some sense of it. What we are seeing here is a swap. What is the Government’s assessment of the risk of this swap and of the lack of clarity that might occur in terms of local democracy and local understanding?
I have a couple of other things to ask about this amendment. Proposed new paragraph 9A(7) talks about the local authority bearing the costs of this swap. Why? There is also the underlying concern of many local residents around the country and many local authorities that potentially an essential resource disappears from public space for the interests of private profit. One of the case studies for this was the Durand Academy, a particularly infamous case in Lambeth where the Department for Education terminated an academy’s funding agreement and it maintained that it still owned the land on the school site, and accommodation and a leisure centre had been built there.
Speaking as a former school governor, I am well aware of the complications that have arisen from school buildings that are also mixed with private accommodation, private accommodation that is leasehold and private accommodation owned by the council. Very complex situations are being created so I am really seeking reassurance from the Minister that this amendment is not going to add further risks in terms of the transfer of lands to academy trusts.
The Lord Bishop of Chelmsford
My Lords, following the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, I rise to speak in favour of government Amendment 467F and at the outset say that my right reverend friend the Bishop of Durham, who leads for the Church of England on education, very much regrets that he cannot be in his place.
We are grateful to the Department for Education and the department for levelling up for working together and with us in the Church to fulfil the Government’s commitment to bringing forward legislation to safeguard statutory protections relating to issues arising from the occupation of land by Church academies. The decision not to progress the Schools Bill might have meant that this uncontroversial but important change to legislation would have been lost, so it is very good to have the amendment in this Bill, which will maintain the important legacy of educational endowments that provide land for the purposes of a school with a religious character. This is important for all schools with a religious character, not just Church of England schools, and it will remove a significant barrier on the journey to academisation for Church schools, which is vital in the Government’s policy aims, as such schools make up one-third of the entire school sector and seek to serve local communities up and down the country.
As boards of education implement their strategies for the development of the family of Church schools in each diocese, they need to have confidence to do so in a way that ensures the security of that provision for the future. That still requires further work on governance arrangements which we are developing in partnership with the DfE through the use of the Church model articles, but it also requires legislation with regard to the way land is held on separate charitable trusts for use by academy companies. This amendment provides that legislation and captures clearly the issue as described in the fact sheet that accompanied the now withdrawn Schools Bill.
We therefore welcome this amendment to preserve trustees’ existing land interests once schools whose sites are held on educational endowments become academies. This amendment is a vital step towards ensuring that school sites continue to be used for original charitable purposes, enabling schools with a religious character to engage with the changing educational landscape. It will give greater certainty to the sector, the Catholic Education Service, the Church of England Education Office and our dioceses that together serve nearly 2 million children today and are at the heart of communities across our villages, towns and cities. It ensures that the distinctive Christian ethos of Church schools will be protected in the long term by reassuring the sector that on conversion to an academy, the nature and purpose of the trust deed of the school site will continue to be preserved if the academy needs to relocate. We therefore wholeheartedly support this amendment.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
My Lords, I concur with and support entirely the comments made by my noble friend Lord Stunell and the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, about the amendments in this miscellany transferring the building safety regulator from the Health and Safety Executive. I hope the Minister will be able to give us a very clear reason why this change is being made in the Bill—indeed, why it is being made at all.
I want to focus my comments on Amendment 467F. It is a good job I am speaking after the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chelmsford, because it was not at all clear to me that that is what it is about. That is the problem with this group of government amendments; as I said earlier, a miscellany of issues has been put together because this is a levelling-up Bill and we can throw anything in. My guess was that it came from the Schools Bill, but reading the amendment without any explanation, it was not clear at all, so I have a few questions to put to the Minister.
First, can she assure us that the comments of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chelmsford are accurate and this is entirely about schools with religious foundations, because that is not clear? In fact, I have a series of questions so that I can understand what the Government are seeking to achieve. Having been a school governor for very many years, I know that it is important that land use for schools is clear—whether they are part of a trust or a local authority—because otherwise future changes are very difficult. I speak from the heart in that regard.
This amendment puts forward four conditions that must occur. The heading of the new paragraph is “Compulsory transfer to trustees”, which is what first made me think that this perhaps needs more questioning. The idea is that a local authority has some premises, and an academy or trust has some, and they can do a swap. As this is to be a compulsory swap, what local consultation will there be and will it be a democratic decision? The implication is that it will not be a democratic decision of the local authority; it will be a compulsory land—or premises—swap. That is one issue on which I would like an answer. The second is, what if the premises to be exchanged are in a different location? If a school becomes located in a different part of the borough, what will that mean for the provision of school places within that council area? Would planning consent be required for schools to be relocated? Who will pay local authorities’ costs for the transfer? What if one set of premises was of higher value than the one that a school is taking over? How does that work? There is a series of questions to be answered. The Government had directed local authorities to sell their assets to help fund local services. What if the set of premises had been earmarked for sale for the benefit of the local authority? How does that work?
The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, asked similar questions to mine, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chelmsford explained that it is all about religious foundation schools. That is not clear in the Bill, and there is no Explanatory Memorandum. Apparently, there was one in respect of the Schools Bill; well, that is not very helpful to us.
Having just resigned as a governor of a voluntary controlled school which had a lot of land issues when it became an academy because of land ownerships and trusts, I really do want answers to this series of questions. As far as I am concerned, the building safety regulator and the compulsory transfer of land to trustees are two major issues that should not have been put in this Bill. They are nothing to do with levelling up.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
My Lords, I start by commenting on the amendments on building safety. I will not repeat the points that other noble Lords have made. The noble Lord, Lord Stunell, went thoroughly into the reasons why there are concerns about these amendments, as did the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, so there is no need for me to repeat the detail; the concerns have been raised extremely clearly.
I want to ask just one thing. This provision seeks to transfer powers to the Health and Safety Executive, so that it will become the building safety regulator. When we left EU REACH, the chemicals regulation system, we raised a lot of concerns about the Government’s proposal that the HSE become the regulator for the UK REACH. The concerns were about the skills and resource levels of the HSE in taking on these new responsibilities. If the Government now intend to give the HSE yet another very large responsibility, how is the department being set up to manage all these increased responsibilities that the Government keep putting on its shoulders?
I was quite interested that the noble Lord, Lord Stunell, said that one of the amendments extended the scope of the Bill to allow the others in. I congratulate the Government on finding anything that was out of scope of the Bill—it is quite an achievement.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
I thank noble Lords for that interesting debate on the government amendments. The noble Lord, Lord Stunell, asked why this measure is necessary. The Health and Safety Executive has a strong identity and a regulatory background focusing on safety. That is why it was well positioned in 2020 to deliver the building safety regulator quickly, and why the Building Safety Act specified that the Health and Safety Executive—which, I say to the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, comes under the DWP—would be that regulator.
However, it is clear from the evidence given to the Grenfell Tower inquiry that the Government must provide stronger stewardship across the wider built environment, addressing safety alongside issues such as housing standards and the intergenerational impact of new buildings. That may require longer-term reform and could impact on building-related regulatory functions that are currently spread across multiple regulators and arm’s-length bodies. The Government must continue to consider the best vehicle to deliver that intent.
That does not affect the ambitious timeline for the building safety regulator. That is important work. We expect the regime to be fully operational by April 2024 and are determined not to impact on that programme. I say again that we are grateful to the Health and Safety Executive for all that it has done to bring this regime to life.
Lord Stunell (LD)
I ask the Minister to consider the timeline a little more carefully. If the current regulator is not going to be in full flow until April next year, and if the Grenfell inquiry’s final report comes—as she suggested it would—some time next year, are the Government confident that they can maintain a viable building safety regulatory operation using the existing structure based on the HSE, properly staffed and properly led, through that transition period? Is she further satisfied that a two-year window following the publication of the Grenfell Tower final report is sufficient to undertake the very wide-ranging review that she has just been outlining? Would it not make more sense to pause that process and, once the Grenfell Tower inquiry’s report is received, take a measured look at all those together and produce a further Bill in good time, with proper consideration by your Lordships?
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
No, my Lords, because we are not actually putting anything in place in this Bill. We are giving the Secretary of State the opportunity to do so if the Grenfell Tower inquiry comes out with something that it requires. I have no doubt that the building safety regulator will continue to work as it has always worked—with professionalism —to deliver that, and I am not hearing any issues from the building safety regulator.
The noble Lord, Lord Stunell, asked why these measures were not included in the 2022 Act. The Government recognised the need for major reform of the building safety regime to be delivered as quickly as possible, following the tragedy of Grenfell. The priority is now delivering this new regime effectively while remaining open to going further and faster wherever any evidence makes it clear that we should do so. We are just making sure that we are ready if the inquiry decides that we need to.
The noble Lord, Lord Stunell, mentioned transition, and of course it is important that, if there is to be another system, there is a good transition. The regulations will be taken through the affirmative procedure, as set out in these amendments, in close consultation with the HSE, and we will work with Parliament to ensure that they are delivered in a seamless and exemplary manner.
Lord Stunell (LD)
I am sorry to trespass on the time of the Committee, but can the Minister give a clear understanding that the existing complete independence of the building safety regulator will be maintained when the Government come up with their new alternative? I remind her that considerable time was spent in this Chamber safeguarding the professional independence of the regulator and freeing it from the possibility of interference, by either the Government or other bodies.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
What I can assure the noble Lord of is that, if we do have to go down this route, both Houses of Parliament will have a say in that. I am sure that we will have long debates on it. The noble Lord also asked about accountability to the House. As I have said, the powers will be made under the affirmative procedure to ensure that the House is given full and proper opportunity to scrutinise any proposals if they come in due course.
The noble Earl, Lord Lytton, brought up the concerns raised by the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee in its 31st report of this Session. I reassure noble Lords that the powers that we are seeking to take in Amendment 467D are intended to allow us to change only the home of the building safety regulator, as created by the Building Safety Act. There is no intention or plan for fundamental policy change in that.
Moving on, the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, asked whether Amendment 467F was entirely about schools with religious foundations. There are also non-religious schools that have these charitable site trustees. We are not talking about academy trusts here: we are talking just about the charitable site trustees. They are mainly religious, but there are others that are not.
The noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, also asked whether the trust required proceeds from the original premises to fund—no, I am sorry, this is something that I asked. It might be interesting to the noble Baroness that, if the trust required proceeds from the original premises to fund new schools, I was concerned about that. It has been made clear to me that capital funds come from local authorities where there is a need to provide sufficient school places, so I hope that will also put the noble Baroness’s mind at rest.
I was asked where the local authority fits into this. It will be in no worse a position than if the same schools had relocated as maintained schools or as foundation and voluntary schools, where the local authority would be obliged to provide the new site and transfer it to the trustees. Land would be held for the purposes of the academy, with appropriate protections for public value, including that the land could ultimately return to the authority if in future it is no longer needed for a school, so the local authority is protected on that.
The noble Baroness also asked whether it is a compulsory swap and what local consultation there would be for the local authority on the swap. It would be a compulsory swap only if the trustees are being asked to surrender their interest in the current site in exchange. We would expect such arrangements to occur only after the usual processes for relocating a school, which would include consultation and a consideration of the impact of moving places from one site to the other. All those issues would have been looked at.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, asked whether—I cannot read this.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
It was about giving the HSE some other responsibility.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
We are not placing further responsibilities on to the Health and Safety Executive. The intention is purely to allow the Government to move building safety functions from the HSE to another body in future, if that is needed. That is the important thing.
I think that I have answered all the questions but I will look in Hansard. If I have not, I will certainly write to noble Lords.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook
“(6A) In section 110A (fees: oil and gas activities for which marine licence needed), in subsection (4)—(a) after “67,” insert “72(3), 72(7) or 72A(2)(a) or (b),”;(b) after “67(2)” insert “or 72A(4)”;(c) after “67(5)” insert “or 72A(6)”.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment makes amendments to section 110A of the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009 (“the 2009 Act”) to clarify the interaction between the different fee charging powers under the 2009 Act in consequence of the expansion of the Secretary of State’s fee charging powers under the 2009 Act by Clause 214.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook
“Power to replace Health and Safety Executive as building safety regulator(1) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision for a body (“the new regulator”) to replace the Health and Safety Executive as the building safety regulator for the purposes of the Building Safety Act 2022.(2) The new regulator may be—(a) a body established by the regulations, or(b) another body specified in the regulations.(3) The Secretary of State may by regulations make further provision in connection with subsection (1), including provision—(a) conferring new functions on, or modifying existing functions of, the new regulator;(b) establishing or modifying the constitutional arrangements of the new regulator;(c) establishing or modifying the funding arrangements of the new regulator;(d) conferring a power on the Secretary of State to give directions to the new regulator.(4) Regulations under this section may amend, repeal or revoke any provision made by or under an Act.(5) No regulations may be made under this section after—(a) the end of the period of 24 months beginning with the day on which the final report of the Grenfell Tower Inquiry is presented to Parliament in accordance with section 26 of the Inquiries Act 2005, or(b) such later time as may be specified or described by the Secretary of State in regulations made before the end of that period. (6) In this section—“constitutional arrangements” , in relation to the new regulator, include matters relating to—(a) the name and status of the body;(b) the chair, members and staff of the body (including qualifications and procedures for appointment and functions);(c) the body’s powers to employ staff;(d) remuneration, allowances and pensions for the body’s members and staff;(e) governing procedures and arrangements (including the role and membership of committees and sub-committees);(f) reports and accounts (including audit);“funding arrangements” , in relation to the new regulator, include provision for it to be funded by a Minister of the Crown and the extent of such funding;“Grenfell Tower Inquiry” means the public inquiry into the fire at Grenfell Tower on 14 June 2017 as set up on 15 August 2017 for the purposes of section 5 of the Inquiries Act 2005;“Minister of the Crown” has the same meaning as in the Ministers of the Crown Act 1975.”Member's explanatory statement
This new Clause provides a power for the Secretary of State to replace the Health and Safety Executive as the building safety regulator and a power to make further provision in connection with such regulations. The regulations must be made before the end of 24 months from the day the final report of the Grenfell Tower Inquiry is presented to Parliament, or such later time as may be specified in regulations made before the end of that period.
“Transfer schemes in connection with regulations under section (Power to replace Health and Safety Executive as building safety regulator)(1) The Secretary of State may, in connection with regulations under section (Power to replace Health and Safety Executive as building safety regulator)(1), make one or more schemes for the transfer of property, rights and liabilities (“transfer schemes”).(2) A transfer scheme in connection with regulations under section (Power to replace Health and Safety Executive as building safety regulator)(1) may provide for the transfer of property, rights or liabilities to the new regulator from the Health and Safety Executive.(3) The things that may be transferred under a transfer scheme include—(a) property, rights and liabilities that could not otherwise be transferred;(b) property acquired, and rights and liabilities arising, after the making of the scheme;(c) criminal liabilities.(4) A transfer scheme may—(a) create rights, or impose liabilities, in relation to property or rights transferred;(b) make provision about the continuing effect of things done by, on behalf of or in relation to the Health and Safety Executive in respect of anything transferred;(c) make provision about the continuation of things (including legal proceedings) in the process of being done by, on behalf of or in relation to the Health and Safety Executive in respect of anything transferred;(d) make provision for references to the Health and Safety Executive in an instrument or other document in respect of anything transferred to be treated as references to the new regulator;(e) make provision for the shared ownership or use of property; (f) make provision which is the same as or similar to the TUPE regulations;(g) make other consequential, supplementary, incidental or transitional provision.(5) A transfer scheme may provide—(a) for modifications by agreement;(b) for modifications to have effect from the date when the original scheme came into effect.(6) In subsection (4)(f), “the TUPE regulations” means the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006 (S.I. 2006/246).(7) For the purposes of this section—(a) references to rights and liabilities include rights and liabilities relating to a contract of employment;(b) references to the transfer of property include the grant of a lease.(8) For the purposes of subsection (7)(a)—(a) an individual who holds employment in the civil service of the State is to be treated as employed by virtue of a contract of employment, and(b) the terms of the individual’s employment in the civil service of the State are to be treated as constituting the terms of the contract of employment.(9) In this section “new regulator” has the meaning given in section (Power to replace Health and Safety Executive as building safety regulator)(1).”Member's explanatory statement
This Clause provides the Secretary of State with a power to make schemes for the transfer of property, rights or liabilities from the Health and Safety Executive to the new body replacing them as the building safety regulator. See the new Clause inserted by the amendment in the Minister’s name after Clause 214 (Power to replace the Health and Safety Executive as building safety regulator).
“Transfer of land by local authorities(1) In Schedule 1 to the Academies Act 2010 (Academies: land), after paragraph 9 insert—“Compulsory transfer to trustees
9A (1) This paragraph applies where Conditions A to D are met.(2) Condition A is that a local authority make premises (“the new premises”) available to be used by an Academy school.(3) Condition B is that the new premises are made available as an alternative to premises (“the existing premises”) which have previously been used by—(a) the Academy school, or(b) a maintained school, Academy or sixth form college that has been or is to be discontinued and that the Academy school replaces.(4) Condition C is that the existing premises are held on trust by a person or persons (“the trustees”) for the purposes of (as the case may be)—(a) the Academy school, or(b) the discontinued maintained school, Academy or sixth form college.(5) Condition D is that the trustees—(a) having sold the existing premises, pay to the local authority a sum that—(i) is just, having regard to the value of the local authority’s interest in the new premises, but (ii) does not exceed the total of the proceeds of sale and any interest that has accrued to the trustees on those proceeds, or(b) if the local authority agree to accept the trustees’ interest in the existing premises, transfer that interest to the local authority.(6) The local authority must transfer their interest in the new premises to the trustees to be held by them on trust for the purposes of the Academy school.(7) The local authority must pay to the trustees to whom the transfer is made their reasonable costs in connection with the transfer.(8) Any question relating to the duty in sub-paragraph (6) may, if not agreed by the local authority and the trustees, be referred by the local authority or the trustees to the adjudicator (see section 25 of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998).(9) The questions referred to in sub-paragraph (8) include in particular—(a) the extent of the premises an interest in which is to be transferred by the local authority,(b) whether a sum proposed by any person to be paid by the trustees as specified in sub-paragraph (5)(a) is just having regard to the value of the local authority’s interest in the new premises,(c) the amount of any interest that has accrued to the trustees on proceeds of sale as referred to in sub-paragraph (5)(a)(ii), and(d) the identity of the trustees to or by whom a payment or transfer should be made.(10) The local authority and the trustees respectively must provide to the adjudicator any information the adjudicator may request from them for the purpose of exercising the functions the adjudicator has by virtue of this paragraph.(11) Any sum paid to the local authority as referred to in sub-paragraph (5)(a) is to be treated for the purposes of section 14 of the School Sites Act 1841 (which relates to the sale or exchange of land held on trust for the purposes of a school) as a sum applied in the purchase of a site for the school, Academy or sixth form college referred to in sub-paragraph (3)(a) or (b).(12) In this paragraph, references to premises do not include playing fields.”(2) In section 25 of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998 (adjudicators), in subsection (2), after “2006” insert “or paragraph 9A of Schedule 1 to the Academies Act 2010”.(3) In Schedule 5 to that Act (adjudicators), in paragraph 5(1), after “2006” insert “or paragraph 9A of Schedule 1 to the Academies Act 2010”.(4) In Part 2 of Schedule 22 to that Act (maintained schools: disposals on discontinuance), in paragraph 5, after sub-paragraph (1A) insert—“(1B) This paragraph also does not apply where the school mentioned in sub-paragraph (1)(a) is (with or without other schools) to be replaced by an Academy school in circumstances where paragraph 9A(1) of Schedule 1 to the Academies Act 2010 applies.””Member's explanatory statement
This amendment inserts a new Clause amending Schedule 1 to the Academies Act 2010. Schedule 1 of that Act makes provision for the transfer of land in relation to academies. The new paragraph sets out the circumstances where a local authority is required to transfer their interest in new premises for an academy school to the site trustees who already hold existing premises. The Clause also makes consequential amendments.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook
“Open access mapping(1) The Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 is amended as follows.(2) After section 9 (maps in conclusive form) insert—“9A Review of maps (England)(1) This section applies where a map has been issued in conclusive form for the purposes of this Part in respect of any area in England.(2) Natural England must before 1 January 2031, to the extent that they consider appropriate, carry out a review of whether—(a) any land shown on that map as open country or registered common land is open country or registered common land at the time of the review, and(b) any land in that area which is not so shown ought to be so shown.(3) Regulations may require Natural England to carry out subsequent reviews, in respect of such matters and in respect of such circumstances as may be prescribed.”(3) In section 10 (review of maps)—(a) at the end of the heading insert “(Wales)”;(b) in subsection (1), after “area” insert “in Wales”;(c) in subsection (2), for paragraphs (a) and (b) substitute—“(a) in the case of the first review, not more than ten years after the issue of the map in conclusive form, and(b) in the case of subsequent reviews, not more than fifteen years after the previous review.”(4) In section 11 (regulations relating to maps)—(a) in subsection (2), after paragraph (j) insert—“(ja) the procedure to be followed on a review under section 9A (including provision as to the period within which, and the manner in which, representations may be made to Natural England in relation to such a review),”;(b) after subsection (3) insert—“(3A) Regulations made by virtue of subsection (2)(ja) may make provision—(a) for appeals in relation to a review, including by making provision applying, or corresponding to, any provision of, or made under, Schedule 1A to the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949 (coastal access reports) (with or without modifications);(b) enabling Natural England to make a determination in preparing a map on a review that any boundary of an area of open country is to be treated as coinciding with a particular physical feature (whether the effect is to include other land as open country or to exclude part of an area of open country).””Member's explanatory statement
This amendment inserts a new provision into the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 to make provision about when Natural England must carry out reviews following the issue of a map of any area in England in conclusive form, and the matters that such a review must cover. The amendment also makes provision for regulations to set out the procedure on a review and makes consequential amendments.
Lord Moylan
“Duty to consult on the licensing of hackney carriages and private hire vehicles(1) The Secretary of State must consult such persons as the Secretary of State considers appropriate about the merits of amending Part 2 of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976 (hackney carriages and private hire vehicles) such that only upper-tier authorities in England, outside of Greater London and the City of Plymouth, would become permitted to grant licences to—(a) hackney carriages,(b) drivers of hackney carriages,(c) private hire vehicles,(d) drivers of private hire vehicles, or(e) operators of private hire vehicles.(2) In this section—“upper-tier authority” means—(a) a unitary authority, or(b) a combined authority;“unitary authority” has the meaning given in regulation 2(3) of the Local Government Changes for England Regulations 1994 (S.I. 1994/867);“combined authority” means a combined authority established under section 103 of the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009.”Member's explanatory statement
This new Clause would require the Secretary of State to consult within a reasonable timeframe on the proposal of the Government within its Levelling Up White Paper of February 2022 "...to explore transferring control of taxi and private hire vehicle licensing to both combined authorities and upper-tier authorities”.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, Amendment 472 stands in my name. On another occasion, I am sure that this amendment would attract a wide-ranging debate, but I will understand if there are few speakers this evening and I will be satisfied with a short answer from my noble friend, as I intend to explain. This amendment is to probe where His Majesty’s Government are on a proposal in the levelling up White Paper that the licensing of private hire vehicles and taxis be carried out by upper-tier or combined authorities, rather than by district authorities as now.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, for setting out the case for his amendment. However, I am afraid it still looks to me as if he is trying to fix something that is not broken and in doing so is going in the opposite direction of travel to a Bill for devolution.
Taxi licensing in two-tier areas is operated efficiently and effectively and enables local authorities to meet local needs. It also enables local taxi businesses to call into their local authority and have direct contact with it. The enforcement is also done very effectively. The proposal in the levelling up White Paper to transfer taxi licensing powers might be relevant to mayoral combined authorities, but I cannot see the case to justify it for shire counties. Current arrangements for licensing in shire counties work well and do not need to be disturbed. There are more important issues that would benefit shire counties than taking up time on such a consultation; for example, allowing councils to set licensing and planning fees or reforming funding for regeneration so that bidding is not necessary. I could go on, but it is late so I will not.
Even in London, it is not possible to buy an integrated ticket covering tubes, trains, buses and taxis. There will never be an integration of ticketing for obvious reasons of affordability; the cost of taxis and private hire vehicles make them the most expensive form of transport per mile. The White Paper presents no evidence that decisions on licensing prevent the integration of those transport modes into local transport plans. County councils as highways authorities are competent at providing taxi ranks at transport hubs and other appropriate locations in town centres; they do not need taxi licensing powers to achieve that integration.
District councils are not likely to ban taxis from operating half an hour either side of a train arrival, to try to stop private hire vehicles from picking up at or near bus stops, or to say that taxis cannot run at 2 am on Saturday or Sunday mornings to pick up people leaving nightclubs. So could we have more clarity on why Whitehall thinks that there is an integration problem?
A government Minister in the other place has talked of the inconsistency between licensing authorities because there are so many of them. Reducing the number of licensing authorities to 80, as that Minister mentioned, shows the fallacy of the suggestion. One could argue that inconsistencies are local authorities meeting the needs of their communities in relation to taxi operation. However, even if there are problems of inconsistency in policy or practice, the way to address them is by legislating for consistency.
In shire counties, it is likely that the review would be unwelcome and unnecessary. It would remove local decision-making that is sensitive to local requirements and policies and based on local knowledge. It is the opposite of devolution; it would not be an improvement to see decisions on licensing being taken remotely, with no guarantee that they will be people elected by the districts concerned or that they would have any knowledge of the district.
Earl Howe (Con)
My Lords, the amendment in the name of my noble friend Lord Moylan would require the Secretary of State to consult on the proposal in the levelling up White Paper
“to explore transferring control of taxi and private hire vehicle licensing to both combined authorities and upper-tier authorities”.
I reassure my noble friend that the Department for Transport plans to engage stakeholders on the proposal set out in the levelling up White Paper to explore transferring the responsibility for licensing taxis and private hire vehicles to upper-tier and combined authorities. The aim is to do so during the course of this year. Clearly, as my noble friend will understand, it is essential that the proposal is considered in detail before any decisions are taken about whether to proceed with the change. I am sure that the issues highlighted by the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, can be picked up in that engagement process. My colleagues at the Department for Transport reassure me that they are currently working on this, so I hope that that, in turn, reassures my noble friend Lord Moylan sufficiently to enable him to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, I was somewhat taken aback by the vehemence of the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Stevenage, who was speaking almost as if I were suggesting that this power be transferred from local authority to some remote Whitehall bureaucracy and administered by statutory instrument in a way displeasing to your Lordships’ House. We are both committed to local government; it is simply a question of which tier of local government, where more than one exists, is the appropriate authority for doing this.
None the less, I am delighted to hear what my noble friend the Minister said; he offered me the assurances I wanted to hear. The discussions, consultations and engagement will proceed, and he has given a timeline. I have achieved as much as I had hoped to achieve in the course of this debate, and I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock
“Regional mutual banks(1) The Secretary of State must report to Parliament, within 3 months of the date of the passing of this Act, on existing barriers to the establishment of regional mutual banks in the United Kingdom.(2) The report must consider—(a) current capital adequacy requirements,(b) other limiting features of the current regime,(c) regional mutual bank structures in jurisdictions outside the United Kingdom and the adoption and adaptation to the United Kingdom of best practice, and(d) the use of dormant assets as seed capital for the establishment of such regional mutual banks.”
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
My Lords in the absence of the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, I shall move this amendment on his behalf.
One particular problem that has dogged us for decades is the lack of funding, including sufficient credit facilities, to our critical SME community. We know that SMEs are considered to be the backbone of the economy, the largest private employer, the large companies of tomorrow and so on, but despite this, the funds have never really flowed through from our traditional financial services sector to support SME activity and rightful ambition. The British Business Bank put it perfectly in its March 2022 report:
“Historically, SMEs are underserved by the finance sector, and often don't have the same characteristics that banks and other lenders like about large corporations. This includes lengthy credit histories, detailed audits and financial accounts, and a large portfolio of assets for collateral on debts. For start-ups, whose business models are unproven and yet to be deemed creditworthy, these problems are even more pronounced”.
This is not a universal problem experienced by SMEs around the world. It is done differently elsewhere. In Germany, for example, in 2021 SME funding was more than €600 billion; in the UK in the same period, it was just £57 billion. Even when all the necessary adjustments are applied, it is not a great picture, nor a growth picture. It is hardly surprising then that we are seeing a post-Covid trend of SMEs moving away from the traditional financial services sector. Again, the British Business Bank has noted:
“After the end of the coronavirus loans facility in March 2021, an interesting trend to emerge was that SMEs began to move away from large banks for their finance needs. Instead, challenger and specialist banks made up 51% of lending in 2021, compared with 32% in 2020”.
When it comes to the regional dimension, it just gets worse for SMEs, with those in London receiving over 70% of equity investment, with just 30% for the rest of the UK. This is obviously not great news for the economy, but it also results in lower levels of community and differing levels of well-being. How can we level up this country if we do not urgently address this issue of the extreme and unacceptable regional funding differentials for our SMEs? Although a perennial problem, it is raised now because there are two important pieces of legislation that provide an opportunity to do something about it: the Financial Services and Markets Bill, which has been going through your Lordships’ House; and the levelling-up Bill which is before us. I think a critical need for regional mutual banks is an essential part of the solution.
The clear intention of the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, is threefold: first, to dramatically increase financial inclusion for our SME businesses; secondly, to develop an effective patient capital ecosystem across the UK; thirdly, to reignite the positive reality of friendly societies and mutuals. The amendment would force the consideration of current capital adequacy requirements. Are they fit for what we want across all potential financial service models?
It is also essential that such potential sources of regional finance are seen very much against the backdrop of digital transformation. Such banks need a physical presence in all our communities, with business bankers ready to support customers at each growth stage. Benefits must also encompass full digital functionality, alongside the physical. If got right, such banks could bring to bear another element of the financial and digital inclusion story, with the financial inclusion potentially driving the digital.
None of this is about lowering thresholds for SME finance. If we support SMEs by increasing the range and number of regional mutual banks, then the banks will do what they do best and SMEs will thrive, as will the communities and the towns and cities in which they are based. Through this single intervention, one of the fundamental planks on which levelling up will come will have been effectively laid.
As we build our way out of Covid, there could barely be a better moment to consider the benefits of regional mutual banks, built in our great communities with close customer connections and, crucially, with an interest and a stake in all those future economic, social, individual and organisational stories of success. We need regional flows of finance to enable and empower more, and more regionally diverse, SMEs. Regional mutual banks can be an essential part of delivering this, and the Government should look very carefully at the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, and consider including it within their levelling-up brief. I beg to move.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
My Lords, this country used to have many regional mutual banks. One still remains, in name anyway: the Yorkshire Bank. That is a testimony, I think, to its importance within the great county of Yorkshire. What has been a sad reflection of what has happened in the country in terms of banking is that it is now dominated by the five great big banking consortiums. That is partly why the presence of so-called high street banks in our towns and small towns across the country are disappearing, to the detriment of many people who live there and certainly many businesses there.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, Amendment 473, tabled by my noble friend Lord Holmes of Richmond, and ably moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, would require the Secretary of State to report to Parliament—within three months of the day on which this Bill is passed—on the existing barriers to the establishment of regional mutual banks in the United Kingdom. I want to make it clear that the Government are supportive of the choice provided by mutual institutions in financial services. They recognise the contribution that these member-owned, democratically controlled institutions make to the local communities they serve and to the wider economy.
However, regional mutual banks are still in the process of establishing themselves here in the United Kingdom, with some now in the process of obtaining their banking licences. It is, therefore, too early to report on the current regime and any possible limitations of this for regional mutual banks. I know that my noble friend Lord Holmes was interested in how regional mutual banks have performed in other jurisdictions and how we could use these examples to consider the UK’s own capital adequacy requirements. In this instance, international comparisons may not be the most helpful to make. The UK is inherently a different jurisdiction, with different legislative and regulatory frameworks from those in the US, Europe or elsewhere.
Abroad, some regional mutual banks have been in existence for centuries and have been able to build up their capital base through retained earnings. In the UK, regional mutual banks are not yet established and are continuing to progress within the UK’s legislative framework. However, the Treasury is continuing to engage with the mutuals sector and other industry members to assess how the Government can best support the growth of mutuals going forward. I hope that this provides sufficient reassurance for the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock—on behalf of my noble friend Lord Holmes of Richmond—to feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
I thank the Minister very much for her response. I suddenly thought that I probably should have declared my interests as a member of the Co-operative Party and as someone who believes very strongly in the benefits of the mutual model. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, will read Hansard very carefully. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Morris of Bolton) (Con)
We now come to Amendment 476 from Lady Hayman of Ullock. Or perhaps it is the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor.
Lord Lucas (Con)
Perhaps the noble Baronesses have the old version of the Marshalled List, which listed Amendment 476 several groups later.
Amendment 476
“Letterbox height: England(1) In this section “local authority” means—(a) a district council in England;(b) a county council in England for an area for which there is no district council;(c) a London borough council;(d) the Common Council of the City of London.(2) A local authority within subsection (1)(a) or (b) may, by order, direct that dwellings may not include a letterbox which is less than 70cm from the ground.”Member’s explanatory statement
This would allow local authorities in England to direct that dwellings may not include a letterbox which is less than 70cm from the ground.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I apologise; it is late. Turning to our Amendment 476, I appreciate that many Members of your Lordships’ House will not have encountered the vagaries of the British letterbox—
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
There we go; noble Lords are on my side already. For those of us who get involved in the sharp end of politics, this is a cry from the heart. When you are facing a delivery round of several hundred doors, there are a number of hazards you will encounter: the spring-loaded letterbox designed to slam down on your fingers; the infamous brushes that make it impossible to push through anything other than the most robust card; and the vertical letterbox that is not at all compatible with efficient delivery. Worst of all, always at the end of your round, when your back is aching and your hands are battered by the aforementioned finger bashers, is the dreaded ground-level letterbox.
In a shameless attempt to try to curry favour not just with political activists of all parties but with our beloved posties who have to put up with this every day, we would dearly love to give local authorities a power to specify for new properties that there is an optimum height for letterboxes.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
I cannot resist being able to speak about letterboxes. To be honest, letterbox height is important. Even those of us who are seasoned leaflet deliverers do not have the same daily meeting with letterboxes of various heights as the posties do.
From the point of view of the people who are doing their daily rounds delivering mail, we ought to have letterboxes not just at the right height but of the right width, horizontal not vertical, and where you can push thin letters through without their being crumpled up. The hard brushes and spring-loaded letterboxes should be condemned to oblivion, in my view.
Just as important is the number of Royal Mail deliverers who find, when they put their hand through a letterbox to deliver a letter, that there is a dog at the other end that takes a snap at their fingers. When people in my ward help with delivery, we give them a ruler to push through. I can show you the bite marks on the ruler. Dogs are behind those letterboxes and therefore there ought to be safeguards at the other side of the letterboxes for those who are delivering.
I had to go to one house in Yorkshire that said on the door, “Beware of the cat”. When you tried to deliver a leaflet, a paw came out, with claws out ready to strike if you were not quick enough. Beware of cats in Yorkshire, and beware of dogs everywhere.
Although we are making light of this, it is important that it is addressed: that we get letterboxes at a height where posties do not have to break their backs to deliver Royal Mail. Get rid of those horrible hard brushes—there is no need for any of that, and let us get the height right. That will be to everybody’s benefit.
Lord Lucas (Con)
My Lords, I support everything the noble Baroness just said. From long experience of canvassing and getting bloody knuckles as you try to withdraw your hand from the letterbox but the spring bites them, shortly before the dog’s teeth just miss your retreating hand, I think there would be support across the House and general congratulations if the Government were able to do something along these lines, but I suspect it should not require retrofitting. Chewing up people’s front doors would just be too expensive, but any new front door should certainly not have any of these devices on it.
Lord Ravensdale (CB)
My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment 504GG in my name, and note that I am co-chair of the Midlands Engine All-Party Parliamentary Group. I thank my supporters, particularly the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, for her help in refining and improving the amendment, and the noble Lord, Lord Mawson, and the noble Baroness, Lady Verma, for their support.
I have spoken before in Committee about high streets, and will try not to repeat much of what I have previously said. I do not need to speak about the importance of regenerating high streets in the regions—I know that the Government get its vital importance for levelling up. Their plans for enhanced compulsory purchase powers and high street rental auctions could form part of the solution here.
However, I have spoken to many local stakeholders about these new powers, and the consensus is that they will not do much to move the dial. They are not commensurate with the scale of the change that needs to happen if we are to look toward a future where high streets in our regional cities are bustling with activity, are pleasant environments where people want to come and spend time, and are integrated with transport systems to allow easy transit for people to spend time there.
It has been estimated that the cost of each high street rental auction could be at least £6,000. In a time of strain on local authorities’ finances, they are unlikely to be used. In any case, high street rental auctions and compulsory purchase powers have been set up to address the supply of high street units, but supply is not the issue here. Anyone looking to set up on high streets in my home city of Derby is spoilt for choice. Most landlords would not choose to have an empty property. The issue here is demand, not supply. The Government really need to look much more closely at how they can incentivise businesses to set up on high streets. This critical point should be addressed in the Bill and will move the dial.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I shall finish speaking to our amendments in this group, if that is okay; apologies for the confusion.
Our amendments in this group reflect what we see as a series of missed opportunities in what should be a Bill that will facilitate the regeneration that is needed across the country, both to re-energise our economy and high streets and to harness the opportunities of science and technology, a new green economy and a wave of sustainable housebuilding. We also want to ensure that the regeneration element of this Levelling-Up and Regeneration Bill is front and centre, not just for the major cities of the UK but for the towns, new towns, coastal communities, rural communities and market towns that feel left behind by a combination of the austerity measures imposed by government and the intense focus on a few of our major cities.
I was pleased to see in an article in Saturday’s Financial Times that the approach taken in my hometown, Stevenage, is being flagged up in an industry report, More than Stores, which says that town centres looking to reinvent themselves must blend their retail spaces with mixed residential housing, flexible office space, leisure and entertainment options, healthcare and historical heritage, which can turn high streets into lived-in spaces. The need to diversify, with more inventive uses for town centres, comes from a growing shift to online shopping. The Centre for Retail Research says that 17,000 shops closed in the UK in 2022, so our town centres must become community, visitor and business hubs, or they will not succeed.
Our Amendment 487 seeks to understand how areas are expected to have access to equal levels of infrastructure by setting a minimal level of infrastructure provision across the country. It is difficult to see how any genuine levelling up can take place when there is such different provision of medical, education, training, public transport and leisure infrastructure, and green space. Understanding the infrastructure deficit that an area is experiencing could also help us focus on what is needed from the infrastructure levy as that develops.
We do not believe that signage for local areas should be subject to national control. Therefore, our Amendment 489 would enable local authorities to provide the kind of signage that meets their local needs. Markets provide a much-needed boost to local economies. At their best, they enable new businesses to start up with relatively low costs, encouraging diversity in trading, improving footfall for town centres and high streets, and giving a much-needed outlet for growers and makers to market and sell their products. Amendment 490, tabled by my noble friend Lady Hayman, probes what support is available for town markets and whether the Government see these important contributors to our local economies as part of the wider regeneration picture.
The Bill seems to be silent on some of the key aspects of regeneration. The elements of the most successful regeneration projects must be captured and shared. Our Amendment 491 probes whether the Government will review how the introduction of homes in town centres and high streets and the regeneration of empty spaces to provide flexible working space can form key aspects of regeneration, and then bring forward further legislation to enable that.
Amendments 493, 494 and 495, respectively on market towns, coastal communities and new towns, ask Ministers to act quickly, within one year of the Bill being enacted, to gather information and best practice and to publish strategies for their regeneration. The issues faced by these differing communities are well documented. For example, because the infrastructure of first-generation new towns was built within a relatively short timescale, it is all deteriorating at the same time rather than incrementally, as would be the case for a town that has developed in a more iterative way. Our coastal communities have suffered a loss of their key industries, in some cases exacerbated by Brexit. As their infrastructure deteriorates, they find themselves in a spiral of decline. We believe there is a role for government in supporting regeneration for these left-behind communities.
Amendment 496, tabled by my noble friend Lady Hayman, reflects the concerns expressed about air quality in many of the previous discussions in Committee. In view of the well-documented health implications of poor air quality, surely it is time we had a national ambition in this respect. We could then begin to implement the planning changes that may be needed to achieve the targets.
I referred earlier to the aspiration we must have to ensure that the economy is geared to decarbonising our economy, and, as we do so, to create the jobs and skills needed for these new energies and to generate the sustainable energy we need for this country’s future. Amendment 497, tabled by my noble friend Lady Hayman, requires the Government to produce a green prosperity plan in order to be clear about how a new green economy can contribute to levelling up and regeneration.
Amendment 501 again reflects many previous discussions in Committee about the importance of the link between nature and levelling up. We are asking the Government to assess the extent to which they will improve access to nature for deprived communities, give duties to local authorities in respect of the recovery of nature and require them to set nature restoration targets. The Institute for Government has been critical of the process of awarding levelling up funds, saying:
“Those areas winning bids will no doubt welcome the money, and the projects funded will improve some local areas. But as a UK-wide policy the Levelling Up Fund lacks the scale or focus to move the dial on the substantial and persistent gaps in regional economic performance that the government has pledged to address through its levelling up agenda. Nor is the model of awarding money to local projects based on central government competitions an effective one”.
The local government community has also been very concerned about the operation and cost of the levelling up fund and its effectiveness in driving the aims of the White Paper. Amendment 502 in the name of my noble friend Lady Hayman would require the Government to carry out a review of this fund and what it has achieved so far in terms of levelling up. Our Amendment 504GE would require an equalities analysis of the spending that has been undertaken in relation to the levelling up fund so far, to determine how equalities analysis and evidence has informed spending decisions.
We have seen some welcome relocation of government departments around the regions and nations of the UK, but we question whether this is going fast enough or far enough. The lessons learned regarding flexible and virtual working from the Covid pandemic surely mean that now is the time for a radical redistribution of civil service jobs, still largely concentrated in central London, to different locations. Our Amendment 503 asks for a thoroughgoing review to be conducted by Ministers to maximise the impact of civil service jobs in areas where this would contribute to levelling up.
High quality, reliable and affordable child care is a key factor in ensuring that parents can take their full role in the economy and in supporting their family. Our Amendment 504A probes whether removing the clauses in the Childcare Act 2006 that preclude councils from running their own childcare provision would help to make sure that they can contribute to providing adequate childcare in their area.
We are concerned about reports that the Treasury has withdrawn co-operation on capital projects with the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, and that this will result in potentially catastrophic consequences for the implementation of the levelling up provisions in the Bill. Our Amendment 504GD probes whether this matter is under active management by the Government and whether the Secretary of State has powers to instigate capital projects that will be essential for levelling up.
We believe a real boost could be provided to town centre regeneration by the introduction of town centre investment zones, so my noble friend Lady Hayman is pleased to be a signatory to Amendment 504GG in the name of the noble Lords, Lord Ravensdale and Lord Mawson, and the noble Baroness, Lady Verma. The conditions set out in subsection (3) of this amendment are the proven elements of a successful regeneration and we believe they should be a precondition for the designation of a TCIZ: a clear long-term vision for the investment zone; a strategy for bringing together local initiatives and council services; existing or historic town centre features within the designated area; a clear collaboration between local residents and businesses to undertake planning for the TCIZ; and the presence of a master plan, business neighbourhood plan or town centre area action plan. For those areas achieving designation as a TCIZ, there should be powers to discount business rates in the area designated. This amendment also includes an important clause to require the Secretary of State to ensure that local authorities will not suffer any net financial loss as a result of such regulations.
Amendment 504GJH in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, requires government to set up a register of schools and hospitals in serious disrepair. We have already seen terrible examples, such as an A&E department held up by steel support bars as medical staff have to carry out their life-saving work weaving in and out between them. The promises, unfulfilled so far, of 40 new hospitals must ring very hollow to the staff working in those conditions. Too many of our schools operate using temporary buildings that are inefficient and expensive in energy terms, and far from ideal in the learning environment they offer. Thinking back to the days of the innovative and forward-thinking Building Schools for the Future programme, one of its drivers was to ensure that the buildings in which young people learned also helped to improve their self-esteem and aspirations for the future.
I am sorry to have taken some time over that, but it is important that the regeneration aspects of the Bill take equal prominence with all its other aspects.
Lord Shipley (LD)
My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, is absolutely right about the importance of the amendments on regeneration in this group. I want to bring together two of them that I think are very important. The noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, refers in Amendment 504GG to town centre investment zones. That is a highly original and very important suggestion, so I hope the Minister gives it government support.
The other is Amendment 503 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, which is about Civil Service redistribution. It calls for a review into whether redistributing Civil Service jobs to different locations throughout the UK will support implementation of the Bill. That seems an important outcome that the Government should assess.
I suggest that, when Civil Service jobs are redistributed, they should be redistributed to town centres and locations close to high streets. We had a long debate earlier about the importance of investing in high streets, and here is a classic example of how the Government can use public money to bring jobs closer to where those employees will then shop. The Government have an active travel plan at the centre of their transport thinking. If they were to apply that rule to the relocation of Civil Service jobs, they would not relocate any Civil Service jobs to business parks out of the centres of our towns and cities. In other words, if there are proposals from those undertaking town centre investment zones and those in Whitehall who are redistributing jobs out of London to elsewhere in the UK, ensuring that they help generate jobs in high streets and town centres seems a very helpful way of proceeding.
This group contains a number of suggestions for regeneration. I just hope that the Government see the opportunity we have here and ensure that, when they redistribute Civil Service jobs, they do so in existing town centres and high streets.
Lord Mawson (CB)
My Lords, I support my noble friend Lord Ravensdale’s Amendment 504GG, which is practical and puts some real drive into our town centres.
I want to quote a colleague of mine from the north-west of England about her town centre, the fragmentation that she feels is going on and the opportunity being missed. She said:
“When I look at the 7”
connecting levelling-up schemes,
“what I feel is missing is the coherent and comprehensive consideration of the Old Town as a ‘place’. One ‘place’. A place where people live and have their businesses, not just somewhere people stop by to solely pop into the new health and education hub for an X-ray, or the new Buddhist temple for meditation or the new youth and arts provision or the upgraded theatre to watch a play. What I fear may happen is some lovely new buildings going up in amongst some really run down streets, which will surely only be made to look even worse. I get that the money available isn’t an endless pot. I get that a number of the properties have private landlords, but what I didn’t get is the approach and ambition of aiming to elevate the place as a whole. Many of the shops are vacant and the Council must be taking empty business rates from the landlords. I wonder if there is a strategy to bring those landlords into the debate about”
reconnecting the town,
“so that the 7 schemes aren’t just 7 pieces of a bigger jigsaw where”
the real opportunity
“has been lost!”
As I say, this amendment puts real drive and economic practicality into our town centres. I work a lot across the north of England and see a lot of fragmentation. Individual little schemes will not make a difference. There need to be real practical drivers, and what my noble friend Lord Ravensdale is suggesting is possibly one of them.
Baroness Warwick of Undercliffe (Lab)
My Lords, I speak in support of Amendment 491 in the name of my noble friend Lady Taylor of Stevenage. Currently, most government funding for affordable housing focuses on net additionality of new homes. This is much needed but it can lead to a loss of development potential and a lack of investment in the physical quality of existing communities. Without housing-specific regeneration funding streams, regeneration is virtually impossible to fund in lower-value areas, where there is little scope for cross subsidy from market scaling.
Last week, Homes England published its strategic plan, emphasising a renewed focus on regeneration. It was welcome to see this plan recognise the key role that housing associations should play in place-making, as well as the importance of sustainability in new communities. However, there is a lack of clarity about whether this would be accompanied by new regeneration funding or a flexibility around the use of AHP funds to deliver regeneration. This amendment, which also seeks clarity over the Government’s regeneration proposals, would be a step in the right direction. At present, there is a lack of strategic direction in the Government’s plans to deliver housing-led regeneration, yet regeneration is crucial if the Government are serious about delivering their economic and skills agenda while also helping to deliver quality and sustainable affordable homes across the country.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
I hope noble Lords will bear with me because there was some confusion over the position of this group in the list. Some of us had an earlier list, where it appeared much later.
I have tabled Amendment 504GJH, about the state of schools and hospitals. At the heart of levelling up is the need to provide good-quality education to young people across the country and that means good-quality buildings in which children can go to school. Where schools are in disrepair and cannot be used appropriately, children are at a disadvantage, particularly, say, in secondary education with science blocks that are out of date so that children will not be able to do modern science experiments.
The quality of school buildings in this country is very important and a department report from December 2022 highlighted the critical level of disrepair in many of our school buildings across the country. This prompted me to lay this amendment to this part of the Bill. The annual report said that officials have raised the risk level of school buildings collapsing to “very likely” after an increase in serious structural issues being reported, especially in blocks built in the post-war years, 1945 to 1970.
The type of structure used has led to the quite rapid deterioration of those buildings. I said earlier that I was a school governor for a number of years. The school had a science block built in the early 1970s that was condemned for these very reasons, so I know how accurate this is.
If we are talking about levelling up and regeneration, at its heart should be public services, school buildings and the quality of the education delivered within them. It is school buildings that I am pointing to today. The report said that the risk level for school buildings had been escalated, as I said, from “critical” to “very likely”.
The difficulty is that, because so many school buildings were built in the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s with this sort of metal structure, there is a huge call on government funding. It is called a light frame system, I think; it is a steel structure anyway. Every one of us will have buildings like that where we live. I want this Bill to focus on doing something about school buildings and hospitals that we know about. The Government have committed to 40 new hospitals—five more have just been added—because they are falling down. That is not right. We are talking about regeneration and levelling up. Having school buildings and hospitals collapsing shows the level of investment that will be needed if we are genuinely going to try to level up across this country.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, Amendment 476, proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, looks to give a minimum height for letterboxes. It is important to ensure that doors in homes include letterboxes at a height that does not cause injury, risk or inconvenience. We have researched the safety and accessibility of letterbox heights to establish the evidence with which to amend existing statutory guidance applicable in England. The Government are committed to reviewing their building regulations statutory guidance and any references to third-party guidance on the position of letterboxes. We intend to include the recommended height for letterboxes in statutory guidance.
I turn to Amendment 487 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Stevenage. Clause 124 and Schedule 11 to the Bill introduce the infrastructure levy in England. The new infrastructure levy will aim to capture land value uplift at a higher level than the current system of developer contributions, meaning that there will be a greater contribution from developers towards the type of infrastructure to which the noble Baroness referred. Under new Section 204Q in Schedule 11, local authorities will be required to produce infrastructure delivery strategies. These strategies will set out how they intend to spend their levy proceeds. In preparing these strategies, local authorities will be expected to engage with the relevant infrastructure providers to understand what infrastructure will be needed to support new development in their areas. In this way, local authorities will be able to take a more strategic view of the infrastructure that will be required to support development in their areas.
On Amendments 489, 490, 491, 493, 494 and 495, in the names of the noble Baronesses, Lady Taylor of Stevenage and Lady Hayman of Ullock, the Government agree that regeneration is important in our new towns, coastal towns and market towns and recognise the contribution that markets can make to the vibrancy and diversity of our high streets, which is essential to levelling up the country. In this legislation, we are committed to going further in supporting places to tackle blight and to revive our high streets within these areas. The legislation builds on a far-reaching existing support package for high streets and town centres, including £3.6 billion investment in the towns fund, £4.8 billion investment in the levelling-up fund and £2.6 billion in the shared prosperity fund, along with support from the high streets task force.
On Amendment 496 tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, this Government have recently set ambitious new targets for air quality through the Environment Act 2021. These will drive action to reduce PM2.5 where concentrations are highest—often within our busiest towns and cities—reducing disparities as well as reducing average exposure across the country. The Environment Act 2021 established a framework for setting these and any future environmental targets. There is already a comprehensive legal framework governing air pollution, which works in a coherent and complementary way with established national emissions ceilings and concentration targets for a wide range of air pollutants from a variety of sources.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for her full reply. I do not intend to go through all the aspects again; I spoke for long enough earlier on, and it is very late.
I thank noble Lords for their support on letterboxes. I think this is the first time while I have been working on the Bill that the Government have accepted a proposal that we have put forward, for which I will be eternally grateful. I am sure that many of our colleagues across the party-political spectrum, not to mention all those lovely people who deliver our post every day, will be delighted with that response from the Government.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, for his thoughtful amendment, which we also put our name to, and his key points about how we should manage the regeneration of our town centres. That should be much more front and centre of the Bill than it is. I hope the Government will think about that, and about how we ensure that we put in place the right environment, and the right steps, to encourage that vital regeneration.
I am grateful to my noble friend Lady Warwick for mentioning the key role that affordable housing needs to play in relation to regeneration. We have had many debates in Committee on affordable housing and what it can do, but we simply will not have levelling up unless people have decent places to live. The current definition of affordable housing is unlikely to deliver that. Again, I hope that we will make some progress on that as part of the Bill.
The noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, talked about public services being at the heart of levelling up. The buildings in which those public services are delivered are really key. If a child is going into a temporary building for their education, that does nothing for their aspirations or feelings of self-esteem, so that amendment is absolutely key.
I am grateful to the Minister for recognising our amendments on market towns, coastal communities and new towns. Yes, there has been some funding through the levelling up fund but of course those communities have been set in competition with one another for that fund, so some of them get funding and some do not. All those communities need some support.
On the Minister’s comments on the green prosperity plan amendment, I fear that the net-zero nirvana which she talked about is not quite as close as she indicated it might be. In the levelling up fund, there are some conditions around net zero but a lot of that is to do with walking and cycling. The really key issues around skills, training and energy generation have not been reached, so far, in the way that we would want to see levelling up affecting them. There is a way to go with that yet. That said, in view of the late hour, I will withdraw the amendment.
“Devolution Bill(1) Within 120 days of the passing of this Act, a Minister of the Crown must publish draft legislation titled the Devolution Bill.(2) The Bill must include provisions for CCAs to request further powers for the purposes of supporting local economic growth, rebalancing the economy and equalising living standards across the United Kingdom. (3) The powers may relate to, but are not limited to—(a) housing;(b) energy;(c) childcare;(d) buses;(e) trains;(f) skills, training and employment.(4) The Bill must also include provisions for a new framework of cooperation between CCAs and the Government based on mutual respect.”Member's explanatory statement
This would ensure a Minister publishes draft legislation for a Devolution Bill.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, the hope for this Bill was that it would be a genuine step towards devolution—the kind of radical power shift that is needed to empower local communities to re-energise our economy, right across the UK, and reshape our public services so that they work equally effectively wherever you live because they are flexible enough to meet local needs. Instead, in too many aspects the Bill is centralising, with government having to give a sign-off to new structures, the introduction of centralised NDMPs and the mysterious office for place, and the imposition of an infrastructure levy, with its inherent risk that the Treasury may see it as a funding pot from which to fund national infrastructure.
The Bill also contains a presumption that areas and regions of the UK will get the funding they need to move forward only if they meet the Government’s model of what is needed. This may very well exacerbate the inequalities that the Bill attempts to address. Surely those operating at local level are more likely to know what is needed for their area. Instead of addressing the power imbalance between the nations and regions of the UK, the Bill attempts to face in too many directions at once. It includes a planning Bill, a local government structures Bill, an environment Bill and so many other projects and programmes, some with fairly tenuous links to levelling up and regeneration, as we have heard today. It has so much hanging from it that it has become a bit of a Christmas tree Bill.
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
My Lords, I will add a very brief footnote to the speech we have just heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor. Amendment 477 asks for a devolution Bill. In a sense that takes us back to the beginning.
In September 2019, at my party conference, the then Chancellor announced that there would be a White Paper on English devolution. The Queen’s Speech in 2019 said that the Government would publish a White Paper on
“unleashing regional potential in England”.
The following year the then Minister, Simon Clarke, said in answer to a Parliamentary Written Question on 9 July that
“our English Devolution and Local Recovery White Paper will set out our plans for expanding devolution”.
It was hoped to publish that in autumn 2020.
After that, the line went dead. In 2021, it was announced that the plans for strengthening local accountable leadership would be included in the levelling up White Paper—so what was initially going to be about devolution morphed into being about levelling up. There is inevitable tension between devolution, on the one hand, and levelling up, on the other. Devolution is about pushing decisions down to the local level; levelling up is about ironing out the differences between regions, which, inevitably, means more central control. This dilemma has gone all the way through the Bill, and indeed through the White Paper—it was not the White Paper on devolution, it was the White Paper on levelling up. There are some powerful words in the foreword by the then Prime Minister:
“We’ll usher in a revolution in local democracy”.
But we have not seen that.
To take a very small example, I proposed a very modest amendment that would enable local planning authorities to recover the costs of running the planning department—something that at the moment is set nationally. Far from ushering in new local democracy, that decision has to rest in Whitehall. Instead of pushing spending down to the local level and letting local people get on with it, we have all the pots people have to bid for: the levelling up fund, the pothole action fund—which, I think, has now been added to that list—the future high street fund and the towns fund. The thing about all those funds is that the final decision is taken centrally, not locally. So the question I pose to my noble friend is: when it comes to devolution, is this it? Is this all we are going to get?
We are approaching the end of a Parliament, and there may not be time for fresh thinking, but I agree with the thrust of what the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, said: we are overcentralised and need to push decisions down locally. To do that, we need a buoyant source of local revenue, which local government does not have at the moment. When I looked at Amendment 477, the word “devolution” caught my eye. I felt that somebody ought to draw attention to the tension between levelling up, on the one hand, and devolution on the other. To my mind, there is too much about levelling up but not nearly enough about devolution. I suspect that, at some point, whoever is in control in the next Parliament will have to come back to devolution.
Lord Shipley (LD)
My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Young, for reminding us how we got to where we are. He was absolutely right on every single point he made. This is terribly important, and I am very grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Stevenage, for giving us the amendment. If I have one criticism, it is that I am not sure we are yet at a Bill stage. Although it says “draft legislation” in subsection (1) of the proposed new clause—I understand that—I personally favour a royal commission or something that would actually look at the nature of local government and central government powers.
The noble Lord, Lord Young, has rightly identified the difficulty of devolving and at the same time levelling up, which, as he said, requires a greater element of centralised control. I have said several times over the course of this Bill, and before, that you cannot run England out of London; with 56 million people, we are steadily learning that. One of the reasons we are having these constant changes in the Government’s intentions for Bills is that they do not know either what they want to do—so, in the end, the Civil Service carries on and Ministers carry on trying to move forward.
There are elements in the Bill which are very important in assisting us down the road of greater devolution, and they lie in the combined county authorities. The more we have combined county authorities—much though I do not like the centralisation which can result, because they do not have, for example, a Greater London assembly; they do not have a structure such as that to underpin them—the more we will have a move away from Whitehall.
I do not want to say any more about that; I welcome what the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, has proposed in this amendment. I think we should note what the noble Lord, Lord Young, said about the overall situation that we are in, but I hope that the Government and the Minister will see the importance of trying to bring all this together, because inevitably we are going to come back to this on Report anyway, as we look at the first parts of the Bill that, in Committee, we debated many weeks ago. I welcome the amendment and I hope the Government will see that there would be benefit in moving us forward, not just with structures like the combined counties but actually with real devolution of real things.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, this amendment, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Stevenage, seeks to place an obligation on a Minister of the Crown to publish draft legislation for a devolution Bill within 120 days of this Bill receiving Royal Assent. We support the principle behind this amendment—that combined county authorities can request further powers which would enable activity to help drive economic growth and support levelling up.
In fact, we have already gone further than this in the devolution offer set out in the levelling up White Paper. This sets out a clear menu of options for places in England that wish to unlock the benefits of devolution, whether that is moving towards a London-style transport system to connect people to opportunity, improving local skills provision or being able to act more flexibly and innovatively to respond to local need. Any area, including those considering a combined county authority, is welcome to come forward and ask government to confer local authority and public authority functions as part of devolution deal negotiations. The levelling up White Paper has confirmed that the devolution framework is not a minimum offer. These asks are typically made as part of devolution deal negotiations.
We recognise that our existing mayors are already playing a powerful role in driving local economic growth and levelling up. That is why the Government plan to deepen the devolution settlements of the most mature institutions. The White Paper committed to trailblaze deeper devolution deals with the Greater Manchester and West Midlands combined authorities. These agreements were announced on 15 March 2023 and include many areas which will support these regions to drive growth and prosperity, including on skills, transport, housing and net zero, alongside single funding settlements and stronger accountability focused on outcomes.
These deals will act a blueprint for other areas with mature institutions to follow. This will include combined county authorities, once established. Ultimately, our aim is to achieve the local leadership levelling-up mission: that, by 2030, all parts of England that want one will have a devolution deal with powers at or approaching the highest level of devolution and a simplified, long-term funding settlement.
I say to my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham that, actually, devolution is what we want to deliver the local leadership that is required to level up this country. Devolution is part of the levelling up in the Bill, along with many other things to enable the levelling up of the United Kingdom. As such, I hope the noble Baroness agrees that this amendment is unnecessary and feels she can withdraw it.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to noble Lords for participating in the debate and to the Minister for her response. The noble Lord, Lord Young, was absolutely spot-on to point to the tension between devolution and levelling up. All the way through our discussions on the Bill, we have felt that tension; we kept coming back to it, because there is an essential tension there. He mentioned the number of funding streams—planning fees, bidding fees, pothole action funds, the towns fund—which are all funds that local areas have to bid for, and they are not a buoyant source of local revenue. They are not renewable: if you want more, you have to go back to government and ask for more. What we actually need are those local revenue-generating sources that would enable that economic regeneration in our own areas. The noble Lord, Lord Shipley, suggested that this might need some sort of a commission to run to in order to demonstrate what you need to do to shift this.
Baroness Hayman
“Solar panel requirements for new homes and buildingsThe Secretary of State must, within the period of six months beginning on the day this Act is passed, exercise the power under section 1 of the Building Act 1984 (power to make building regulations) to make building regulations, including appropriate exemptions, for the purpose of requiring that all new homes and buildings built in England on or after 1 April 2025 must have solar panels installed.”Member's explanatory statement
This new Clause would require new homes and buildings in England from 1 April 2025 to have solar panels.
Baroness Hayman (CB)
My Lords, since it is a long time since I last contributed in this Committee, I start by declaring my interest as co-chair of Peers for the Planet. Amendment 478 has cross-party support, and I am grateful to all noble Lords who signed it. Alongside Amendment 504GJE, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, the amendment recognises the enormous potential of maximising the UK’s solar capacity, not only in terms of energy production but also in terms of that levelling-up agenda to which we have devoted so many hours in Committee.
The amendment would require the Secretary of State to make building regulations requiring all new homes and buildings in England to be built with solar panels from 1 April 2025. It is a simple but sensible and important amendment, which recognises the need for flexibility for different types of building—not every one will be suitable—and gives appropriate exemptions. It could be aligned with the introduction of the future homes standard in 2025. As I said, rooftop solar on buildings can bring many benefits, including reducing bills, enhancing energy security, bringing jobs and skills across the whole country and decarbonising our homes.
I recognise that the Government have made welcome progress on solar since I first tabled this amendment through the commitments they made in their recent Powering Up Britain package, which adopted many of the Skidmore review recommendations. In their new energy security plan, the Government recognise the importance of solar deployment—both rooftop and ground—in decarbonising the power sector. But, as so often with government strategy in these areas of net zero and the environment, the Government use more nouns and more adjectives than verbs. This amendment tries to put some action immediately into the area of solar power. For a true rooftop revolution, much more action is needed.
Analysis by the trade body Solar Energy UK found that further efforts than those outlined in the Powering Up Britain package will be needed to secure the Government’s ambition of 70 gigawatts of solar by 2035. The recent BEIS Committee report also called for more action, recommending that the UK
“ramp up the pace at which new solar capacity is deployed”.
Regulating for rooftop solar on all new buildings is a specific, simple, straightforward action which the Government could take now. As highlighted in the Skidmore Mission Zero report, there is currently no target to make rooftop solar a standard for buildings across the UK.
I hope we have learned some of the lessons of the past when we allowed buildings to be constructed which we knew at the time would not meet the energy needs of the future. In fact, sometimes we got the regulations right once and then reneged on them and went backwards. We have ended up with buildings that are inappropriate and have to be retrofitted, which is more expensive and less effective. This is a real opportunity not to make that mistake again.
Solar for all new homes and buildings is backed by the public, by industry and by the experts. It makes financial sense and, as I say, it is much cheaper than retrofitting in years to come. Other countries have understood this and are making provision for rooftop solar on commercial and residential properties. In March, the EU agreed revisions to the energy performance of buildings directive, which will require all member states to ensure that new buildings are equipped with solar technologies where technically suitable and economically feasible—exactly what I am trying to achieve in this amendment.
The recent letter to the Government from the Environmental Audit Committee urged them to urgently address key barriers to solar deployment across the planning process, which is another debate we have had on the Bill. The committee highlighted evidence of a tendency among developers to just fit the minimum that they need, and the fact that housebuilders will build to the regulations—so we need to change the regulations. It recommended that
“the Future Homes Standard incorporate installation of solar PV … as a minimum requirement for newly constructed housing”.
That is precisely what my amendment is asking for, and it would support the government policy and ambition to increase from 14.5 gigawatts of solar now to 70 gigawatts. On that basis, I beg to move.
Lord Lucas (Con)
My Lords, I very much support the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman. My amendment is directed at commercial premises. When I stand on the top of the Downs above Eastbourne and look down, I see several hundred acres of white commercial roofs and associated car parks, and there is, I think, one building in that lot which has solar panels on. The reasons for this are entirely structural; they are to do with the difficulties of negotiating between the people using the building, the people who own it and the people who want to handle the electricity that is generated.
I supported the carrot in the Energy Bill—the local energy proposals—to try to get things going and give people a decent price for the energy they are generating. However, we cannot leave commercial spaces untouched if we are to take solar seriously. It is ridiculous to cover farmland with solar panels when industrial roofs and car parks are going uncovered. A carrot having been proposed in the Energy Bill, this is my proposal for a stick. This is something to enable local authorities to get things moving, and to give local landlords and building occupiers a real incentive to come on board a scheme.
After all, these premises are the places where electricity is used in the middle of a sunny day, so they ought to have solar panels to supply directly the energy they need for freezers, charging visiting cars or whatever else. They are the big energy users in the middle of the day, and they ought to have solar panels, and we ought to be pushing that.
Baroness Sheehan (LD)
My Lords, I should declare my interest as a director of Peers for the Planet. I shall address the two amendments in my name. I strongly support the amendments in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, and the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, but, in the interests of time, I shall limit my remarks on them.
Residential and commercial buildings together contribute about 25% of the UK’s greenhouse gas emissions, and figures from the Climate Change Committee tell us that the UK has more than 2.5 million homes and another 1.9 million other buildings—offices, hospitals, shops, et cetera. The majority of those are heated by gas boilers, which also provide hot water, and the bulk of the rest use petroleum.
The Climate Change Committee also tells us that we cannot reach net zero if we continue to use gas for heat, so changing how we heat our homes and buildings is essential to reach net zero. Ending our reliance on gas can also help to reduce the cost of living through lower energy bills—something that should give us all pause for thought during debates on the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill, and I know it has already been mentioned by several speakers. When we add to that the estimated quarter of a million extra jobs that will be needed, relevance to the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill just increases.
The Government should be given credit for introducing the future homes standard, which aims to ensure that new homes built before 2025 will produce 75% to 80% less carbon emissions than homes built under the current building regulations. The heat and buildings strategy states that from 2025 gas boilers will be banned from all new buildings and from 2035 boilers will start to be phased out from existing buildings. As far as we know, that is still the Government’s plan.
The question then is: what will replace gas boilers? My Amendments 504GJK and 504GJL are asking the Government to apply a bit of scientific rigour to answer that question and to be guided by objective evidence as we take these momentous decisions on major changes to our infrastructure that will be with us for the next several generations.
The facts are that there are plans for a hydrogen village pilot. There has already been a heat pump pilot, albeit nearly all air source, which is different and has been shown to be 40% less energy efficient than ground source heat pumps. There have also been various central plant district heating demonstrator projects. That is all excellent, and to be applauded, but there is no plan to pilot networked ground source heat pumps, and that is a gaping gap. A demonstrator pilot is sorely needed, because although networked heat pumps have plenty in common with individual heat pumps and with district heating, and often get lumped in with one or the other, the reality is that networked heat pumps is a very different approach and need to be assessed and evaluated on its own merits.
What is it? A ground source heat pump—which I shall refer to as a GSHP—network works by installing shared network pipework containing water for multiple homes to connect to, as opposed to each home needing the space for its individual ground source heat pump. The under-street network absorbs heat from the ground at a near constant year-round 10 degrees centigrade, and applies it to each home’s heat pump, where it is condensed and increased to the heat required for space heating and hot water. It is worth noting here that in most homes, the heat pump unit will be smaller than a gas boiler.
In a GSHP network, the infrastructure is owned and paid for by a third party, with each home paying an annual fixed network fee. The best way to think about a GSHP network is that the infrastructure reflects the gas grids we currently have, which are owned by utilities, and we would in the same way pay to connect to a heat network. Ground source heat pump networks have the potential to reach parts that other heating solutions cannot.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Sheehan. She has made a powerful case for ground source heat network trials, so I will not pursue that, except to note that the case is clearly much more overwhelming than the weak to non-existent case for the hydrogen trial the Government seem to want to pursue.
I will speak to Amendment 478, which has full cross-party and non-party support, and which the Green Party would have attached its name to had there been space. I note that the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, with his Amendment 504GJE, is on to an important and crucial point. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Sheehan, I was going to refer noble Lords to the CPRE report, which is due out in about nine hours’ time, so we are pre-empting that a little. I also reference something that shows where we could have been—the Primrose Hill solar village in Huddersfield, which was built nearly two decades ago. Driven by pioneering local Green councillor Andrew Cooper, 79 affordable homes were built there on a brownfield site. For two decades the people there have been benefiting from the kind of housing we should have been building everywhere in the country, all of the time. That it is in a very deprived area of Huddersfield, classic levelling-up territory, demonstrates how much people have suffered because of the policy failures of the past two decades.
Rather than repeating what other people have said, I want to make a few additional points. The number of households that are retrofitting solar panels has reached its highest level in more than seven years. More than 50,000 installed them between January and March, which shows how much people want solar panels. They are going for it, but through the much more expensive, difficult and complicated method of retrofitting, rather than buying a new home that already has them on the roof, which is what Amendment 478 would provide for.
I will cross-reference certain points rather than go through everything. My honourable friend in the other place, Caroline Lucas, had a Westminster Hall debate on 22 March on rooftop solar for homes. The point was made that about two-thirds of what is currently fitted is ground mounted. It is nonsensical that we are using up ground for that. Earlier today, your Lordship’s House debated the land use strategy and the establishment of a land use commission. Surely, such as commission would be saying that there are so many things we could be doing with that land that we should not be using it for that until every roof—certainly every new roof—has solar panels fitted to it.
I want to pick up on some points that might be made in opposition to this amendment, perhaps pre-empting the Minister. Yes, it could add cost to a new property, but there would also be an estimated saving of between £974 and £1,150 per year per home. Taking into account the cost-of-living crisis, the cost would be rapidly recovered by the people living in these homes.
We want to talk about having affordable housing, and part of affordability is being able to afford to run the home on a year-to-year basis into the future. Plus, we are in a climate emergency, the world is not meeting its carbon targets, and this is one obvious way that Britain should be making a further contribution.
In the debate in the other place, it was suggested that there are other ways of doing this, and that maybe solar panels are not the answer. Of course, this amendment refers to the appropriate housing; it is not saying every single house but, more than that, solar panels do not preclude also having ground source or air source heat pumps. In fact, the combination of those two things is absolutely valuable.
There has been talk of global supply challenges, but the right political will would ensure that it is possible to source these materials outside China, where the bulk of the current issues—particularly human rights—regarding solar panels lie. There is also the question of sourcing silicon, but there are alternatives to that and breakthroughs are being made all the time. It has been suggested this may stifle innovation somehow. This is not just about delivering the basic fabric of a building that should be there; it does not mean that we cannot do many additional things as well, as the noble Baroness, Lady Sheehan, has so clearly suggested.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, for introducing this group of amendments and her amendment in particular. We strongly support amendments that aim to increase renewable energy sources. This is a levelling-up Bill. One of the missions laid out in the White Paper is to increase well-being. When we think about the cost of energy at the moment, surely having well-heated homes has to be a measure of well-being in society. By supporting these amendments, we can make steps towards meeting that mission. As the noble Baroness said in the introduction to her amendment, it is simple but sensible. We completely agree.
The amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, is again really important. There is such huge potential for solar panels on commercial buildings that we completely miss. The thing that sprung to mind when I read his amendment was those colossal warehouses that can be seen along the motorways when driving along. They are in completely open space, and surely there is huge potential for putting solar panels on their roofs.
We know that, by 2050, the United Kingdom has a target to cut emissions of CO2 by 80%, but we also know that the Government are way off achieving that target. Again, as the noble Baroness said, it is really good that the Government are beginning to realise the importance and potential of solar power, following on from the Skidmore review, but as she also said, what we need is action—to make the potential of solar power a reality. If new-build homes had solar panels and the ability to store energy in batteries—which is, of course, something that we have to develop further—as a country we would clearly benefit from a fairly significant reduction in emissions of carbon dioxide. To me, it seems completely obvious: the more energy we harness from the sun, the less we need to get from fossil fuels.
Solar panels mean that, for certain parts of the year, households can enjoy being completely self-powered. This would of course bring a significant reduction to their energy bills, helping to meet that mission of well-being—yet, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, said, there is no target for this yet. If you are going genuinely to deliver and make a difference, you need to set targets.
Earl Howe (Con)
My Lords, Amendment 478 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, would require new homes and buildings in England to have solar panels as of April 2025. I acknowledge straight away that the spirit of this amendment is unimpeachable. Renewable energy, such as that generated from solar panels, is a key part of our strategy to get to net zero.
We should be aiming to see new homes and buildings built in a way that contributes to the net-zero agenda. The difference between the Government and the noble Baroness, in working towards that aim, is one of approach. I am sure she will recall that the Government introduced an uplift in energy-efficiency standards, which came into force in June 2022. The purpose of the uplift is to deliver a meaningful reduction in carbon emissions. Critically, though, it also provides a stepping stone to the future homes and buildings standards, which we are aiming to legislate for next year and which would come into force in 2025.
It is important to understand that our approach to achieving higher energy-efficiency standards has remained consistent—that is to say technology neutral—to provide developers with the flexibility to innovate and choose the most appropriate and cost-effective solutions for their sites. Some buildings may not be suitable for solar panels—for instance, homes that are heavily shaded due to nearby buildings or trees, or where the roof size or shape does not lend itself to solar panels. We fully expect, however, that to comply with the uplift, most developers will choose to install solar panels on new homes and buildings or use other low-carbon technology such as a heat pump. Introducing an amendment to mandate solar panels would therefore be largely redundant. I hope that is helpful in explaining why we do not think that this amendment is the right way to go.
I turn to Amendment 504GJE in the name of my noble friend Lord Lucas. This looks to allow local planning authorities to request the installation of solar panels on roofs of commercial buildings and adjoining spaces in a designated area. I am sure that we can agree that decarbonising our energy supply is one of the greatest challenges of our generation. I am not, however, convinced that giving local planning authorities powers effectively to require commercial property landowners and tenants to fit solar panels to their existing buildings and facilities is the best way to achieve this. Not all commercial landowners or tenants will be in the position to take action.
Instead, we should focus on empowering those who have the means to do so by ensuring that planning and building regulations are not a barrier. That is why we have policies in the National Planning Policy Framework, as well as permitted development rights and building standards, that support the rollout of renewable energy, including installing solar panels. The National Planning Policy Framework is clear that local planning authorities should have a positive strategy in place to promote energy from renewable and low-carbon sources, such as solar panels. The NPPF is also clear that when determining planning applications for renewable and low carbon development, local planning authorities should approve the application if its impacts are, or can be made, acceptable. This can include the installation of solar panels.
To help facilitate the take-up of renewable energy, permitted development rights allow for the installation of rooftop solar and stand-alone ground-mounted solar in the grounds of domestic and non-domestic buildings. The Government have recently consulted on changes to the permitted development rights for solar equipment to support the solar energy objectives set out in the British energy security strategy. The consultation included proposals to amend the existing permitted development right for the installation of rooftop solar on commercial buildings and introduce a new permitted development right for solar canopies on non-domestic car parks, such as supermarkets and retail parks. The department is now considering the responses and further details will be announced in due course.
It is also worth my reverting to the point I made in response to Amendment 478. The energy efficiency changes to the building regulations that the Government recently implemented, and which came into force in June 2022, will mean that to comply with these new standards many, if not most, developers will choose to install solar panels on new commercial buildings. So, again, while I have some overall sympathy with my noble friend in bringing forward his amendment, given all that I have laid out I hope he will understand why the Government do not feel able to support it.
I listened with much interest to the contribution of the noble Baroness, Lady Sheehan. Her Amendment 504GJK proposes to create a new pilot scheme to retrofit an existing town, powered by renewable energy and heated by a ground source heat network. I am happy to bring the Committee up to date on where we are with this area of policy more generally.
The Government’s general approach to the transition to clean heat is to follow natural replacement cycles, working with the grain of markets and consumer behaviour to minimise costs and disruption and avoid early appliance scrappage. On heat network zoning specifically, the Energy White Paper, heat and buildings strategy and net zero strategy committed us to introduce heat network zoning in England by 2025. It is a key policy solution to help reach the scale of expansion of heat networks required to meet net zero.
The zoning policy will be delivered via powers in the Energy Bill to make regulations, including in relation to the development of a nationwide methodology for identifying and designating areas as heat network zones. The objective of the methodology will be to determine where heat networks are lower cost than low-carbon alternatives in an area. Incidentally, to answer a point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Sheehan, there is a difference between heat network zoning and converting an area to hydrogen heating. Unlike technologies such as community renewables and heat networks, using 100% hydrogen for heating is not yet an established technology.
Given the existing work under way and the Government’s general approach to the transition to clean heat, we do not believe the proposal for a pilot will deliver additional value.
Similarly, Amendment 504GJL proposes to create a pilot scheme to construct a new town powered by renewable energy and heated by a ground source heat network. I am afraid the Government do not believe that this proposal will deliver benefits additional to those already in prospect. From 2025, the future homes standard will ensure that all new homes are net-zero ready, meaning that they will become zero carbon when the electricity grid decarbonises without the need for any retrofit work. So, although the Government cannot support these last two amendments, I hope the noble Baroness, Lady Sheehan, will take some encouragement from the work and plans that are already under way.
Baroness Sheehan (LD)
I am not convinced that the heat network zoning that the Minister refers to is the same as the ground source heat pump networked grids that I am talking about. I wonder whether it would be worth having a further conversation outside of this Committee and whether the Minister would do me the courtesy of arranging that. I think this is an important point.
Earl Howe (Con)
My Lords, I would be very happy to arrange a meeting with the noble Baroness and appropriate officials to discuss the point that she has just made.
Lord Lucas (Con)
My Lords, I am very grateful to the Minister for his answer to my amendment. I take much comfort in what he said about new build and planning permission and so on, and I can see how that all might work, but I do not see any sign of proposals that will work in persuading people to retrofit, and there is huge potential there. I very much hope that in due time the Government will turn their thoughts in that direction. I would just say to the noble Baroness, Lady Sheehan, that if she knows someone who can build a new town in three years, will she please introduce them to the restoration and renewal team.
Baroness Hayman (CB)
My Lords, it is coming up to the witching hour, so I will not extend this discussion any further. I am grateful for the considered response that the Minister, as ever, gave. I think that there are issues about planning decisions and integrating net zero into planning decisions at every level, which we have discussed at other stages and which we may well come back to. But, in the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock
“Interaction with the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Act 2023Within 90 days of this Act being passed, the Secretary of State must publish an assessment of the interaction of this Act with any Act of Parliament resulting from the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill that was introduced into the House of Commons on 22 September 2022.”Member's explanatory statement
This means that the Secretary of State must publish an assessment of the interaction of this Act with the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
My Lords, I have the only amendment in this group. I will be brief because it is pretty straightforward and I hope I can have a reasonably straightforward response from the Minister as there is no complexity around this.
Amendment 479 asks the Secretary of State to publish an assessment of the interaction of this Bill, when it becomes an Act, with the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill, or Act as it will be. I asked about this in the REUL Bill discussions that we had. It is really around the Water Resources (Environmental Impact Assessment) (England and Wales) Regulations 2003, which are included in the list in the REUL Bill. The reason I want to raise this here is because, as it affects environmental impact assessments, I feel we need to put on the record the fact that it will interact with the Levelling-Up and Regeneration Bill because this is proposing extensive powers for a new system of environmental impact assessments to replace the current regulations which include the water resources regulations.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, I am conscious of the time, the fact that we have now been debating amendments for many hours and that colleagues on all sides of the Committee are tired. I think we should wrap up the business for the day.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
My noble friend the Minister needs to respond but, while he does so, perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, the noble Lord, Lord Stunell, and I could have a usual channels chat.
Earl Howe (Con)
My Lords, the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill creates the powers for the Government to amend retained EU law and will remove the special status of retained EU law in the UK. On 17 May, the House agreed a government amendment to replace the previously proposed sunset of retained EU law in the Bill with a list of retained EU law for revocation at the end of 2023. This provides clarity to the House and certainty for business by making it clear which legislation will be revoked. Powers in the Bill that allow us to continue to amend retained EU law remain, so further regulation can be revoked or reformed in the future. This will mean that we still fully take back control of our laws and end the supremacy and special status of retained EU law by the end of 2023.
As noble Lords will be aware, the REUL Bill had Third Reading in this House this afternoon. Given that both Bills are still passing through Parliament, the Government are working through what the interactions are between them. I do not think it appropriate to amend the Bill in this way, but I will commit to writing to the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, by the end of this year to set out the interaction between the two Bills. I hope that is helpful.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for that very helpful response. He has completely taken on board the point that I am trying to make, and I appreciate that. A letter explaining exactly how it will all work together by the end of the year will be extremely helpful. I thank the Minister very much, and I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.