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 Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Chris Evans (Islwyn) (Lab/Co-op)
Chris Elmore (Ogmore) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Wales (David T. C. Davies)
I have regular discussions with Cabinet colleagues on a range of issues. As a result of Putin’s illegal invasion of Ukraine, households in Wales have seen their energy bills increase, which is why the Government have provided support totalling £94 billion, or £3,300 per household, to help with higher bills.
Chris Evans
A constituent of mine who is a mother and a carer for her disabled son wrote to me recently. She told me that she is watching every penny and is deeply worried about how she will afford energy in the coming winter. She is one of the nine in 10 families with a disabled child who the Family Fund says are struggling to afford simple household bills. What direct advice does the Secretary of State have for my constituent and thousands like her who are in a hopeless situation?
David T. C. Davies
There are indeed many people suffering at the moment, and I feel very sorry for the hon. Gentleman’s constituent. The Government have supported households with the rising cost of living by maintaining the energy price guarantee at £2,500 from April to June 2023, saving households an additional £160. Over the winter, the Government were paying on average about half of people’s energy bills. For those living in households where someone has a disability, there has been an extra payment of £150.
Chris Elmore
The most recent statistics published by the Welsh Government show that almost a quarter of those in the private rented sector in Wales are living in fuel poverty, compared with only 13% of those who own their homes. Will the Secretary of State set out what additional support those who live in the private rented sector will get from the Government? The reality is that their rents and fuel bills are going up, and the Government seem to be sitting idle and doing nothing to support these people.
David T. C. Davies
The Government are certainly not sitting idly around and not supporting people. The Government do not differentiate between people in private and people in rented accommodation; we have stipulated that those who are the least well off will get the most support. That is why we have ensured that pensions have gone up in line with inflation, the minimum wage has gone up in line with inflation, and those living on benefits have seen their benefits rise in line with inflation.
Gerald Jones (Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney) (Lab)
As fuel poverty runs rampant and families right across Wales are struggling, does the Secretary of State not realise how appalling it looks that Shell is making £61,000 a minute? When will his Government get a grip, close the loopholes worth billions and extend the windfall tax?
David T. C. Davies
The hon. Gentleman should be aware that the Government have extended the windfall tax and are charging very high levels of tax—indeed, about three times the usual level—on companies taking oil out of the North sea. It is extraordinary that those who call for a windfall tax on energy companies do not recognise that we are already levying it and do not want to support the Government in allowing more oil and gas to be exploited from the North sea, which will enable us to raise even more in taxation.
Gerald Jones
Tory Ministers seem to think that the energy crisis is all over. I am not sure when the Secretary of State last struggled to pay an energy bill, but bills are still almost double what they were before the crisis began, and the Tory Government have scrapped vital support. Does the Secretary of State agree that the way to get energy bills down for good is to back Labour’s policy to retrofit 19 million homes and reach 100% clean power by 2030?
David T. C. Davies
I have no idea who would be paying for the hon. Gentleman’s proposals—no doubt they are among the many things that will be paid for using the same tax about half a dozen times. He will no doubt be pleased that today inflation is down yet again, and the Government are well on course for achieving their target of cutting inflation by half as well as growing the economy.
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
None the less, food inflation remains above 19%, and it hits the poorest hardest, with the Trussell Trust warning that the past year saw a record 185,000 food parcels provided in Wales. Meanwhile, supermarkets continue to make record-breaking profits—many speak of a greedflation crisis. European Governments have negotiated with supermarkets to cap food prices. Why will the Secretary of State’s Government not do that, too?
David T. C. Davies
I have already mentioned some of the help and support that the Government have given to the least well-off. I remind the right hon. Lady that, in addition to pensions and benefits rising in line with inflation, there are payments of £900 to those on benefits, £300 to pensioners and £150 to those in households with disability. Quite frankly, if she is seriously worried about food inflation, she should be talking to her colleagues in the Welsh Labour Government who are propping up the Welsh Labour Government about their ridiculous proposals to ban meal deals, which would make meals even more expensive for people in Wales.
Liz Saville Roberts
It is a good job somebody is protecting Wales, because Tory Brexit has served Wales badly. The European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 and the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020 have grabbed the Senedd’s powers, and paltry post-Brexit funding is robbing Wales of millions. Enough is enough. The House of Lords recently passed Lord Wigley’s Government of Wales (Devolved Powers) Bill to prevent any change to the Senedd’s powers without a two-thirds vote majority from Members of the Senedd. Will the Secretary of State support Plaid Cymru’s Bill and ensure time for debate, or is he happy to see the people of Wales lose the powers for which they have voted time and again?
David T. C. Davies
Far from taking powers away from the Welsh Government, the Conservative Government have, on a number of occasions, actually increased powers to the Welsh Government. By leaving the European Union, we have repatriated powers from Brussels, where we were being governed by an unelectable elite, and brought them back to both Westminster and Cardiff. If the right hon. Lady wants to stop money being wasted, she should have a word with her colleagues in Plaid Cymru, who are propping up the Welsh Labour Government as they waste hundreds of millions of pounds in the Betsi Cadwaladr health service, hundreds of millions of pounds on an airport with no planes, and over £100 million on plans for a relief road that will never get built.
Liz Twist (Blaydon) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Wales (David T. C. Davies)
I have regular discussions with Cabinet colleagues on a range of issues. Interest rates are rising across the world as countries manage rising prices due to the pandemic and Putin’s illegal invasion of Ukraine. However, I am very pleased to see that the UK average two and five-year fixed mortgage rates have declined in recent months.
Liz Twist
The Chancellor failed to bring in a proper windfall tax in the Budget in March. Does the Secretary of State agree that there are still huge holes in that levy, which mean that billions of pounds that could be used to help Welsh households with the cost of living are being ignored?
David T. C. Davies
The Chancellor and this Conservative Government have brought in windfall taxes on energy companies taking oil and gas out of the North sea. Energy companies are paying around three times more in taxation than other companies. I hope the hon. Lady will be supportive of the companies that want to take more oil and gas out of the North sea, so we can raise even more in taxation to support the least well-off in the United Kingdom.
Jo Stevens (Cardiff Central) (Lab)
Since the Secretary of State’s Government’s mini-budget, 43,000 Welsh households have paid an extra £20.3 million in mortgage payments. That is a £20 million Tory mortgage premium in just seven months. His Government’s economic recklessness continues to cause misery for people across Wales, so will he take the opportunity to apologise to them?
David T. C. Davies
The economic policies being pursued by this Government are to bring inflation down, as the news today demonstrates. I very much hope the hon. Lady will want to celebrate the fact that inflation is now falling. This United Kingdom Government are committed to seeing inflation halved. The policies of her party would push inflation through the roof and push us into another financial catastrophe and crisis of the sort we saw the last time it left office.
Chris Clarkson (Heywood and Middleton) (Con)
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Wales (David T. C. Davies)
The Government have established Great British Nuclear to drive forward the UK’s new nuclear programme. GBN will be working with the Government on access to potential sites for new nuclear projects and I will continue to build on the clear cross-party support there is to promote Wales as the destination of choice for one of the first projects.
Chris Clarkson
My hon. Friend the Member for Ynys Môn (Virginia Crosbie) has been subtly, almost subliminally, making the case for new nuclear in her constituency, but of course with the advent of small modular reactors there is the opportunity for communities across Wales to benefit from clean nuclear energy. What discussions has the Secretary of State had with ministerial colleagues in the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero and the Welsh Government to make sure Wales is primed to take advantage?
David T. C. Davies
I had a meeting with the Minister for Nuclear, my hon. Friend the Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Andrew Bowie), and yesterday I met the interim chair of GBN, Simon Bowen. We had a very interesting and informative discussion on this emerging technology, which I think is very exciting and offers huge potential for Wales.
Bob Blackman
I thank my right hon. Friend for his answers thus far. Clearly, Wales has a bright future as part of the new nuclear capability across the United Kingdom. What further measures will he take, for example on fusion, as well as on nuclear energy, which has already been provided?
David T. C. Davies
The Government have set out support for investigating nuclear fusion, but I fear that others might be better qualified to provide the detail on that. What I can say to my hon. Friend is that in all the meetings I have had with various stakeholders, I have made the case for Wales to be at the forefront of everyone’s minds as a place where we can have a new reactor or SMR technology. And of course, I have been encouraged very much by my hon. Friend the Member for Ynys Môn, who has been an absolute champion for nuclear technology—not for nothing is she known across Wales as the atomic kitten.
Tonia Antoniazzi (Gower) (Lab)
The Secretary of State talks the talk on nuclear, but forgets that the Tories previously pulled the plug on new nuclear in Wales. They have boasted about GB Nuclear, but two years on, nothing at all has happened. Is this not more of the same broken promises from a tired Tory Government who have run out of steam?
David T. C. Davies
It would be tempting, though time will prevent me, to draw attention to the poor record of the last Labour Government on nuclear energy. The fact of the matter is that we are driving forward a new nuclear reactor at Hinkley. We are looking to bring forward a final investment decision on a new nuclear reactor in the next term. The establishment of Great British Nuclear fully demonstrates our commitment to nuclear technology.
Dave Doogan (Angus) (SNP)
In the Secretary of State’s conversations about nuclear with the Welsh, I wonder if he has discussed the pie-in-the-sky nature of small nuclear reactors, the lack of a cogent plan for nuclear waste and the unenviable unit cost in comparison to renewables. Has he indicated that he has a better plan that is not nuclear?
David T. C. Davies
The fact of the matter is that, when one considers all the costs of renewable energy, nuclear comes out very well, not least because it is not possible to predict when exactly the sun will shine or the wind will blow. That is why nuclear has a role to play in our march towards net zero by 2050.
Selaine Saxby (North Devon) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Dr James Davies)
The tourism industry in south Wales and south-west England is incredibly important. I understand that councils on both sides of the Bristol channel are in discussions on how to progress this issue. I would be happy to meet my hon. Friend to discuss it in more detail.
Selaine Saxby
I thank my hon. Friend for his answer. Ahead of that meeting, might my hon. Friend be able to secure an analysis of a passenger ferry service and the benefits to businesses between Ilfracombe and south Wales?
Dr Davies
It is important that we grasp all opportunities to level up our economy through tourism. That could include a passenger ferry between Ilfracombe and south Wales. Many of the policy levers affecting the visitor economy in Wales are devolved. It is important that interested parties work closely with the relevant councils on the matter. The UK Government are passionate about tourism, unlike the Welsh Government, who seem more focused on putting in place a tourism tax.
Stephen Kinnock (Aberavon) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Dr James Davies)
Steel is vital to the UK. We are actively engaging with our industry to secure a positive and sustainable future. Industrial sectors, including steel, have been able to bid for Government funds worth more than £1 billion to support them to cut emissions and become more energy efficient.
Stephen Kinnock
The Governments of the United States and the EU have developed active industrial strategies, with multi-billion-pound investments to support their steel industries as they transition to green steel production. Here in the UK, the cavalry is coming in the form of a Labour Government and our £3 billion green steel fund. What a contrast with the Government party, which is completely and utterly asleep at the wheel on steel. When will the Secretary of State start standing up for our proud Welsh steel industry? When will he get his colleagues in Cabinet to wake up to the fact that we are losing the race for green steel investment?
Dr Davies
The hon. Member will be aware that the Secretary of State for Business and Trade visited Tata Steel in Port Talbot only recently. That shows her commitment to it. He will also be aware of the British Industry Supercharger announced only a few months ago, which aims to bring energy costs for energy-intensive industries such as steel production in line with those of other similar countries.
Dr Luke Evans (Bosworth) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Wales (David T. C. Davies)
Healthcare services are devolved to the Welsh Labour Government. However, it is deeply worrying that only last week the Welsh Government revealed that their target for people waiting more than two years for treatment has once again been missed, with over 31,000 people waiting in pain over two years for their treatment. In England, which has virtually 20 times the population, the equivalent figure is virtually zero.
Dr Evans
One of the most important things for improving healthcare systems is the ability to compare data. There is a problem, though, if different legislators use different metrics. Will the UK Government commit to an agreement between the devolved nations to share the same data, so that comparisons can be made adequately?
David T. C. Davies
My hon. Friend makes a very good point: we do need comparable data so that we can see exactly what is going wrong in the health service in Wales. From the data that we have, we already know about the 31,000 people who have been waiting more than two years in pain for treatment. We also know that the Welsh Government have a copy of the EY report into what has gone wrong in the Betsi Cadwaladr University Health Board—a report that they are sitting on and trying to hold secret because it points out that over £100 million was misspent by the health board under a Welsh Labour Government.
Samantha Dixon (City of Chester) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Wales (David T. C. Davies)
I have regular discussions with Cabinet colleagues on a range of transport matters. HS2 will benefit people travelling from north Wales to London, with the interchange at Crewe providing shorter journey times to north Wales than is currently possible on the west coast main line.
Samantha Dixon
Chester station is the key that can unlock connectivity between England and north Wales. Connectivity is vital for not only thousands of rail users but businesses on both sides of the border and beyond. Will the Government commit to the rapid electrification of the north Wales train line, which will transform the north Wales and Cheshire regional economy?
David T. C. Davies
That is one of the best questions I have heard from anyone on the Opposition Benches so far this morning. Yes, I think electrification of the north Wales coast line would be a very good idea, or certainly improvements would be. As the hon. Lady will be aware, various improvements to the Welsh railway structure are being discussed in the rail network enhancements pipeline, and I look forward to it being published shortly.
Alexander Stafford (Rother Valley) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Wales (David T. C. Davies)
I have regular discussions with Cabinet colleagues to discuss transport links between Wales and the rest of the UK. Roads are devolved to the Welsh Labour Government, and their opposition to the M4 relief road, and indeed to any kind of road building at all, continues to hold the Welsh economy back—a matter that is of great disappointment to me and my Cabinet colleagues.
Alexander Stafford
The economy of Wales has always worked on an east-west basis, so a journey starting from Bangor in the north takes three times longer to Cardiff in the south than it does to Manchester or to my seat of Rother Valley. Can the Secretary of State offer an explanation, then, of why the Welsh Government have banned all new road development and how that might possibly help the Welsh economy?
David T. C. Davies
My hon. Friend raises an excellent point. The Welsh Labour Government’s response to the roads review is absolutely extraordinary. Their opposition to road building is going to hold the Welsh economy back, and I urge them to reconsider the impact of banning all road building on the long-term prosperity of Wales.
Helen Morgan (North Shropshire) (LD)
When he delivered his Budget in 2020, the Prime Minister, who was then the Chancellor, promised a bypass for Llanymynech and Pant in my constituency on the road that links Oswestry and Welshpool. Will that road ever come to fruition, or is it just another broken promise?
David T. C. Davies
I did not hear all of that question, but I think it related to the Llanymynech bypass in mid-Wales. The fact of the matter is that the Welsh Labour Government will continue to receive Barnett consequentials for the road building that takes place in England, and it is for them to decide whether they wish to spend that money on building new roads, which is something I would like to see them do, or to keep throwing it away on white elephants such as the airport that has lost hundreds of millions of pounds over the last few years.
Stephen Morgan (Portsmouth South) (Lab)
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Dr James Davies)
This Government are committed to supporting the decarbonisation of Welsh industry. We have committed £20 billion over the next two decades to the deployment of innovative carbon capture technology. This builds on existing support for the HyNet cluster in north Wales and north-west England and the £21.5 million to develop the South Wales industrial cluster.
Stephen Morgan
The best way to bring down bills in the long term for businesses in Wales and across the UK is to help transition industries away from fossil fuels. That is why Labour is calling for a national wealth fund, so that we can help industries such as steel to win the race for the future. Will the Minister tell the House specifically what steps he is taking to help heavy industry decarbonise?
Dr Davies
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that question. He will of course be aware of the array of measures that are in place to help decarbonisation—the carbon capture, utilisation and storage infrastructure fund, the industrial fuel switching fund, the Industrial Decarbonisation Research and Innovation Centre, the competitive industrial energy transformation fund and the industrial strategy challenge fund among others.
Bill Esterson
The UK is the only country in the G7 whose steel industry is currently in decline. Why will the Government not end their sticking-plaster approach, match Labour’s commitment to a £3 billion green steel fund, and invest in a long-term plan to decarbonise the vital steel sector in Wales?
Dr Davies
Let me I repeat what I said earlier. The Secretary of State visited the plant in Port Talbot recently, and is committed to it. We need to see an electric arc furnace, because that is the way to protect jobs and ensure that we have steel production in the UK.
Stephen Crabb (Preseli Pembrokeshire) (Con)
The industrial corridor that runs west along south Wales all the way to my constituency is one of the most important in the UK. It is also one of the most challenging when it comes to decarbonisation. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government’s policies, the “Powering Up Britain” set of energy interventions and the Celtic freeport that we have secured point the way to a successful decarbonisation strategy for this critically important part of Wales?
Dr Davies
My right hon. Friend is, of course, entirely right. South Wales does not have former oil and gas fields in which we can store carbon, but it does have the Celtic freeport, and non-pipeline transport of captured carbon to fields elsewhere will secure decarbonisation for south Wales.
Robbie Moore (Keighley) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Wales (David T. C. Davies)
The coronation saw people in Wales and throughout the United Kingdom come together to celebrate the monarchy. It was a wonderful occasion, which united our public and demonstrated just how strong our Union is.
Robbie Moore
Over the coronation weekend I had the pleasure of attending a fantastic coronation church service at Haworth parish church and listening to our brilliant “Yorkshire Harpist”, Fiona Katie Widdop, as well as joining in many of the community events that undoubtedly brought the whole United Kingdom together. I know that my right hon. Friend attended similar events in Wales. What does he see as the legacy of the coronation and that fantastic weekend of community spirit?
David T. C. Davies
I thought it notable that His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales spoke of the importance of service and of volunteering being at the heart of the coronation, and encouraged us all to take part in some voluntary work. I was pleased to join the residents of Llanhennock village in my constituency for an afternoon of litter picking on the day after the coronation, which I thought was almost as great an honour as attending the coronation itself.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
The celebrations for the coronation in Wales were exceptional, and the celebrations for the coronation in Northern Ireland were equally successful. Does the Minister agree that when it comes to cementing the Union, the fact that all four regions—Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and England—can be one country is an indication of why royalty is so important to this whole great United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland? Always better together.
David T. C. Davies
To that wonderful question, I can only reply “Yes.”
Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)
The Secretary of State for Wales (David T. C. Davies)
The UK Government are committed to supporting renewable energy generation in Wales—including the innovative tidal stream technologies at Morlais, through our flagship contracts for difference scheme—and supporting the huge potential of our floating offshore wind industry through the £160 million in floating offshore wind manufacturing investment scheme funding for port infrastructure.
Alan Brown
The devolution of the Crown Estate in Scotland has allowed the Scottish Government to have a more coherent supply chain development for renewable energy, and 75% of the Welsh public want to see it devolved in Wales so that it too can benefit from those natural resources. Will Westminster listen to the people of Wales, or is this another case of “Westminster knows best”?
David T. C. Davies
Devolving the Crown Estate would be very risky for Wales, given that at present the revenue spent by the UK Treasury is invested across the whole United Kingdom, but I can assure the hon. Gentleman that this UK Government will be committed to seeing renewable energy spread across the UK, alongside our other priorities of halving inflation, cutting debt, ending small boat crossings and reducing NHS waiting lists in the areas where we are responsible for doing so.
Virginia Crosbie (Ynys Môn) (Con)
Anglesey leads the way in renewable energy but it is being let down by poor connectivity. This week the Britannia bridge closed suddenly and, given that there is a 7.5 tonne limit on the Menai suspension bridge, that created chaos. Does the Secretary of State agree that Labour in Cardiff should be focused on building a third crossing?
David T. C. Davies
My hon. Friend is absolutely right about this. The Welsh Labour Government need to start building roads and start building bridges as well.
Mrs Sharon Hodgson (Washington and Sunderland West) (Lab)
The Prime Minister (Rishi Sunak)
This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in this House I shall have further such meetings later today.
Mrs Hodgson
Does the Prime Minister agree with his friend the Tees Valley Mayor that the National Audit Office must investigate the Teesworks affair? Will the Prime Minister share details of all conversations he has had on the subject with his former Chief Secretary to the Treasury, the right hon. Member for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland (Mr Clarke), and the current Levelling Up Minister, given that they have all received donations from Ian Waller, one of the project backers?
The Prime Minister
My right hon. Friend the Levelling Up Secretary has already announced an investigation into this matter. This is just the same old, same old—[Interruption.] It is the same old bunk from Labour. That is all we get. After years of neglect, it is the Conservatives who are delivering for Teesside.
Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)
The Prime Minister
As my hon. Friend says, Gloucestershire in particular has seen a significant reduction in A&E waiting times since December. We recognise that there is more to be done, and that is why we are delivering on our plan to recover urgent and emergency care to ensure that people get the care they need, easier, faster and closer to home.
Keir Starmer (Holborn and St Pancras) (Lab)
How many work visas were issued to foreign nationals last year?
The Prime Minister
The new statistics, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman knows, will be out later this week. The most recent statistics we have, as the Office for National Statistics said at the time, contained a set of unique circumstances including welcoming many people here for humanitarian reasons.
Keir Starmer
The figures are out. A quarter of a million work visas were issued last year. The right hon. Gentleman knows that answer; he just does not want to give it. The new numbers tomorrow are expected to be even higher. The Prime Minister has stood on three Tory manifestos, and each one promised to reduce immigration. Each promise broken—[Interruption.] Conservative Members all stood on those manifestos as well. Why does he think his Home Secretary—[Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. I am going to hear this question. For those who do not want to hear it, we know the answer to that.
Keir Starmer
Conservative Members all stood on those manifestos, so why does the Prime Minister think his Home Secretary seems to have such a problem coping with points-based systems?
The Prime Minister
Just this week we announced the biggest ever single measure to tackle legal migration, removing the right for international students to bring dependants, toughening the rules on post-study work and reviewing maintenance requirements. But what is the right hon. and learned Gentleman’s contribution? There are absolutely no ideas. There are absolutely no ideas, and absolutely no semblance that there would be any control. Why? Because he believes in an open-door migration policy.
Keir Starmer
If anyone wants to see what uncontrolled immigration looks like, all they have to do is wake up tomorrow morning, listen to the headlines and see what this Government—[Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. Mr Bristow, I think you are going to be leaving. I am asking you to leave now; otherwise, I will name you. I am not having it, and I have warned you before. It is the same people—[Interruption.] And the same will happen on the other side of the House.
Keir Starmer
The reason they are issuing so many visas is because of labour and skills shortages, and the reason for the shortages is the low-wage Tory economy. Under the Prime Minister’s Government’s rules, businesses in IT, engineering, healthcare, architecture and welding can pay foreign workers 20% less than British workers for years and years on end. Does he think his policy is encouraging businesses to train people here or hire from abroad?
The Prime Minister
The Leader of the Opposition talks about immigration, but we know his position, because it turns out that Labour would like to see even more people coming to the UK—increasing the numbers. That is not just my view; his own Front Bencher, the hon. Member for Oxford East (Anneliese Dodds), says having a target is “not sensible,” and that the numbers might have to go up. It is clear: while we are getting on with clamping down on illegal migration, listening to the British public, the Leader of the Opposition is perfectly comfortable saying that he wants to bring back free movement.
Keir Starmer
They have lost control of the economy, they have lost control of public services and now they have lost control of immigration. If the Prime Minister was serious about weaning his Government off the immigration lever, he would get serious about wages in Britain and get serious about skills and training. The apprenticeship levy is not working. It is hard to find a single business that thinks it is, and the proof is that almost half the levy is not being spent, which means fewer young people getting the opportunities they need to fulfil their potential. Businesses are crying out for more flexibility in the levy, so they can train up their staff. Labour would give them that, why won’t he?
The Prime Minister
It is right that we are talking about education and skills. What the Leader of the Opposition fails to mention is that, in the past week, we have discovered that, thanks to the reforms of this Conservative Government, our young people are now the best readers in the western world—reforms that were opposed by Labour. He also talks about our record on the economy, and I am very surprised, because I have stood here, week after week, when he has been so keen to quote the International Monetary Fund. He seems to have missed its press conference yesterday, at which it raised our growth forecast by one of the highest amounts ever, saying that we had acted decisively to make sure the economy is growing, and crediting this Government with having a very positive effect on future growth.
Keir Starmer
Is the Prime Minister seriously suggesting that breaking the economy, breaking public services and losing control of immigration is some sort of carefully crafted plan? His policies are holding working people back, and all he offers is more of the same. But fear not, because speeding into the void left by the Prime Minister comes the Home Secretary, and not with a plan for skills, growth or wages. No, her big idea is for British workers to become fruit pickers, just in case—I can hardly believe she said this—they
“forget how to do things”.
Does the Prime Minister support this “Let them pick fruit” ambition for Britain, or does he wish he had the strength to give her a career change of her own?
The Prime Minister
The Leader of the Opposition talks about public services and the economy. Again, he has failed to notice what is going on. The IMF, which he was very keen to quote just a few months ago, is now forecasting that we will have stronger growth than Germany, France and Italy. What does the IMF say? It says that we are prioritising what is right for the British people. He talks about public service, and as I said, we have the best reading results in the western world. When it comes to the NHS, what did we discover just last week? The fastest ambulance response times in two years. That is a Conservative Government delivering for the British people.
Keir Starmer
The Home Secretary may need a speed awareness course, but the Prime Minister needs a reality check. This mess on immigration reveals a Tory party with no ambition for working people and no ambition for Britain, just the same old failed ideas, low wages and high tax. Labour would fix the apprenticeship levy, fill the skills gap and stop businesses recruiting from abroad if they do not pay properly. That is because we are the party of working people. What does it say about him and his party that they will not do the same?
The Prime Minister
I think the right hon. and learned Gentleman has said this six times, but I do not think we actually know how he is going to do any of these things. That is the difference between us: every week, we hear a lot of empty rhetoric from him, but in the past week we can measure ourselves by actions. What have the Government done? We have introduced new powers to curb disruptive protest; we have protected public services against disruptive strike action; and we have new laws to stop the boats. What has he done? He has voted against every single one of those. That is the difference between us: while he is working on the politics, we are working for the British people.
Gareth Johnson (Dartford) (Con)
The Prime Minister
It was an honour to welcome my friend President Zelensky to the UK last week. Everyone will be collectively proud of the UK’s leading role at the forefront of supporting Ukraine: we were the first country to provide support for Ukrainian troops; the first country in Europe to provide lethal weapons; the first to commit main battle tanks; and, most recently, the first to provide long-range weapons. My hon. Friend will have seen the powerful scenes coming out of the G7 summit in Hiroshima last week, and I have always been clear that we will stand with Ukraine for as long as it takes.
Stephen Flynn (Aberdeen South) (SNP)
We learned today that the price of milk, cheese and eggs is up by 29%, the price of pasta is up by 27% and the price of a loaf of bread is up by 18%. Does the Prime Minister agree that this is no longer just a cost of living crisis—this is a cost of greed crisis?
The Prime Minister
It was welcome that inflation has fallen today, but, as the Chancellor said, we should not be complacent because there is more work to do. The hon. Gentleman is right to highlight the impact of food inflation, which is too high, in common with levels we have seen in other European countries, such as Sweden and Germany. We are providing significant support to help people with the cost of living, and the Chancellor has met companies in the supermarket and food supply chain to make sure that they are doing everything they can to bring prices down.
Stephen Flynn
Let’s get real, because food inflation remains at a near 45-year high. Yesterday, the Treasury indicated that the Chancellor “stands ready” to act, but his actions seems to be predicated on the outcome of a review by the Competition and Markets Authority. So will the Prime Minister enlighten us: when does he expect that review to conclude? Working families cannot afford to wait much longer.
The Prime Minister
The hon. Gentleman will know that the CMA is independent of Government, but the Chancellor did meet it recently to discuss the situation in the grocery industry. It will be for the CMA to make decisions on that, but we are doing everything we can to help consumers manage the challenges on the cost of living. If the SNP wanted to do its bit, perhaps it could reconsider its deposit return scheme, as it is very clear what people have said. As they have said, it will reduce choice and increase prices for consumers.
Andrew Selous (South West Bedfordshire) (Con)
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend for his contributions to our primary care plan. He and I know that pharmacies already work to help many people with their health needs, and to help deliver on our priority to cut NHS waiting lists they will be put at the front and centre of our primary care recovery, with £645 million of additional funding. That will be released later this year, as pharmacies start to provide more oral contraception and more blood pressure checks. Crucially, for seven common ailments, such as ear infections and throat infections, pharmacists will now be able to provide people with the medicines they need.
Colum Eastwood (Foyle) (SDLP)
One quarter of the population of Northern Ireland is on a health waiting list, our workers are on strike for fair pay, and our public finances are in a mess. Will the Prime Minister give a commitment that the Treasury will begin work immediately on a public sector rescue package so we can transform the health service and ensure that our public sector workers are given a decent wage—and will he join the people of Northern Ireland in telling the DUP to get back to work now?
The Prime Minister
As I have been clear, I firmly believe that Northern Ireland is governed best when governed locally. I agree wholeheartedly with the hon. Gentleman that the major challenges he raises can only be properly addressed by the restoration of the institutions, but I also understand the immediate and pressing concerns he raises. That is why we have prioritised health in the Northern Ireland budget for this year, with £20 million more funding. I know that he will be an important contributor to the conversations that the Secretary of State is having, to embark on public service reform and restore the Executive.
Matt Warman (Boston and Skegness) (Con)
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. Like him, I believe that AI has the potential to transform our economy and society, but of course it has to be introduced safely and securely. We are investing more in AI skills, not only in top-tier talent but in enabling those from non-science, technology, engineering and maths backgrounds to access the opportunities of AI. I look forward to more recommendations from him for how we can strengthen our investment in skills to make sure that everyone can realise the benefits that AI may bring.
Anna McMorrin (Cardiff North) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
What we are doing is taxing the windfall profits of energy companies and using that money to help pay around half of a typical household’s energy bill. That support is worth £1,500—it was extended in the Budget by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor—and we all look forward to energy bills coming down, which hopefully will happen very soon.
Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con)
The Prime Minister
I congratulate my hon. Friend on his continued campaign to improve Torbay Hospital. I am delighted to reconfirm the Government’s commitment to major new facilities there as part of our new hospitals programme, and I look forward to further work progressing in the months ahead.
Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)
The Prime Minister
The hon. Lady obviously missed the comments by the International Monetary Fund yesterday upgrading our growth performance, she obviously missed the survey of thousands of global chief executives just recently placing the UK as their No. 1 European investment destination, and it sounds like she also missed my trip to Japan last week, when we announced £18 billion of new investment in the UK economy.
Anthony Browne (South Cambridgeshire) (Con)
The Prime Minister
Public servants should rightly focus on delivering for the public and taxpayers. It is disappointing to hear from my hon. Friend that his local Liberal Democrat council is not doing that—instead reducing, as I have heard, staff contact hours and costing residents more. I urge the council to reconsider its decision, because his residents and constituents under South Cambridgeshire District Council clearly deserve better.
Vicky Foxcroft (Lewisham, Deptford) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
I pay tribute to the hon. Lady’s constituents for all the work they are doing locally. The Home Office and the Government are delivering on the vast majority of the recommendations from Wendy Williams’s report into the situation. We have already paid out or offered more than £70 million in compensation, I believe, and there are hundreds of engagement events happening to ensure that people are aware of what they are able to access. We will continue that engagement, as we promised.
Brendan Clarke-Smith (Bassetlaw) (Con)
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend for his kind invitation to visit and I shall certainly ask my office to keep it in mind. As he says, levelling-up partnerships are a commitment to work hand in hand with 20 different places in England most in need of levelling up, to make sure that they can realise their potential and ambitions. They are backed by £400 million-worth of investment so that they can be supported to thrive. I know my right hon. Friend the Levelling Up Secretary is looking forward to working with colleagues in Bassetlaw to identify the best place to focus their work—which could, of course, include Retford.
Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)
The Prime Minister
That is just simply not the case. It is the elected Government who will be making decisions about what the right regulations are for our country, and it is absolutely right that as a result of Brexit we can now do that. That is why we are repealing and reforming more than 2,000 pieces of retained EU law, making sure that our statute book reflects the type of rules and regulations that are right for the British economy and will deliver growth and cut costs for consumers. That is what our reforms do.
Robbie Moore (Keighley) (Con)
The Prime Minister
May I thank my hon. Friend for campaigning on this? As I have said before, we should not let political correctness stand in the way of keeping vulnerable girls safe or of holding people to account. As he knows, it is for authorities in the local area to commission local inquiries, and I have no doubt that he will continue to encourage them to do so. For the Government’s part, we have commissioned the relevant inspectorate to examine current policing practice in response to group-based sexual exploitation of children, and the Home Office will not hesitate to act on its recommendations when they are published this summer.
Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)
The Prime Minister
As the hon. Lady knows, there are processes and procedures in place for ensuring professional standards across Government. With regards to training, I am pleased that we are rolling out the lifelong learning entitlement to ensure that people can, at any stage in their career, get access to years of Government-subsidised financing. That will ensure that we have a workforce who are fit for the future, and that everyone can realise the opportunities that are there.
Steve Brine (Winchester) (Con)
Owen Carey died just across the river from here, underneath the London Eye, after suffering a severe allergic reaction while out celebrating his 18th birthday. He had simply eaten a chicken burger at a restaurant. Unbeknown to him, and despite his asking, it had been marinated in buttermilk. Owen’s sister, Emma, who is my constituent, was in Parliament last week with her dad and brother for a debate on food labelling and support for those with allergies. They are fighting for Owen’s law, which is, among other things, a campaign to change the food information regulations on allergy labelling in restaurants. It has attracted huge support. Will the Prime Minister meet me and Owen’s family to see how we can ensure that something positive comes of that tragic loss of a young life?
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend for raising Owen’s case, and I know that the whole House will join me in expressing our condolences to Emma and all of Owen’s family for what happened. I will absolutely ensure that my hon. Friend gets a meeting with the relevant Minister to discuss appropriate food labelling so that we can ensure that such things do not happen.
Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)
Will the Prime Minister instruct his officials to publish the list of 1,700 veterinary medicines that will no longer be made available to Northern Ireland vets and the agrifood sector after the grace period has ended? Will he explain to the Ulster Farmers Union why that list has not been given to them? Will he meet me and the Ulster Farmers Union, go through that list, and show us how that has removed the border in the Irish sea?
The Prime Minister
As the hon. Gentleman knows, when we concluded the Windsor framework, we made sure that there was an extension in the grace period for veterinary medicines to give us the time to find a long-run solution to that particular issue. He should take heart, because on human medicines, which I know are important to him and everyone else in Northern Ireland, we achieved complete and full dual regulation of medicines, as well as a dialogue with the EU to resolve the issues in veterinary medicines. I know that he will want to ensure that we engage closely with him and the UFU, which we have been doing, to find a resolution in the time we have. I know that he will also join me in being very happy that we have protected access to human medicines in Northern Ireland, which was a priority for him and his party.
Tom Hunt (Ipswich) (Con)
I really look forward to welcoming the Prime Minister to Portman Road for Ipswich Town against Southampton next season. Of course, in addition to Ipswich Town, Ipswich Wanderers have also been promoted, which is great news for the town.
Yesterday, despite the Public Order Act 2023, we saw images of Metropolitan police standing around doing nothing while eco-protesters were wreaking havoc in our capital. Does the Prime Minister agree that the moment those activists stand on the road, they should be immediately turfed off the road, as they would be in many other countries?
The Prime Minister
On my hon. Friend’s first observation, all I can say is “Ouch!” But thank you: I look forward to the game.
On the second, more substantive matter, this Government have passed the serious disruption order, which will ensure that the police have the powers they need to tackle slow-moving protests. It is a power that the police specifically asked the Government for. We have delivered it and put it in legislation, and my hon. Friend knows what I know, which is that the Labour party tried to block that from happening.
Kim Johnson (Liverpool, Riverside) (Lab)
We have 4 million children living in poverty in this country, yet we are the fifth richest economy in the world, so why does the Prime Minister not support universal free school meals for all children, to help end child poverty?
The Prime Minister
The numbers are actually as follows. Since 2010, there are 1.7 million fewer people living in poverty as a result of the actions of this Government, and that includes hundreds of thousands fewer children living in poverty. Most importantly, like the hon. Lady, I want to ensure that children do not grow up in poverty, and we know that the best way to do that is to ensure that they do not grow up in a workless household. That is why we have reduced the number of children growing up in a workless household by several thousand, and that is the most powerful thing we can do in the long run to give those children the best possible start in life.
Peter Gibson (Darlington) (Con)
Nancy Spencer from Darlington has raised over £35,000 for St Teresa’s Hospice in the last 25 years. Nancy’s next adventure was to do a sky dive, but her doctor refused to sign it off because she has had a pacemaker fitted. However, undeterred, my 80-year-old constituent managed to secure sign-off for a wing walk. Will my right hon. Friend join me in wishing Nancy well as she takes to the skies this Saturday?
The Prime Minister
May I join my hon. Friend in thanking Nancy for all her fantastic fundraising work, and of course I wish her the best of luck for Saturday? I wonder if my hon. Friend will be joining her. Many of my own constituents have used St Teresa’s Hospice over the years, so I know what fabulous work it does. More generally, the hospice sector supports more than 300,000 people with life-limiting conditions in the UK every year. I pay tribute to all the staff and volunteers working in palliative and end-of-life care for the incredible work that they do.
Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Reclaim)
Does the Prime Minister agree that it is completely inappropriate for schools to encourage young people under the age of 18 to socially transition, for example by changing their names and pronouns? All this is going on without parental consent or even knowledge, in breach of parents’ human rights. Will the Prime Minister instruct the Department for Education to order schools to stop indoctrinating our children and to concentrate on their duty of care to protect them?
The Prime Minister
I have been very clear that when it comes to matters of sex and education, and of personal, social, health and economic education, it is absolutely right that schools are sensitive in how they teach those matters and that they should be done in an age-appropriate fashion. The Department for Education is currently reviewing the statutory guidance and curriculum that go to schools, so that we can tackle this particular issue. Cases have been raised with the Government and others, and I do not think that that is acceptable. We must protect our children, and that is what our new guidance will do.
Mr David Jones (Clwyd West) (Con)
Last year the independent members of the Betsi Cadwaladr University Health Board in north Wales became so concerned about the board’s finances that they arranged for Ernst and Young to produce a forensic accountancy report, which revealed serious misconduct on the part of several senior board executives, including a conspiracy to falsify accounts. Astonishingly, the response of the Labour Welsh Minister to the scandal was to demand the resignation of those independent board members, while almost all the senior executives in question have been allowed to remain in post, many of them drawing six-figure salaries. Does the Prime Minister agree that this disgraceful state of affairs should be investigated by the police, and does he further agree that it demonstrates why Labour is unfit to run important public services in any part of our country?
The Prime Minister
As my right hon. Friend knows, I am deeply worried about the Betsi Cadwaladr hospital trust in Labour-run north Wales. It has been in special measures for six of the last eight years and, as he remarked, the official audit said that there was worrying dysfunctionality. I hope that this issue is investigated properly, and I believe that my right hon. Friend is in contact with the Secretary of State for Wales to take it further.
Karl Turner (Kingston upon Hull East) (Lab)
Working people are barred from receiving legal aid if they earn £12,750 a year, so why is the Prime Minister forcing the British public to foot the bill—which I think is currently £250,000-plus—for the inquiry into the alleged lying of the right hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Boris Johnson)? Why can the Prime Minister not stand up for the British people? Is it because he is too weak?
The Prime Minister
It is actually a long-established process across multiple Administrations that former Ministers are supported with legal representation after they have left office to deal with matters that relate to their time in office. That has been the practice for many years, as I say, across multiple political Administrations, both Labour and Conservative.
Dean Russell (Watford) (Con)
I welcome the Government’s ongoing engagement to ensure that mental health is treated equally with physical health. In my constituency, Watford General Hospital recently received about £350,000 for improvements to mental health facilities, which will help massively. Given the importance of the issue, will the Prime Minister join me in encouraging colleagues from across the House to attend an event I will be hosting for the Baton of Hope on the Terrace Pavilion after Prime Minister’s questions today, to raise awareness around mental health and suicide prevention?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is a fantastic campaigner on mental health, and I am pleased to learn about all the work he is doing with the Baton of Hope. I am also pleased that we are putting more Government money into mental health services and taking more action on this issue than any previous Government, investing an extra £2.3 billion a year. I encourage all colleagues to join my hon. Friend in attending the reception on the Terrace Pavilion.
Student Visas
(11 months, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Carol Monaghan (Glasgow North West) (SNP)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department to make a statement on the changes to the student visa route.
The Minister for Immigration (Robert Jenrick)
Net migration is too high, and the Government are committed to bringing it down to sustainable levels. The most recent official statistics estimated that net migration in the year to June 2022 was at 504,000. This is partly due to temporary and exceptional factors such as the UK’s Ukraine and Hong Kong schemes. Last year, more than 200,000 Ukrainians and 150,000 Hong Kong British nationals overseas made use of the routes to life or time in the United Kingdom. Those schemes command broad support from the British public, and we were right to introduce them.
The Government introduced a points-based system in 2020 to regain control of our borders post Brexit. We now need to decide who comes to the UK and operate a system that can flex to the changing needs of the labour market, such as the skills needs of the NHS. However, immigration is dynamic, and we must adapt to take account of changing behaviours and if there is evidence of abuse. The number of dependants arriving alongside international students has risen more than eightfold since 2019, from 16,000 in the year to December 2019 to 136,000 in the year ending December 2022. Dependants of students make a more limited contribution to the economy than students or those coming under the skilled worker route, but more fundamentally, our system was not designed for such large numbers of people coming here in this manner.
Yesterday, we introduced a package of measures to help deliver our goal of reducing net migration. The package includes removing the right for international students to bring dependants unless they are on research postgraduate courses and removing the ability for international students to switch out of the student route into work routes before their studies have been completed. This is the right and fair thing to do. It ensures we protect our public services and housing supply against undue pressure and we deliver on the promises we have made to the public to reduce net migration.
Our education institutions are world-renowned, and for good reason, and the Government remain committed to the commitments in the international education strategy, including the goal of 600,000 international students coming to the United Kingdom each year. But universities should be in the education business, not the immigration business. We are taking concerted action to deliver a fair and effective immigration system that benefits our citizens, our businesses and our economy. We are determined to get this right because it is demonstrably in the national interest.
Carol Monaghan
Thank you, Mr Speaker, for granting this urgent question, and while I thank the Minister for his response, it is disappointing that the Home Secretary is not here, and that we have had to ask an urgent question rather than a statement being made to the House.
International students make an invaluable contribution to our economy. According to the Higher Education Policy Institute, last year they provided nearly £43 billion to the UK economy, and in my constituency of Glasgow North West alone the economic benefit was over £83 million. What assessments have been carried out of the economic impact of this change on the university sector, and on university towns? International students enrich our society and have skills that are proving ever more vital in this post-Brexit climate, which has seen the UK deprived of workers across key sectors. There are currently labour shortages in healthcare, STEM—science, technology, engineering and maths—and IT to name but a few sectors; how can the Minister fail to recognise that this policy will simply exacerbate these?
The reality is that many students coming to the UK look beyond their studies and want their families to be part of that experience. Without a way for overseas students to bring their families, many will opt to go elsewhere, and any drop in international student numbers will cause further harm to universities that are already facing financial difficulties. This policy makes the Home Secretary’s agenda crystal-clear: she is launching an attack on migrants regardless of the benefits they bring to the UK, and in pursuing this short-term reactionary programme international students are being caught in the crossfire.
In Scotland international students’ contribution to university campuses and our wider society is celebrated, but Scotland will suffer the consequences of this misjudged policy. Once again this is indicative of how out of tune this Conservative Government are with the Scottish people. If the Government are insistent in pursuing their hostile environment, will they now accept that Scotland’s needs, and wants, are different from theirs?
Finally, will the Government now devolve immigration powers to the Scottish Parliament, to allow us to choose a way that benefits our communities and society?
Robert Jenrick
No, we will not devolve immigration policy to the Scottish Government: it is right that the UK benefits from one immigration policy and that is the way it will always continue to be under this Conservative Government.
I am afraid that the hon. Lady was misguided on a number of fronts. First, it was this Government who created the international education strategy, which set a target of attracting 600,000 international students to the UK. We have met that target 10 years early and are likely to exceed it this year. The action we are taking today does not take away from that goal: it ensures that there are no unintended consequences. It was never the intention of that policy to enable a very large number of dependants to come to the UK with those students. It is right that universities attract the best and the brightest and that those who are on longer courses, such as PhDs or MPhils, can bring dependants with them, but it is not right that education is a back door for immigration into the country.
The statistics I quoted earlier show the significant increases in the number of student dependants. In 2019, 16,000 visas were issued to student dependants. Last year, the number was 136,000—an increase of eight and a half times. In 2019, for every 10 Indian students, there was one visa issued to a dependant. Last year, that doubled to one in five. For Nigerian students studying in this country, 65,000 dependant visas were issued in 2022 to only 59,000 students.
We do not want to do anything that would harm the international reputation of our universities, but it is right that we pay particular concern to pressure on housing supply and public services, to integration and community cohesion and to making good on our commitment to the British public that we will bring down net migration, which is what the vast majority of the public want to see done.
John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)
When we invite people to our country, it is important that there is good provision of housing, school places and healthcare, but there are huge stresses on the system. Can the Minister give the House some guidance on how much the capital and revenue set-up cost is for a migrant family coming in? When we were in the EU some time ago, it reckoned the cost was €250,000 for a migrant coming to an advanced country.
Robert Jenrick
Obviously that cost varies widely depending on the country of origin and the skills of those individuals. The points-based system is set up in such a way as to encourage higher-skilled individuals to come to the UK for work purposes, but my right hon. Friend is right to say that it is a relatively accessible system, and that has meant large numbers of people entering the UK for a range of different reasons in recent years. We should be acutely concerned about the pressures that is putting on housing supply, public services and integration, particularly in those parts of the country with heated housing markets, such as the one he represents. That is why it is right that we take action of the kind we are taking today.
Stephen Kinnock (Aberavon) (Lab)
International students are much-valued contributors to our world-class higher education system, which is a great asset to our country. We and Universities UK recognise that a tenfold increase in the number of dependants joining students in the UK since 2018 creates significant challenges and that enforcement measures are long overdue. Therefore, as the Leader of the Opposition has made clear, our entire Front-Bench team does not oppose these changes for masters students.
However, as usual, the Government have failed to deliver an impact assessment for the new rules and have left many of the details vague. How many people will this change affect, in terms of both students and dependants? What will the actual impact be on the numbers? The Office for National Statistics defines an immigrant as somebody who has been here for more than a year or who is coming for more than a year, yet masters students are typically here for less than a year.
What is clear is that dependants of students are only a fraction of the story. In their 2019 manifesto, the Conservatives acknowledged that the Brexit vote was a bid to take back control of immigration, but since then net migration has skyrocketed from 226,000 to 500,000, which is a record high even if we exclude Ukrainians and Hongkongers. The number of work visas has increased by a staggering 95%. We are clear that that has happened because for 13 years, the Conservatives have failed to train up Britain’s home-grown talent to fill the vacancies we have and because there are 6 million people on NHS waiting lists in England alone, most of whom wish to return to the workforce.
We want and expect net immigration to reduce, and we have set out plans for how we will get more of Britain’s workers trained up and back to work. Today, the Leader of the Opposition has announced that we will ditch the flawed Government policy that allows businesses to undercut British workers by paying migrant workers 20% less in sectors assigned to the shortage occupation list. Will the Minister commit to scrapping the 20% wage discount on the going rate for shortage occupations? Nothing could be clearer: the Conservatives have lost control of immigration. We are committed on the Opposition Benches to maximising opportunities for Britain’s home-grown talent.
Robert Jenrick
I am delighted to hear that the hon. Gentleman has had a damascene conversion to tighter border controls. Unfortunately, I do not think the British public will believe that. It is the same old Labour party—the party that has always believed in open borders. Its own leader campaigned for the leadership of the Labour party saying that he wanted to defend free movement. Only the other day, the chairwoman of the Labour party, the hon. Member for Oxford East (Anneliese Dodds), said that she expected migration to rise under a future Labour Government. It is the same flip-flopping approach—and the same open door policy.
We want to ensure that we bring net migration down. We consider that to be a solemn promise to the British public, and an important manifesto commitment. This is a significant policy, which I am glad to hear the hon. Gentleman support, that will make a tangible difference on this issue. It will reduce very substantially the number of people coming into the country as dependants, but there might be more that needs to be done. We are determined to tackle this issue and to ensure that we bring net migration down.
Greg Clark (Tunbridge Wells) (Con)
The Minister is doing a difficult job very well. He has set out the context, and it is notable that the Opposition spokesperson shares that analysis. However, most students are temporary visitors, yet many of them are counted as permanent immigrants. Has my right hon. Friend considered changing the definition to include in the count only those who stay?
Robert Jenrick
I respect my right hon. Friend and his deep knowledge of this area, but I do not think it is helpful to change the way in which the statistics are reported. I do think that we have to consider the fact that anyone coming into this country will place pressure on our housing supply and on public services, particularly if they are bringing dependants, including young children or elderly relatives, into the UK. In the present climate, in which there is significant pressure on public services and significant pressure on housing, particularly in certain parts of the country, that is extremely important.
We have seen, historically, that the vast majority of students leave the country and go back to their home country to continue their careers and lives. It is too early to say whether the graduate route will make a material difference to that. It may be, if individuals come to the UK to study and then spend a period of time here on the graduate route, and certainly if they bring dependants, that we will start to see a significant increase in the number of people staying here, making a life in the UK and not returning home, in which case policies of this kind will become more important.
Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)
In a week when universities are celebrating all that international students bring with the “We Are International” campaign, the Home Office is setting about undermining the UK’s place in the highly competitive international education market. I am dismayed that the Labour party is supporting the Government’s measures. Canada, Australia and the US must be rubbing their hands in glee at yet more chopping and changing, which makes the UK less attractive.
Research published by the Higher Education Policy Institute last week shows that, in 2021-22, the benefit to the UK of international students stood at £41.9 billion, with every single constituency on these islands seeing a benefit. When their dependants come with them, those husbands or wives are often working—they are not a burden to the state—and they have to pay the immigration health surcharge as well.
What is the evidence for the policy the Minister has brought forward? The written statement yesterday speaks of issues with agents and of enhanced enforcement and compliance, so what data does he have to suggest that people are abusing what is already an incredibly expensive system? What equality impact assessment has he carried out, because Universities UK International has said that restricting dependants will have a
“disproportionate impact on women…from certain countries”?
Incidentally, those are countries such as Nigeria and India, where the market is growing. Finally, what discussions has he had with the Minister for Higher and Further Education in Scotland ahead of this announcement, and what impact assessment has he carried out on how it will affect institutions in Scotland?
Robert Jenrick
We did think very carefully about this measure and had detailed conversations with colleagues across Government, including of course the Department for Education, and indeed with universities. In my experience, leaders of universities understand the issue we are grappling with here. They can see for themselves the significant increase in the number of dependants who have come to the UK in recent years, and why the Government would feel the need to take action.
The measures we are putting in place will ensure that there will still be a route for student dependants to come to the UK for research courses, such as PhDs, where people will be here for a sustained period of time, but there will not be that route when people are here for short courses. To give the hon. Lady an example, last year there were 315,000 foreign masters students in the UK. These are very large numbers of individuals, and if those people were to bring dependants at scale, it would put pressure on public services and on housing in the UK. I am surprised the hon. Lady does not appreciate that, particularly given the state of some public services in Scotland.
Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con)
It is obviously right, when we see emerging trends in the immigration system that cause concern, that action is taken. When discussing net migration, we need to be clear about the factors that contribute to it. For example, British citizens returning to the UK and potentially bringing children with them also count towards the net migration statistics, but that is clearly not related to immigration policy.
On the wider system and the rationale behind this move, I suspect the Minister may have wanted to announce something slightly more comprehensive, rather than just to focus on student dependants. Does he agree that we should make sure the immigration system has the appropriate impact on the labour market and look more widely at things such as the salary thresholds throughout the system, as well as making the change that has been announced today?
Robert Jenrick
I do think the package of measures that we have announced will make a tangible difference to net migration. Taken together with the easing of exceptional factors, such as Hong Kong BNO individuals coming to the UK over the next year or two, there is good reason to believe that net migration will fall and that we will be better placed to meet our important manifesto commitment.
However, my hon. Friend is right to say that it is critical that we do so, that we should consider further measures and that we have to think carefully about how migration interacts with the British labour market. It is quite wrong to perpetuate an economic model that is overly reliant on foreign labour, with people coming here and taking jobs from British workers, and not to tackle the core issue, which is the number of economically inactive people in our country.
Cat Smith (Lancaster and Fleetwood) (Lab)
Our higher education institutions operate in a global market, which is why universities such as Lancaster University attract students from over 100 different countries, many of whom come, study and then return. The Minister raised the issue of pressure on public services, which makes me wonder who he thinks has been in charge for the past 13 years, but my question to him is: what consultation has he had with universities such as Lancaster University about the implications for them in respect of things like the global league tables for universities?
Robert Jenrick
We have given careful thought to this announcement, as I have said, and we have worked closely with the Department for Education, which is of course the bridge to universities. It is important to stress that we have met the Government’s target of 600,000 international students 10 years early and are likely to exceed it this year, so there is no suggestion that the number of international students is going to diminish rapidly.
What we are doing is tackling a particular issue—an unintended consequence of earlier liberalisations—which is the very significant increase in the number of dependants following international students. I would also say that it is not healthy for British universities to become overly reliant on international students. Just a few years ago, only 5% of the income of British universities came from international students. Today, it is 18% and growing. There are obviously benefits to having income from international students, but we should not be overly reliant on it.
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
When these measures have their effect, surely we will then be able to treat foreign students as the booming export that they are, rather than as immigration.
Robert Jenrick
The education of international students is an important export industry. I believe that it is the UK’s fourth or fifth-biggest export industry, and that is a good thing, and it is supported by the Government. That is why we created the international education strategy that has proven to be so successful. But what we are doing today is ensuring that we do not see unintended consequences and unnecessary pressure on public services as a result.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
What impact will these changes have on the number of students from overseas coming to study in British universities, and what will be the financial consequences? Has the Home Office made that assessment?
Robert Jenrick
As I said, we have already met our target of 600,000 students coming to the UK from overseas. That is 10 years early; in fact, last year there were 605,000. We expect the numbers to increase this year beyond 600,000. There is no suggestion that universities will be short-changed as a result, but in the medium term it will obviously involve fewer dependants coming with those international students. For the reasons that I have set out, we think that is a good thing. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman does not.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
This measure is wholly to be welcomed, but the fact is that legal migration is out of control and the British people did not vote for Brexit to replace mass migration from Europe with mass migration from the rest of the world. May I therefore press the Minister on the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay (Kevin Foster) that we will never deal with legal migration until we solve the labour problem? Home-grown employers in Britain are paying too low wages and trying to attract people from all over the world. Why do we not raise the threshold so that those who want to come here and get a job need to earn average earnings?
Robert Jenrick
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his support. He is right that, having left the European Union and taken back control of our borders and migration policy, it is critical that we make good on our promise to bring net migration down, because it does put intolerable pressure on public services and housing, and it does strain community cohesion, particularly when it happens at a scale and speed that is too great for many people in British society.
My right hon. Friend makes an important point about the workings of the points-based system and the salary thresholds for the shortage occupation list and for general work visas. The Government keep that under review, because we do not want to see employers reaching for international labour rather than seeking to recruit and train domestic labour, reducing unemployment and reducing the number of people who are on benefits.
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)
The Home Secretary makes contradictory statements to different audiences and thinks that nobody notices her sleight of hand. Yesterday, she recommitted to bringing in 600,000 international students per year. Does the Minister now regret the fact that, having completely lost control of immigration figures, she actually expressed her desire to reduce student visas at last year’s Conservative party conference?
Robert Jenrick
The Home Secretary and I are completely at one in our determination to reduce net migration. That is what our party stood on a manifesto to do and that is what we intend to achieve. The Home Secretary and I want to find ways in which we can tackle abuse and unintended consequences within the system, and the package of measures that we have set out this week will do so in this important area and, as Labour appears now to support it, in a clearly significant cross-party way.
Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)
I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. As the Minister considers work visas, which have exploded, displacing investment in domestic skills and investment in modern working practices fit for the future, will he also answer this question: why it is right and fair for people studying a research degree to be able to bring their family into the country but not for people who are not doing primary research? Surely if those studying for MAs that do not require research cannot bring their family, no one should be able to do so?
Robert Jenrick
We said in the announcement this week that, with the Department for Education, we will launch a consultation with the university sector to design a longer-term alternative to the system that previously operated, which could be a more nuanced approach. But I think that the determination that we have made this week is the right one, which is that those people coming into the UK to study will be able to bring in dependants only if they are doing those high-value, usually longer-term, research-based courses such as PhDs, and those coming for short courses will invariably not be able to do so. That will cut out some of the abuse that we have seen in the system and will focus universities on their primary responsibility, which is teaching and education, rather than in some cases being a back door to immigration and to work.
Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)
Later this afternoon, my much-valued international student Jacqueline will spend the last few hours of her time here before she completes her internship. She has been a massive asset to my office, as were the other London School of Economics interns and other interns I have had the privilege of working with over the last number of years. What should I say to her? Should I say, “Thank you—you have been a boon to this place and these islands” or, “You’re a problem that has to be controlled”?
Robert Jenrick
It would be helpful if the hon. Gentleman did not spread misinformation to his researcher or indeed anyone else. It was the Government, through the international education strategy, who created this commitment, which has proven to be so successful that it has led to 600,000 international students coming to the UK—perhaps including the lady he referred to. We also created the graduate route, which has enabled people—potentially including his researcher—to move seamlessly into the workplace here in the UK after their studies rather than having to apply immediately for a work or family visa as used to happen. There is no suggestion of any diminution in our support for universities or international students, but it is right that we get a grip on abuses or unintended consequences. That is what Governments have to do when trying to control an immigration system. Perhaps he does not want controlled immigration. We do, and that is why we have to take these steps.
Aaron Bell (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Con)
International students studying high-quality courses at high-quality universities such as Keele in my constituency—the Minister knows it well—add a huge amount to our local economy. But is it not absolutely clear from the figures that the Minister quoted earlier showing the increase in dependant visas that some universities have, wittingly or otherwise, been selling immigration rather than education? Is it not vital that we get on top of that?
Robert Jenrick
I completely agree with my hon. Friend. Universities such as Keele—I do know that university well—have played a critical role in the economic development of local communities, and we want to encourage that. But it is important that universities primarily focus on education, not creating courses marketed overseas to individuals whose primary interest is in coming to the UK for immigration and work purposes, with those courses being a back door to that.
Mr Ben Bradshaw (Exeter) (Lab)
Is not the truth that, since Brexit, excellent universities such as mine in Exeter have sought to replace those thousands of EU students they have lost with students from other parts of the world who tend, for cultural and other reasons, to bring more family members, spouses and children with them? Are not the Government having to clear up another Brexit mess of their own making? Will the Minister be honest with the House and explain how he will avoid discriminating against countries such as Nigeria and India, from which students do tend to bring dependants, and making us even more reliant on students from China?
Robert Jenrick
The right hon. Gentleman makes a curious argument. Of course, it was as a result of leaving the European Union that we have created an entirely non-discriminatory immigration system that has enabled people to apply to come to the UK, whether for work purposes or as students, from anywhere in the world, rather than making it more difficult for those from outside the EU and having a large number of EU citizens come here. Today’s proposals will tackle this particular unintended consequence of the opening up to international students. I do not see any evidence that it will harm particular nationalities. There are some glaring examples such as the Nigerian one that I mentioned previously, but this will apply to everyone. It is an entirely non-discriminatory policy.
Stephen Hammond (Wimbledon) (Con)
My right hon. Friend is completely right that we must choose who comes here and we must strike out abuse. Wimbledon has many English language schools and English language is a key part of the international education strategy. Given the specific and short-term nature of these students, and that they bring in no dependants and are not a cost on our public services, will he meet me and the leaders of the sector to discuss restoring work visas for this specific group of students?
Robert Jenrick
I would be pleased to meet my hon. Friend to discuss that. As I said earlier with respect to the announcement we made today, we will be carrying out a consultation with the Department for Education that will give universities the opportunity to set out their case and refine the policy if necessary. He highlights one of the other elements of the announcement we made this week, which is clamping down on abuse. There are a small number of unscrupulous education agents who may be supporting disingenuous applications that are selling immigration rather than education. One measure we are taking this week is to clamp down on those with much more targeted and effective enforcement activity.
Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)
My constituents do not share the Tory and Labour obsession with net migration. They understand that Scotland benefits from inward migration. In fact, Universities UK research shows that my constituency’s net economic benefit from international students is £170.8 million, which gives the lie to most of what the Minister has said. Continuing as a member of the United Kingdom is damaging Scotland’s universities, including Edinburgh Napier University and Herriot-Watt University in my constituency. First Brexit, now this. The Union has to work for both partners, so why will the Minister not sit down with the Home Secretary and consider devolving immigration policies relating to student visas to the Scottish Parliament?
Robert Jenrick
As I said many times before, we have no intention of devolving immigration policy. On the broader questions, there is no material difference between Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom in terms of unemployment or economic inactivity, so there is no compelling case for a bespoke immigration system for Scotland versus the rest of the United Kingdom. The sheer scale of the number of international students who have come into all parts of the UK, including Scotland, in recent years suggests that this Government’s policies have increased the number of international students, not diminished them.
Mrs Flick Drummond (Meon Valley) (Con)
Pressures in migration policy ultimately lead back to the efficient processing of everyone UK Visas and Immigration has to deal with. Can my right hon. Friend assure me that this change will help UKVI make more decisions more quickly?
Robert Jenrick
I am pleased to say that UKVI is today a very well-run organisation under the superb leadership of an official in the Home Office called Marc Owen. In every one of the visa categories, it is meeting its service standard or significantly exceeding them. [Interruption.] I know the hon. Member for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss) always likes to deal in anecdote rather than statistics, but—I am afraid to disappoint her—it is.
Layla Moran (Oxford West and Abingdon) (LD)
I, for one, am very proud of the international students in my community. Oxford Brookes University and, of course, Oxford University pride themselves on being able to attract the best and brightest. This policy will make that harder. We value them because they bring value. They bring value of, on average, £400 million to the Oxfordshire economy. Why are the Government, and apparently the Labour party, intent on stifling our universities and our economy?
Robert Jenrick
I have affection for the hon. Lady, but she is probably the greatest nimby in the House of Commons today. She always opposes new homes, new development and new infrastructure in and around Oxford, so it is quite wrong for her to say that we should have an open door immigration policy, welcoming more and more people into her community and others, without meeting the demands that come with that in terms of housing and infrastructure.
Tom Hunt (Ipswich) (Con)
I am uncomfortable with net migration at current levels, as I believe are most of my constituents. I understand what the Government are doing about one-year taught masters; they seem to be about 95% of this issue. That absolutely makes sense. However, I have some concerns that some universities might try to game the system and re-label one-year taught masters as one-year research masters. I understand why PhDs are treated differently, but will the Minister assure me that that will not happen and we will clamp down on that? Will he also comment on the two-year period I believe that students get after they graduate, where they can stay here even if they do not necessarily have a job?
Robert Jenrick
We believe the changes we are setting out today will make a marked impact on net migration. We will, obviously, monitor them very closely for some of the unintended consequences my hon. Friend refers to. The consultation we will do with universities and the broader sector will help us to refine the policy, should that be necessary.
Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)
The Minister has already acknowledged that the vast majority of students return home. In fact, the compliance rate for international student visas is 97.5%, the highest for any UK visa category. Does that not suggest there may be better targets for the Government’s energies?
Robert Jenrick
There is no one single intervention that will solve this challenge, but this is a significant intervention that will make a material difference to net migration. The hon. Gentleman is right to say that the overwhelming majority of international students historically have left at the end of their studies, or shortly thereafter. It is possible that the system that has evolved since 2019 will see different trends. In 2020, only 7,400 non-EU students stayed on post study and those numbers will be dramatically higher in the years ahead. It may be that the mix of individuals, the countries they come from and the fact that they are bringing dependants with them in many cases, will lead to a far higher number of individuals staying on post study, but I do not think we will see those trends clearly enough this year. We may see them in years to come.
Scott Benton (Blackpool South) (Ind)
Many of my constituents continue to be deeply concerned about the levels of net migration, not just over the last few years but over the last few decades. They, along with myself, will welcome the measures outlined by the Minister today. Is he able to update the House on any measures his Department is taking to tackle bogus college placements from students who sometimes come to this country only to disappear into thin air?
Robert Jenrick
Alongside the package of measures today, we are, as I said earlier, taking further targeted enforcement activity against unscrupulous education agents who are selling entry to the United Kingdom, rather than education. We will also work closely with universities and the Department for Education to improve communication, to universities and their affiliates, of the immigration rules, so we can clamp down on the kind of poor practices my hon. Friend describes.
Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)
The Minister avoided this question when my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss) asked it, so I will try again. What discussions were there between the UK Government and Scottish Ministers on this matter before the announcement was made?
Robert Jenrick
Immigration is a reserved matter. I would just add that I am seeking a meeting with the relevant Cabinet Secretary in the Scottish Government to discuss illegal migration, but her office has so far not offered a meeting.
Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)
The statement is right to celebrate the huge growth in international student numbers—I assume that is the bit the Department for Education and the Treasury insisted should go in—but within that there is a welcome diversification in that growth away from overdependence on China. That was a deliberate part of the international education strategy. The Minister talks about unintended consequences, but it was entirely predictable that those coming from other countries for masters courses would come from a different demographic from Chinese students, that they would have families and that, like us, they would not want to separated from them. Our competitors welcome students with families, so there is a real risk that a blanket ban on dependants will undermine the Government’s own international education strategy. The statement commits to consulting with universities in developing the approach, so will the Minister confirm there will be no blanket ban on dependants of postgraduate taught students until that consultation has taken place?
Robert Jenrick
We will implement the policy we set out yesterday, but concurrently we will launch the consultation with universities and, if we need to refine the policy as a result of that, we will do so. To the hon. Gentleman’s first point, I do not think there is any reason why a Chinese student would be less likely to bring dependants with them to the United Kingdom than a Nigerian, a Vietnamese or a Bangladeshi. I do not follow his logic there at all. We want an entirely non-discriminatory approach and that is what we have said to our international counterparts this week. That has always been our approach to this. We welcome international students from any part of the world.
Mike Kane (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab)
The vast majority of international students access their courses in the north of England through Manchester airport in my constituency. Will the Minister agree to an economic impact assessment on how the policy will impact jobs in my constituency and route development, and the cost to the wider northern economy?
Robert Jenrick
I was pleased to be at Manchester airport on Friday, meeting my Border Force officials and seeing the expansion currently under way. I do not foresee any serious loss of revenue for an airport such as Manchester. The number of international students coming to the UK has risen very significantly in recent years. To the extent that that provides income to airports, they will have benefited from our existing policy and I expect them to benefit in future.
Marion Fellows (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
Thank you, Mr Speaker, for granting this urgent question, even if only to expose that we could not put a cigarette paper between Labour and Tory policies on this issue. Scotland has a track record of welcoming international students to our internationally recognised universities. Scotland wants and needs the benefits that they bring. This Government’s continuous refusal to devolve immigration powers to the Scottish Government shows their contempt for Scotland. Why do they not understand and recognise that things are different there? Continual refusal to do what Scotland needs and wants will come down heavy on them in the next election.
Robert Jenrick
At the risk of repeating myself, there is no material difference between unemployment or economic inactivity in Scotland and in the rest of the UK—the hon. Lady is incorrect in that regard. The UK benefits enormously from a single immigration policy and offer to international students in universities in all parts of the world.
Stephen Farry (North Down) (Alliance)
In Northern Ireland, our universities are very dependent on international students, particularly in the light of the budget crisis we are facing. Employers cannot access labour without migration, which I am sure is the same for the rest of the UK. Rather than being a burden, our public services depend upon migrants for their basic functioning. Why are the Government so insistent on acting against the core interests of our public services, the economy and our local universities?
Robert Jenrick
Nothing could be further from the truth. It is this Government who established the international education strategy that led to 600,000 international students coming to the UK every year. Indeed, that number is likely to grow next year. With respect to public services, we created the health and social care visa, which last year led to 76,000 applications. Their dependants were able to join them. That was 11% of all the visas issued to individuals wishing to come to the United Kingdom. We are doing everything we can to support public services, but we must address the fact that very high levels of net migration place intolerable pressure on housing, public services and integration.
Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)
Our schools are in the midst of such a chronic teacher recruitment and retention crisis that the Department for Education currently offers £10,000 relocation payments to overseas applicants to come and train as language and physics teachers in the UK, on postgraduate taught courses. If they cannot bring their families, they will not want to settle here and use the training that we have provided in our schools, where they are desperately needed. Why are the Government cutting off their nose to spite their own face?
Robert Jenrick
If the hon. Lady is referring to pressure on school places, that would be a good argument for reducing the number of dependants coming to the UK, because the children of the students will be using primary schools in her constituency.
Jeff Smith (Manchester, Withington) (Lab)
The Minister still has not said what economic impact assessment the Government have carried out on this policy. Will he publish one?
Robert Jenrick
I said that we take a pragmatic approach to this issue. We are balancing our strong desire to bring down net migration with the needs of the economy. That is why we have taken the approach of standing behind the 600,000 target for international students, but making this important tweak to ensure that it is not abused.
Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)
Net migration figures also include the number people who leave this country. The Minister’s hard Brexit has made it more difficult for students and others to travel overseas, and that is having an impact on net migration figures. Meanwhile, Glasgow North thrives culturally, socially and economically to the tune of £225.8 million thanks to our lively and diverse international student community. Why does the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office spend millions of pounds on overseas campaigns that say that Britain is great, when the message coming from the Home Office is that Britain is closed?
Robert Jenrick
I wonder what world the hon. Gentleman lives in if he thinks that net migration of half a million is too little and we should encourage more. Net migration levels in this country are very high. We want to bring those down, which is why we are taking measures such as this.
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
The University of Cumbria and Lancaster University are hugely successful institutions, and we are proud of them. They are important to our economy and are successful exporters. What is their export? High-quality education delivered in the United Kingdom. Why are the Government seeking to stifle our great exporters’ ability to export? Why have they become suddenly anti-free market? Will the Minister recognise that, by earning money through international students, British universities can cross-subsidise services and places for British students? British students will be the ones who pay the price.
Robert Jenrick
As I said in answer to an earlier question, the economic benefit of international students is clear. We welcome that, but we do not want British universities to become totally reliant on income from international students. Just a few years ago, that accounted for 5% of their income; last year it was 18%, and without measures such as this, no doubt it would continue to rise. To the hon. Gentleman’s broader point, of course we want to support universities such as his to thrive and prosper and to market themselves internationally, but the business of universities is education, not immigration.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Minister for his answers. I welcome the announcement as it shows considerable effort in committing to the Government pledge to crack down on net migration. However, what assessment has the Minister made of the number of children who will be left behind while their parents come to the UK to study for a better life, and cannot bring their little ones with them on their journey and, crucially, maintain family life, which is really important?
Robert Jenrick
That is one of the reasons we have said that those coming here for longer-term research courses such as PhDs can continue to bring their dependants with them. If one were coming to the UK for a sustained period, it would be right for them to relocate in a more substantial way. But if individuals are making a choice to come here for a one-year masters course, it is perfectly appropriate for the UK to say that that is their decision and they should not bring their dependants with them.
Agricultural Tenancies
(11 months, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Food, Farming and Fisheries (Mark Spencer)
I draw the House’s attention to my declaration of interests. With permission, Mr Speaker, in addition to the written ministerial statement that I tabled today, I would like to make a statement regarding today’s publication of the Government’s response to the Rock review of tenant farming in England. It is the next step to support farmers in all corners of the country, who are at the heart of our rural economy, following the UK farm to fork summit last week in Downing Street.
I thank Baroness Rock, who is in the Gallery observing our proceedings. Her tenacity, hard work and dedication alongside the Tenancy Working Group has resulted in this important review. I also thank the former food and farming Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Camborne and Redruth (George Eustice), who is in his place, for initiating the review.
The House will be aware that my background is in dairy farming—four generations deep in Nottinghamshire, in rural Sherwood. We are a family business that is now diversified; it is focused on farm retail, with some beef, lamb, potatoes and a bit of arable. I know at first-hand how important farming is to our economy and to keeping the country fed. That is what farming is for.
One of the first actions taken by this Secretary of State was to announce detailed plans for the nation’s farming sector, with our environmental land management schemes having something to offer every type of farmer. We are making it easier for farmers to apply, and this year we have improved the application process. We have also increased the rates and broadened the scope of countryside stewardship. The process for applying for the sustainable farming incentive is now much more efficient, and we want that to continue. We are going to upgrade the countryside stewardship service so that applications take a similar amount of time. By this time next year, we will be encouraging many more farmers to get involved.
The Government support tenant farmers because there is no better way to bring new people into the sector. From day one of the agricultural transition, we have worked with tenants, utilising their knowledge and experience through our programme of tests, trials and pilot programmes. Their input has helped us develop schemes that are as accessible as possible to all sorts of farmers. I will say to the House what I say to every farmer I meet: “Have a look at our schemes and get involved.”
We commissioned the tenancy working group, chaired by Baroness Rock, to carry out a comprehensive review of tenanted farming in England. We did that because we recognised how crucial the tenanted sector is to a successful agricultural transition. Since then, we have been working with Baroness Rock and colleagues across Government to give full and considered attention to the review’s insights and recommendations. Our response today builds on the considerable progress that we have made since the review was commissioned to implement its ongoing feedback, and sets out the further actions we are taking in response to the review.
For example, we have already made it easier for tenants to participate in the sustainable farming incentive, by offering three-year agreements. We have also made all our productivity grants accessible to tenant farmers, including the £168 million of investment we will launch across 2023. Furthermore, as a result of our continued commitment to tenants, around half of the 22 long-term, high-ambition landscape recovery projects selected in the first round involve tenants working with other farmers and land managers.
As the review recommends, we have launched a consultation on extending inheritance tax relief to include land in environmental land management schemes. We hope this will provide landlords and tenants with more flexibility to diversify their land. The tax consultation also explores an option to limit inheritance tax relief to land let out for a minimum of eight years. That could provide tenant farmers with greater certainty over the length of tenancy agreements.
Today we have set out further actions that we will take. We agree that tenant voices must be heard in the development of Government policies and that we must remove any remaining barriers to accessing our farming schemes. That is why we are today announcing a new farm tenancy forum, which will improve the way we communicate with the sector and help us make our schemes as accessible as possible to tenants. The new forum will put a more formal engagement and feedback structure in place between DEFRA and the tenanted sector. The forum will support the implementation of the Government response to the Rock review, feeding back real-world experiences and insights on progress.
In response to the review, we are pleased to announce that the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors has, within its public interest remit, come forward to lead the development of a code of practice, collaborating with industry bodies on expected standards of socially responsible behaviour for all parties involved in agricultural tenancy agreements.
The review also recommended examining the potential need for an independent tenant farming commissioner or ombudsman in England. In response, we will be launching a call for evidence this summer to explore the benefits and impacts of how this might work in practice and how such a role might fit within existing procedures and regulations.
We agree with the review that the tenanted sector has an essential role as a route into farming for new entrants. We will commit to assess how our new entrant support scheme pilot supports farmers to gain new tenancies, and we will present emerging findings to the new farm tenancy forum to embed the views of the tenanted sector in our schemes. The Government support tenant farmers because this is one of the best routes to bring new people into the sector.
As I have set out, we have already made progress on actioning this important review. Today, we are announcing a new forum to embed tenants further in policymaking. We will also publish a new industry-led code of practice and launch a call for evidence on the proposed tenant farming commissioner. We will deliver for tenant farmers and for all farmers. I commend this statement to the House.
Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for advance sight of his statement. I also thank Baroness Rock and all those involved in the tenancy working group, because theirs is an excellent report. The Government have clearly spent a long time—eight months—considering it. Although we are pleased to see the response at last, we are slightly disappointed that it takes a rather piecemeal approach. Perhaps the Minister could start by telling us how many of the 74 recommendations the Government have chosen to adopt.
This is a complex subject, and we probably need more time to debate it properly. However, let me start by restating why it matters: with half of England’s farmland tenanted, we are not going to achieve the transition to a more sustainable form of food production and restore nature without getting this right. There is a problem—long acknowledged—that farm business tenancies now average just 3.2 years. Although constant renewals and negotiations might be good for land agents, that is too short-term, and it is often too difficult for tenants to get involved in the schemes the Government are bringing forward.
Although we welcome the fact that entry to the sustainable farming incentive has been made possible through three-year agreements, I note that the Minister said in his statement that we must “remove any remaining barriers to accessing our farming schemes.” Of course, those schemes are much more than just the SFI. Will he therefore tell us why he has not accepted the proposals from the Rock review to make it easier for tenants to enter the tier 2 and tier 3 versions, since that is where the majority of these schemes, such as those for countryside stewardship and landscape recovery, are likely to lie? That really matters. With so much now being pushed out through the countryside stewardship scheme—a debate for another day, perhaps—it could be a problem.
The Minister may be able in passing to update us on the current uptake of the SFI, which I fear—I suspect he shares this view—is still disappointingly low. What assessment has he made of the number of tenants who are likely to enrol, particularly in the countryside stewardship scheme and in landscape recovery level 2? I am told that 70% of tenants routinely do not get consent from their landlords, and I wonder what his estimate is. The danger is that, for all the fine words, too many tenants will still not be able to access environmental land management schemes.
I welcome the comments from the Minister and in the Rock review about the potential benefits for new entrants. We are, of course, still waiting for more details on the new entrants scheme—interestingly, the Government produced the exit scheme a while ago. Will the Minister tell us where he has got to on the new entrants scheme?
The Minister may recall that, during the passage of the Agriculture Act 2020, a previous Secretary of State assured us that moving away from basic payments under the common agricultural policy would see rents fall. Will the Minister tell us what has happened so far, as we approach the halfway point in the agricultural transition?
In general, does the Minister agree that we need a structural change to move to long-term agreements? That was one of the key conclusions from the Rock review. I heard nothing in his statement to that effect, even though this was a fundamental point.
The review found that the constant renegotiation of tenancies is problematic in itself. As Baroness Rock told the Oxford farming conference—the Minister and I were both there:
“Too often we found an overly short term, commercial and acerbic approach to the management of tenanted estates.”
I wonder whether the Minister agrees with that comment. I also wonder whether anything in his statement this morning will remedy the increasingly common situation where tenanted land is lost as landlords seek to put land into woodland or other uses, thus reducing the scope for food production.
We welcome the establishment of the farm tenancy forum, but will the Minister clarify what its role will be? The danger is it will just be a rolled-over version of the long-running tenancy reform industry group. What will its task be? Who will serve on it? What will its terms of reference be?
We welcome further consideration of a tenant farming commissioner, but does the Minister not understand that the problems facing tenants are real and present now? What further information does he expect from yet another consultation? Is that in fact just an attempt to long-grass this recommendation? Is the Minister taking forward the recommendation that the Law Commission investigate this complicated area?
There are many detailed questions that should and will be asked—more than can be accommodated today—but let me conclude on a positive note by welcoming the involvement of the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors in developing a code of practice. This is a complicated and important area, and it is vital to everyone’s interests that collaborative ways forward are established.
Mark Spencer
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that one little nugget of positivity. We have already adopted most of the recommendations in the Rock review. He characterised that action as piecemeal, perhaps because throughout this process we have been liaising with Baroness Rock and the tenancy working group, listening to their recommendations and ensuring that we take them into consideration as we design the new ELM schemes. We will naturally consider further items as we proceed, and the farm tenancy forum is being established so that we can continue to receive that good advice.
Of course we want tenants to be involved in the SFI. The hon. Gentleman knows that we ran pilot schemes which have been quite successful. He knows that we have listened to farmers who have engaged with those pilot schemes, and, in response, have adapted, changed and tweaked them. We will launch six more standards under the SFI this summer, and we will be saying to farmers, “Now is your moment to get involved, to take a look at these new schemes”. We want them to think about how they embark on the journey of our transition away from bureaucratic EU systems such as the single farm payment and towards a new system that will enable us to support farmers’ food production and to benefit the environment and increase biodiversity at the same time.
There are, of course, good landlords and good tenants, and some poor landlords and some poor tenants. We want to allow flexibility for good landlords and good tenants, and to hold to account those who are not adopting the right course of action. I noted that the hon. Gentleman’s question contained no recommendations or policy from Labour. There is a gaping void in Labour’s rural policy: it is an urban-based party that does not understand rural communities and does not understand the farming sector. The Conservative party is the party of rural communities, and we will always stand up for those communities and for farmers.
Sir Robert Goodwill (Scarborough and Whitby) (Con)
I, too, pay tribute to Baroness Rock and her working group. She has engaged with me and with my Committee, the Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, which launched its report on the tenanted sector this morning.
Does the Minister agree that as we move from direct payments to more environmentally linked payments, there will always be a limitation on which schemes tenants can participate in because of their long-term nature? Does he also share my concern about the possibility of perverse incentives for landlords to take land back from tenants for purposes such as the creation of solar farms, rewilding and forestry?
Mark Spencer
I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend and his Committee for their work. We want to avoid any such perverse incentives. We do not want to motivate landlords to take land from tenants for the purpose of, for instance, rewilding, or to remove them from the sector for any reason. We want to encourage a positive working relationship.
There are, of course, some challenges. If, for example, a tenant applies for a grant under our new slurry scheme to introduce physical structures that will last well beyond the length of the tenancy, the landlord will need to have some engagement in the process and to support that tenant. We want to open up these grants to tenants as well as owner-occupiers, so that tenant farmers can invest in their productivity as well as their sustainability and their ability to make a profit.
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
I welcome and broadly agree with the review, and pay tribute to Baroness Rock and her team for their hard work. I am grateful for advance sight of the Minister’s statement, which also included much encouraging information. However, the Government have dragged their feet in responding to the review, and many of the policies that will affect tenant farmers have already been set in train, which is one reason why a mere 27 of the more than 1,000 farms in my constituency, roughly half of which will be tenanted, have taken part in the SFI so far.
I think the Government should stand rebuked by two particular elements in the review, and I should like them to look at those again. First, does the review not remind them to ensure that landscape recovery includes tenant farmers, and that the landscape cannot be gobbled up by water companies and large estates, which is what is beginning to happen? Secondly, given that many tenant farmers in Cumbria and elsewhere are upland farmers, does the Minister recognise that the intention of funding environmental schemes via the system of income forgone discriminates against the uplands and will force many hard-working tenant farmers out of the industry altogether, to the detriment of our environment and of food production?
Mark Spencer
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his warm welcome for the report and our response, but I think that some of his characterisations are a little misplaced. Let me say first that in designing the ELM schemes we took account of the feedback we were receiving from those conducting the review. We were in possession of it when it was published some time ago, and we worked with the group to ensure that we were taking it on board. Secondly, of course we want to support upland farmers. We want to support all tenants, to ensure that they have the best possible opportunity to make a living, and to protect the beautiful landscapes that we see not only in Cumbria but in the south-west and other places with landscapes that matter to the British people.
Let me say this, gently, to the hon. Gentleman. He will be aware that the Liberal Democrats entered into the political game of trying to keep our farmers tied to the bureaucratic EU land-based subsidies by tabling a motion in the other place. Under that system, far too much time was spent on burdening farmers with complex sets of rules, and on debating whether a cabbage was the same as a cauliflower for the purposes of the three-crop rule. We have to move on to a different place, and that is what we are doing. The hon. Gentleman can play his political games, but we will look after those farmers and ensure that the system works for them.
George Eustice (Camborne and Redruth) (Con)
I commend the comprehensive piece of work done by Baroness Rock and I welcome the statement, but I want to make two points. First, probably the most powerful thing that the Government could do to improve the accessibility of the schemes to tenant farmers is to make agreements assignable from one tenant to the next. I wonder whether any progress has been made on that option. Secondly, if we want to help tenant farmers, we must make it as easy as possible for landowners to bring land to market for rent. Historically, under the Law of Property Act 1925 and the Agricultural Holdings Act 1948, landowners had a right to rent out their land, but following pernicious lobbying by the banking industry that was taken away through section 31 of the Agricultural Tenancies Act 1995, and they now need permission from a bank. Will the Minister consider repealing section 31 as part of the ongoing review?
Mark Spencer
I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend, who triggered the Rock review and set it up in the first place. His knowledge is evident to the whole House. I will look into his specific questions and get back to him, but many of these issues can now be reviewed by the farm tenancy forum, and I think that that will be an opportunity to get under the bonnet and inform ourselves much more directly than we have in the past.
Siobhan Baillie (Stroud) (Con)
I thank all the farmers in Stroud Valleys and Severn Vale for everything they do for food production. I also welcome the farming focus from Baroness Rock and, indeed, the Prime Minister—and Kaleb from “Clarkson’s Farm”, who is a firm favourite in our household. Does my right hon. Friend agree that we must keep tenant farmers farming for generations, and look at how we are encouraging young farmers into the businesses that are so vital for our country?
Mark Spencer
My hon. Friend will be aware of my background. I think that if ever there was a moment in history when we needed the brightest and most inspired people to come into the sector and embrace food production, as well as solving the challenges of climate change, that moment is now. As for encouraging young people into the sector, we can all play our part in providing a positive image of food production and farmers to ensure that that next generation becomes involved.
Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am the first of two Simons to be called.
I thank my right hon. Friend for his statement. Dorset Council runs a very successful network of county farms, which are becoming rarer but are still, in my view, important. Can my right hon. Friend say whether his statement will be of benefit to the tenants of those county farms?
Mark Spencer
I hope that it will be of benefit to all tenant farmers, whether they are on a county farm, have a private landlord or a non-governmental organisation as their landlord. We want to support all tenants, but I recognise the huge contribution that county council-owned units have made and Dorset has certainly been exemplary in showing how they can benefit tenants by establishing the stepping stone to getting into an agricultural business and getting on to the producing food ladder.
Simon Jupp (East Devon) (Con)
The creation of a new farming tenancy forum is a welcome move. Those voices are crucial and the next generation in East Devon will be vital. Does the Minister agree that the tenanted sector is vital for the future of agriculture and absolutely crucial for the food security of the United Kingdom?
Mark Spencer
I wholly agree with my hon. Friend. He will be aware that only last week I was in Devon talking to farmers in his constituency about the contribution they are making to keeping the country well fed and also protecting the beautiful landscapes that Devon has to offer. We want tenants in Devon and across the country to embrace and benefit from our new schemes and to continue to keep us well fed and look after the environment.
Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)
I welcome today’s report and the Minister’s statement. He will be aware of the rise in food prices and the pressure on land use, particularly in relation to rewilding and large-scale solar farms. What is he doing to ensure that we maintain food production and food security from tenants and non-tenant farmers alike?
Mark Spencer
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend. The farmers of Lincolnshire produce a huge amount of food for the nation. We need to invest in new technology and in productivity, to ensure that our farmers continue to become more productive. The good news is that we get about 1% more efficient every year as a sector—that is, we produce 1% more food from the same amount of land. We need to build on that productivity, which is why we are investing huge amounts in science, technology and innovation to make sure that farmers have the best access to new technology.
Points of Order
(11 months, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough) (Lab)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. In answer to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Washington and Sunderland West (Mrs Hodgson) at Prime Minister’s questions about the dealings at Teesworks, the Prime Minister said that
“the Levelling Up Secretary has already announced an investigation into this matter.”
But the Secretary of State has not responded to the requests last week for a National Audit Office investigation from the shadow Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Wigan (Lisa Nandy), and from the Chair of the Business and Trade Committee, so we are in the dark. Will you advise me on how we can seek clarity from the Prime Minister on when this investigation was ordered and on what terms?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his point of order and for giving me notice of his intention to raise this matter. He knows that Minister’s responses are not a matter for the Chair, but I understand that he is making a serious and apparently well-founded criticism that information has been given from the Dispatch Box that does not appear to accord with the facts as he understands them. Ministers on the Treasury Bench will have heard what he has said, and I hope that his concerns will be passed on to the appropriate Minister. There is no doubt that what is actually done should accord precisely with what is said to have been done. Of course, he has other recourse, through the Table Office, to finding other ways of raising this matter on the Floor of the House.
Margaret Greenwood (Wirral West) (Lab)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Leverhulme Estates wishes to build hundreds of homes on the green belt in Wirral West, and a series of planning appeals relating to this are currently being heard by the Planning Inspectorate at a public inquiry. On 12 April, Wirral Council wrote to the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities requesting that consideration be given to the recovery of these appeals for determination by the Secretary of State himself. The Secretary of State did not respond to that letter or to a reminder sent by Wirral Council on 5 May. My constituents care passionately about protecting the green belt and I fully support them in that. Will you advise me on what I can do on behalf of local residents and Wirral Council to impress upon the Secretary of State the importance of his giving this matter his urgent attention?
Madam Deputy Speaker
I thank the hon. Lady for her point of order. Although this is not a matter for the Chair, I fully appreciate her desire and duty to defend and protect the green belt. But from the Chair I have no authority to take any action in respect of delays in Government replies to local authorities. She has very reasonably raised this matter, and as I said to the hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Andy McDonald) a few moments ago, I trust that those on the Treasury Bench will have heard what she has said and noted her very reasonable concerns, and that they will hopefully take action on them. If not, the hon. Lady knows where to seek advice from the Table Office as to how she might take the matter further.
Bills Presented
British Nationality (Regularisation of Past Practice) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Secretary Suella Braverman, supported by the Prime Minister and Robert Jenrick, presented a Bill to make provision for immigration restrictions to be disregarded for the purposes of the British Nationality Act 1981 in historical cases in which such restrictions were in practice disregarded.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed (Bill 313) with explanatory notes (Bill 313—EN).
Ministerial Conduct (Training) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Wendy Chamberlain presented a Bill to require Ministers of the Crown to undertake annual training in matters relating to propriety, ethics and standards; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 24 November, and to be printed (Bill 315).
Aviation Banning Orders (Disruptive Passengers)
Wednesday 24th May 2023
(11 months, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Aviation Banning Orders (Disruptive Passengers) Bill 2022-23 View all Aviation Banning Orders (Disruptive Passengers) Bill 2022-23 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
A Ten Minute Rule Bill is a First Reading of a Private Members Bill, but with the sponsor permitted to make a ten minute speech outlining the reasons for the proposed legislation.
There is little chance of the Bill proceeding further unless there is unanimous consent for the Bill or the Government elects to support the Bill directly.
For more information see: Ten Minute Bills
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Gareth Johnson (Dartford) (Con)
I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision for court orders to prohibit disruptive passengers from flying, and for connected purposes.
This is my second attempt to bring in this Bill. The last time was just a week or so before lockdown and understandably the aviation industry and everyone else had their attention elsewhere, so I hope that due regard can be given to this Bill by the Government this time. I am grateful that we have a Minister at the Dispatch Box to hear this.
Violent incidents on aeroplanes are rare but the problem is increasing. The confined nature of an aeroplane makes an out-of-control individual on a plane far more concerning than on any other mode of transport. People cannot get away from them easily. It can be terrifying for nervous fliers and deeply concerning for everyone on a plane when just one person is acting in a violent manner. When it is a group of people, the situation is much worse. Cabin crew should not have to deal with such incidents and they should be protected by this place when carrying out their duties.
We currently ban people from driving if a criminal offence is committed in a car. We ban people from football matches if they take part in hooliganism. We even ban people from being directors of companies, but we happily allow people who assault airline staff to get back on a plane without any power from the courts to stop this. This Bill could be used by the courts in a similar way to drink-driving legislation by banning a disruptive person after conviction for a set period of time or, as in football banning orders, on an application by a police officer.
Airlines can ban people from using their own company again but they cannot share information about that person with other airlines, so letting the courts stop the worst offenders will not only help to protect cabin crew and passengers but act as a deterrent to anyone tempted to be violent on a plane. Right now, a person can be violent on a plane, be banned by that airline and then straight away get on another airline’s plane and be violent again. That cannot be right.
Some say that the solution is to ban alcohol. I do not agree, because 99.9% of people who enjoy a glass of wine or a beer at an airport or on a plane do so without causing any problems. It is part of their holiday. It is the 0.1% of people we should target, not the 99.9%. Alcohol can be a factor, but not always, so banning it is not the answer.
People should know that, if they get on a plane and become violent, in addition to any other punishment they receive they will not fly again for a good period of time. That is what happens in some countries, and it should apply here. The aviation industry is sick and tired of these incidents. Not only do these incidents endanger their staff, but it costs an enormous amount of money and causes considerable inconvenience to divert a plane. Not surprisingly, the industry wants the opportunity to take every step it can to stop these incidents.
This Bill would provide a simple and easy way to deter those minded to cause problems on a plane while also preventing repeat incidents. I therefore commend this Bill to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Ordered,
That Gareth Johnson, Jim Shannon, Mrs Heather Wheeler, Michael Fabricant, Tim Loughton, Chris Grayling, Craig Mackinlay, Sir David Evennett and Henry Smith present the Bill.
Gareth Johnson accordingly presented the Bill.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 24 November, and to be printed (Bill 316).
Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill (Programme) (No. 3)
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83A(7)),
That the following provisions shall apply to the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill for the purpose of supplementing the Orders of 25 October (Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill: Programme) and 7 November 2022 (Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill: Programme (No. 2)):
Consideration of Lords Amendments
(1) Proceedings on consideration of Lords Amendments shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion four hours after their commencement.
(2) The Lords Amendments shall be considered in the following order: 6, 1, 16, 15, 42, 2 to 5, 7 to 14, 17 to 41, 43.
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.—(Fay Jones.)
Question agreed to.
Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill
Wednesday 24th May 2023
(11 months, 3 weeks ago)
Commons 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 Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Commons Consideration of Lords Amendments as at 24 May 2023 - (24 May 2023)
The Solicitor General (Michael Tomlinson)
I beg to move, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 6.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
With this it will be convenient to discuss:
Lords amendment 1, and Government amendment (a) to Lords amendment 1.
Lords amendment 16, and Government amendments (a) and (b) to Lords amendment 16.
Lords amendment 15, and Government motion to disagree.
Lords amendment 42, and Government motion to disagree.
Lords amendments 2 to 5, 7 to 14, 17 to 41 and 43.
The Solicitor General
It is a great pleasure to open this debate on their lordships’ amendments to the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill, which is a vital part of the Government’s agenda to regulate in a smarter, innovation-friendly way that will grow the UK economy. We have already taken advantage of many of the opportunities that leaving the European Union has created, and Brexit offers us the opportunity to rethink, from first principles, how and when we regulate. Of course, this includes ridding the statute book of unnecessary and burdensome retained EU laws through a process of revoke and reform, while always applying the same rigorous scrutiny to wider regulations that have accumulated over time, to ensure they are fit for purpose and of benefit to the UK.
Mr John Baron (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)
Does the Solicitor General believe the Government’s approach is not only sound but robust in ensuring that we examine each piece of EU legislation before discarding it? Secondly, does he agree that, through forthcoming legislation, we will have gotten rid of more than half of retained EU law by the end of the year?
The Solicitor General
I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for intervening so early in this debate to make two very important points. He is absolutely right, and I will turn to the detail of his points but, on the substance, he is 100% correct. As I develop my points, I hope he will agree even more with our approach.
Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)
The Government are trying to get rid of Lords amendment 15, which reinstates the principle of non-regression. Can the Solicitor General explain what is so burdensome about agreeing to a non-regression clause, given that the Government keep saying they have no intention of weakening our environmental and food standards? If that really is the case, why on earth would he be against the principle of non-regression? Is it because, actually, the Government probably have ideas about weakening some of our standards?
The Solicitor General
The hon. Lady intervenes at a very early stage in the debate. I have not even concluded my preamble, let alone turned to the individual amendments, which I will, of course, address. She will not be surprised to hear that I disagree with her, and I hope she will bear with me and listen as a I develop my points in respect to Lords amendment 15.
This Bill is not specifically about cutting burdens to benefit business. We are doing this because ensuring that markets function properly will benefit each and every one of our constituents as consumers and citizens of this country. We must ask which regulations have worked, which require scrapping and which can be reformed. Smarter regulation leads to improved growth and a stronger economy.
Theresa Villiers (Chipping Barnet) (Con)
I expressed my reservations about the sunset clause from the outset, as the practicalities of meeting such a tight deadline were always going to be difficult. I understand why the Government are where they are on this, but I hope my hon. and learned Friend will assure the House that, even with the removal of the deadline provided by the previous sunset clause, we will see the Government working hard to deliver the kind of regulatory review, reform and improvement of retained EU law that he talks about, because he is right that it is crucial to economic success.
The Solicitor General
I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend for her work in this area over a long number of years. I hope her work continues and that we can encourage her to suggest regulations that need scrapping or reforming and, frankly, those that have worked and that we need to hold on to. When I come to the Government amendments, I hope she will be reassured that our approach adopts exactly what she has envisaged.
I turn to the amendments. It is clear that we are fully taking back control of our laws and ending the supremacy and special status afforded to retained EU law by the end of 2023. We are ending the inappropriate entrenchment of EU law concepts in domestic statute. For centuries, our legal systems have developed through common law and case law principles. Indeed, the UK is home to perhaps the most respected legal jurisdictions in the world, not least thanks to our strong judiciary and, crucially, our world-renowned common-law legal system, which is clear, fair, predictable and based on precedent.
Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)
It is great to see that so many Ministers have taken an interest in this Bill during its passage. The Government and this place were already supposed to have the power to do everything the Solicitor General outlines, by taking back control from Brussels. Everything he says could be done through primary legislation, without needing the sweeping powers the Bill grants, much as my Glasgow North constituents welcome the removal of the cliff edge, about which the Solicitor General’s predecessors were repeatedly warned at previous stages.
The Solicitor General
I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s intervention, but the fact is that this framework Bill will end the supremacy and special status of retained EU law. The reason why so many Conservative Members are sitting on the Government Benches today is because we welcome the fact that the supremacy and special status afforded to retained EU law will end with the passage of this Bill.
John Redwood
The list of repeals will make life better and make us more prosperous, but why are we not making a big increase to the VAT threshold, now we are free to do so, so we can liberate and expand many more of our small businesses?
The Solicitor General
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his intervention. He has spent a lifetime working on these issues and I look forward to his continuing contribution to this debate. The fact is that by having a schedule, we can set out incredibly clearly what laws will be sunset and when—I will turn to that point in a moment—and we provide certainty. Importantly, it does not prevent our making further reforms in due course, and I will address that point in a few minutes.
Amendment 1 is an amended version of an initial Government amendment. The Government tabled that amendment on Report in the Lords to remove the automatic nature of the sunset clause, as we have heard. This approach will provide legal certainty on which EU laws will fall away at the end of the year and will ensure that Parliament, Ministers and officials are freed to focus on more reform of retained EU law and to do this faster. Let me respond further to my right hon. Friend by saying that that is the great advantage of this approach: we are not going to be upstairs in Delegated Legislation Committees between now and the end of the year. Instead, we will be able to focus important time looking at where we want to make real and proper reforms. The goal of this Bill—to enable revocation and reform, and to end the supremacy and special status of retained EU law—remains fully intact.
The Solicitor General
I will give way to the hon. Lady first and then of course I will give way to my hon. Friend.
Stella Creasy
I hope I may be defending the rights of the hon. Member for Stone (Sir William Cash) and the right hon. Member for Wokingham (John Redwood) here. The Minister has just said how wonderful it will be that we will not be in these SI Committees. Is it not the case that Members of this House with strong feelings about any of this legislation will be reduced to pleading, through question sessions such as this, trying to catch a Minister in the Lobby or lobbying one of those backroom civil servants, to try to amend the SIs that are being put forward? This piece of legislation might set out what the Government plan to revoke at this point in time, but there will still not be any scrutiny in this Chamber or any opportunity for an MP to put forward proposals to challenge them. That is not taking back control—it is giving it away.
The Solicitor General
I disagree entirely with the hon. Lady. I know that she is an assiduous Member of this House; I have served on many Bill Committees with her and know how seriously she takes her work and this role. I know that she would not be unwilling, and indeed neither would I, to sit upstairs on SI Committees, but that should be only if it is necessary. If it is not necessary, and if all we are doing is, in effect, retaining the status quo, it is much better to free up parliamentary time, and the time of Ministers and officials, to look at where real reform can be made.
Sir William Cash
I simply ask the Solicitor General whether he would be good enough to give an assurance to the European Scrutiny Committee, in the light of recent events, on its interaction with the Bill and its outcome and operation.
The Solicitor General
My hon. Friend pre-empts me, because I will be turning to the important role of the European Scrutiny Committee. I know he will forgive me, because it is important to take this in the proper order and so I will come to that point in due course.
Simon Hoare
I thank my hon. and learned Friend and neighbour for giving way. A lot of our constituents want to get behind the Government’s strategy. They want to have the confidence that it is going to be done in a calm, measured and sensible way. In recent times, more radically siren voices have suggested the “Singaporisation” of life and everybody just getting on, with no regulations and bonfires of this, that and the other. This has slightly scared the horses. Will he therefore, from the Dispatch Box, give comfort to a large number of people in this country who understand the job that needs to be done but want the assurance that it will be done in the calm, timely and reflective way that he has set out? That message—that change of tone and approach—has not quite been articulated strongly enough by Ministers and therefore has not been understood clearly enough by constituents.
The Solicitor General
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his intervention and, as ever, for his assiduous attention to these matters. He is right in what he says, so let me give an example and, I hope, the assurance that he is seeking. Importantly, the default approach of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs will be to retain the substance of retained EU law unless there is good reason to either repeal or reform it. Such an approach not only allows us to keep protections in place, but provides certainty to businesses and stakeholders. He will know and appreciate that our high standards were never dependent solely on our membership of the EU. I will turn back to that theme in due course.
The Solicitor General
I will not give way at the moment. I am going to make some progress, because I am conscious that a number of people want to speak in the debate. As I was saying, all retained EU law in the schedule will be revoked on 31 December 2023.
There is a clear additional advantage to a schedule, and this was a point I made earlier to the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy): rather than using precious parliamentary time passing SIs to save laws that no one would ever let sunset, it is right to be clear in a schedule what retained EU law will revoked, while letting the rest be reformed. Instead of our focusing on passing significant numbers of SIs just to preserve the status quo, the schedule will allow the Government to get on with reforming and revoking regulations that are not fit for purpose for the UK.
Sir Robert Buckland (South Swindon) (Con)
My hon. and learned Friend is bringing me a lot of déjà vu, as one of his predecessors who dealt with EU withdrawal and retained EU law. There will be more on that later, but I want to ask him about the point he has just made. Was there not a danger that, in confusing haste with speed, we were going to end up with a cut-and-paste operation, where civil servants were just going to replicate existing SIs and leave them on the statute book to be reformed at some undefined date in the future? Is his approach guaranteed to avoid that unhappy set of circumstances from coming about?
The Solicitor General
I am grateful to my predecessor, who has indeed spent many hours at this Dispatch Box debating legislation such as this over the past years. He is absolutely right in what he says; this approach allows the Government to get on with reforming and revoking, rather than having the cut-and-paste to which he referred.
We want to expand both the scrutiny and the breadth of experience that we are drawing on when it comes to revocation and reform. My hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir William Cash) anticipated this point, and I thank him for the work done by him and his Committee, a number of whose members are in the Chamber today. Indeed, I used to be a member of that Committee and the Government look forward to engaging with it. I am pleased to give him a commitment that we will present a report to the European Scrutiny Committee on a six-monthly basis on the progress and plans the Government are making on the repeal of retained EU law. Any retained EU law not included in the schedule will be stripped of EU interpretative effects after 31 December 2023. I repeat that it is important to expand both the scrutiny and breadth of experience, as the Secretary of State for Business and Trade has said from this Dispatch Box and elsewhere. This is vital, and it means that we will still be removing the effects of general principles of EU law as an aid to interpretation, ceasing the application of supremacy and repealing directly effective EU rights so that they no longer have any effect in relation to those provisions.
Caroline Lucas
The Solicitor General keeps talking about getting rid of laws that are burdensome or unnecessary, but caught up in the revocation schedule, among many other things, are the National Emission Ceilings Regulations 2018, which require the Government to prepare and implement, review and—critically—consult on a programme to tackle air pollution at source. The Government say that they do not need to do that via that legislation, and that they will do it instead via environmental improvement plans, yet those plans are vague and do not include public consultation. Given all the regulations caught up in the 600 that he is trying to get rid of, how can he be sure that he will not throw the baby out with the bathwater? On air pollution, he absolutely is doing that. We are not even meeting our existing air pollution targets, yet we risk watering down or junking targets that we ought to be abiding by.
The Solicitor General
I think I am grateful to the hon. Lady. I will come back to this point in due course, but she will have seen that there is an explainer for each and every one of the 587 regulations in the revocation schedule, and it is clear that in the vast majority of cases they are simply redundant and not needed. It seems that she has already had a complete answer to her point from the Government. I will come back in due course to our Environment Act 2021 and develop further the point that I am making.
Turning back to Lords amendment 1, nothing on our domestic statute book will be considered retained EU law and have the special status of retained EU law; that will come to an end by the end of the year. In my respectful submission, the further amendment to Lords amendment 1 passed in the other place is unprecedented, unnecessary and unacceptable. We must be able to use this primary legislation to revoke unneeded and unwanted legislation; it is not necessary to invent a new procedure simply to review a revocation schedule.
Sir Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)
I welcome my hon. and learned Friend’s tone and approach, as I welcome the Government’s getting rid of the sunset clause and putting in place the revocation schedule, which is so obviously the right thing to do.
My hon. and learned Friend says that the further amendment contained in Lords amendment 1 is unprecedented, unnecessary and undesirable, but was not the objective of that further amendment, which was tabled by Lord Hope, who is a very distinguished lawyer, along with Lords Hamilton of Epsom and Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, both of whom are friends who I know to have been lifelong Brexiteers, to ensure that the measure was not used to make substantial change to our law, rather than to get rid of redundant legislation or make technical changes, which we all agree should not go to a Delegated Legislation Committee? What will be the Government’s alternative mechanism to ensure that we do not get substantial change to the law without proper debate and scrutiny?
The Solicitor General
My hon. Friend the Chair of the Justice Committee makes important points, and I hope that I can reassure him on some of them in my next two paragraphs. To answer his very last point, Members’ presence here in the Chamber right now, raising the sorts of points that he has raised, is part of the scrutiny process. In my respectful submission, the further amendment to Lords amendment 1 made in the other place actually undermines legal certainty. I draw his attention to the fact that there is already a proportionate safeguard—namely, a limited preservation power—in the preferred clause.
My hon. Friend mentioned the noble Lord Hope. I agreed with at least this part of Lord Hope’s speech:
“A quick reading of the schedule suggests that many of the items listed in it are things we can well do without.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 15 May 2023; Vol. 830, c. 19.]
In fact, a longer look confirms the position. I must therefore ask the House to return Lords amendment 1 to the other place, as amended by Government amendment (a).
I turn to Lords amendment 16 on the reporting duty, which was tabled by my noble Friend Baroness Noakes, supported by my noble Friends Lord Jackson of Peterborough, Lord Frost and Baroness Lawlor. We have of course listened to the concerns raised, and I assure the House that the Government have not moved one inch from their bold ambitions. We remain committed to securing swift and significant reform that brings tangible benefits to the UK economy.
That is why I ask the House not only to agree with the reporting amendment sent to us by the other place, but to improve it. Our amendment (b) would increase the frequency of reporting to every six months. We know that accountability to this House and the other place is the best way of ensuring that the Government keep progressing their priorities and that my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (John Redwood) and others are reassured.
I am delighted to support the amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Stone, amendment (a) to Lords amendment 16, which will ensure that the Government report to both Houses not just on reform progress, but on what retained EU law will be reformed and what will be revoked. In the spirit of the amendment, I am pleased to say that the Government have already reformed and revoked more than 1,000 pieces of retained EU law—this comes back to the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Baron) made at the outset—including more than 450 pieces that we have repealed, replaced or let expire, and 650 more that we have amended. Again, we can follow all this thanks to my right hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset and his dashboard.
Upon our exit from the EU, a number of Departments proactively revoked or amended regulations that contained deficiencies as a result of the UK’s exit from the EU. DEFRA has already reformed key areas of retained EU law through flagship legislation such as the Environment Act, the Agriculture Act 2020 and the Fisheries Act 2020.
The Solicitor General
I am delighted that the Attorney General says that so loudly from a sedentary position, because she took at least some of those measures through this House. I am grateful to her for that. The revocation schedule will build on that and facilitate reform in key sectors.
This is far from the limit of the Government’s ambitions. Across Whitehall, Departments will continue to review the retained EU law not already revoked or reformed, and we are committed to reducing burdens on business and unlocking economic growth.
Bim Afolami (Hitchin and Harpenden) (Con)
I refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests: I chair the Regulatory Reform Group. The Solicitor General is making a very good case not just for the approach in this narrow area of EU law, but for the need to integrate that with a broader programme of improvement to the regulatory system. Will he give his view of the proposals by the Regulatory Reform Group on the importance of improving our regulatory system to improve accountability and responsiveness from regulators, as they have a lot of duties under primary legislation?
The Solicitor General
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for all his work in this area. He will have heard the Secretary of State’s call for greater scrutiny and for a breadth of experience, which she is determined to draw upon. I am sure that she will draw upon my hon. Friend’s experience too. He is right. We are committed to reducing burdens on business and unlocking economic growth. I ask all right hon. and hon. Members to support amendments (a) and (b) to Lords amendment 16.
Lords amendment 6 undermines a fundamental plank of the Bill—namely, ending the special status of retained EU law on our statute book by repealing section 4 of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018. The matters saved by section 4 consist largely of retained rights, obligations and remedies developed in the case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union. The vast majority of those rights overlap with rights that we already have. Those overlaps can cause confusion and legal uncertainty. By not repealing section 4, and instead replacing it with unclear parliamentary procedures, the Lords amendment would create the very legal uncertainty that was previously criticised.
This is the point: the Bill should end the situation where, to understand and enforce their rights, citizens must decipher the implications of a high-level legal principle giving effect to an ill-defined right or set of rights. Lords amendment 6 does the exact opposite.
The Solicitor General
The hon. Gentleman, I know, will forgive me because I have been a very long time and I must make some progress. It perpetuates a situation that is unacceptable to the Government and, I would hope, unacceptable to the House.
Sir Robert Neill
May I press the Solicitor General to give way on that point?
Sir Robert Neill
The Solicitor General says it is unacceptable to the Government, and I understand the points he makes, but can he help on one point that was raised in the upper House? Contrary to the Government’s belief, there is a risk of legal uncertainty because, while the Government rightly have a revocation list of legislation, there is not a revocation list of rights that may be in another form. Therefore, the concern was raised about the risk of deleting almost unidentified law unintentionally. I am sure the Solicitor General has an answer to that and I would like to hear it, but at the moment I do not see why the Government are so exercised about this new clause—again, proposed by people who are both distinguished in the law and firm Brexiters.
The Solicitor General
As my hon. Friend knows, I pay enormous deference to those experienced in the law—not least to him, as long-standing Chairman of the Justice Committee—but he heard my response: the Government’s concern is that Lords amendment 6 would replace clause 3 with unclear parliamentary procedures and, in my submission, create the very legal uncertainties that have been previously criticised. That is why I suggest that it is should be unacceptable not just to the Government, but to the House as well, and that the amendment proposed would actually muddy the waters.
The Solicitor General
Having given way to my hon. Friend the Chair of the Select Committee, of course I give way to the hon. Gentleman.
Patrick Grady
I think I can help the Minister out here, because from everything he has just described, it appears that what the Government are trying to achieve is that, instead of its being called “retained EU law”, it will now just be called “the law”.
The Solicitor General
I sort of agree—although that is a little bit of a facetious way to put it from the hon. Gentleman, but there it is. To deliver clarity, to remove the principle of supremacy in international law, the House must remove this amendment and restore the original clause to the Bill.
Sir William Cash
On the question of legal certainty, does my hon. and learned Friend not agree that it would be almost impossible to imagine how uncertain it would be if we had two sets of statute books, one of which was post Brexit and the other of which was the retained law as passed by the European Union over all those years? The method of interpretation—the difference between the purposive method and our own method—is absolutely crucial to this, does he not agree?
The Solicitor General
I do agree with my hon. Friend, who is absolutely right. That is the whole purpose of this Bill and the reason we are ending the supremacy of retained EU law.
I turn now to Lords amendment 15, which sets out a number of conditions relating to environmental protections and food standards that the Minister must meet when intending to use the powers of this Bill. That is unnecessary. Ministers have made it clear repeatedly at every stage of this Bill’s passage in both Houses that we will not lower environmental protections or standards.
Equally, the delegated powers in the Bill are not intended to undermine the UK’s already high standards on food, nor will they do so; indeed, this Government are committed to promoting robust food standards nationally and internationally. Rather, we can use these powers to simplify and improve regulation, making it simpler and administratively easier to comply with, without lowering standards. Those reforms, among others, are vital to allowing the UK to drive genuine reform and to seize the opportunities of Brexit.
The Solicitor General
No, I will not. I have given way twice to the hon. Lady and I am going to make progress.
However, we recognise the need to protect environmental and food standards. Therefore, I would like to be clear once again in confirming, as many Ministers have done before me, that this Government are fully committed to upholding environmental standards and food protections. It is worth noting that the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has already reformed retained EU law in key areas, through flagship legislation: I have already mentioned two pieces of that—the Fisheries Act 2020 and the Agriculture Act 2020. Our environmental standards are world leading. We have passed legislation designed for our own domestic environment and it is right that we have done so.
The Solicitor General
I have given way to my hon. Friend once, but not twice, so I will give way to him again.
Simon Hoare
One can never give way too many times to a neighbour. My hon. and learned Friend is making an important point. My constituency is hugely agricultural, and so is much of his, so food standards and animal welfare are important to many of our constituents. We have put on the statute book the Agriculture Act, the Environment Act 2021 and other things. Does he agree that, while there has been suspicion on this issue, we should take great confidence from the announcement made by our right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and others that, when it comes to trade deals, the lessons raised by our right hon. Friend the Member for Camborne and Redruth (George Eustice) have been learned, and therefore issues of animal welfare and standards will be at the heart of future free trade agreements, rather than an optional extra?
The Solicitor General
I am grateful again to my hon. Friend; I am glad I gave way to him twice and did not leave him there, asking without receiving an answer. I can simply repeat the assurances that Ministers have given—ad nauseam, dare I say—that our environmental standards are world leading and will continue to be so. In reviewing its retained EU law, DEFRA’s aim is to ensure that environmental law is fit for purpose and is able to drive improved environmental outcomes. In light of that, I ask the House to reject amendment 15.
I turn now to Lords amendment 42—I think this is the last one, if I have counted correctly. This amendment inserted a new paragraph into schedule 4 and would require a novel procedure to apply to the use of the powers contained in the Bill. I repeat that the procedures are novel and untested. This Government do not accept the principle that Parliament should be able to amend statutory instruments.
In addition, the procedure would have significant implications for both parliamentary time and the ability of Government to deliver their business. It would bring significant delay to the clarification of our statute books through restatement, and delay much-needed regulatory reform. There is already provision for scrutiny measures within the Bill. All those powers will already be subject either to the affirmative procedure, meaning they must be debated in and approved by both Houses, or to the findings of a sifting Committee in each House. That is a sufficient safeguard.
The Solicitor General
I will not. The sifting procedure will provide additional scrutiny of the powers, while retaining the flexibility of using the negative procedure when there are good reasons for doing so. I therefore ask the House to reject this amendment. I have set out the Government’s position today—
Stella Creasy
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker, the Solicitor General just suggested that amendable SIs was a novel procedure—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Order. Stop. That is not a point of order. The hon. Lady has tried to intervene on the Minister. The Minister has already taken her intervention and he is not taking another. It is not a point of order for the Chair. The hon. Lady should not abuse the procedures of the House in this way. I call the Minister.
The Solicitor General
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I fear I have tried your patience for too long, so I will seek to conclude. I know a number of other right hon. and hon. Members want to catch your eye and I will allow them to do so.
I have set out the Government’s position. It is one that prioritises a clear statute book, that ensures that we have regulation that is fit for purpose and that works for the United Kingdom. I invite all hon. Members to support the Government’s motions today.
Jonathan Reynolds (Stalybridge and Hyde) (Lab/Co-op)
Well, now. From the outset the Opposition have made it clear that we believe this Bill to be unnecessary, unrealistic and undesirable, and everything that has happened in the other place since we last saw it here has only reaffirmed what was painfully obvious. This is an inherently flawed piece of legislation, from a fatally wounded Government unable to deal in reality.
I reiterate what I said on Second Reading: this Bill has nothing whatsoever to do with Brexit. We have left the European Union. That is a fact. This is about the good governance of the UK, and whether it is Parliament or Government that should have the power to control significant changes to the law. On the Opposition Benches, we recognise that there are undoubtedly areas where we as a country will choose to take a different regulatory approach now that we are no longer pooling some of those decisions across the other member states of the European Union. However, where we choose to do that, the correct approach is to bring to this place a set of positive proposals and have them accepted or rejected in the usual fashion. Not only is that the better approach, but it is the Government’s approach to, for instance, financial regulation in the form of the Financial Services and Markets Bill, which the Labour party broadly supported. The Solicitor General gave additional examples of that approach in his opening remarks. Indeed, if any Member has a positive agenda to promote, let them bring that positive set of proposals to this place.
What the Government suggested initially was nothing short of legislative vandalism, taking a machete to the law in a way that risked our hard-won rights, when what was needed was a scalpel. For the Government to try to remove via a sunset clause vast swathes of law, which they themselves could not even adequately list or quantify, was always ridiculous. To create so much uncertainty—especially after the fiasco of the mini-Budget, when the Conservatives crashed the British economy—was bad enough, but also risking so many core rights and protections, in the form of employment law, the environment and consumer rights, was fundamentally unworkable. Britain’s businesses, trade unions, civic society and campaigners united to oppose such a reckless and unnecessary approach, and I, for one, commend them for their work.
As all colleagues are now aware, the Government have finally reckoned with reality. Today, we are presented with the inevitable decision by the Secretary of State to completely abandon the Government’s initial approach and accept how wrong they were. It appears to be a decision so humiliating that the Secretary of State is not prepared to face the Chamber. The Government’s amendment, through which they seek to perform a U-turn so swift that it is more of more of a handbrake turn, will change the Bill fundamentally. I thought that the Solicitor General put a very brave face on it, but people will rightly ask why, if his statements are correct, this was not the Government’s approach to begin with.
The change to the sunset clause is not the limit of the good work done in the House of Lords. In the other place, they have sought to protect the role of Parliament and of our constituents in deciding our future trajectory. They have correctly made it clear that no one voted to take back control only for decisions to be made in the back rooms of Whitehall. Lords amendment 1, which was tabled by Lord Hope of Craighead and the Conservative peers Lord Hamilton and Lord Hodgson, would ensure that a joint committee goes through the laws that the Government are proposing to drop, with any objections triggering a vote in Parliament. I urge all colleagues who wish for their constituents’ voice to be strengthened in this process to support the amendment.
Lords amendment 6 would ensure that many of the rights secured by EU case law
decisions cannot be reversed without Parliament’s say so. Crucially, the amendment also respects the role that the devolved Administrations should be playing in that process, allowing them to have the final decision on revoking any rights, powers or liabilities, where relevant.
British consumers and farmers rightly want our world-class standards to be strengthened, not weakened, as a result of leaving the EU. We will therefore support Lords amendment 15 to stop a regression on food and environmental regulations. I heard the Minister’s defence of the Government’s position in pushing back on the amendment, but, in light of the widespread concern of many constituents about, for instance, the huge increase in sewage in UK waterways under the Conservative Government, it is particularly important to support it.
Vicky Ford (Chelmsford) (Con)
I am listening carefully to the hon. Gentleman. Many of my constituents are also concerned about the rise in food prices. Does he agree that we need to be careful that our legislation does not push food prices up unnecessarily, and that, although we need to ensure that food standards are maintained, we should not add extra bureaucracy, because that comes out of our constituents’ pockets when they pay at the supermarket?
Jonathan Reynolds
I absolutely agree. If the right hon. Lady has positive proposals that she wishes to bring forward to amend the law, and if she is making the case that UK food standards are currently onerous to the point of adding expense to her constituents and mine, I will listen to that case—I might not agree with her, but I will listen to it. If that is the case that she is making, surely it is incumbent on her to bring forward such proposals, and reveal which regulations would be necessary to change that and where she thinks the law is going wrong. I accept, and I think the Government accept, that the major driver of food-price inflation has been the war in Ukraine. That is a reasonable point. [Interruption.] I can hear some chuntering on the Government Benches. Many of us recognise that point. When the Government see inflation rise, they claim—reasonably—that international factors are the drivers of that, but when some of that peaks, supply chains change and inflation comes down, the Government often seek to claim the credit for that, which, I think she will agree, is unreasonable. But I accept her point. I hope that that clarifies for her how I believe the law in that area should be approached.
Finally, rather than allowing future pieces of retained EU law that the Government wish to restate, revoke, replace or update to be slipped in by the back door via statutory instrument, Lords amendment 42 would give Parliament the proper role that it deserves in such matters.
Stella Creasy
Does my hon. Friend agree that the Minister may wish to use different wording or perhaps even correct the record? He suggested that such powers would be novel, but amendable SIs were in fact part of the Census Act 1920, which is over 100 years old, and were most notably present in section 27 of the Civil Contingencies Act 2004. The idea that we might actually involve those who were brought to this place to make legislation in amending it is not a new one. This law removes that idea. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Minister may do well to read his constitutional history before he dismisses it so easily?
Jonathan Reynolds
I welcome my hon. Friend’s intervention. I will take her word for it on the Civil Contingencies Act, about which I fear she may have a level of expertise that exceeds mine. To be frank, I thought that the Minister’s whole defence of that area was somewhat questionable. Much of what we are talking about is a relatively novel set of procedures that relate to the unique situation that we find ourselves in. Indeed, the Government’s whole approach is based on the uniqueness of the need to have a position on retained EU law following the mechanisms that we chose to adopt as a country when we left the European Union. I thought that that was a somewhat weak defence. If my hon. Friend has information contrary to what the Minister said on the record, I am sure that he will seek to amend that and put forward the correct form of affairs—perhaps if he receives wisdom on the Front Bench at some point in the next four hours.
Our colleagues in the House of Lords have, through all their amendments, sought fundamentally and in good faith to make sense of what was an embarrassing set of proposals whose only aim appeared to be to pacify the hardliners on the Government Back Benches. I appreciate that those Members do not look happy today.
Jonathan Reynolds
I imagine that that is because they feel that they are being led by the grand old Duke of York. He was happy to march them up to the top of the hill, promising in his leadership video a bonfire of all retained EU law, but of course, he has had to march them all back down again. Now, they are neither up nor down. On that point, I will give way to the hon. Member for Stone (Sir William Cash).
Sir William Cash
It is a disappointment according to the hon. Gentleman, but I have to say that I am extremely glad that the supremacy of EU law is going, I am extremely glad that the deregulation is remaining, and I am also very glad that my amendment has been selected for discussion so that we can have a proper list and do the job properly.
Jonathan Reynolds
I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman is happy. Maybe that means one fewer letter towards the 54 that the Prime Minister needs to think about for the duration of the day.
This Bill was always a farce designed to appease the constant, constant, constant Conservative melodrama. It has neither set forward a positive vision of a post-Brexit Britain, nor appeased most of the Government’s Back Benchers, with the exception of the hon. Member for Stone. This country is desperately in need of a Government who can provide clarity, consistency and stability for businesses to invest and pull us out of the low-growth, high-tax quagmire of the last 13 years. Equally, the UK’s workers deserve to see fulfilled the promise that the UK’s post-Brexit employment framework would mean no reduction in rights and protections.
The legislation revealed a Government with fundamentally the wrong approach—they could not even correctly diagnose the problem, let alone provide solutions. It would have been better for them simply to abandon the Bill altogether. However, by inserting the Government’s amendment, and then supporting the excellent work of their lordships in the other place, we can get it to a substantially better place than the chaos that was proposed before. On behalf of Britain’s businesses and workers, I urge all colleagues to do so.
Sir William Cash
I will speak to my very short amendment to the very short new clause in Lords amendment 16, on the retained EU law dashboard and report. The new clause requires the Government to report on their plan to revoke and reform, while my amendment seeks for that report to include a list of EU provisions to be revoked or reformed. In other words, it adds to the benefits of the new clause and to the Government’s proposals. The new clause was adopted as a Government amendment in the House of Lords a couple of days ago.
I am very grateful to colleagues who signed my amendment, and I know that many more want to do so. I am also glad that the Secretary of State has agreed—no doubt having received some good advice from my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor General and others, unnamed—to put her name to the amendment. That means, I am glad to say, that it is now Government amendment (a). Procedurally, that is a very great prize, because if the amendment had not received Government support it would almost certainly not have been selected for debate and we would not have been able to vote on it. I mention that as a matter of significance. I am deeply grateful to my hon. and learned Friend for attending meetings with me and for the dedicated way in which he goes about his job.
We need to make sure that this new structure actually works so that we can put the painful recent past behind us and get on with the job in hand of getting rid of EU supremacy and insisting on the freedom to deregulate. We also need to get to the bottom of which laws should be reformed or revoked. That process is in hand, but it is moving far too slowly and not being done with the degree of experience and skill that needs to be applied to it.
I am also very glad to report that, after a few refusals—but I do not want to dwell on that—the Secretary of State will appear before the European Scrutiny Committee in the week beginning 5 June. That is a very important step forward.
John Redwood
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for all the work he does, and I am glad that the Secretary of State will at last appear before Parliament on this crucial change of policy. Has he had any assurances that the many ideas that I and others have put to the Government on repeal and improvement of EU law will be not only read but implemented? What is the delay?
Sir William Cash
I agree very much with and share the sentiment expressed by my right hon. Friend. We need to move forward and have a proper list and the opportunity to examine the manner in which that list is prepared. The important matters to which he specifically refers include economic freedoms and the ability to reduce taxation where necessary. If they are not on that new list, there will be a lot of people asking for them to be included. That is the next step. It has unfortunately taken a long time to get to this point, but I think that we are now beginning to get there.
The new clause prescribes arrangements for Parliament to be properly informed as to the need for a full and hopefully, at last, accurate and relevant list of retained EU law along the lines of economic freedom and competitiveness and many other things. I and many colleagues, including those on the European Scrutiny Committee, have been severely pressing, for a long time, for a full and accurate list. We have invited the Secretary of State to come before our Committee many times without success, but she is now coming, and we are glad of it. We asked for progress in relation to all EU retained law. We did not get it, but we are now going to.
I also proposed to the Secretary of State that there needs to be an experienced tsar, or commander in chief, of the operations, because by the sound of it there has been something of a problem inside the civil service and it has led to difficulty in getting the job done. This person would need to know and understand the process of European scrutiny, what to do and how to go about it. I have written to other Ministers as well, and explained to them that there are archives in Kew that will be part of the list, not to mention individual Government departmental archives, parliamentary counsel office archives and, of course, our own very special European Scrutiny Committee archives, which date back to 1973 and are extremely comprehensive, including the explanatory notes that were produced to my Committee as individual regulations and laws were being negotiated. They also explained the Government’s position on particular points, but I will come on to that in a moment.
When I hear people suggest that they have not had the time to do all this and get the job done properly, I despair at their lack of drive, energy, commitment and, perhaps, unawareness of the Conservative manifesto. The new clause will provide an obligatory framework for the completion of the task.
It was profoundly disturbing to look at the schedule attached to the new Bill. It restructures the Bill in radical ways, but this debate is not the time to go into the history of all that. We have had a lot of discussion about it, so I am not going to do so. This Bill, as it has come from the House of Lords, is a mixture of the good, the bad and the ugly. The good is the ending of the supremacy of EU law and methods of interpretation, and also the provisions relating to deregulation. The ugly lies in the reformed structure and the manner in which we only heard about that at very short notice on 10 May. But, as I have said, we now have to move on. The bad lies in the amendments by the House of Lords, which if passed would have profound consequences undermining our national interest. We also need a coherent statute book. We cannot have two statute books, with one dealing with laws passed during our time in the European Union, pre Brexit, and the other dealing with laws passed afterwards. That would be most peculiar, and it would not work. It would be incoherent and create great legal uncertainty.
The new clause that the Government have adopted requires the Secretary of State to update, within specified periods, the EU law dashboard and publish a report on the revocation and reform of retained EU law. This report must provide a summary of the dashboard, set out progress already made in revoking and reforming, and set out the Government’s plans to revoke and reform those laws. In effect, it sets obligations and a timetable.
It is always interesting to know what people’s “plans” are, but having a plan does not mean that we know what is in it before we see it, and nor does it mean that it will ever happen. What does matter is that it is listed, and that is the point of my amendment. The list can be examined to see what modifications or revocations are required under clause 14. Only then can we decide their relevance in the national interest. It also makes the Secretary of State properly accountable to do the job properly within the framework of our parliamentary and scrutiny procedures, including my Committee; I am grateful to my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor General for the assurance he has given on the Floor of the House to work with my Committee. It also creates a deadline and pressure to get on with the job.
I have written separately to the Government not only about the tsar but about the efficient delivery by external sources, in a comprehensive manner, by May next year. That is doable, but it requires political will, and diligence on the part of the civil service. That is why my amendment states that the plan must specifically include in a list those provisions of retained EU law that the Government intend to revoke or reform. On the face of it, this is a simple amendment, but it carries with it the need to do the job properly. I assure the House that the European Scrutiny Committee will examine the content of that list and its implications with an eagle eye. It is an enormous shame—in fact, I would almost call it a disgrace—that the current schedule to the Bill consists of what could politely be described as junk, with very few exceptions. I have been through the list; actually, I did so during the Eurovision song contest. I turned to my wife and said, “I really cannot tell which is worse: this schedule or the Eurovision song contest.”
Bim Afolami
I defer to my hon. Friend’s knowledge and judgment on what he is speaking about, but may I press him on this particular aspect of the Bill? Of course, a lot of regulations may seem redundant or trivial, and he has named a couple, but part of an improved regulatory system is cleaning up regulations that may be redundant or trivial, in addition to doing the work properly of making sure that when we do get rid of things and reform them, we do so for the right reasons for the entire regulatory system. The Secretary of State has proposed that by the end of this year, we are likely to have removed roughly 2,000 of the total 5,000 regulations; the remaining 3,000 will be done in a proper way, looking strategically at our whole regulatory system. Does my hon. Friend not accept that that is a reasonable approach for the Government to take, bearing in mind the position that we are in at this time?
Sir William Cash
I think it is perfectly reasonable to do it now, because it has not been done before: that is where the problem lies. I would also slightly correct my hon. Friend regarding the relevance of, for example, fishery arrangements between the EU and the Government of the Cook Islands—they are administered by New Zealand, I believe. Such arrangements have nothing at all to do with us, and could not conceivably be included in a list that was intended to demonstrate relevant revocation and reform of these laws.
Expunging EU laws from our statute book frees our voters, our businesses, our Parliament, our sovereignty and our democracy from their subjugation to the EU for 50 years. Those laws were made and engineered by the European Union, the European Commission and the Council of Ministers behind closed doors by qualified majority voting—without even a transcript, as I have said so many times—but usually came about by way of consensus. The veto was promised and guaranteed in the 1971 White Paper, which hon. Members can look up for themselves, but it was whittled away. When EU laws came to be discussed behind those doors, we generally ended up with consensus; they certainly were not our own laws passed by our own Parliament. That operation has been described by a famous economist as “regulatory collusion”.
The making of all those laws, as I said earlier, was accompanied by an explanatory memorandum, which is a useful reference point for determining what mattered at the time. Not one single piece of EU legislation was ever rejected or amended during the entire course of our membership. Interestingly, one of the five provisions that I have mentioned that are relevant to this debate is the port services directive, which was opposed by every single one of the port employers, by every single one of the trade unions, and by the Government. What could they do about it? Nothing. That is the point, and that almost summarises the reasons for the exercise that has been conducted under the Bill.
John Redwood
Does my hon. Friend recall that—certainly when I was single market Minister some years ago—quite often we did not want the regulation or law at all, but the Government then decided that it did not look good because we did not have a veto to enforce our wish, and we ended up trying to negotiate the version that was least damaging? Why is it that collective memory has forgotten all this, and why do people only recall the laws they want to keep? Why can they not recall the laws we never wanted?
Sir William Cash
Fortunately, the collective memory includes me, because I was first put on the European Scrutiny Committee in 1985. I have been on it ever since, and I have been Chair for 10 years. However, I totally agree with my right hon. Friend. The question of whether these laws mattered and whether they were going to go by consensus was driven by the fact that the people sitting around the table knew beforehand whether there was going to be a majority vote, and whether they would lose. As it was a dead certainty that the UK was going to lose, they entered into that consensus.
The real objective of the European Union in all this was to harmonise laws across Europe, creating a fundamental shift to European integration. That is one of the reasons why I tabled a sovereignty clause to the Single European Act 1986, which eventually found its way on to the statute book in 2020. Essentially, all these laws lack the kind of democratic legitimacy that we would expect in our traditional, constitutional, common-law system. We must therefore judge the laws that are now in the list, as set out in my amendment. Where they are capable of being modified, let them be modified, but as I have said, many of them were passed by majority vote and were certainly not in the UK’s national interest. Indeed, the chief negotiator for our entry to the EU under Edward Heath, Sir Con O’Neill, stated of his own failure to understand the system that
“I am sorry to say we probably also thought that it was not fundamentally important.”
Tragically, it was important, and the thousands of laws that now need to be reformed and revoked were the product of his and the then Government’s failure, and those who persisted in it until we left the European Union.
Sadly, for decades after our entry to the EU, the passing of laws in the European Council of Ministers continued to churn out thousands that did not have democratic legitimacy, and which we now have to modify or revoke. I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, said on Monday that
“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”.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 22 May 2023; Vol. 830, c. 609.]
It is also important that the Brexit Opportunities Unit has discussions with the European Scrutiny Committee about methods and co-ordination, including the tsar I have mentioned alongside a team of external experts. Resources will be needed, yes, but the need is absolutely vital. I am therefore glad that the Government and the Secretary of State have agreed to adopt the amendment that stands in my name and those of many colleagues. I believe that the clause, when amended by this and other amendments, will be one of the main levers for making a success of this entire operation.
Alyn Smith (Stirling) (SNP)
It is a mixed pleasure to speak in this debate for the Scottish National party, it is safe to say, but it is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Stone (Sir William Cash). Much as we disagree on some things, I did not realise we were both Eurovision fans; perhaps we can organise a viewing party next year, as I have an outfit he would look fabulous in. [Interruption.] It will not be a kilt, I assure the hon. Gentleman.
I will speak to amendments 6, 1, 15 and 42. I referred light-heartedly to the hon. Gentleman, and it is possible to have differences of opinion; indeed, I hope I have demonstrated that I respect differences of opinion, but this Bill goes to a matter of deep, fundamental difference of philosophy and worldview. I am very proud to be part of the most pro-European party in this Parliament. I am a committed European as much as I am a committed independence supporter for Scotland. I think Scotland’s best future is back into the European Union. We did not view the EU as a prison to leave; we did not view EU legislation as an imposition to be fought against. I was a member of the European Parliament for 16 years; I passed many of these laws and the description we heard about unelected bureaucrats and things done behind closed doors is not my honest and true experience of how it works. However, I respect different views, much as I think they may be coming from entirely different philosophical points.
We do not like this Bill; I have been open about that. We think it is unnecessary and does not deliver what was promised. We have heard much about the need for a dynamic regulatory regime for the UK, and I agree, but there is plenty of redundant domestic law on the statute book as well. I will come on to the matter of retained EU law, but the deletion of redundant law is something Parliament should be doing on a daily basis and it is not that much of an achievement—and it does damn all to make the competitive position of the UK any better in any significant way at all.
The following point was made eloquently by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North (Patrick Grady), who has had to go to a Committee, I believe: by virtue of leaving the EU, retained EU law does not have a meaningfully special place in our statute book. It is open to this Parliament to amend, repeal, revoke or change, or whatever else it wants to do, any piece of domestic legislation wherever derived from. So this Bill seems to be answering a question that has not been asked.
Sir William Cash
I think I heard the hon. Gentleman say that that was possible. While we were in the European Union, it was impossible because of section 2 of the European Communities Act 1972, which the hon. Gentleman, as a very good lawyer, might look at. It makes it absolutely clear that we would accept all European law, however made, in the Council of Ministers, and also, for that matter, all European case law; it is there in section 3.
Alyn Smith
I will choose my words: the hon. Member is right in what he says, but he misses the point that we have left the EU and that did not apply from that point onwards. What he says was correct about two years ago, but what I am saying is correct now. It is open to this Parliament to revoke any piece of legislation wherever it came from. This Bill is borne of malice rather than being a constructive blueprint for the UK’s future.
Mr Jacob Rees-Mogg (North East Somerset) (Con)
The hon. Gentleman has just correctly said it is open to this Parliament to repeal any European law; that is exactly what this Bill does. It is not malice; it is just using the power we took back.
Alyn Smith
Can anybody explain to me what additional power, focus or agenda this Bill gives to the power that exists already by this Parliament being sovereign—that is not my worldview, but it is the worldview of many Members? I do not see this as necessary.
Stella Creasy
I thank the hon. Member for letting me take up his challenge about additional powers: the Bill gives the Government the ability to ignore the rather inconvenient matter of Members of Parliament and any views or concerns they might have by removing powers. Indeed, the Prime Minister himself talked about an elected Government taking decisions on law rather than this Chamber. Instead of removing powers, it adds them to Government to bypass this Chamber and our democracy. I hope that helps the hon. Gentleman.
Alyn Smith
It helps me get to the second page of my speech, as I was going to say that not only is the Bill unnecessary, but it is bad law. It is open in the normal way for Government to amend legislation, but that would be subject to the normal scrutiny. Another reason why we dislike the Bill is that it bypasses that scrutiny.
Sir Jeremy Wright (Kenilworth and Southam) (Con)
I understand the hon. Gentleman’s point that this House can repeal any legislation it wishes, but we are discussing amendments that have come to us from the other place, not the principles of the Bill. Those amendments, including some that he is speaking to, add friction to the process of this House doing its normal work of passing subsequent legislation that may change the reality of previous legislation. If the hon. Gentleman is in favour of the House going about its normal business, would it not be right to reject the amendments he is referring to?
Alyn Smith
Finally, we have a substantive point about the Bill. I want this House to give the normal legislative scrutiny to subsequent changes to the law, wherever they come from. This Bill hands considerable extra power to the Government to do that over retained EU law, without that scrutiny. We support the measures on the devolved Administrations and the future sifting committee not because they bring more friction to the process, but because they insert back into the system some safeguards that the Bill would otherwise bypass. I think that is a legitimate position.
I have said we do not like the Bill or what it does. We are concerned that vast swathes of rights that people have come to rely on—on environmental standards, labour standards and much else besides—are open to deletion without that scrutiny. We do not like the way it proposes to do it. Even with the amendments, the Bill hands far too much power to the Government to delete provisions we all rely on, particularly in relation to the devolved settlement.
If colleagues are not aware that the Scottish Parliament has in the last couple of hours withheld legislative consent to this Bill, they should be. It is not consenting to this legislation. The Parliament of Scotland has done that; it is not an SNP thing. That is not to say that it will not be ridden over, but I suggest that those who were concerned about the democratic deficit in Brussels need to turn their minds to the democratic deficit that exists in the UK, because it is utterly unsustainable and will cause us all problems.
The fact that Holyrood has in the last hour refused legislative consent to this Bill gives us our lead, so we will oppose the Bill. Having said that, we are dug in as a serious party of Government to try and make it better. I accept the arithmetical reality of this House, so we will try to make it better by supporting a number of amendments, including the Government’s. We will support their amendment, Lords amendment 1, on the removal of the sunset clause; we think that is the acceptance of reality. We are not doing it with much praise for the Government, but we will support them in that aim.
Lords amendment 6 to clause 3 respects the devolution settlement. It makes it explicit that any legislative instrument scheduled for deletion in an area of devolved competence, whether in Scotland, Northern Ireland or Wales, should be deleted only with the consent of the relevant domestic Minister in Edinburgh, Cardiff or Belfast.
Sir Jeremy Wright
I am genuinely just seeking to understand the hon. Gentleman’s position on Lords amendment 6. The amendment does not define whether we are talking about devolved or retained competences. Is it his view that amendment 6 ought to apply to both?
Alyn Smith
That is a fair point. My interpretation of the amendment is that it should be in the devolved areas; otherwise, I do not think it makes any logical sense. I do not think members of the devolved Administrations should be able to withhold consent to other areas being passed. That is a reasonable position that I think we can agree on, and I invite colleagues to do so.
Simon Hoare
I agree with the hon. Gentleman’s reading that the amendment leads to withholding consent only in devolved areas, but somebody else could argue perfectly legitimately that it would cover everything. Because it is opaque and open to interpretation, there is a risk of one opinion saying X and another saying Y. The point raised by the former Attorney General, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Sir Jeremy Wright), is key: because it is not clear—whether by accident or design, I am unsure—it does not merit support.
Alyn Smith
The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point. I have to say that I do not agree with him. The intention of the amendment is clearly about protecting the devolved settlement. It does do that, and that is certainly the SNP’s interpretation of it. We do not have Members in the Lords, but if there was scope for redrafting that provision, we would be open to it. Our position, however, is that it defends the devolved settlement. I do not think there is any serious risk to any other provision.
Sir Robert Buckland
I am delighted to engage with the hon. Gentleman, and he is engaging closely on an important detail. The governing provision is section 4 of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018, which in effect deals with the generic issues under section 2(1) of the European Communities Act 1972. There is no specific reference in there to devolved matters. Does that not reinforce the point being made by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Sir Jeremy Wright) about the danger of this Lords amendment 6 not being as precise or as clear as it ought to be?
Alyn Smith
In a spirit of intellectual honesty, I will take that point on board. I hope their lordships will, too, because I suspect that this is not the end of the discussion. For today, we will support the amendment to make it clear that we want to defend the devolved settlement from a power grab. I suspect we will come back to this matter, and I am genuinely grateful for those constructive points.
Lords amendment 15, on non-regression from existing environmental standards, takes the statements of UK Government Ministers and various members of the leave campaign at face value that we will not revoke or pull back from our very high environmental standards, some of which derive from EU law and some of which do not. If we are not going to dilute them and there is no intention from those on the Treasury Bench to do so, let us bang that into the Bill and make it explicit.
Lords amendment 42 is an attempt to improve scrutiny, and I come back to the thoughtful points that were made about the possibility that it might introduce friction into the Bill. I would counter that by saying that the Bill goes around the normal legislative scrutiny by which we would deal with these things. I accept that the amendment is an innovative idea, but it is merited, and those on the Treasury Bench should take it as showing the scale of disquiet about the potential for a power grab with the Bill. We will support that amendment.
I will close; I was hoping to be briefer than I have been. We do not like this Bill. We do not like what it is trying to do or how it is trying to do it. From our perspective, it is not in Scotland’s interests, and it is not in Scotland’s name either, with Holyrood having refused consent. I urge colleagues to match their talk of democratic deficits through their actions. If by their actions they prove my party right today, Scotland has a different path to choose if we are serious about democracy in these islands. My party has a clear vision of Scotland’s best future; I do not see a clear vision of any future in this legislation. Scotland has a better choice to make.
Sir Jeremy Wright
I will focus on Lords amendment 1, Government amendment (a) to Lords amendment 1 and Lords amendment 42.
Before I do, I want to close the loop on Lords amendment 6. It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Stirling (Alyn Smith), who made an interesting set of observations. As he would expect, I do not agree with all of them, but if I may say so, he is engaging in this debate in exactly the way we ought to when considering matters this complex and important.
Just to finish the thought, the hon. Gentleman is right to say that their lordships may want to consider the matter further, as of course may we. I suspect that the noble Lord Hope, who I think drafted the clause in Lords amendment 6—that gives me considerable hesitation in criticising it in any way, because it is unlikely he has got much wrong—is intending a deal of weight to be put on the phrase
“as the case may be”.
Subsections (2) and (3) refer to a
“responsible Minister of a relevant national authority”
and to
“both Houses of Parliament, the Scottish Parliament, Senedd Cymru or the Northern Ireland Assembly, as the case may be”.
I suspect Lord Hope would say that that indicates that in the case of retained law, the body would be the House of Commons and the House of Lords, and in the case of devolved competencies, it would be the relevant devolved body. Before we sign up fully to the wording of the amendment as it stands, we should have clarity about that, because it is an important point in the hon. Gentleman’s argument about the reinforcement of the devolution settlement.
We do not want to subtly change the devolution settlement by accident. I suspect that the hon. Gentleman would be quite happy to change the devolution settlement either by accident or by design, and perhaps not so subtly, but in the context of the Bill, we had better be clear what we are talking about. For that reason, I certainly will not support Lords amendment 6 at this stage, though I will listen carefully to what their lordships have to say when they clarify the point.
There seem to be similar points to make in relation to Lords amendment 1, Government amendment (a) to Lords amendment 1 and Lords amendment 42. Were we to support amendment (a), it would restate, because the Government have already made their position clear, their new approach that rather than repeal a whole swathe of EU-origin retained law in effect by default, it would be better to list specifically those things that it is intended should be repealed by a certain point, such as the end of this year, unless further action is taken before that point. That is a much more sensible approach, although I will say it was somewhat inevitable, as others have said.
It was always inconceivable that the Government would be able to manage the process of considering properly all the retained EU law in scope of the Bill before the deadline of the end of this year. Therefore, the Government have done the eminently sensible thing and should be congratulated on doing so. I will certainly support Government amendment (a) to Lords amendment 1, because it regularises the position in a much more reasonable way.
The irony is that I rather suspect proceeding in the way originally intended would have led to the retention of far more retained EU law than will be the case under the Government’s revised approach. In fear of losing something vital, it is highly likely that the Government would have had to roll over—by default and before the deadline—a good portion of legislation, just to be sure they had not missed something. This approach is much more sensible and will rather better support the intentions of those who supported our departure from the European Union than the approach originally intended.
If the rest of Lords amendment 1 were passed by this House—not just the part that amendment (a) retains—we would introduce exactly the friction that I mentioned earlier when intervening on the hon. Member for Stirling. It would introduce a Joint Committee process and then debates and votes on the Floor of both Houses. I appreciate that, depending on which side of the argument someone is, they may regard those as additional safeguards or additional procedural friction, but it appears to me that it is more the latter than the former. That process is far more than is likely to have been done in the consideration of any of these laws when they were originally brought into British law. When that happened—my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir William Cash) is the world expert on this—we would have seen that, despite their EU origin, the level of scrutiny and attention those laws got from Parliament was far lower than the level proposed in the amendment.
Sir William Cash
To respond briefly to my right hon. and learned Friend on this issue, I am afraid that the idea of a Joint Committee is just not a workable proposition. This is not the kind of forum to deal with the issues at stake and, if I may say so, for that reason alone it is impossible to accept Lords amendment 1. It just would not work.
Sir Jeremy Wright
Well, I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. I think this is probably not the appropriate mechanism, as he says, but it would also duplicate to a large extent what his Committee already does. So I do not think it is an attractive mechanism, as he says.
Of course, those who propose this amendment and those who speak for it today may say to me, “Look, it would only be in the case of substantial changes that some, at least, of these additional procedures would apply”, but it seems to me there are two points to make about that. First, it would be the Joint Committee’s assessment of what is a substantial change to the law, not anybody else’s. Secondly, we would, would we not, have to get into what the word “substantial” means in that context. If we were to say that a Joint Committee should be established to determine initially whether there is a substantial change of the law in prospect, it would have to determine that and it would have to decide what substantial means. Does it mean, for example, that a large number of laws are consequentially affected when a change is made, or does it mean that a few laws would be affected but in a very significant way? I think it is important, if we want to do this, that we are very clear about the definitions that we apply, because just as other Members of this place are worried about the level of authority to be devolved to Ministers, there would be a significant level of authority to be devolved to a Joint Committee, and if we were not clear about the basis on which it was to exercise our authority, we may run into difficulty.
Stella Creasy
Obviously, we already have Joint Committees and models of how a Joint Committee could work. We have the Joint Committee on Human Rights and the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, so we have a model for that way of working. However, is the right hon. and learned Member not making the argument that we in this Chamber need to signal our agreement about what is missing from this process? I notice he is making an argument about the lack of scrutiny from Europe, and we may disagree on that, but surely two wrongs do not make a right. The argument we are making today is that we need to improve this process, and that when there are changes—and we must set out more clearly what “substantial” means—this Chamber wishes to work with the other Chamber in bringing back parliamentary sovereignty to this process.
Sir Jeremy Wright
I understand the points the hon. Lady is making, and I will take them in reverse order. On the point I made about the difference in the scrutiny that these laws may have on the way out, as it were, compared with the scrutiny they would have on the way in, I accept that two wrongs do not make a right. However, it would be odd, if nothing else, to take the view that we should give the vast bulk of laws—some of which, as I think we have agreed across this Chamber, do not require a huge amount of scrutiny, because they are technical and somewhat inevitable changes as a result of leaving the European Union—a process involving greater scrutiny and greater friction, as I would choose to describe it, than the process that was used to bring them in in the first place.
On the hon. Lady’s point about a Joint Committee, I accept that there are Joint Committees, but the role of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, for example, is very different from the role that Lords amendment 1 sets out for a Joint Committee in this context. If we set up Joint Committees as scrutiny bodies, that is one thing, but if we are devolving authority to a Joint Committee to make judgments about what is and is not a substantial change to UK law, it seems to me that we ought at the very least to understand what substantial means in that context. Again, I am afraid that we can only decide on the basis of the wording we have in front of us, but the wording we have in front of us seems to me to require some greater clarification before anyone ought to support it.
Sir Robert Neill
My right hon. and learned Friend is making a characteristically powerful and persuasive case. Taking on board his point about the—to use my inelegant criminal lawyer’s phrase—rather clunky nature of the mechanism, or the friction that he rightly refers to, would he concede that something potentially needs to be done to fill the gap identified by the noble Lord Hope of Craighead in the other place, which is that simply setting out in the Bill a list of laws to be revoked does not of itself guarantee adequate scrutiny of those laws? Does he think there is some scope that the Government may wish to offer by way of assurance at some time as to the level of scrutiny that could be given, without resorting to the system currently set out in Lords amendment 1, which may cause that needless friction or, to use my term, be needlessly clunky, but may equally give this House a proper safeguard about its proper scrutiny role?
Sir Jeremy Wright
I am grateful to my hon. Friend, and for his reassurance, I do not think that either he or criminal lawyers are in any way inelegant. However, I think there is certainly something to be said for greater and better scrutiny, and we should always in this place be looking for ways to improve the scrutiny we offer. As he knows, my concern about Lords amendment 6 is that I do not think we yet have sufficient clarity about whether it achieves the objectives it sets out to achieve without also causing some fallout in other respects. I do not close my mind to the way in which it seeks to do its work, but I am concerned that we need extra clarity before we could conceivably support it.
I want to say something about the benefits as I see them of the Government’s new approach and why they will help with some of the legitimate concerns expressed in the debate. The benefit of the Government setting out, as they have in the schedule, the measures they propose will lapse at the end of the year unless further intervention is taken is that that allows all Members of the House to pay attention to that list and reach their own conclusions—early—about whether they think there is anything troubling in it, exactly as my hon. Friend the Member for Stone described that he and his colleagues have done. That is a better and more conducive way to good scrutiny than the one previously seen. It helps to offer the necessary reassurance that we will not simply stumble into a position where we lose from our statute book good and valuable things that happen to have their origins in the European Union. Parliament will not be caught by surprise by anything that the Government seek to do in that way.
It is important to remember that if the Government seek to make a change to our law, they will have to do so through the normal routines of passing legislation. True, that may be through secondary legislation, but that is still a way in which Parliament scrutinises legislation and has done so for a long time under Governments of multiple colours. There is nothing particularly radical in the Government proposing to take a measure through Delegated Legislation Committees that it seeks to use to make a change in the law.
I return to friction. It seems to me that the friction that is sought to be added to the processes we use is undesirable. That is partly because it is unnecessary—the reassurance that the Government can offer by the new course they seek to take is adequate—and partly because we must see this specific discussion in the context of the broader discussion that has happened about our membership of the European Union. In the interests of full disclosure, I should make it clear to the House that in the 2016 referendum I did not vote to leave the European Union, and I urged my constituents not to do so, either—in some cases, they paid little attention—but I accept, and have accepted consistently since, that the decision was none the less taken that we should leave the European Union, and certain things flow inexorably from that. It must be right that if we leave the European Union, we also leave European Union law behind us. That should not be in a rush or in a flurry of activity that might cause us to throw the baby out with the bathwater, but inevitably that is what should happen.
Dame Andrea Leadsom (South Northamptonshire) (Con)
I apologise to the House for being late to the debate; I was in a Select Committee meeting. I want to put on the record how, as somebody who did vote to leave the European Union and urged my constituents to do so, I entirely agree with my right hon. and learned Friend that we need clarity. What does he therefore think about Government amendment (b), to which I have put my name, which calls on the Government frequently—on a quarterly basis—to put forward further ideas for retained law that is unhelpful or unnecessary and could be revoked or reformed?
Sir Jeremy Wright
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend and support the amendment. It is sensible, because the public have an expectation here, and we should not forget that. They believe that, having had a vote some time ago—in 2016—to leave the European Union, we would do exactly that. For them, that includes European Union law no longer holding sway in this country. My hon. Friend the Member for Stone talked about the disadvantage of having two sets of law—pre-Brexit and post-Brexit—that the courts must look at separately forevermore, and that disadvantage is considerable. Despite the fact that I did not vote for Brexit, the consequence of it is that we absolutely must have a Bill of this nature, and we must have the measures that flow from it.
I fear that the public will spot that if that extra friction is unnecessary—I believe it is—it is a consequence only of seeking to delay the point at which Brexit has meaningful impact. I do not think it is good for our democracy or for the contract we made with the electorate, which is that if we offered them the chance to decide this question, the political classes would honour their judgment—and that is what we must do. From that, it follows—it seems to me, at least—that the Bill is necessary and that amendments that seek subtly to undo its effect are profoundly undesirable and should not be supported.
Olivia Blake (Sheffield, Hallam) (Lab)
I wish I could say I was happy to be called in this debate, but the truth is that I do not believe we should be having it at all. I am not sure that if I tried, I could design a worse way of withdrawing from a legal framework. Not content with crashing the economy, the world being literally on fire, and our food prices and energy bills being so high that people are no longer able to afford to eat or heat in many parts of the country, Ministers now want to waste our time and energy driving us off this regulatory cliff. I wonder how many civil servants have been drafted in and redeployed to deal with the legal consequences of the sunset clause—I am pleased the Government have now dropped it—which was ridiculous and absolutely unworkable. Despite the recent climbdown on what the Bill will cover, the truth is that it still hands power to Ministers to rewrite, revoke and replace hundreds of our vital laws on substantive issues.
Without the Lords amendments, the Bill places our rights at work, our environmental protections and hard-won equal rights on a cliff edge. From working with my constituents on the Hallam citizens’ climate manifesto, our vision for climate action locally and nationally, I know the importance and appetite for democracy, especially around protecting our natural environment. Our response to the climate and nature emergency must be led by communities across the country who already feel the impacts of the climate crisis. That is why I have been working with campaigners to bring forward the Climate and Ecology Bill as a 10-minute rule Bill. It would enable us to reach the goals we need to protect us from a 1.5°C increase in global temperature. We need to bring about a democratic transition. We urgently need to protect our precious natural environment and expand our democracy when talking about these issues, not curtail it.
The Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill will do the exact opposite, concentrating power even further into the hands of a few Ministers. That should concern everyone in the House who claims to represent their constituents. The truth is that the Government do not value our natural environment. Just look at the key pieces of environmental law that were missing from the dashboard, or the way it treats the people who work every day to protect it at the Environment Agency.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Order. I do not mind you touching on the fact that you do not like the Bill at all, but you really should be speaking to some of the amendments. That would be really useful.
Olivia Blake
Lords amendment 15 stops regression on environmental standards and it is really important that it stands tonight. At the exact moment when we should be strengthening regulation to protect nature and biodiversity, the Bill does the complete opposite. I remember the debates on the Environment Bill and how we were repeatedly assured that there would be no regression on environmental standards. Without Lords amendment 15, the Bill will put all that at risk. The Government have refused to legislate to provide any guarantee that they will be protected.
George Eustice (Camborne and Redruth) (Con)
The hon. Lady is right to mention the Environment Act 2021, but is it not the case that the Act, which came after leaving the European Union, actually gives us all the powers we need to improve our environment and sets a whole new framework of targets that makes the legacy EU ones redundant?
Olivia Blake
I am not sure I totally agree. When I asked officials about the number of laws affected without the sunset clause, they could not give me an answer on even the number that would be affected. There is a lot more that underpins all the regulatory frameworks we work under when we are protecting our environment. I accept that the Act passed after we left the EU, but I do not believe that we are protected at the moment and that is why Lords amendment 15 is so important. If we do not act tonight to ensure we have those safeguards in place for our environmental protections, we will be undoing a lot of the good work that may have been done by the Environment Act.
However, the nature emergency is not the only one that the Bill will potentially make worse. For over a decade we have seen a decline in workers’ pay and conditions, and we have seen a cost of living crisis. People have rightly had enough, which is why we have seen rather a lot of strike action recently. Rather than address the root cause and improve pay and conditions in the workplace, the Bill puts basic workers’ rights, equality rights and paternal leave rights in the firing line.
Mr Rees-Mogg
The Bill spells potential disaster for the environment and for working people. It sets out exactly what is wrong with the way we write and pass laws. For that reason, I will vote against it. I support the Lords amendments to stop the power grab, and Lords amendments 15, 6 and 42 to protect our vital environmental regulations. The Bill should not condense power into the hands of Ministers. We should have a say in this place about what laws we want to throw on the scrapheap.
May I begin by congratulating my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Michael Tomlinson) on the exceptional elegance with which he put forward the case this afternoon? I understand now why members of his profession take silk, because it was certainly a silken performance. I reiterate my thanks to and admiration for the Bill team, which I mentioned on Second Reading. I think my hon. and learned Friend would agree that he has worked with one of the finest Bill teams with which Parliament has had the pleasure of bringing forward legislation in recent years. The team was completely on top of a difficult subject from a very early stage.
Those are not all the nice things I will say at this stage, but I will say how much I regret the Government’s amendment in the House of Lords to reverse the whole basis of what the Bill is trying to achieve. The Bill aimed to achieve a balance whereby EU law would go rather than stay. Now, the balance is that EU law will stay rather than go. There are 587 laws in the new schedule that are going. There is no way that my hon. and learned Friend can think that they are serious—they are trivialities of remaining EU law that have been dusted off and found to make a reasonable number.
When the Secretary of State told people she was thinking of taking this approach, she indicated that there might be some important repeals in that list. There is virtually nothing of any importance in that list. Fishing, as far as countries with which we do not have particular relations is concerned, is utterly trivial, with details on anchovies—all sorts of things that do not matter have been put in the schedule. That is a failure by His Majesty’s Government. They ought to have been looking at which things we could put in it that people already know need to be repealed.
I would elucidate that point by saying that over the last couple of days, we have heard that the Government have come to the conclusion that things can be done to help the wine industry. Dare I say, those were known a year ago? They are not novel. DEFRA has been sitting on them for that year. It could have brought them forward and included them in the revocations in the Bill to give us something solid and practical that would have been beneficial in the next few weeks, rather than something that merely deals with old hat, the passé, the gone and the mainly forgotten.
Simon Hoare
May I begin by wishing my right hon. Friend a very happy birthday?
I have a huge amount of sympathy, as I think most Members do, with the argument that a lot of that stuff could have been done. But last year, post covid, we had Ukraine and a huge amount of political instability in this place, with changes of Ministers more often than most people change their socks—sometimes within a couple of weeks. The idea of trying to get the job done in that atmosphere and environment of huge change, instability and uncertainty, undermines his point that it was a wasted year.
Mr Rees-Mogg
I am rather worried about the air fresheners that my hon. Friend must need in his household if he changes his socks only once a fortnight. I am afraid that the Government’s argument that “We cannot do it because we have not put the effort into it” is particularly weak. With ministerial drive—and it has to be said, with some very good civil servants in some of these areas—it is possible to get things done. A £4 million contract has been given to a law firm to help take the Bill further and faster. I think that “We can’t do it, it’s all far too difficult” is a worse argument than saying “We do not want to do it” in the first place, which may be closer to the truth.
Simon Hoare
Either I was not clear or my right hon. Friend is deliberately misinterpreting my point, because that was not the point I was making. It is not that it could not be done, but that there was a reason why it was not done, and that was the chaos and confusion of last year. Those are two entirely different things.
Mr Rees-Mogg
The point my hon. Friend misses is that there is still some time between now and the end of the year. This work could be pushed through if there were the desire to do it.
This Bill is a tremendous missed opportunity. It is a missed opportunity not because of Brexit per se. It is not a missed opportunity because those of us who voted for Brexit expected the will of the British people—expressed in 2016 and 2019—to be pushed forward, although that is important. It is not a missed opportunity because the unelected House has decided to try and block a Brexit-related reform, as it has consistently done. Interestingly, the amendments passed in the unelected House are all designed to frustrate the progress of the Bill and its operation, and are, by and large, although not exclusively, supported—lo and behold—by people who never wanted Brexit in the first place. It is noticeable that the overwhelming majority of people in this House who do not want the full revocation of EU laws always opposed Brexit. However, it is not about that. The missed opportunity is in not achieving supply-side reforms that would get growth for the UK economy.
We had the Prime Minister at the Dispatch Box this morning—the Leader of the Opposition missed a trick here—saying how marvellous it was that the IMF had said the UK economy would grow by 0.4%. Now, I happen to think that the IMF is absolutely useless and that its forecasts are valueless—it gets them wrong the whole time—but the idea that 0.4% economic growth is a success, when inflation has only just come out of double digits, is not factually accurate. This Bill was the opportunity to get growth, but instead we are changing laws on anchovies. That seems to me to be pretty fishy, because there are other things that we could have done. That is the point.
The challenge that has been put down—it was put down by the Secretary of State herself—is what people like me would do instead. Well, there are a whole swathe of laws that it would be a good idea to remove. If we look at the EU’s basis for regulating, it takes a process approach rather than an outcome approach. This Bill was an opportunity, even with a cut-and-paste scheme, to move from a process approach to an outcome approach.
What am I talking about? I am talking about product specification regulations, of which there are dozens. No country does that; only the EU specifies products in that way. We are now keeping all those regulations, whereas we should have been getting rid of them and saying that what we want are safe products, which encourages competition and innovation and encourages us to import goods at lower cost from places other than the EU.
We should have been looking at the absolutely lunatic emissions trading scheme that we have. We heard from the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Olivia Blake), and Sheffield is famous for its steel. However, we have made life for steel producers in this country completely impossible. Why have we done this? Because we have very high energy costs and a mad ETS that then tries to wind round some subsidy to help lower producers’ costs. If we just had lower energy costs in the first place and got rid of the ETS, which came out of the European Union, we would do better. Where could we have done that? We were going to do it in the Bill until a Lords amendment was so unwisely brought forward.
There are also the working time regulations. It might be possible to say that some people in this Chamber, when dozing off while listening to speeches that are intolerably dull, are in fact working—it seems heroic that our Doorkeepers never doze off, considering some of the things they have to listen to. However, under the working time directive, hours when people are asleep count as work. That is an enormous burden on the NHS; it has been calculated that the working time directive costs the NHS £3 billion. We could have dealt with that in the revocations under this Bill, had the Government not lost their nerve.
What about new opportunities in food and the regulations that stop us having novel foods? You may not wish to eat novel foods, Mr Deputy Speaker. I do not wish to eat novel foods. However, if there is a market for them, surely the UK should be regulating in a way that opens it up. We had a Bill in front of us that, unamended, would have allowed us to deal with novel foods swiftly by getting rid of EU regulations.
George Eustice
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend, because he has made many references to the Department in which I was once Secretary of State. I have a great deal of sympathy for the argument he is advancing, and I do understand that he wanted to ensure that the concrete did not set around these EU regulations so that they just stayed in place. However, as he will know, I was a bit more sceptical than he was about the idea of a sunset clause.
In a Department such as DEFRA where 80% of the legislation is legacy EU law, there would be three broad categories. The first would be the trivial regulations involving olive oil labelling and so on, whose removal would require considerable effort but would not help business. The second category would be regulations that were a bit contentious; we would probably not want to do anything about them. The third would be the big things such as the habitats directive, which ought to be addressed, but everyone would say, “It is too difficult to do it just now.” I think it right to prioritise the bad law that needs attention, rather than getting bogged down in some of the more trivial laws when it would probably cost businesses more to remove them than to leave them in place.
Mr Rees-Mogg
It must be said that my right hon. Friend was an excellent Secretary of State who was enormously co-operative with me, when I was in the relevant role, in trying to get DEFRA to be positive about this at a time when, as he rightly says, it was carrying a huge burden of work.
The problem is that we cannot shy away from the difficult decisions. That is what government is about, as in the old cliché “To govern is to choose.” Nature Britain, or Natural Britain, or whatever it is called, has prevented 160,000 houses from being built because of the nutrients rules resulting from a decision made by the European Court of Justice in 2018. It is all very well for Opposition Members to say that we should keep every environmental rule we have ever had, but I want my constituents to have houses, and I want other people’s constituents to have houses. We should be making those choices and putting the case to govern. That, I am afraid, is at the heart of this: a lack of decisiveness, of drive, of backbone to get things done.
I agree with my right hon. Friend that there would have been some things that were difficult. That is why the Bill contained provisions to roll things over and to say, “If you can make a good case for why this must stay, it will stay”, but the default was that it would be removed. I have mentioned the nutrients problem, and the habitats regulations are another example of rules that stop us doing things that are environmentally friendly and would benefit the environment because there may be some habitat nearby. I had to delay a decision on using waste to provide energy because of the common seal. Well, the very name of the common seal demonstrates that it is common, and that we should not be worrying about it too much when we could do something that would be enormously environmentally beneficial. The habitats directive is too dirigiste, too continental in its approach to regulating how we operate and how our economy runs.
I have already mentioned novel foods, but what about the other advantages for a modern, knowledge-based economy? What about clinical trials? I cannot tell you, Mr Deputy Speaker, how pleased I am to see my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) lurking by the Chair, because he produced a brilliant report explaining how some of these things could be done. Why have they not been done? Did the Bill not offer a perfect opportunity for us to do them? Instead, people are appealing against rules relating to anchovies, and that really seems to me not to be the Gentleman’s Relish that we would desire. This is a loss of opportunities—an opportunity for economic growth, and also an opportunity to move away from the civil code approach to law to the common-law approach, which is fundamental.
We see this in other emerging legislation. I hope you will forgive me, Mr Deputy Speaker, for a brief digression. The monstrous Energy Bill is all about regulating rather than allowing. What the repeal would have done, had it gone through, was to allow rather than regulate. This is based on the principle that wise bureaucrats—I praised civil servants earlier—really understand how business can best operate, if only people will follow the rules of those bureaucrats. What we want, according to our tradition, is an approach that says it is legal to do something unless it is specifically dangerous.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)
The taskforce on innovation, growth and regulatory reform report produced over 100 recommendations for the Government, but the big case it made was for moving regulation making from what is essentially a coded base and returning it to a common law basis, which—exactly as my right hon. Friend was about to say—is, “It’s okay unless it turns out that it is damaging.” That is how our courts work, and it is the best practice in the world. That is why we should have made that progress.
Mr Rees-Mogg
My right hon. Friend is right. That is what the Bill did until it was gutted and the key part of it was removed so that the basis is now to retain a law unless it is specifically removed, rather than removing it unless it is specifically retained.
Unfortunately that approach is getting worse. In October we will apply rules on goods coming into this country from the EU that are safe, adding costs to consumers in an inflationary era, which is what these regulations continually do. The fundamental problem—the suspicion that we can see people beginning to think about—is that of the 587 rules that are being repealed, hardly a single one changes alignment with the European Union. Is there, hidden away in the bowels of Government, some decision that we will in fact remain aligned with the European Union, possibly because of the Windsor protocol? Otherwise, why are we not repealing all those strange and unimportant things? Apparently we cannot get a dog bone from a butcher because of EU rules. Why has that not gone? Why have we not been allowed to bring back imperial measures, which have been promised for years? They are not the biggest reward of Brexit, but why are we doing these little bits and pieces in the 587 that are there? Why are we not making the changes that would have made our wine industry more successful and economic?
Unfortunately, the Bill is a great lost opportunity. The reason—the excuse—given is not that it is impossible or that we do not want supply-side reforms but the inertia of officialdom. Whether that is ministerial inertia or other inertia, it is ultimately the politicians who must take the responsibility. I am afraid that a lot of responsibility has been abdicated in these amendments.
Layla Moran (Oxford West and Abingdon) (LD)
It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for North East Somerset (Mr Rees-Mogg). We agree on nothing but he makes his points very well. It is a help as I will be able to tell my constituents that, in front of the architect of the Bill, I made the case for why the approach was entirely wrong, and I shall do so. His speech reminds us that it was the plan all along to make food standards poorer, to attack the environment—not only to build houses, as in his case, but for other reasons too. At the time, the Government said, “Oh no, we’ll never make standards poorer”. Released from his ministerial role, however, the right hon. Gentleman is clear about the things that he wanted to do. Why on earth, he asks, do we not want to change alignment? The reason is that it is bad for the economy, and I will focus on that in my response to the amendments.
I disagree with the motion to dismiss Lords amendments 15 and 42. I agree with the statements made on Lords amendments 1 and 6. There was a useful exchange earlier in which Members clarified the specifics of the amendment tabled by Lord Hope. On the principle of taking back control, the Minister said that we had taken back control, but that begs the question: who does “we” refer to? That is still one of the biggest reasons why a huge number of my constituents care about the Bill.
It is worth reminding ourselves that Second Reading fell on the first day of the current Prime Minister’s premiership, the day when he promised to govern with “integrity, professionalism and accountability.” It is fair to say that promise has been utterly broken, especially given the behaviour of some of his Cabinet colleagues. He also promised to review and repeal all EU law within his first 100 days and, with the completely gutted Bill before us, we see that promise has been broken, too. It is a completely different Bill and a different proposition from how it began. Some of us are happy about that, and some are not, but I am pleased that it is a different approach.
When the Bill was first introduced, I and others felt it was ideologically driven, particularly the cliff-edge provisions that would have ended up in chaos. I said at the time that the provisions were “corrosive” and “unnecessary”. What we need now, above all else—post-pandemic and amid the war in Ukraine and the cost of living crisis—is calm. Members have spoken about throwing the baby out with the bathwater, which is exactly what this Bill would have done. It would have been a chaotic slash-and-burn approach, and I am pleased the Government have come to their senses.
I thank my Liberal Democrat colleagues in the other place for their work. Their exposure of the Bill’s potential damage through the reams of amendments they tabled has effected change. In particular, the Government have rightly made an amendment to eliminate the cliff edge for thousands of laws, to many of which we did not know whether the Bill would apply, which I have always found hugely bizarre.
I would hope that every Member in the Chamber believes in securing vital standards on, for example, sewage, although I find myself questioning whether every Member, indeed, does. It beggars belief that those standards were ever under threat, not least because of the result of the local elections, which were fought on such issues.
In introducing this Bill, what exactly was the Government’s problem with the Bathing Water Regulations 2013 and the Water Environment (Water Framework Directive) (England and Wales) Regulations 2017, which never went far enough—we would have gone much further—but would have protected our hard-fought bathing water status in Oxford. The fact there had to be a fight, taking up so much parliamentary time, is one reason why we felt the Bill took entirely the wrong approach.
More than 400 constituents have written to me about the Bill, and they are rightly concerned about what it might still do—I will come to the “still” point in a moment—to workers’ rights and environmental protections. One constituent said:
“I don’t understand how the government can promise to improve our environment at the same time as setting out a law that could lead to basic protections getting weaker.”
I could not agree more.
The Berkshire, Buckinghamshire and Oxfordshire Wildlife Trust wrote to me about the Bill just this week and, although it welcomes, as we all do, some of the concessions that have been made, it is still concerned:
“We are in a nature and climate emergency. It is essential that the current level of legal protection is upheld and not weakened.”
There is still more work to do, and these Lords amendments, which the Liberal Democrats support, go some way to achieve that. Although many crucial standards and safeguards have been saved, thanks to the Government’s U-turn, the truth is that the Bill will hand Ministers, not Parliament, the power to meddle with them at a later date via secondary legislation, which means we need to remain vigilant on workers’ rights, sewage and the natural environment.
Should the next election result in anywhere near what the polls suggest, with the shoe ending up on the other foot, would Conservative Members trust the next Government always to get it right? Casting no aspersions, I do not, because I believe in parliamentary democracy. Even ideas with which I might agree benefit from scrutiny, a bit of prodding and other people’s experience, not least the experience of our constituents. That is why we support Lords amendment 42, which would ensure that if Ministers want to make changes to law in the future, a Joint Committee would be involved. I have heard those who have said that that is not the right mechanism, but do they disagree with the principle I have just put forward? If that is not the right mechanism, what is? I ask them to find one. We need a mechanism by which this House can bring our experience and scrutiny to bear, and, unfortunately, if it is not just a Joint Committee, it simply does not exist.
The Liberal Democrats also support Lords amendment 15, which provides a double lock on regulations that protect the environment or ensure our food is safe. It was put forward by my constituent Lord Krebs of Wytham, an eminent Cross Bencher who was the first chairman of the British Food Standards Agency. He will have constructed this provision thoughtfully and knowledgeably. For those regulations that will not be scrapped by the Bill, the amendment will ensure that Ministers cannot meddle with them in any way to lower standards. At the Dispatch Box, they consistently say—
Alex Sobel (Leeds North West) (Lab/Co-op)
I served on the Bill Committee. The hon. Lady referred to the Bathing Water Regulations, a set of environmental regulations from which the right hon. Member for South West Norfolk (Elizabeth Truss), then a DEFRA Minister, tried to get an exemption for the UK. The talk from Conservative Members about these things being a “floor” needs to be carefully scrutinised. I agree that we need to legislate. In the Bill Committee, there was a refusal to accept our proposals, which is why we need to ensure that the amendment is in place, especially with the sunset provision moved.
Layla Moran
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention and I entirely agree with the point he makes. I understand the point that some of the regulations need to fall away as they are technocratic, but the ones I am referring to are not those and yet they are getting caught up in the approach that the Bill takes. This is just not good law, so I urge Government Members to stand up for our environment and food standards, and reject the Government’s attempts to remove the amendment. Without it, the mechanism for us, as Back Benchers, to be able to influence a Government—it could be a Labour Government or something else, but it does not matter—is not there. We need to have it. Some 600 laws are still scheduled for revocation at the end of the year, without any specific deliberation or input from Parliament. The Bill still grants significant powers to Ministers to rewrite any item of retained EU law, including those now exempt from the sunset. Provisions that would create considerable legal uncertainty also remain.
Even though the total number of laws being revoked has fallen significantly, I continue to put forward the idea that this Bill remains a gross abuse of Executive power. Parliament is the seat of our democracy. Parliament should have its say, and I urge the Government, through these amendments, to consider their entire approach and put Parliament in charge. When they said they would take back control, I am sorry but I do not think they meant themselves.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
We have 10 people left and if everybody does about 10 minutes, as Layla did, we should get everybody in.
Simon Baynes (Clwyd South) (Con)
On Lords amendment 1, as a strong supporter of Brexit, I am pleased that the Government have already revoked or reformed more than 1,000 EU laws since our exit from the EU. In addition to the list of 587 laws the Government propose to revoke directly through the Bill, the Financial Services and Markets Bill and the Procurement Bill will revoke about a further 500 pieces of retained EU law. That means that more than 2,000 revocations and reforms are already completed or under way.
Overall, the Government are committed to lightening the regulatory burden on businesses and helping to spur economic growth, and the Edinburgh reforms of UK financial services include more than 30 regulatory reforms to unlock investment and boost growth in towns and cities across the UK. It is important, however, that the Government make sure that the process of revocation is done in a way that maximises our competitive advantage. We need to remove any unnecessary regulations we inherited from Brussels over the last 50 years, and to do so as soon as possible. The Bill gives us the unique opportunity to look again at regulations and decide whether they are right for our economy, whether we can remove them, or whether we can reform and improve them to help spur economic growth.
Stella Creasy
This piece of legislation and the Government’s approach to these amendments are a masterclass in misdirection. Members across the House have been talking about the sunset clauses, but the honest truth is that if they are going to burn somebody’s house down, it does not matter whether they do it at the end of this year or give themselves the matches to be able to do it next year; they are still going to burn down the house. This legislation, as it is still currently drafted, gives Ministers those powers. It does not take back control from Brussels, but gives it to No. 10 and the Executive.
I am sorry that the right hon. and learned Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Sir Jeremy Wright) is not in his seat, because in responding to the amendments, I want to set out a few very clear issues that I am sure Conservative Members will be thinking about having heard my initial comments. While I might be the chair of the Labour Movement for Europe, I know that Brexit has happened and I know we need this piece of legislation. However, I am a democrat as well as an internationalist, and my concern is the way this legislation drives a sledgehammer through this place and through British democracy.
Let us not look at these amendments through the prism of whether we voted in a particular way in 2016, or even how we voted in the various long-drawn-out Lobby nights we had up until 2019. Let us look at what is before us: the question of how to deal with retained EU law. I am sorry the hon. Member for Stone (Sir William Cash) is not in his place, because I like to think that in his mind it is like Japanese knotweed and must be rooted out at every opportunity. Whether we agree with that or not, if we are democrats, we believe that the final decision on those changes that affect our constituents should be made in this Chamber, by us, the people who were elected by our constituents to represent them in those decisions. This Bill removes that basic principle.
If the hon. Member for Stone wishes to argue that this piece of legislation somehow promotes Brexit, I have a timeshare to sell him, because it is not taking back control; it is doing the reverse. I listened to the argument he made about Lords amendment 16, that somehow bringing a list to his Committee as opposed to the Committee that will actually be looking at the legislation is somehow a win for him. I wanted gently to ask him what he will do if a law he believes should be deleted is not on that list. Will he complain bitterly? He tried that with the Secretary of State, and look where that got us.
There is a basic rule in life, “Fool me once, shame on you; fool me again, shame on me.” I wish the hon. Gentleman would listen to that. Everyone in this country has been fooled by Brexit. The British economy has been fooled by Brexit. Oddly enough, Brexit has not brought the benefits that we were told it would. We have seen exports collapsing, food prices increasing, our children sitting in coaches at the border for hours on end and businesses saying that trade with Europe is now almost impossible because of the amount of paperwork that they have to deal with.
This Bill kills the idea that Brexit was somehow about taking back control and kills the claims that were made—claims that the Government, under the last but one Prime Minister, were still making in 2022—that somehow Brexit was
“returning democratic accountability to our own institutions”,
and that it had restored
“democratic control over our lawmaking”,
and given
“the power to make and scrutinise the laws that apply to us back to our Parliament.”
The Bill does the opposite.
The Government have already shown in their approach to this piece of legislation why it would be so dangerous to pass it without the amendments. Ministers have refused to appear before Committees; they have failed to respond to questions; they have been evasive about how they might use the powers—but they have already decided how they will use them. We have already seen in this place what has happened to the use of statutory instruments, which is why our colleagues in the other place are so concerned—colleagues who are passionate defenders of Brexit. The Government have used statutory instruments to push through unpopular changes on student loan charges and welfare reform, and the entirety of the covid regulations that many in this place objected to. This Bill is that process on acid. It will apply to 5,000 areas of regulation.
George Eustice
Is the hon. Lady not missing an important point? The tertiary legislation that came down from the European Union was largely put in place using section 2(2) of the European Communities Act 1972, and that provision could even, with no scrutiny at all, amend domestic legislation—Acts of Parliament; primary legislation—made in this House. The bulk would be either implementing Acts that came from the European Union or delegated Acts, about which there was no real democratic process—not even within the European Union. Where was her voice when section 2(2) of the European Communities Act was running riot with the laws made in this House?
Stella Creasy
I was lobbying our elected representatives in the European Union—our Members of the European Parliament—to challenge that. I am sad that the right hon. Gentleman was not in his place when I had this very discussion with the right hon. and learned Member for Kenilworth and Southam. Two wrongs do not make a right. Those who claimed that they wanted to wrest back control from Brussels cannot then give it away to “the blob” in Downing Street, but that is exactly what will happen.
Anybody who has sat on a statutory instrument Committee knows full well that they are the Henry Ford of democracy. MPs are chosen by Whips to sit on those Committees, like it or lump it. A Member may have concerns about the statutory instrument before the Committee, and although the Minister nods approvingly and talks about writing to them afterwards, the legislation still goes through. The most a Member might be able to do is rail against the dying of the light. The Bill will extend that process.
The right hon. Member for Camborne and Redruth (George Eustice) talks about what it will apply to: not just to EU delegated legislation, but to all legislation that gives effect to it. That is a massive power grab by the Government. The amendment tabled by colleagues across the Commons and the Lords represent not anger about the outcome of Brexit but concern for the future of democracy. That is why I urge colleagues, no matter what side they were on in that debate, to proceed with caution and look at what the House of Lords is trying to do in this process. In the light of how willingly the Government have used SIs to bypass this Chamber when they have had such powers—as with covid, for example—it is not unreasonable to be concerned about how much more that process could happen.
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)
In the unfortunate event that the hon. Lady’s party wins the next election, would Ministers from her party be prepared to hand all those powers back to Parliament, or would they exercise them in the way intended in the Bill?
Stella Creasy
As a Back Bencher who expects to continue being a Back-Bencher under whatever Government, I want power to be in this place—I believe that that is good. Giving Ministers unfettered power without appropriate checks and balances is a bit like giving a 17-year-old the keys to a Porsche and asking them just to polish it: it always ends in a democratic car crash. That is what we see before us.
The right hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Mr Rees-Mogg), who is also no longer in his place, was at least honest about how he would like the Government to use those powers: to bring back chlorinated chicken, remove paid holidays and destroy the habitat directive. I do not know what he has against seals, but clearly he believes that we should be able to build houses on them. Wherever we stand on those debates, surely it is right that, if our constituents come to us about those issues, we have levers that allow us to represent their concerns, beyond trying desperately to grab a Minister during votes— there might only be one or two left if the legislation goes through—to ask them to think again.
The democratic powers that each of us was elected to exercise were our ability to table amendments, to scrutinise and to hold Governments of any colour to account. That is what the amendments would do. After all, we have already seen in how Ministers are proceeding with the powers that they believe the Bill will give them how little respect they have for their colleagues.
Stella Creasy
I am very conscious of time, so I will give way briefly, but I hope the right hon. Gentleman understands that I want to make progress.
George Eustice
Another point that the hon. Lady is missing is that there is already a lot of domestic legislation in these areas. Seals have been mentioned twice, but the Conservation of Seals Act 1970 is what gives seals protection in this country, not any legacy EU directive.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Stella Creasy is the last Opposition speaker, so I will give her a little latitude.
Stella Creasy
Perhaps the right hon. Member for Camborne and Redruth will tell the right hon. Member for North East Somerset that his ambitions to build on top of seal habitats may have to wait a little longer.
Stella Creasy
That’s it—apologies. The hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill) talked about unintentional deletions. Again, that is absolutely right. The Bill is not just about direct EU regulations; it is also about direct effect cases. It is a piece of case law that protects our constituents’ right to 50% of their pension pot that is being deleted without any parliamentary scrutiny of the process. That is the challenge.
According to the dashboard, those pieces of direct effect law that Lords amendment 6 would require the Government to set out, in the same way they have set out the EU regulations that they are going to delete, make up just 0.5% of retained EU law. It should not be difficult to at least tell us what case law is going to be deleted. For example, they are going to delete the direct comparator law that protects people in discrimination cases, so when our constituents come to us because they have been victims of discrimination in the workplace, basic protections that we might encourage them to look at and talk to their lawyers about will no longer exist. Again, they will ask us, “What did you do to make sure that this piece of law, whether or not it was a good idea, was scrutinised properly?” Amendment 6 would at least allow us to point to the place where it was deleted.
Lords amendment 15 is about Ministers who keep telling us that they do not want to water down any environmental regulations, whatever their colleagues who clearly have a vendetta against seals may think. It is simply a way of holding them to account, and this goes to the broader issue: whether or not Members agree with the habitats directive—whether or not they think there is room for change—surely it should be this place that deals with it, through a clear process.
I would wager that across the House, we would probably want to retain many of these pieces of legislation—again, I go back to airline safety and seatbelt rules. I am pleased that the Government have already said that they are going to retain those rules. Lords amendment 42 and other Lords amendments would pull together a Committee of both Houses that would do the sifting. It could simply say, “Yes, fine. Press on with using an SI Committee, those 15 people who have been hand-picked by the Whips, to nod it through and crack on with it.” However, where there is change—where Ministers are doing something for which we will be held to account by our constituents—it would bring in amendable SIs. It worries me that Ministers do not know that amendable SIs already exist in our constitution. The Hansard Society has supported that proposal. No statutory instrument has been voted down in this place since 1979, so it is simply not the case that using an SI Committee, whether under the negative or the affirmative procedure, would be democracy.
Brexiteers and remainers alike have supported the Lords amendments, because they recognise that taking back control ought to be about us doing our job. If Ministers and MPs vote down the amendments tonight, we will be voting ourselves out of a role. It may not take effect yet, but our constituents will not forgive us for removing their voices from this place. I urge Government Members, wherever they were on that debate, to at least abstain and indicate to Members in the House of Lords that there is a willingness to look at these processes and get them right. All of us who value democracy will be the stronger for it.
Vicky Ford (Chelmsford) (Con)
I wish to speak about the Government amendments and amendment 15. As colleagues will know, I spent many years as a British Member of the European Parliament, representing UK constituents. During that time, I served on the industry, research and energy committee, the economic affairs committee and the environment committee, and I chaired the single market committee. As such, I have had the opportunity to see how EU legislation can play an important role, especially in areas such as food safety, workers’ rights, consumer protection and the environment.
However, when I spoke on Third Reading, I also reminded people that I am very aware that EU legislation is not always perfect in all regards. The UK did play a key part in negotiating much EU law, but not every single element of EU law fitted perfectly to the needs of the UK. Indeed, due to the need to get a consensus across the 28 member states, we sometimes needed to have a one-size-fits-all and lowest common denominator approach. Therefore, I have always agreed with the principle of the Bill: that all of Whitehall needs to look again at EU retained law and ensure that it fits our needs.
On Third Reading, I also made the point that businesses and others need certainty, and I asked for businesses to get advance notice of which laws will drop away by the end of the year. I also urged Ministers to not be fearful of taking the time that was needed to get this right, so I am very glad that the Government have tabled the amendments that they have, which will set out a schedule of exactly which laws are to drop away by the end of this year and remove the sunset clause.
I also pointed out on Third Reading that unnecessary regulation can produce additional costs, which are often passed on to consumers. Amendment 15 deals with important issues such as food safety and the environment, but I have listened carefully to what has been said by Ministers in the other place and Government Members: that the way in which the amendment is drafted would add bureaucracy and delay in the making of new laws, and create legal uncertainty. That would add costs to the process, which would be borne by either the taxpayer or the consumer. At a time when our constituents are particularly concerned about the cost of their food bills, we need to be aware of that.
By voting against amendment 15 tonight, it is not the fact that I and others on the Conservative Benches do not care about the environment or food safety. I am very proud to be a founder member of the Conservative Environment Network, a caucus that brings together over 150 Members on these Benches and in the other place, and I am very proud to have stood on a Conservative manifesto that promised to introduce the most ambitious environmental programme of any country in the world. I am thankful to Ministers for saying throughout the passage of the Bill that the Government will not weaken environmental protection. None the less, some of our constituents have concerns.
The hon. Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy) just said this Bill will destroy the habitats directive. She has no evidence for that. The habitats directive has been a very important piece of legislation for many decades in trying to protect species. It was introduced in Europe by a Conservative MEP, who happens to be the father of a recent Conservative Prime Minister. However, species decline has continued across Europe despite that directive. We now have the opportunity to have a more outcome-focused, tailored approach to UK needs, and I gently say to Ministers that to reassure our constituents who care about biodiversity, it would be helpful for them as soon as possible to give more clarity about how they intend to reform the EU habitats directive—I know that a DEFRA consultation is going on at present.
The UK Government have gone much further than the EU in protecting habitats. In particular, we have been the first country in the world to commit to a legal deadline to halt species decline, and we have said we will do that by 2030. The landmark Environment Act 2021 also includes a new biodiversity net gain obligation for all new developments.
In my constituency, there is a new development of 342 dwellings. It is near the river in an area of wet grassland with hedges and copses. It is important habitat for many species including migrant birds, dragonflies, aquatic mammals and amphibians, and areas of higher ground in the undeveloped land are key refuges for small mammals and reptiles to escape to when the river floods. Because of the net biodiversity gain obligation, the planners and developers had worked with ecologists to introduce plans for new reedbeds, native trees and ponds, reinforcing hedges, increasing the woodland cover and making provision for bird and bat boxes and so forth. I did not think that was enough, because I was contacted by a constituent who is an ornithologist who has been watching this land for a long time. Because of the net gain initiative, the developers and their ecologists met my local ornithologist, and as a result the grass strip is going to be enhanced along the corridor where the barn owls hunt; the cycle path will be moved away to create a buffer from the trees where the nightingales nest; and the watercourse corridor will include scrapes for the water voles. All these are very important species: the nightingale and the water vole are red-listed species in the UK.
None of that action would have been taken if we had just relied on the habitats directive. This much more focused, devil-in-the-detail approach that we need to protect our nature and biodiversity is happening because of what this Conservative Government have introduced by putting that net gain responsibility on our developers.
I have a funny feeling that when we on this side of the House walk through the Lobby tonight to vote against amendment 15, those opposite will try to say that the Conservatives do not care about nature, species and the environment, but the actions of this Government show that that could not be further from the truth.
Gareth Bacon (Orpington) (Con)
I rise to speak about this critically important Bill and the merits of the Government amendments, supported by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, to Lords amendments 1 and 16. I will touch later on amendments 6 and 15.
Dean Russell (Watford) (Con)
On that point, would my hon. Friend agree with amendment (b) to Lords amendment 16, which I have supported, which will have regular reporting—more regular than those in the other place wanted? That is essential to making sure that we see the momentum and the change as it is coming and ultimately that we are holding the Government’s feet to the fire to deliver on what we promised the nation when they voted for Brexit?
Gareth Bacon
I entirely agree with my hon. Friend on that point. That amendment is critical, because anything else would give ammunition to those who have never truly accepted the result of the 2016 referendum and have fought against it thereafter.
We have to be honest. Given the timescales, there was a danger that certain laws we might have wished to keep might have been unintentionally revoked. I was a member of the Public Bill Committee, and that was certainly the centrepiece of the Opposition’s attack on the Bill. Claims were made by the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy) that the Bill would end bank holidays and rip up maternity rights and protections for children. The hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders), who is not in his place, suggested that employment rights would be scrapped. Clearly that was never the Government’s intention, but some have pointed out that that sort of thinking created a perverse incentive and resulted in a race in Whitehall to focus on retaining laws before the December deadline, rather than identifying which we should remove.
The changes made by the Secretary of State are intended to avoid that situation, and we should fully support her now. The amended Bill will still abolish the principle of the supremacy of EU law, fulfilling a manifesto commitment. It removes the principles of EU law from the UK’s domestic law and gives courts the power to diverge from EU case law. As a result of the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir William Cash), supported by my hon. Friend the Member for Watford, which has been accepted by the Government, the Government will publish the future provisions that they aim to revoke or reform in the subsequent reporting period. All of that is hugely important, because it means we will be able to continue our work to ensure that the laws on our statute book are best suited to our national interest, having kick-started the process immediately and avoided further delay. That is exactly what Brexit was about: making those elected to represent British people, who sit on these Benches, and not in some grey building in Brussels, accountable for their decisions.
Some of the other amendments passed by the other place, such as amendments 6 and 15, are not really aimed at increasing scrutiny or protecting environmental standards, as has been claimed. Instead they are of a piece with much of the gameplaying that took place in Parliament after the referendum and prior to the 2019 election. They are intended simply to delay and obfuscate, and the Government are right to reject them. Taking all of this into account, I think the Secretary of State is correct to say that it would have been impossible to push ahead with the promise to revoke retained EU laws as originally planned. With these changes, I believe that she has pre-empted attempts to derail the Bill and ensured that we are back on the right track.
This revised Bill not only ends the supremacy of EU law, but sets up further progress to continue the Brexit project without imperilling it. That is why I will be voting to support the Government today, and I hope that all Brexiteers, and indeed all Members, will as well.
Simon Hoare
It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Gareth Bacon), who made a characteristically calm and thoughtful speech. I will endeavour to follow his example, although I do not make that a pledge.
In my opening remarks, I want to respond to two points. One of them was made by my right hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Mr Rees-Mogg), who is a long-standing friend. The decision by this country to leave the European Union—I voted to remain—has been taken and is now accepted politically, and I do wish that he would not, as one or two others do, stir the pot with suspicions that, somewhere deep in the bowels of Whitehall, some malicious Minister or somebody in the civil service, in some think-tank or whatever is plotting to steal the prize of leaving the European Union from the hands of those who campaigned for it. I think that is totally specious as an argument. It alarms some people, introduces distrust into the motivations of those in this place, whether they are on the Back Benches or the Front Bench, and is entirely unhelpful.
I also want to make a point to the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy), who argued her case with the characteristic passion that she brings to all these things. The point I would make is that she believes—and I will come on to the belief in a moment—that the Government, and I paraphrase, want a sort of race to the bottom or some sort of democratic sleight of hand. I just politely say to the hon. Lady, for whom I have a huge amount of personal regard, that if that is case, the Government would not have ditched the sunset clause, but would just have carried on with the arbitrary date of the end of this year. I suggest that we should all take comfort from the fact that the foolishness of the sunset clause has been ditched, which indicates in very clear, transparent terms the way the Government wish to go about this process.
Sammy Wilson
Regardless of the process of how these laws will be changed, does the hon. Member not accept that any Government who wanted to tear up all the protections of the environment and all the protections of employment rights would be out of their minds, because they have to face the electorate at some stage, and that is the ultimate democratic test of these issues?
Simon Hoare
I do not know who is going to sit down first out of shock, but I fundamentally agree with the right hon. Gentleman, and I have to say that that is possibly a first. He is absolutely right that that would be political suicide. On any casual analysis or audit of our inboxes or mailbags, or of people coming to our surgeries or stopping us in the street, he is absolutely right. People are not pressing for a race to the bottom, and they are not talking about a degradation of environmental standards. He is absolutely right, and any party that advocated that would quite rightly be consigned to the electoral dustbin. There would be no recycling of that party; it would be totally incinerated, and rightly so. He is right to make that point.
Stella Creasy
Does the hon. Member recognise that the way the Bill is currently drafted, with or without the sunset clause, still transfers a direct power to Ministers to use statutory instruments to make legislative changes to those 5,000 laws? Doing so might be electoral suicide, but it is possible, and the sunset clause is not what would stop it; it is just the date at which it would happen. That is the distinction we are making. Nobody is saying what might or might not happen; the point is the democratic deficit this will create.
Simon Hoare
There is more that unites the hon. Lady with my right hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset, because they are both tilting at windmills that do not exist. Any Government might do something—of course they might. I will come to the main thrust of what I want to say, but me deal with “anybody might.” Anybody who passes a driving test and owns a car might lose control of the vehicle and might run somebody down. Anybody who buys rat poison might give it to their cat and kill the cat, so do we not sell rat poison? Surely the hon. Lady is not suggesting that because, reductio ad absurdum, people might do something, we should not allow things. With the usual checks and balances of this place, in a bicameral system and with a transparent free media and an independent court system, surely to goodness we have not reached that nadir of political trust in this place between Back Benchers—whether on the governing side or on the Opposition Benches—and the intentions of His Majesty’s Government, from whichever party that might happen to be made up.
Dean Russell
Not only is there an absence of evidence; there is actually proof that the Government are on the side of workers. In the past year, we have brought in extensions on flexible working, maternity rights and carers’ rights. Even my own Employment (Allocation of Tips) Act 2023 ensures that workers keep 100% of their tips. There is an absurdity on the extremes of the argument that somehow the Government are not on the side of workers and want to rip up rules when they are actually strengthening them. As has been alluded to, the Government are trying to cut through the red tape and not put bureaucracy in the way so that business and workers’ rights are better suited for the workplace. We are making sure that we are on their side.
Simon Hoare
My hon. Friend—[Interruption.]. Yes, I will give him a tip. He makes a similar point to the right hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson). That is, in essence, which party worth its salt, seeking some form of re-election, will knock on doors and attend church and parish meetings to say, “The great thing that we’ve achieved—the great jewel in our crown—is that we’ve removed your holiday entitlement and your statutory sick pay. Please vote for us, because that’s just the start. You wait until we’ve finished—we are going to have boys up chimneys and limbs lying on the factory floor because we will repeal the Factories Act”? Where does that end? It is utter nonsense.
The direction of travel in the mindset of this country, like, I would suggest, in most advanced civilised democracies, is for a more protective system for the individual, a safer working environment and a cleaner, greener environment. The idea that any party with a sensible prospectus for government would try to fly in the face of that and buck the trend in the interests that it might be quite interesting to see a four-year-old shoved up a chimney with a brush, is for the birds. But, unfortunately, there are one or two people out in the country who will believe that, and this place does no service to our constituents by setting those entirely spurious, false, bogus and misleading ideas in the public mind. It might make a Facebook click, and it might make some sort of Twitter advert with somebody saying something or another, but it is not serious politics, and it demeans this place.
But—[Interruption.] This is a but, because I want to deal with this seriously.
Simon Hoare
It might be hyperbolic, but it is not rude. I say to the hon. Lady and others—this is a point that Government Members must face up to—that, as I said in an intervention on my right hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset, I have, as many do, huge sympathy with the idea that this great canon of work should have been far more progressed than it has been, but for reasons that we do not need to dwell upon, I am afraid that last year, in terms of delivering political process, was a wasted year. We all know, understand and have some frustration with that, but we are where we are. The decision that the Government bravely and sensibly took was to say that the arbitrary date that previously—but still, I suggest, theoretically and unrealistically—we thought was in grasp for this huge and important piece of work, now is not. When the facts change the circumstances must change. This is not a U-turn: this is the Government saying that the important work of reviewing to check on appropriateness —whether something is appropriate or inappropriate, or should be upgraded or changed to bring it into a UK arena—will still be done, but it will be done in a more sensible timeframe to ensure that we get it right.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
The Minister will be called no later than 5.52 pm for a 10-minute wind up.
Bim Afolami (Hitchin and Harpenden) (Con)
It is such a pleasure to follow a wonderful speech from my hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare). I was roused to get up when he mentioned Trumpian Singaporisation liberalising, and I thought, “That sounds like me and I must now rise!”
It is clear that we are not, at this moment, where we would have loved to have been a couple of years ago. My hon. Friend mentioned, and it has been alluded to by many others, that due to various political events over the last 12 months or so, we have not made as much progress on this agenda as we would have liked. I say to some Members on my own side that of course it would have been better if this process had moved faster, but we are where we are.
When faced with such a scenario, the Government have a choice. They could either say that political machismo demands we keep going down a route, even if we fear that that route, by 31 December, may lead to some or a lot of negative outcomes, or they could take a grown-up approach—the sort of approach that in a sensible debate Opposition Members would much more readily accept and highlight explicitly—which is that we will do what we can now, remove the sunset clause and, in an orderly way, make sure that we get this right. I remember the advert from when I was a child that said a dog is for life, not just for Christmas. The laws passed in this House are for life. We intend to get this right for the long term. That is why, fundamentally, the Government’s approach of repealing roughly about 2,000 laws by the end of this year, with a further 3,000 to be done in a sensible, structured and strategic way, will improve our regulatory system. Mr Deputy Speaker, I should have mentioned, as the chair of the Regulatory Reform Group, my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
Sammy Wilson
Although there may be arguments for removing the sunset clause, there is a real fear that without it the Government could have, for various reasons, fallen back on the promises that they made to review all the laws. That is why the amendment is so important, because there will be a continuous review and picture of where the Government are going, and people can ensure that the foot is not lifted off the pedal.
Bim Afolami
The hon. Gentleman is entirely right. It is a good example of our parliamentary democracy working well that there has been dialogue, both open and private, between Members of this House and the Government to get to a right point on amendments; to say that we will support the Government in broad terms, but that there is a need and a desire for more reporting and explicit signalling of where the Government are going. We must ensure that Whitehall as a whole continues with this agenda and does not feel that it has got the Bill done and will just leave it all for years to come. I understand exactly what he says.
Let me remark on the Lords amendments. I would say that I am impatient. I do not know if that is common to all politicians, but I am a very impatient person.
Bim Afolami
I thank my hon. Friend for confirming that to the House. I have talked a lot in the last few months about strengthening and improving our regulatory system, and getting more scrutiny for our regulators when they take decisions, and more ability for the House to scrutinise the decisions taken in our name. I am impatient that we are not doing more of that, faster. But I also recognise that we need to do that in a way that looks not just at the EU law—my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir William Cash) talked earlier about the danger of having one set of EU regulations and the rest of law in another set. It is so important that, as we deal with European-derived law, we incorporate it into our full body of law in a strategically sensible way that improves our regulatory system—not just a cut and paste job, as may have happened.
I fear that a lot of the Lords amendments are about finding ways to delay the process that the Government have rightly strategically and politically committed to. My hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Gareth Bacon) made that point very well and I will not repeat it.
I would like to talk a little about Lords amendment 15, which relates to various environmental issues. I have many problems with it—first, the notion that it is always clear whether one is reducing or increasing what the amendment claims to be the “level of environmental protection” or level of “protection of consumers”. That is very hard to do. It deliberately adds a huge amount of delay and bureaucracy to the entire process and it elevates the Office of Environmental Protection, which, if I remember rightly—I am sure that someone will correct me if not—is meant to be an advisory body, not a body to impose regulations on this House or anywhere else. It is elevating the Office for Environmental Protection to do a job that it was not designed to do. That is a good example of the sort of regulatory creep that we continually see and that I campaign and fight against in this House. The amendment is very dangerous for that reason.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Vicky Ford) and my hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset spoke accurately and amusingly about the political insanity of weakening things that the public want and that are completely contrary to the broad direction of our policy. Biodiversity net gain, the Environment Act 2021, the Agriculture Act 2020 and the Fisheries Act 2020 are all the things that we have done as a Government over the last few years. It would be insane to go back on all the things that we have done in relation to particular regulations. The Bill is not a clear and present danger to our environment.
Let me finish by saying that I have a feeling, like my right hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford, that the amendment is not really about what it says on the tin. It is really about trying to create wedge points that can be used to generate emails by 38 Degrees, or to create Facebook ads or clips to somehow suggest that Conservative Members are not in favour of environmental protection. That is dangerous, and the House should not be used in that way. I have seen this practice grow in my time in Parliament, particularly among Labour and the Liberal Democrats. We should not allow the House to be a place where people put down motions to—incorrectly—embarrass Members by suggesting they are not in favour of something they are in favour of. I make that point before I sit down, and I will support the Government in all the Divisions today.
Royal Assent
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the King has signified his Royal Assent to the following Acts:
Protection from Redundancy (Pregnancy and Family Leave) Act 2023
Carer’s Leave Act 2023
Electricity Transmission (Compensation) Act 2023
Neonatal Care (Leave and Pay) Act 2023
Northern Ireland (Interim Arrangements) Act 2023.
Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill
(11 months, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
17:59 - The House divided: - Ayes: 296 / Noes: 215 - Question accordingly agreed to.
18:13 - The House divided: - Ayes: 298 / Noes: 216 - Question accordingly agreed to.
18:27 - The House divided: - Ayes: 294 / Noes: 217 - Question accordingly agreed to.
18:39 - The House divided: - Ayes: 294 / Noes: 217 - Question accordingly agreed to.
Andrew Jones (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (Con)
It is always a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Bim Afolami), who spoke very wisely. I apologise to the House for not having been here throughout. I have been attending the Speaker’s Conference, and the Speaker gave give me permission to leave the Chamber for part of the debate.
I would like to focus on just one aspect of the Bill, which has attracted much comment, and that is democratic oversight. There has been some comment that, under the Bill, Ministers will be able to make changes to legislation without any form of scrutiny. That is not the case, but that misinformation seems to have been widely distributed.
There has been significant scrutiny of legislative changes post Brexit, and that scrutiny will continue with this Bill. One part of that scrutiny has been delivered by the European Statutory Instruments Committee. I am most familiar with the working of that Committee, because for the last few years I have chaired it. Our work is not widely known, so I thought it would be helpful if I quickly mentioned the procedure we have used. Obviously, I am not detailing it for colleagues, who will all know it, but for those following the debate, for whom it might be slightly less familiar.
Sammy Wilson
Does the hon. Gentleman not think that it is rather ironic—given that some people have argued against Ministers being given these powers, because they could, without scrutiny, reduce the standards of environmental, employee and consumer protection—that the Deputy Speaker has just announced that Royal Assent has been given to three Acts that were designed to protect workers’ rights? Does that not give the lie to the idea that this Bill is all about reducing standards?
Andrew Jones
In that insight, the right hon. Gentleman is as wise as ever. There is no intention whatever of rolling back environmental protection or rights that have been hard won. The Government are building on those and seeking to leave a much better nation in environmental terms than the one we found. The right hon. Gentleman is clearly right, and he echoes comments made by other colleagues in the debate.
Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)
The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point about workers’ rights, but these were private Members’ Bills, one of which was brought forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East (Stuart C. McDonald) in the absence of a Bill from the UK Government on workers’ rights. Does the hon. Gentleman not therefore agree that the Government could be doing a lot more to give a sense of trust about this process?
Andrew Jones
The obvious point is that private Members’ Bills cannot proceed unless the Government support them. If the hon. Lady thinks that she is the arbiter of all that is true and righteous, she might be wrong—much of that is on the Government Benches.
When Ministers wish to make legislative changes, they choose whether to use the negative or the affirmative procedure. If it is the affirmative procedure, that automatically requires parliamentary scrutiny through a Committee of this House, which will consider the measure and, if necessary, vote on it. If the negative procedure is chosen, however, the legislation comes to us in the European Statutory Instruments Committee, and we consider which of the two procedures is appropriate. We have determined criteria which we apply when making that judgment. We consider whether the legislation is very technical in nature, the extent and the scope, and any legal concerns. We assess whether there is any political importance, and if so, how much political importance there is.
Andrew Jones
I beg the hon. Gentleman’s pardon.
As our Committee is gearing up for the consideration, may I point out that the Labour party has not taken up its places? We regularly meet when there is no Labour representation. We publish our attendance records, and I have just been looking at one of them. I see “zero attendance, zero attendance, zero attendance”. I fully recognise that it is not easy for colleagues to get to every event, and there are many reasons why Labour members of the Committee cannot always join us. I am not criticising those who have been nominated, because they have other things to do, and indeed we have gone out of our way to highlight that in the attendance records. We have gone as far as to say that
“committee members have other duties in the House…They may have commitments”
and so on. However, if colleagues cannot join us for a prolonged period, it may be wiser for the Labour party to nominate others who can attend, and could have attended over the several years for which we have been sitting. I do not think it reasonable for Labour Members to complain about a lack of scrutiny and then not take up the scrutiny places that are theirs.
We expect the Committee to be busy. We have been given an indication that the instruments will start to flow through to us very shortly after the Bill has completed its democratic journey here, and I look forward to continuing the work that we have done in ensuring that the correct scrutiny is provided.
Sir Robert Buckland
It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Andrew Jones). He speaks with authority about the important detail and minutiae of procedure, which forms much of the subject matter in the Lords amendments.
I am also delighted to welcome the Solicitor General, my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Michael Tomlinson), to his place. He follows in a very honourable tradition. We have mentioned the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018, which is, of course, very germane to this debate, but let us not forget the European Communities Act 1972 itself, which another Solicitor General, the late Lord Howe, took through this place when he was—in his own words, to me—in the happiest job of his political career. So I say to my hon. and learned Friend, “Enjoy it while it lasts.” I hope that it lasts a long time, because I think he brings a real quality to the job. He understands the role of a Law Officer, and I am delighted that the Government have chosen to deploy him at this stage of the debate, because although this might be seen as a rather arid area of the law, passions are running high.
I am sorry that I was not here to hear the speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Mr Rees-Mogg), but I was extremely grateful to him when, as Brexit Minister, he was good enough to consult me about his ambition for this Bill when I was on one of my furloughs from Government last year. It was an ambition that I understood and, frankly, shared. There is a strong, respectable argument to be made for those with the political will to show a sense of direction and give a steer to civil servants on what we want to achieve. There is no doubt that the aims of the Bill, which I continue to support, are entirely laudable. My right hon. Friend needs no criticism at all for seeking to continue to apply the collective feet of the machinery of government to the fire of regulatory reform.
That is what we are talking about here. Let us strip away the B-word, the Brexit word. Everyone knows what my position was on that: I was a remainer. I campaigned for it, fought for it and believed in it, but I accepted the vote of the British people. As my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Sir Jeremy Wright) said in his excellent speech, this really is another chapter in the delivery of the verdict by the British people that we were enjoined to carry out. That is why I think the mechanism is necessary.
I note the arguments about the otiose nature of this legislation due to the fact that various regulations can be amended or removed through the normal proceedings of the House, but it was right to come back to the issue of retained EU law after a moment of reflection. That was precisely the Government’s intention in 2017. I remember when I was in my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor General’s place making the argument that this was a freezing of the law and a sweeping-up clause designed to put this category of law into an understandable compartment, so that we could return to the issues once we had got through not just Brexit but the transition period and once we knew the shape of the future relationship. We are now in that position, and my right hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset was therefore timely with his intentions and his wish to get things moving.
However, as with all honourable and great plans, events sometimes intervene. There were plenty of examples of officials across the civil service doing their best to identify which regulations and statutory instruments needed to go, but the National Archives kept cropping up again and again. There was also a question mark about the efficacy of the Government dashboard and whether it was too unreflective of all the regulations that existed pursuant to retained EU law. I have to say that that caused me to lose confidence that we could, in due time, identify all the regulations that needed to be looked at, swept up or removed. My fear was that we would have ended up in the position of repeal by accident, whereby perfectly decent regulations that still have an application today and that underpin business transactions or other relationships between the individual and the state would have been repealed. That would not have been good for the law or for certainty—the rule of law depends on certainty—and that worried me.
It therefore came as no surprise when the Secretary of State for Business and Trade, my right hon. Friend the Member for Saffron Walden (Kemi Badenoch), came to the conclusion that she did. Hence the replacement of that ambitious sunset at the end of this year with what I will call the 600. This is resonant of Tennyson in many ways, and I hope that the end for this 600 will be as clear as the end was for the noble Light Brigade. As I think all Conservative Members would agree, we want to see that as the beginning, not the end, of regulatory reform.
Bim Afolami
Seeing as my right hon. and learned Friend is half a league onward, does he agree that this is a very good example of grown-up policymaking?
Sir Robert Buckland
In a word, yes. I am a voluntary member of the Regulatory Reform Group, which my hon. Friend so ably chairs. As we look at the context of these amendments, it is important to strip away the B-word and remind ourselves of the purpose of regulation. Hastily proposed regulation, without a clear policy objective and without sufficient consideration for the costs involved, is without doubt a bad thing, but hastily repealed regulation, without proper evidence-based decisions, can also be a very bad thing.
When we talk about the burden of regulation, looking at the mere number is, by no means, the whole picture. Indeed, it can be very misleading, because it is the type of regulation that is most important. That is why the way in which we undertake cost-benefit analysis of regulatory burdens is so important and, in some ways, deficient—it is not dynamic enough, and it does not deal with the developing or cumulative effects of regulation on competition. We might end up in a situation in which the opposite of a policy objective is obtained. We have seen examples where a monopoly might be entrenched or competition undermined, which is neither good lawmaking nor good regulation.
The Government have tried a number of initiatives: one in, one out; one in, two out; and business impact targets in the mid-2010s. The 2015 Parliament saw a downturn in the cost of regulation but, of themselves, such initiatives do not achieve their purpose, for which, to invoke my right hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset again, political will is needed.
Looking at the Government’s business impact targets for 2020-21, the biggest saving in direct costs to customers and businesses was the £3.6 billion reduction achieved by the Ministry of Justice, which I then led, through the whiplash civil law reforms that resulted in savings for insurers and consumers. It is a successful example of how a well-targeted regulatory and legislative change can make a difference. We can do it, and we must do it. I think all Conservative Members would vigorously agree with that approach.
I would say this Bill has been improved. I take no issue with Government amendment (a) to Lords amendment 16. My hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir William Cash) very much supports that Government amendment, which seems eminently sensible.
I also adopt the observations of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kenilworth and Southam on the detail of Lords amendments 6 and 42. I am all for proper scrutiny, and I am all for this place and, indeed, the other place, where appropriate, being able to have their say on the passage or removal of delegated legislation, which we all know that we do not do as well as we ought to.
I yield to no one in my admiration for the noble Lord Hope of Craighead, who works extremely hard on these issues. I do not think the amendments, as currently structured, are there. That is why, like my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kenilworth and Southam, I draw back from supporting them, although I would press the Solicitor General and his colleagues in the other place if this were to continue, which it might—we can never say never to these things—to look again at the issue.
There may be another, more elegant solution. Dare I say it, there may be potential to amend the Standing Orders of this place and the other place to deal with some of these points. The Standing Orders of the House of Commons are the closest thing we have to a written constitution and, in my mind, they are the most important document we have as a democratic House, but we can amend them, and we do amend them. There were times during the Brexit years when we did just that. In fact, we legislated in the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 to create a sifting Committee, but that related to deficiencies at the top end of the process of Brexit, of which this is yet another chapter. Although we have some precedents, I am not sure that we are quite there with the form of these amendments.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Perfectly, that leaves you with 10 minutes each. I call Brendan Clarke-Smith.
Brendan Clarke-Smith
I was going to speak about amendment 15. I am sure that, as usually happens, we will see social media graphics saying that all Conservative Members are trying to trash the environment, but our case was made eloquently and entertainingly by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Vicky Ford) and my hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare).
I shall certainly support the Government proposals today, and I will outline why. Of course, this all comes back to taking back control, which was very important for Brexiteers such as myself. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Gareth Bacon), I campaigned for Brexit, and more than 68% of people in Bassetlaw voted for it. Of course, whether someone voted for it or for remain—we know that for many people it was a marginal decision—there is a need for us to accept the result and work together to make the best of the situation, because we want this country to be successful. It is in that spirit, which I feel across the House, that we are moving forward together today.
Brexit is not something where we simply flip a switch. Of course, we got Brexit done, but Brexit is a process and an evolution. That is very much what we are looking at today on retained EU law; we have a process and it will continue. We would like to have a deadline on it, but we realise that the practicalities are not necessarily in line with that. There is a delivery issue and we have to be realistic; we are fast approaching 31 December 2023.
I have a lot of sympathy with the comments made by my right hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Mr Rees-Mogg), and I hope that the drive, ambition and spirit that he has shown will be taken forward in the way we address this legislation in the future.
My hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd South (Simon Baynes) made an excellent point when he talked about aviation regulations and so on being things that we would not necessarily change. Not all of these laws are things that we will look to get rid of. We want to make a good job of this and do it properly. That is the main thing we need to focus on.
I know that some people were worried about whether we are in this position because of some underlying reason to do with the Windsor framework. Again, the Minister and the Secretary of State have given us an excellent explanation from the Dispatch Box as to why that is absolutely not the case.
As we have heard, the Bill ends the supremacy of EU law and we no longer have to interpret legislation using EU case law as our only basis. I was genuinely worried about the unintended consequences of getting rid of legislation without having the time to get all the SIs through, so I fully understand why the Government have taken the approach they have. The regular updates will help us match the ambition suggested by my right hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset, and I look forward to that. This shows the public how the Government are making this work and making a success of the legislation.
I will support the Government tonight—this is a challenge, but it is one that I am sure we are up for— and I encourage colleagues to do the same.
Danny Kruger
It is an honour to wind up for the Back Benchers in this tremendous debate. It has been good natured, but it has also revealed, in a constructive way, some of the profound differences that have divided the country and the House in recent years. The Bill represents the great unfinished business of Brexit. It is, in a sense, the fulfilment of the great promise of Brexit: to bring back control over our laws.
There are two visions of Brexit among those of us who supported it. On the one hand, there are those who believe in deregulation, innovation and free trade. They believe not in the fantasy of slashing protections and regulations, but in cheap food, even in free movement, and in the vision of John Bright, the ancestor of my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir William Cash), who believed so passionately in free trade. On the other hand, there are those of us who believe more in the protection of domestic industry, in reducing migration and in workers’ rights—more Disraeli than Bright.
With that tension in the Tory tribe, we have been battling in recent years about the fulfilment and implementation of the Brexit dream. The fact is that whichever side of the tension we are on, we believe that it should be this Parliament that sets the direction for our country and delivers the sort of country we want to be, post our membership of the European Union. We should determine policy in these areas. That is why the Bill is so good and so right.
I recognise that some hon. Members and parliament-arians in the other place object to the process for the revocation of EU law, particularly the use of statutory instruments, that the Bill introduces. I respect the spirit of the amendments championed by Lord Hamilton in the other place and by the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy) here, but as my hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Andrew Jones) just explained so well, these are profound questions about parliamentary process that are not appropriate for this Bill or this place. Although the spirit of the amendments may be valid, I do not think it is appropriate to tamper with the process through this Bill.
The fact is that the elected Government are responsible for scheduling the measures that will be revoked or reformed—there will be that democratic oversight, unlike there was in the process by which those measures were brought into this place. My right hon. Friend the Member for Camborne and Redruth (George Eustice) explained clearly how this House had no opportunity to challenge EU law as it was introduced. The laws came into Parliament by sneaky means, rather like the rats coming up through the drains, but they will go out in the proper way: briskly and fairly.
I am pleased that we are doing this and, crucially, that we are making the profound change given effect by the Bill, which is to restore the supremacy of UK law. I honour the Government for their efforts to get the process of extirpation, or revocation, right, and to remove the problem that there are two systems of law in operation in this country. We should have one system of law, made in this place.
I approved of the sunset clause. I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Mr Rees-Mogg) about the value of having the stimulus of a deadline. I recognise and respect the point made by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for South Swindon (Sir Robert Buckland) about the danger of having sent the Light Brigade of valiant EU laws into the valley of death, but it would be dangerous to send in the heavy brigade after them. Nevertheless, I think we had the right approach. I accept the Secretary of State’s argument that those in Whitehall rather over-interpreted their instruction to find laws to retain and found that they needed to retain them all. They must have worked very hard—they probably even came into the office to do that work.
Daniel Kawczynski (Shrewsbury and Atcham) (Con)
My hon. Friend will know that there are other countries that may themselves want to leave the European Union in the future and will be watching us closely. Our ability to implement our own laws will be instrumental in whether they decide to join us in freedom.
Danny Kruger
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention; I hope we can inspire the countries of Europe, as we have so often in our history.
We have changed from a default assumption of removal of EU laws to a default assumption of retention. I understand the rationale for that change, even if I regret it. I also regret, but do not understand, why the decision to change the basis of the law was made when the Bill had passed its stages in this House and was in the House of Lords. It passed the Commons with a big majority and the whole Conservative party behind it; I think it was the SNP spokesperson who said it was rather like a handbrake turn in the House of Lords. I agree with that and I regret it.
Nevertheless, since then the Government have engaged constructively with Members. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Stone, who is not in his place. I think every Bill needs an hon. Member for Stone stage, and if that was not done through the European Scrutiny Committee, it was done behind the scenes and it was very effective—[Interruption.] I see my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for South Swindon agreeing with me about the value of that stage of legislation.
I respect the Government’s intention and I accept their assurances that they intend to revoke at scale, because we need to recognise that the new schedule as it stands is very weak. My hon. Friend the Member for Stone said that only five of the measures in the schedule reflect significant laws. He said he was watching Eurovision while doing that work, so it must have been a very painful exercise—gloriously awful. Britain did very badly in Eurovision, and I am afraid Britain has not done brilliantly in this exercise either. It reflects poorly on Whitehall that we have only managed to identify those five substantial measures for revocation.
There is so much that can be done, whether people are free traders, like my right hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset—who is back in his place—or protectionists like some of us.
Sir Robert Buckland
My hon. Friend says he is a protectionist, and I think that might need a bit of amplification. I do not think he means it in the traditional sense of the word, but I am genuinely intrigued.
Danny Kruger
I think my right hon. and learned Friend is trying to rescue me from some sort of political blunder, which I am perfectly capable of making. I am grateful to him for that. This is not the moment for that great debate, although I mentioned the tension in our philosophy between the free trading and protectionist impulses. I want to look after our Wiltshire farmers and I want to see the industry of this country rise again and Britain become a great exporting nation.
Mr Rees-Mogg
I wonder if it is fair to say that my hon. Friend is the Lord George Bentinck of the modern era?
Danny Kruger
I am very grateful to my right hon. Friend, the Peel of our era.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I will not try the patience of the House any longer. My point is that, whether people are free traders or protectionists, surely they want to see VAT reformed. That was the great Brexit freedom opportunity, and we should be using our new freedoms to do it.
We need more ambition. I recognise that the Government intend to report every six months. I am pleased with amendment (b) to Lords amendment 16, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Watford (Dean Russell) with the support of the Government, and I particularly support amendment (a) to Lords amendment 16 in the name of the Secretary of State and my hon. Friend the Member for Stone, which will require the Government to specify at every reporting stage the laws that are going to be reformed or revoked. I support the case my hon. Friend made for having some kind of tsar or commander-in-chief to oversee the process of identifying the laws for reform or revocation. We need a good process here, but we have the right Bill with the right principles in it, and we can now fight out the proper vision for the future of our country.
The Solicitor General
What a great pleasure it is to follow the winding-up speech from the Back Benches by my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Danny Kruger). I agree with him entirely. This has been a good-natured debate, both detailed and robust where it needed to be. I also agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Bim Afolami) that this debate is Parliament doing what it does best—as it often does, and often unseen. This has been a robust but grown-up debate, worthy of the subject matter.
I fear that I will not be able to go into detail for every Member who has spoken, but it is right and proper that I mention the speeches that have been made. I am very grateful to my right hon. and learned Friends the Members for Kenilworth and Southam (Sir Jeremy Wright) and for South Swindon (Sir Robert Buckland). There is always a risk in such debates of a sort of lawyers’ love-in, but I am grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for South Swindon for his kind remarks and for reminding us of the history of Solicitors General appearing at the Dispatch Box for other tricky bits of legislation—not to mention litigation.
I will come back to some of the detail, but in no particular order, I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Andrew Jones) for what he does in his Committee. He is right that, in many ways, his Committee and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir William Cash) do similar things: detailed, painstaking and incredibly valuable work that is done unseen, upstairs in the Committee corridors. I am grateful to my Friend the Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough for his elucidation of that work.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Gareth Bacon), who served throughout the Bill Committee. He has been here from the beginning through to the end, and I am grateful for his dedication and persistence, and for his speech. I have mentioned my hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden, but I will come back to him in a few moments.
I thank my hon. Friends the Members for Devizes and for Clwyd South (Simon Baynes), and my neighbour and hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare), who I will, of course, come back to in due course. I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Vicky Ford), as well as my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (Brendan Clarke-Smith) for his remarks as a dedicated Brexiteer. I will, as I must, come back to my right hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Mr Rees-Mogg) and try to engage with the points that he made.
Let me mention some of the interventions that were made. I thought that my right hon. Friend the Member for Camborne and Redruth (George Eustice)—a former Secretary of State—made some pertinent and detailed interventions at the right moment. I thank him for his work as Secretary of State and for the continued work and thoughts that he feeds into His Majesty’s Government.
I am also grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Watford (Dean Russell) for his interventions. When preparing for this debate, I re-read his Second Reading speech, which was rightly credited by both sides of the House as a simply magnificent speech in the circumstances. The former Secretary of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset, quite rightly paid tribute to him at the time, and I am sure that he would echo my comments.
I also pay tribute to the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy) for serving on the Bill Committee. I mentioned that she and I have served on Bill Committees before, and I know that she undertakes her work diligently. Indeed, when she mentioned Bill Committees and Whips, I wondered whether she was putting in a bid to be a shadow—
The Solicitor General
She is shaking her head. Well, she is missing out, because she would enjoy it and do it well. She made an impassioned speech on why she believes that we should have remained in the EU. I want to pick her up on one point: she said that she wanted to know what laws were going to be revoked. Well, I invite her to join us in the Division Lobby, with the Secretary of State and my hon. Friend the Member for Stone, who tabled an amendment to insert:
“including specifying in a list such provisions of retained EU law as is intended to be revoked or reformed.”
The hon. Lady can join us in the Division Lobby this evening.
Stella Creasy
I am so sorry, but the Minister was not in the Chamber, so perhaps he misunderstood or something was lost in translation, as if often can be in this place. What I wanted to know was the direct effect cases, which is what amendment 6 would provide for. I agree with him—although I think that the list has little impact on any changes—but might he join me in voting for Lords amendment 6 to ensure that we know about everything affected by the legislation?
The Solicitor General
I can reassure the hon. Lady that I was in the Chamber for the entirety of her speech —from beginning to end. Indeed, even before she stood up and after she sat down, I was in the Chamber. The only speech that I missed was that of the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Layla Moran), who was representing the Liberal Democrats. I heard the first few words and the end, and I apologise to her for that. Other than that, I was in the Chamber for the entire debate.
My point remains that the hon. Member for Walthamstow said that she wanted to know what the Government’s intentions were for revocation. If she does, I invite her to support my hon. Friend the Member for Stone in the Aye Lobby later this evening. That would be quite a coupling, and I very much look forward to that moment.
Let me turn from my introductory remarks to some more of the substance. It is crucial that we continue to progress this Bill over the final hurdles to Royal Assent. The Bill is a key part of the Government’s ambition to reform our economy and to support growth. We must capitalise on the competitive advantages that the UK has, now that we are no longer restrained by membership of the EU. We must ask ourselves which regulations have worked, which further regulations can be scrapped, and which could be reformed.
May I turn to the criticisms levelled at the schedule? I enjoyed listening to the shadow Secretary of State’s speech—I always enjoy listening to him speak. I almost thought that he welcomed the schedule. Perhaps he will join the hon. Member for Walthamstow in the Government Division Lobby, but perhaps not because it was an almost welcome that he gave it. I take what I can from his speech and that was certainly a positive, if nothing else. I am grateful to him for his contribution to the debate. I assure colleagues that this is only part of our reform programme.
I will address some of the points made by my right hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset. He said that this was the perfect opportunity for reform, and it still is, not least thanks to him, his hard work and drive, and the dashboard that he has championed throughout. Thanks to that, it is not only Members in this House but people throughout the country and, if they are interested, across the world who will be able to look at regular updates on our retained EU law.
There has been some criticism and some mention of inertia and delay. My hon. Friend the Member for Devizes mentioned Whitehall. The Attorney General has arrived at absolutely the right moment, because I would like to pay tribute to the Government Legal Department, to Government lawyers who have been poring over retained EU law. When my right hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset introduced the Bill, the explanatory notes estimated that there were some 2,400 pieces of retained EU law. But that was not so. Thanks to the diligence of civil servants, the Bill team and Government lawyers, more than double that number have been identified. The 600—the Light Brigade—are not the limit of the Government’s ambitions.
More reforms are planned. I agree with my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kenilworth and Southam that this approach has the potential to lead to greater reform than might otherwise have been the case. Others have asked if this is a change in direction. No, it is not. It is a different way of doing the same thing, potentially with better and faster results. I believe that my right hon. and learned Friend was right, and I am grateful to him for his engagement in this debate.
Sammy Wilson
For those of us who supported Brexit, it is important that we are able to tailor our own laws to suit the circumstances of our own country. Can the Solicitor General tell me, however, how this situation is better for people in Northern Ireland? Given that we have been left in the position of being an annex to the EU, many of these changes do not apply.
The Solicitor General
I am very grateful indeed to the right hon. Gentleman for his engagement throughout the debate, not only today but previously. He and I have engaged on certain related, like-minded campaigns, and I pay tribute to him for the work he does in his constituency. I reassure him that the Bill’s provisions apply equally to all parts of the United Kingdom and that Northern Ireland Ministers will benefit from the same powers as Ministers of the Crown, not least thanks to amendments tabled in the other place.
As for the criticisms of the mechanisms of the statutory instruments that are being used, I wish those concerns about lack of scrutiny had been raised during our membership of the EU. Where were they? Where were the cries? Where were the complaints? They were simply absent.
The Solicitor General
I will, but it will be the last intervention that I take.
Sir William Cash
Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that under section 2, they all came in almost entirely? There was some primary legislation, but it was almost entirely done through statutory instrument, and against the background of the undemocratic process that took place at the Council of Ministers.
The Solicitor General
I am very grateful to my hon. Friend, the Chairman of the European Scrutiny Committee, for that point. I believe he has been a member of the Committee since 1985 and has chaired it for almost as long, but not quite. I served on his Committee, and he has seen thousands of regulations pass through, unseen apart from his work and that of his Committee. Once again, I pay tribute to him for that work.
In terms of environmental protections, I remind the House of the repeated commitments made by Ministers at all stages of the Bill’s passage. I pay tribute again to the right hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) for his very clear interventions, amplifying so well the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset and made so powerfully by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford early on in her speech, with which I agree in its entirety. I will just touch on that point, and amplify it briefly: since leaving the European Union, this Government have passed the landmark Environment Act 2021. We have produced our 2023 environment implementation plan, our storm overflows discharge reduction plan, and our plan for water. There are other plans, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I will not try your patience by reading out each and every one of them. [Hon. Members: “Go on!”] Well, only because I am being encouraged to, I will mention the Agriculture Act 2020 and—because the Attorney General is here—the Fisheries Act 2020. That will gladden her heart.
There it is: any accusation that Government Members are any less concerned about environmental protections than Opposition Members is totally false. Under the Environment Act, we are committed to deliver a legally binding target to halt nature’s decline by 2030. In reviewing its retained EU law, DEFRA’s aim is to ensure that environmental law is fit for purpose, able to drive improved environmental outcomes while ensuring regulators can deliver efficiently. That will ensure that the UK regulatory framework is appropriate and tailored for our needs in our country—in the United Kingdom. The Government have clear environmental and climate goals, which have been repeatedly set out. I could say the same in relation to workers’ rights, for which my hon. Friend the Member for Watford made the case so powerfully in his earlier intervention.
I will mention two more points before I close, the first of which relates to page 16 of the Bill. The port services regulations have been mentioned: that legislation has never been appropriate in the context of the United Kingdom’s decentralised and competitive ports sector. Removing the port services regulations from our statute book will reduce the bureaucracy in our ports sector, doing away with unnecessary reporting burdens.
The Solicitor General
I am delighted that my hon. Friend is “Hear, hear”-ing so loudly from the Back Benches.
I will now turn to interpretive effects and Lords amendment 6, and some of the concerns that have been raised. I take this opportunity to again thank my hon. Friend the Member for Stone, who has ceaselessly campaigned to end what he calls the shadow statute book. The fact is that the amendment replaces the section of the Bill developed by my right hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset—who introduced the Bill—whereby section 4 of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act will be repealed after 31 December this year. The matters saved by section 4 consist largely of retained rights, obligations and remedies developed in the case law, no less, of the Court of Justice of the European Union, and the vast majority of those overlap with rights that we already have. Those overlaps can cause confusion and legal uncertainty, and I invite right hon. and hon. Members to join us in the Government Lobbies this evening.
I once again thank all Members for their contributions to the debate. This schedule is by no means the limit to our ambition for reforms of EU law: we have the power and we will continue to amend EU laws. It is imperative that we ensure this Bill reaches Royal Assent promptly; and as to the Government amendments, I commend them to the House.
Question put, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 6.
Business without Debate
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
With the leave of the House, we shall take motions 4 to 6 together.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),
Environmental Protection
That the draft Packaging Waste (Data Reporting) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2023, which were laid before this House on 20 April, be approved.
Road Traffic
That the draft Road Vehicles (Authorised Weight) (Amendment) Regulations 2023, which were laid before this House on 26 April, be approved.
Criminal Law
That the draft Justice and Security (Northern Ireland) Act 2007 (Extension of Duration of Non-jury Trial Provisions) Order 2023, which was laid before this House on 24 April, be approved.—(Ruth Edwards.)
Question agreed to.
Pavement parking
(11 months, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
Afzal Khan (Manchester, Gorton) (Lab)
I rise to present this petition about pavement parking in Manchester, Gorton, which disrupts my constituents daily, particularly those who have mobility impairments, those who are blind or partially sighted, and those who are neurodiverse.
The petition states:
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to respond to the consultation ‘pavement parking: options for change’ and begin the process of instituting a default ban on pavement parking across England.
And the petitioners remain, etc.
Following is the full text of the petition:
[The petition of councillors representing wards in the Manchester, Gorton constituency
Declares that parking on the pavement has a significant negative impact on people who are mobility impaired, blind or partially sighted, are neurodivergent, and parents and children.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to respond to the consultation ‘pavement parking: options for change’ and begin the process of instituting a default ban on pavement parking across England.
And the petitioners remain, etc.]
[P002834]
Dental Care: Durham
(11 months, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mary Kelly Foy (City of Durham) (Lab)
Vast areas of our country are increasingly described as “dental deserts”, places where not a single dental practice is accepting new NHS patients, and County Durham is one such place. We in Durham have witnessed dental services decay at an alarming rate. In my constituency today, there will be children sat in classrooms struggling to concentrate because of something as preventable as toothache. So it is hardly surprising that tooth decay is now the leading reason for children being admitted to accident and emergency in our country.
This scandal is not unique to Durham or the north-east; it is a problem everywhere. In 2023, dentistry is available on the NHS on paper but not in practice. The British Dental Association has described NHS dentistry as entering its final act. The horrifying experiences of my constituents, which I will outline, will certainly strengthen that claim, but before I turn to my constituents, let me state a chilling fact: Britain has poorer oral health than any other developed economy.
Peter Gibson (Darlington) (Con)
The hon. Lady raises an important point about children’s dentistry. Does she agree that prevention is better than cure? Would she welcome a return to dentistry in schools?
Mary Kelly Foy
Of course, prevention is better than cure, and that is one of the reasons why so many children have to go to A&E. If problems were identified and prevented in young children, there would not be the cost implication for services further down the line. In an ideal world, we would have dentists in schools.
As I said, Britain has the poorest oral healthcare among developed countries. Can the Minister honestly say that we have genuine preventive oral healthcare in our country? Over the past 13 years, dentistry has become unaffordable and unavailable for many of my constituents. Nearly 400 have contacted me in dismay at their recent experiences. I thank them for their contributions and I hope the Minister can give them some reassurance today.
My constituents know that the problem is not with the dentists themselves. They know that dentists are trying their best for their patients. The problem lies at the Government’s door. In the time that I have, I can share only a portion of the pain and suffering that my constituents have had to endure. One moved to Durham over four and a half years ago but still cannot find an NHS dentist, despite being told after a kidney transplant that it was vital that they had regular dental check-ups to monitor their health. Now they have a broken tooth and simply cannot afford to fix it.
Another constituent told me how she had to borrow money to afford a private appointment. She is now 30 weeks pregnant and exempt from dental charges, but her exemption is worthless as there are no appointments available for her. A young girl in my constituency tripped over and shattered her teeth. Her family contacted me because they could not find a dentist to help her. Luckily, after I reported the case on social media, a local dentist was kind enough to help her out, but our health system should not be based on charity. Constituents have also contacted me about do-it-yourself dentistry. In case the Minister is unaware, that is when people fit their own fillings and extract their own teeth without anaesthetic or any professional training.
I have raised the alarming experience of my constituent Ray in the Chamber before, but I do so again because his case underlines why access to dentistry should be not a luxury, but an integral part of our health system. Ray was unable to find an NHS dental appointment, so, out of utter frustration, he decided to go private. Following his appointment, Ray was diagnosed with oral cancer, for which he is now receiving treatment. As there is a cost of living crisis, we have a duty to ask, what if Ray had not been able to pay for private treatment? What if the cancer had continued to go undetected? Frankly, Ray might not be here today. It is morally wrong that Ray was put in that position. No one in my constituency —or anywhere, for that matter—should be put in that position.
Why is this happening? My visit to a dental practice in Gilesgate this week provided some of the answers. The practice has just one dentist working two days a week seeing NHS patients, and it has 10,000 patients on its books. It does not take a genius to work out why my constituents cannot see a dentist. It is clear why dentists are closing their doors to NHS patients, and it is certainly not because of a lack of demand. The problem, which the BDA has identified, is that the unreformed NHS dental contract means that dentists are pushed into the private sector to keep their practices afloat financially. As one dentist said to me:
“Every day I’m providing some treatment for nothing or at a loss—working the best I can, caring for NHS patients the best I can within the dental contract.”
He also went on to say that the Government are clearly winding down NHS dentistry in the hope that the public will accuse dentists of being greedy.
The exodus of dentists is clear for all to see—except, it seems, the Government, who continue to deny there is a crisis in NHS dentistry.
Mary Glindon (North Tyneside) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend for securing this important debate. Given that dentists are so hard pressed and are trying their best to fit in NHS patients, in light of all the problems they are facing, does she agree that they deserve our greatest respect, admiration and thanks? I am very fortunate that I have been at my dentist’s practice for 52 years, but they are struggling.
Mary Kelly Foy
I could not agree more with my hon. Friend. The dentists that I have spoken to recently all want to help NHS patients, but the way the contracts are designed, it is not worth their while, and of course they have to make a living.
I mentioned that I made a point of order yesterday regarding the Prime Minister, who has repeatedly claimed that there are “500 more dentists” in the NHS. However, following a freedom of information request, we now know that the number of dentists in the NHS fell by nearly 700 last year. The number of dentists has also fallen since the pandemic and is at its lowest level in a decade.
Diagnosing the causes of the problem is not complicated. As I mentioned at the beginning, Britain has poorer oral health than any other developed economy. The system is also dysfunctional, and practices have handed back a record £400 million-worth of funding back to the Government because they do not have the capacity to meet the required targets.
Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend and neighbour agree that we have to see what the need is in each area? I contrast the current approach with when Labour were in power in Durham: we brought in new capacity where we knew that areas did not have access to NHS dentistry.
Mary Kelly Foy
I thank my right hon. Friend for the intervention. We all know that there is huge demand and such a lack of NHS dentists out there that it is, I guess, a question of political will whether this problem is solved or not.
The absence of oral healthcare from our national debate about the future of the NHS is alarming. Dentistry is integral to our national health and therefore must be key to the NHS. Without proper investment in preventive healthcare such as dental check-ups, we cannot quickly treat oral cancers, nor can we stem the flow of people with dental problems into our already overcrowded accident and emergency departments.
I would be grateful if the Minister responded to the following questions. First, will he ensure that dentistry is properly represented in the governance structures of the NHS? Dentistry must be at the centre of the policy-making process, not an afterthought. Secondly, will the Government publish a comprehensive national dental strategy, one that is focused on prevention and tackling health inequalities? Thirdly, will he undertake meaningful reform of the NHS dental contract, which would stem the flow of dentists out of the system? Fourthly, will he work with the BDA on the previous points?
Finally, as I have said, I raised a point of order yesterday on the Prime Minister’s claim that there are 500 extra dentists in the NHS. There are in fact 700 fewer dentists, not more. Unless I have missed something today, the Prime Minister has not corrected the record, as he is obliged to. Will the Minister finally correct the record on behalf of the Prime Minister?
I could have spoken for hours this evening, reading out the correspondence I have received from constituents. Each constituent’s experience reflects a serious failure by this Government, so I implore the Minister not to insult the intelligence of the people of Durham, but to take this opportunity to accept that there is a crisis in NHS dentistry and to commit finally to meaningful reform.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Neil O’Brien)
Let me come directly to the questions asked by the hon. Member for City of Durham (Mary Kelly Foy). She called for a comprehensive dental reform plan. Yes, we will do that, and we will do it soon. She called for an overhaul of the 2006 contract. Yes, we will do that. Will we work with those at the BDA? Yes. In fact, I met them yesterday. We are keen to draw on their expertise.
I congratulate the hon. Lady on securing the time for this important debate. It is absolutely my top priority right now to work at pace to try to address the significant problems in dentistry. I am not here to say that there is no problem; I am here to try to fix the problem as quickly as possible. We could debate the figure on dental activity all day, but the bottom line is that it is not high enough and we need to get it higher. To come directly to her point about correcting the record and so on, the latest published figures show that there are 1,473 more dentists than there were in 2010—about 6.5% more.
Neil O’Brien
NHS dentists, yes. Activity is definitely going up—about a fifth more patients were seen in the year ending March than in the year before that—but it is still too low. That is a point on which we absolutely agree.
We have started—only started—to reform the contract. We have introduced more bands for units of dental activity to better reflect the fair cost of work so that there is fairness for dentists, and to incentivise more NHS work. We introduced the first ever minimum UDA value to help sustain practices where UDA values are low. That has implications for under-delivery in some bits of the country.
We are for the first time allowing dentists to do 110% delivery of their UDAs so that those who want to do more NHS dentistry can do more, with a requirement to update their availability on the NHS website. We have also started the process of making it easier for dentists to come to work in the UK. Last month, we brought into force legislation enabling the General Dental Council to increase the capacity of the overseas registration exam. We are also working with local partners around the country who have various ideas about creating new centres for dental development so that, in areas that do not have a dental school, we can get more people to train and remain, and dentists flow to the bits of the country where there the need is most acute.
Some of those reforms are starting to have effects. It is good that the reforms to split band 2 have been reasonably well received, as has the 110% option. The splitting of band 2 is being used and the proportion of band 2bs is going up. As I say, activity is going up, which is encouraging, but it is not high enough and needs to be higher still. The reforms that we have talked about so far have just been a start. I am under no illusions about the significant challenges to address, not just in Durham but across the whole country.
The forthcoming dental plan will build on those initial steps to go further on improving the payment model and those initial banding changes, especially focusing on improving access for new patients, which is a particular problem. We want to consider how we address historical UDA valuations—they are stuck in time in 2006 and are, in some cases, unfair—and look fundamentally at how we make NHS work more attractive.
Peter Gibson
I thank the Minister for his engagement with me on dentistry in my constituency, and I welcome the reforms that he is talking about, but as he has just mentioned UDAs, could he say something about the disparity of UDA rates across a region? That disparity means that a large practice can concentrate its efforts in areas with higher UDA rates rather than in areas with lower UDA rates.
Neil O’Brien
My hon. Friend is quite right. Some of those disparities, which can occur from one end of the street to the other, are extremely hard to justify, hence the introduction of the minimum UDA rate and why we are looking at going further. He is completely correct. Funnily enough, as well as coming to improving access to treatment, I was just about to respond to his earlier point about prevention and his rather brilliant idea about what more we could do in schools. We are, following the conversations we have had, actively considering that.
I thank the hon. Member for City of Durham for her important work in securing this important debate.
Mary Kelly Foy
It feels as if the Minister is coming to the end of his speech, but I would really like him to correct the record. In my point of order yesterday, I said that the Prime Minister has on seven occasions said that there are 500 more NHS dentists, when there are in fact 700 fewer dentists. If the Minister has met the British Dental Association, it will have pointed that fact out to him. Could he please correct the record, or may I ask you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for advice on how we can encourage the Prime Minister to correct the record before the House rises tomorrow?
Neil O’Brien
I have already read out the statistics. I will not read them out again, and I do not think there is a need to correct the record. The statistics that the hon. Lady is drawing on are incomplete, because there is effectively a two-month lag between activity and the need to report that activity. Drawing on such incomplete information does not give the full picture, so I caution her against doing so.
First, I encourage the hon. Lady to wait for the official data in the usual way. Secondly, we are looking to improve that official data by, indeed, working with and responding to concerns raised by the BDA. I do not think that headcount is a sensible measure with the workforce. There are more people doing NHS work than there were in 2010. What we are really interested in is the total amount of activity, which is best measured by the total number of UDAs being delivered. As I have said, that total amount of activity is going up. In the last month for which we have data, it had gone up from 85% in March 2022 to about 101% in March 2023, but it is still not high enough. Although the trend is positive and dentists are doing more NHS work, the point of agreement here is that that needs to improve further.
Mr Kevan Jones
I am sorry, but the Minister cannot have it both ways. First, the population of this country has increased since 2010 and we need to measure the number of dentists against the size of the population. The other thing is that he can talk about UDAs, but if people are in an NHS dentist desert, as is the case in Durham, it does not matter if the number has gone up elsewhere. If people do not have access to a dentist, they do not have access to a dentist and therefore cannot be treated.
Neil O’Brien
That point is clearly correct, but that is not to disagree with anything that I have just said.
Rather than getting into the weeds—I have already read out the official statistics—let me try to end on a note of agreement. We absolutely want to take further steps to ensure that we increase access to NHS dentistry where it is lowest and, as well as improving the service for patients right across the country and improving preventive activity, we want to see particularly rapid improvement in those areas, perhaps including that of the hon. Member for City of Durham, that have not had the level of access that we would want over recent times.
Question put and agreed to.
Ministerial Correction
(11 months, 3 weeks ago)
Ministerial CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Leader of the House
(11 months, 3 weeks ago)
Ministerial CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
Last night the Environment Secretary chose to say on ITV that there is “misinformation” about sewage being dumped into our rivers, rather than acknowledging the problem. That is really insulting. People have been made sick after swimming in raw sewage. It is a serious and disgusting stain on our country, yet the Environment Secretary blames “misinformation” for the scandal. May we have a debate in Government time, led by the Environment Secretary, on the alleged misinformation of sewage reporting, including why thousands of sewage monitors are broken?
Penny Mordaunt
When we came into office, just 6% of storm overflows were monitored. That figure is now 100%. But I know that there are issues, which are different in different areas, with the monitoring systems.
[Official Report, 18 May 2023, Vol. 732, c. 969.]
Letter of correction from the Leader of the House:
An error has been identified in the response I gave to the hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse) at business questions.
The correct response should have been:
Penny Mordaunt
When we came into office, just 7% of storm overflows were monitored. That figure is now 100%. But I know that there are issues, which are different in different areas, with the monitoring systems.
Petitions
Special school in Biddulph
Traffic calming measures in Westwood Hill
Westminster Hall
(11 months, 3 weeks ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Private Rented Sector: Regulation
(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
Dan Carden (Liverpool, Walton) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered regulation of the private rented sector.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Davies. I am grateful to have secured time for a debate on this matter, which continues to directly affect all our constituents. I pay tribute to my constituents in Liverpool, Walton who continue to be the innocent victims of the UK’s broken housing system, and I commend stakeholders including the Merseyside Law Centre, the Vauxhall Community Law and Information Centre, ACORN Liverpool at the local level, and the excellent Renters Reform Coalition at the national level.
The private rented sector continues to be dominated by insecure tenure, increasingly unaffordable rents, poor housing quality and the ever-present threat of homelessness. No one in this House should underestimate the dislocating and exhausting experience of being removed from one’s home.
I am unsure whether anyone in this House has received a section 21 notice, or has felt unable to complain about damp, mould or other poor conditions for fear of a retaliatory eviction. I am unsure whether anyone in this House has had to endure the stress of having only two months to find a new property in a chaotic and punishing market—or to search for a new school for their children, a new doctor, dental surgery or other basic services that we take for granted—following the receipt of a section 21 notice. What I am sure of is that the Government were absolutely right to ban section 21 evictions, alongside taking other measures in the Renters (Reform) Bill, to correct the power imbalance between landlords and tenants; but we must not forget what the cost of delay and inaction has been. To illustrate that, I will discuss just one of my constituents.
My constituent received a section 21 notice through the post, which gave her two months to vacate the property. The landlord gave two reasons for the eviction: he was looking at increasing rental income and was also looking to sell the property. My constituent has two children, a daughter aged seven and a son aged four, who has a severe learning disability and is non-verbal. Despite that, at the start of June, she and her family will become homeless. I invite the Minister to hear directly from my constituent about the impact of that eviction on her and her family’s mental and physical health. I would be happy for my office to make contact with her office to facilitate that.
The measures in the Renters (Reform) Bill will come too late for that constituent, but we can now work to ensure that no other constituent faces the same crushing uncertainty. Thankfully, after a four-year delay following the announcement of the Renters (Reform) Bill, the Government have finally found time to introduce that important piece of legislation. I stand ready and willing to work with colleagues from across the House to ensure that the Bill makes the private rented sector as fair as possible and gives local authorities resources to enable them to regulate the sector effectively for the benefit of all our constituents.
Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this really important debate; he is making a powerful case. My Brighton constituency is one of the most expensive places to rent outside London, and my constituents are being ripped off daily. Does he agree that there is a big gap in the Renters (Reform) Bill—which is very welcome, if very late—when it comes to more enforcement powers for local authorities to target rogue landlords, and also this outrageous discrimination whereby blanket bans on renting to people with children or those who rely on benefits are still allowed? Those loopholes absolutely must be closed now. It is not good enough for the Minister to say, “We’re going to do it sometime in the future.”
Dan Carden
I am grateful for my colleague’s intervention. I will touch on both those points in some detail, and I hope the Minister will respond and that we can work together to see the Bill strengthened over time.
I will use the rest of the time I have available today to cover actions that could be taken to ensure that the reforms were robust enough to provide renters with real security in their homes. I aim to do that in the spirit of genuine co-operation, and there is considerable appetite across the House to make the legislation as effective as possible. I want to cover three primary areas in which policy could be improved: in the Bill itself, on action related to enforcement, and addressing the crisis around affordability.
As I have outlined, the abolition of section 21 evictions is a much welcome step, but the Government must go further to guarantee that private housing providers do not use other routes to subject renters to unfair eviction. Landlords can continue to reclaim possession of their properties in the case of a sale, or if they or a family member wishes to move into a property. However, under the Bill, following an eviction on those grounds, landlords can re-let their properties after three months. That period is too short, and it will not act as a proper deterrent to landlords who seek to exploit the abolition of section 21 evictions. Therefore, the Government must extend the no re-letting period to a minimum of 12 months. If they do not, renters will not feel the assurance and safety that are intended to be at the heart of the reforms.
Further, will the Minister explain what recourse tenants will have if they are evicted unlawfully on those grounds? Can tenants apply for a rent repayment order, for example? If not, what other forms of compensation are available? The proposed two-month notice period and six-month initial protected period leave those evicted on legitimate no-fault grounds in the same position as they are under section 21. The notice period should be extended to four months at an absolute minimum.
Such a proposal is not new to the Government, because in the midst of the covid pandemic, the section 21 notice was extended to four months. I can tell the Minister that the situation in the housing market has deteriorated, not improved, so it is only logical that the Government look at that proposal and seriously consider extending the period again. The benefits are obvious: if tenants were given more time to find somewhere to live, that would spare the taxpayer and tenants the cost of homelessness, which is devastating both financially and mentally.
Organisations including Shelter have expressed concern about the amendments that the Renters (Reform) Bill will make to homelessness legislation. Private renters who receive a possession notice will no longer have the right to immediate help from the council to avoid homelessness. That is because the law will no longer specify when help to prevent homelessness should be available to private renters. Instead, it will leave that to the discretion of local authorities, and that despite the Government knowing that early intervention is paramount in protecting tenants and preventing homelessness. Will the Government move urgently to address that weakness in the Bill, which directly undermines the Homelessness Reduction Act 2017 and the rough sleeping strategy? We should be boosting and improving protections related to homelessness prevention, not weakening them.
I want to speak about enforcement. The property portal and the ombudsman are positive elements of the Bill, but they will help to drive up standards only if the Government arm local authorities with the means to properly investigate and enforce. There is a postcode lottery in the sector, and enforcement action depends on how diligent and well resourced local authorities are. In my local authority area, Liverpool, we have a selective licensing scheme that aims to proactively regulate the private rented sector.
Despite the Government shrinking the area to which the licensing scheme applied in 2020, the team at Liverpool City Council has reported that, out of 2,308 inspections, 917 disrepair matters have been identified, as well as 1,053 breaches of licensing conditions. This is despite the National Residential Landlords Association previously describing the scheme as a “waste of time”. The local authority looks to work in co-operation with licence holders where possible, but unfortunately some enforcement action will always be inevitable. The council describes the number of referrals to the service as “substantial”. It says that resourcing and recruitment remain a challenge. Will the Minister commit to ringfencing resources to ensure that new regulations can be properly enforced through the property portal and ombudsman?
There is a crisis of affordability in the private rented sector, and yet calls continue to be ignored by Government. Research by Rightmove has shown that, in the past year alone, rents have risen at their fastest rate in 16 years, increasing by an average of 11% across Great Britain, yet I have never heard anyone on the Government Benches express concern that rent increases have contributed to inflation. That argument is often made when it comes to pay restraint or welfare payments, but why are landlords never asked to heed the same advice? These price increases represent an emergency, and the Government are moving too slowly to combat these rises.
There have been five housing Ministers in the past year. It seems that private renters are the losers from years of indifference and delay by the Government. Housing generally is already the biggest expense for renters. According to Crisis, private tenants on the lowest 10% of incomes are facing combined rents, food and utility costs that exceed their total incomes by 43%. The impact of further rent increases will be deep. According to Government figures, between January and March 2023, the number of section 21 claims increased by a huge 52%, and there was a 16% rise in non-section 21 evictions, the highest since the data began in 2009. The rent tribunal still continues to allow rents to go higher than the landlord may initially request, which acts as a major disincentive to using it. Will the Minister work with me to increase constituents’ means to challenge rent increases and improve the utility of the rent tribunal? If action is not taken to combat rent increases, landlords will simply evict tenants by pricing them out of staying in the property.
Caroline Lucas
It is generous of the hon. Gentleman to give way again; he is making a powerful case. Does he agree that we also need to look at rent controls, which are used in many other countries without a problem? We simply cannot allow rents to spiral out of all control. People will never be able to earn enough to have a mortgage, and they cannot even earn enough now to pay their own bills, so we need something far stronger even that what he is describing.
Dan Carden
Absolutely; I would back the hon. Lady’s calls for the Government to look at rent controls and the best international comparisons, because this is an issue not just for our constituents, but for the economy and inflation, and in the end it hurts all of us.
The Minister could also move to increase the local housing allowance. LHA rates have been frozen since 2019. Following the huge increase in inflation and house prices, this freezing means that private tenants face an ever-increasing gap between housing benefit and their actual rent. What discussions are taking place within Government to modify that? Inaction is prolonging and deepening homelessness. Further, there are White Paper commitments missing from the version of the Bill that was recently published. Where are the measures to outlaw blanket bans on renting to those in receipt of housing benefit? The Government have recognised that this discrimination is wrong, but measures to address it are missing from the Bill. I would appreciate some guidance from the Minister on that point in her response.
I will conclude by discussing an important amendment that I intend to table to the Renters (Reform) Bill. Awaab Ishak was a two-year-old boy killed by mould in a social housing flat. Unfortunately, Awaab’s story echoes much of the casework that comes through my office—and, I am sure, the offices of many Members across the House. It followed Awaab’s social landlord repeatedly failing to fix the mould problem in his family’s flat, blaming the problems on his family’s lifestyle.
In response, the Secretary of State moved quickly to table amendments to the Social Housing (Regulation) Bill to impose timeframes on landlords to investigate hazards and make repairs. That was absolutely the right move, and the Government must now put the same protections in place for private renters. As the Citizens Advice report, “Damp, cold and full of mould”, has shown, 2.7 million renting households in this country, including 1.6 million children, are living in damp, cold or mouldy homes. These conditions have a disastrous effect on people’s physical and mental health.
Abena Oppong-Asare
Abena. I thank my hon. Friend for putting forward this important debate. I have a huge number of housing cases that involve constituents of mine who live in damp and mouldy properties, and I have had responses from housing associations saying that that is down to their lifestyle, which is factually incorrect. Constituents are also facing soaring rents. Like my hon. Friend, I want to see a proper ombudsman in place for constituents living in private rented accommodation. Does he agree that the private renters charter will make things a lot fairer for individuals up and down the country?
Dan Carden
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her intervention. I agree with her, and I hope that this Bill is an opportunity for us to ensure that the Government can put more protections in place for our constituents.
The conditions in which people live can have a disastrous effect on their physical and mental health, but tenants are left with little choice than to stay in homes that make them ill, and even kill them. Will the Minister meet with me to discuss how we can bring the private sector in line with the social sector and ensure that landlords deal with serious hazards in privately rented homes in a timely manner? Sadly, as we have witnessed, the cost of failing to do so can be fatal. I will leave the Minister with that, and I look forward to working with her and colleagues on this hugely important area of policy.
Navendu Mishra (Stockport) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Dan Carden) on securing this debate. On a more negative note, housing is a constituency issue on which I receive a vast amount of correspondence. I am grateful to several local organisations, including Citizens Advice Stockport, Stockport Tenants Union and Stockport Homes, which do a lot to support tenants who might be struggling and homeless people in our constituency and town. They do a really important job, but the bottom line is that those organisations are a last resort. The Government have failed, and they continue to fail.
It also happens to be the case that when issues arise in the private sector it is always the social housing sector that must pick up the pieces, at a considerable cost in terms of emergency and temporary accommodation. I have cases in my inbox about landlords who are serving section 21 notices because they know they can get more rent from a new tenant. I have cases in which the housing standards are very poor, with damp and mould—my hon. Friend mentioned a couple of such cases in his inbox. People have come to my office who have an informal agreement with their landlord with regard to their tenancy, which offers them zero security and has a negative impact on their physical and mental health.
Members on both sides of the Chamber will be aware of people in their constituency who cannot afford deposits for a tenancy and who can forget about saving up for a deposit for a mortgage because their wages are so low. Rents keep going up, and they keep getting priced out of tenancies, mortgages and secure housing, which I believe is a fundamental human right—I am sure many Members will agree that secure, safe, clean housing is a fundamental human right. People with pets are often disadvantaged when looking for tenancies; I have had several cases on that issue. The local housing allowance simply is not adequate in my borough. The median rent value in Stockport is much higher than the local housing allowance in the two broad rental market areas, so it simply is not good enough.
I would like to mention a couple of cases. One constituent said that his son had to enter a bidding war to get his apartment in Stockport—not a house, an apartment—which was advertised at £850 per calendar month. At the end of the bidding war, the agreement was made at £880 per calendar month. I appreciate that £30 a month might not be a lot for some people, but for a lot of people struggling in the current cost of living crisis it is a large amount of money. If we multiply that by 12, it is a significant amount for many people on low wages. Another constituent had his rent increased by a huge £300 per calendar month, and the landlord still refused to undertake essential repairs to the property. That sort of behaviour is simply shameful. I do not see much action from the Government, and I do not see a credible plan to tackle these issues.
I would like to mention one more case, which is that of a single person earning less than £30,000 a year who does not qualify for any help and has lived in a tiny one-bedroom flat of 42 square metres for many years. The property has not been updated in many years. It has dated storage heaters, which are very expensive to run during the daytime, and rent increases annually by 3%. However, the constituent has been told that this year it will increase by 5%. She feels that she has no security and stability. In addition to the rent going up by 5%, she was issued an affordability assessment by the landlord’s estate agent, which implied that if she was not able to meet the threshold, she would be asked to leave. When questioned, the landlord’s agent said that they are
“employed by Landlords to protect their assets and to minimise their risks”.
That sort of behaviour has to be labelled as shameful. Protecting an asset should not be more important than someone having the opportunity to live in safe, clean and secure housing. This person told me that she cannot find alternative affordable accommodation, and she has a cat, which many landlords will not accept. That goes back to my point that many people who have pets are simply excluded from the market.
The average rent in Stockport is £850 per calendar month, which is almost a 9% increase since 2021. Most people in England have not seen their wages go up by 9% since 2021. Increasing rents and the cost of living crisis are adding up. Last year, Citizens Advice reported that rent growth was at its fastest in five years, and one in five expect their rent to rise this year. Additionally, it estimated that 425,000 renters are in arrears, owing an average of £937 each. That is almost £1,000, which is a significant amount of money for anyone.
A point has to be made about the demographics. Young people and people from working-class backgrounds are now losing at least 30% of their monthly income to rent. The Government’s Renters (Reform) Bill is a positive step, but there are lots of loopholes, and there have to be assurances on a number of factors in the Bill.
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
Does the hon. Member agree that one factor that should be taken into account is Government support for greater availability of good-quality social housing, which would help to suppress the increase in rents? Allied with that, the Bill and the tax regime should pursue bad landlords, support good landlords and protect tenants at the same time.
Navendu Mishra
I agree, although my experience is that Stockport Homes, one of the major local social housing providers, has been struggling to secure properties because their cost has risen significantly. Recent census data shows that Stockport has seen a 48% increase in property values in the past five years, whereas the average in England is 20%. For social housing providers, securing or building new properties, particularly with the rising cost of building materials, is a significant financial commitment that many of them are not able to make. I agree that bad landlords need to be pursued. I do not think the enforcement regime is good enough. Of course, there are good landlords out there—I am not going to dispute that—but they often get tarred with the same brush that bad landlords leave us with.
The Renters (Reform) Bill is a positive step, but there are many loopholes. The rules around section 21, on landlords evicting tenants by claiming to move families in, need to be looked at. There is no provision on rising rents. It is unclear what the penalties will be for landlords who break the rules. There are so many loopholes that we need a serious discussion about how to deliver for people across England.
I have already mentioned the statistics on the average rent values in my constituency. I would like to conclude by making two further points. Owner-occupiers spend 18% of their household income on mortgage payments, while private renters spend 31% of their household income on rent. That is simply unfair, and it is also unsustainable. It is evident from the data for constituencies across England that many—not all—private landlords are making large amounts of money out of the cost of living crisis.
Yesterday, Labour MPs, along with those of several opposition parties, voted to end the unfair leasehold system. Labour is serious about reforming the housing sector; it is not just warm words. I am sorry to say that the Government have failed and continue to let down renters consistently, year after year. In 13-plus years of this Government, we have not seen serious action. I hope the Minister will address these points.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Dan Carden) on securing this debate and setting the scene so powerfully. May I draw attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests?
My Bath constituency is a special place to live, but that comes at a very high cost. Soaring rents have forced out many who consider Bath home. The average monthly rent in Bath and North East Somerset has risen by more than £200 in the past three years. The Government have consistently failed to stand up for the fifth of UK households who privately rent. Legislation has not kept up with demand.
There are many responsible landlords, but there are also those who are unfit to be part of the sector. They provide a public service and we must regulate them as such. The ban on section 21 evictions was first promised four years ago. Since then, more than 54,000 households in England have been threatened with a no-fault eviction, and almost 17,000 households have been evicted by bailiffs. Research by Shelter and YouGov has found that private renters who complained to their landlords, letting agent or local council were two and half times more likely to be handed an eviction notice in the past three years.
Although I welcome the Government’s decision to introduce a ban on no-fault evictions, I am appalled that it has taken so long. Even now, we do not have a date for the Second Reading of the Renters (Reform) Bill. In passing that Bill, we must not enable no-fault evictions through the back door. I am concerned that the Government will allow evictions for anything that is “capable” of causing nuisance or annoyance. That is clearly open to abuse, and needs further clarification. Tenants will continue to be victimised if robust regulation is not in place.
Liberal Democrats have long fought hard to ban revenge evictions, where rogue landlords evict tenants who make complaints. I ask the Minister to implement provision on the specific set of circumstances in which a landlord can evict a tenant. The law on illegal eviction must be reformed alongside section 21. Court backlogs mean that landlords must wait for a court order and may be tempted to break the law. Landlords have been known to get rid of tenants’ possessions or cut off utilities such as water and heating. That is an awful practice that reflects the contempt in which some landlords hold their tenants.
We have talked quite a lot about the relationship between landlords and tenants. I have drawn attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests because I am a landlord. I believe that the best way to solve the problem is to create an atmosphere in which landlords and tenants treat each other with respect. That scene has to be set by the landlord, who must respect the tenants living in their property rather than holding them in contempt, as many landlords do, and using them for money. Homes that are rented out must be seen as homes for people who live in them, rather than as just a way of making money.
The current illegal eviction law is complex and rarely enforced. Police officers are unaware of their powers to stop illegal evictions and often do not intervene. If section 21 is abolished, we risk some rogue landlords evading the courts and taking matters into their own hands. I hope the Minister will confirm that the Government intend to reform the law on illegal eviction to make it modern, effective and easy to understand. I have met the Under-Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, the hon. Member for Kensington (Felicity Buchan), and a group of lawyers who have raised concerns about the matter. I hope to hear about some of the Government’s progress in looking at reforming the Bill on illegal eviction at the same time.
Irresponsible landlords cannot be allowed to use rent rises to force out tenants. Many of my constituents have faced rent increases that left them with no choice but to leave their homes. An average couple spend 21% of their income on private rent. A survey by the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities shows that 31% of people in my region of the south-west are already struggling to pay rent. When will the Government address unaffordable rent? People simply cannot cope with arbitrary rent increases, which can be as high as 60%.
We Liberal Democrats would change the default rental period from one year to three years. Rents would only rise with inflation in that period. I accept that more discussions are needed on the student housing market, in which rental periods typically last only a year or two, but the overall policy would give many tenants the thing they are missing the most, which is certainty.
It is not just the price of rent that concerns my constituents. We have already heard about the terrible conditions in many private rental properties. That is an appalling open secret. The UK has some of the oldest and coldest houses in Europe. More than half of tenants had issues with damp or mould last year. It is the same in my Bath constituency: 31% had problems with hot water or heating and 21% of privately rented homes do not meet the decent homes standard. People are trapped in uninhabitable homes. We need tougher inspection and much higher standards.
We Liberal Democrats would introduce a new regulator for all private renters and require all private landlords with more than 25 homes to register with it. The regulator would have the power to subject landlords to regular inspections, and to inspect properties at shorter notice. Everyone should have the right to a safe and secure place to live. It is a national scandal that people are trapped in insecure and uninhabitable homes. The Government must not delay action any more.
Sarah Owen (Luton North) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Davies. Before I start, I would like to put on record my disappointment and anger at the misnaming of my wonderful colleague and dear friend, my hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Thamesmead (Abena Oppong-Asare). The frequent misnaming of particularly my black women colleagues in this place is not okay and needs to stop.
Philip Davies (in the Chair)
As the Chairman in this debate, I apologise profusely to the hon. Member for Erith and Thamesmead (Abena Oppong-Asare). I hope that she will accept that genuine apology. It is no one else’s responsibility other than mine. The shadow Minister is quite right to draw attention to that.
Sarah Owen
Thank you, Mr Davies. I will move on.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Dan Carden) on securing this incredibly important debate. He has put forward compelling points that the Minister needs to hear, and I hope she will take them back to the Secretary of State, because we will not stop pushing until justice is granted for renters.
Labour believes that housing is a human right. Everyone, regardless of whether they are a homeowner, a leaseholder or a tenant, is entitled to a decent, safe and secure affordable home. Housing that is fit for habitation should never be a bank account-emptying privilege, but under 13 years of Tory rule that is exactly what it has become.
We have all been let down by negligent housing policy, from the persistent inability to end the feudal farce of the leasehold system to the abandonment of housing targets altogether, and from the economic experiment of the former Prime Minister and Chancellor, which sent mortgages soaring, to the shattered promise to end rough sleeping. Whole towns are taken up by second homes for the privileged few, while families are holed up in B&B bedrooms.
Our housing crisis is not that complicated. It is not an issue that only specialists in Whitehall can understand or that Ministers can gatekeep. It is quite plain to see for all of us that our Government do not prioritise building homes, and that the homes that we have built are not up to a decent enough standard. That is a failure of production and regulation. The Renters (Reform) Bill does not come close to meeting the scale of the problem. We need boldness, creativity and backbone if we are to fix the rotten and decrepit private rented sector.
Poor housing is directly linked to poor physical and mental health. Mould and damp can aggravate or even create chest issues, and overcrowding can cause anxiety and depression, which can lead to the breakdown of relationships. One in five privately rented homes do not meet the decent homes standard, and one in 10 have a category 1 hazard that poses a risk of serious harm. That is a shameful statistic. The knock-on impact on school attendance, workplace absence and NHS resources cannot be overstated. Surely the Minister agrees that providing decent affordable housing would provide an economic boost in a variety of ways, so why is that reality not reflected in Government policy?
Wera Hobhouse
Students often do not have a good reputation, but they often have to live in appalling conditions and they never really have a way of addressing the issue. In Bath, that is a particular issue. Does the hon. Lady agree that we should also look at the appalling conditions in which some students are forced to live?
Sarah Owen
It behoves all of us to represent everybody who lives in rented accommodation, whether they are students, pensioners, workers, people who are not working at all or families. I will talk more about that.
Only last week, more than three and a half years after it was first promised, did we finally see the Secretary of State’s Renters (Reform) Bill. We welcome that long-overdue legislation and look forward to engaging constructively on its development, but it is clear that in improving it we will have our work cut out for us. My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton was right to highlight the loopholes in the Bill. He mentioned unfair evictions and spoke powerfully and movingly about the heartache and uncertainty caused by section 21 notices, which are a leading cause of homelessness in England. The Government’s delay since first committing to ending them in April 2019, more than four years ago, has resulted in 60,000 households being threatened with homelessness by section 21 notices.
Labour and our stakeholders welcome the Bill’s steps towards scrapping section 21 evictions, but there remain ways for ill-intentioned landlords to remove tenants unjustly. The Government must take steps swiftly to amend that flaw in their legislation. In the short term, we call on them to extend notice periods to a legal minimum of four months, with firm, punitive measures for landlords who do not abide by the law.
We are not naive about the fact that some evictions are warranted. Landlords who are dealing with antisocial behaviour or even criminal activity from their tenants must be supported in reclaiming their properties. We recognise that robust and effective grounds such as those cannot be diminished. However, the Government have yet to assure us that grounds could not be exploited by bad-faith landlords to continue their unjust evictions. Will the Minister provide any detail on how the Government will defend against that?
The Bill also lacks support for local authorities to act on injustices in their local private rented sector, as has been mentioned throughout the debate. We expect measures that would strengthen enforcement powers, require councils to report on enforcement activity and allow them to cap the advance rent that local landlords can ask for. The Government owe local authorities an explanation of why they have neglected to give them the muscle to ensure that the new legislation is successfully enacted.
It is also incredibly troubling that the Bill does not include a ban on landlords refusing to rent to benefit claimants or those with children. That allows discriminatory “no DSS” practices to continue. No children? This is hardly a family-friendly policy, is it? I would be grateful if the Minister assured us today that this oversight will be reviewed and amended.
Navendu Mishra
I receive a lot of correspondence from people who have pets and are not able to get a secure tenancy. Often, they are people who live on their own with their pet, and they do not have a family member or are housebound. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government need to strengthen the legislation in relation not only to people on benefits but to people who have pets? There is a whole other debate to be had about people who have no recourse to public funds.
Sarah Owen
I thank my hon. Friend for that really important intervention, and he is absolutely right. What we should see from this legislation is the removal of barriers to good housing for all renters, but what we are actually seeing is, unfortunately, opportunities being missed. I sincerely hope that the Minister takes on board some of the suggestions that have been made today.
When it comes to affordability—or, in reality, unaffordability—the freezing of local housing allowance has only exacerbated the problem, as my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton explained. In many parts of the country—including, as we have heard, in the constituencies of the hon. Members for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) and for Bath (Wera Hobhouse); in the constituencies of my hon. Friends the Members for Stockport (Navendu Mishra), for Erith and Thamesmead and for Liverpool, Walton; and in my own constituency in Luton—rents in the private rented sector are surging and the costs involved with moving are soaring. By making the shameful decision to freeze LHA yet again, the Government have pushed millions of hard-pressed tenants to breaking point, with the risk of mass arrears and evictions that that entails—more evictions, more temporary accommodation and more people sleeping on the streets.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stockport highlighted the situation when it comes to affordability. It is becoming harder for our constituents not only to find an affordable place to rent but to stay for the long term. Some of our lowest-paid workers face rent rises of 30% to 40% within their tenancy. Labour is exploring options to address this, starting with consulting landlord and tenant groups on how best to stabilise rent increases within tenancies. I would be grateful to hear from the Minister what discussions she has had on the issue. We do not want to see people continually having to jump from place to place, finding somewhere affordable that turns out to be overcome with mould or somewhere decent that then has its rent doubled. That is no way to live.
It does not have to be this way: Labour has other ideas. Our housing White Paper, to be produced within our first 100 days if we are elected to government, will set out how longer-term tenancies will become the norm, because we know that tenancy security is key for a settled life and that home must be a place where we can relax, knowing that another catastrophe is not around the corner.
We are ambitious about revolutionising what “home” means in Britain. We stand for building new homes. That is why the Shadow Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, my hon. Friend the Member for Wigan (Lisa Nandy), proudly has the mantra of “council housing, council housing, council housing”, and it is why Labour-led councils, such as my own in Luton, are building homes. They are building eco-friendly council homes, fit for the future.
We will help more first-time buyers to get on the housing ladder; we will abolish the scandalous leasehold scheme; and we will introduce a national register of landlords and licensing for letting agents, as well as a legally binding decent homes standard, updated for the next decade. We will afford new rights and protections to tenants, including the right to have pets, the right to make reasonable alterations, the right to request speedy repairs and, as has been mentioned, mandatory longer notice periods from landlords.
Labour will tilt the balance of power back towards renters by introducing a powerful new private renters charter, to make renting fairer, more secure and more affordable. We will achieve this by finally bringing forward an effectively regulated private rented sector. This is what our constituents need and it is certainly what they deserve.
The Minister of State, Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (Rachel Maclean)
It is a great pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Davies, and to have the opportunity to make my remarks. Of course, I thank the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Dan Carden) for securing this debate. I also thank the other Members who have spoken, who I will turn to in just a moment. They have spoken passionately about the need for greater security for tenants and improved standards in the private rented sector.
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for bringing his considerable experience to this debate. He has a long history of campaigning and speaking on this issue in Parliament, and I say to him and to any Member that of course the Government will listen to constructive dialogue from all parties in the House. That is the right thing to do as we go forward and get this legislation right.
I thank the other Members who have spoken—the hon. Members for Stockport (Navendu Mishra), for Bath (Wera Hobhouse), for East Londonderry (Mr Campbell), for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) and for Erith and Thamesmead (Abena Oppong-Asare)—who all made useful contributions. We all agree there is a considerable amount of consensus that we need to provide a better deal for renters, which is exactly what we are doing through the Renters (Reform) Bill. Members have brought to the House’s attention, again, the very good reasons why we need to act and are acting.
The private rented sector is the most expensive, least secure and lowest quality of all housing tenures. A fifth of renters pay a third of their income to live in substandard accommodation. That is the reality and it is unacceptable. We are determined to crack down on irresponsible and criminal landlords and to make the private rented sector a better place to live and work. That is why I am delighted to talk about the vital measures we are bringing forward to meet the needs of renters and good landlords.
The hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton brought to my attention, as did other Members, the experiences of constituents. I assure him and the House that I have spoken to many tenants who have faced situations similar to the ones he described. I visited tenants in Leeds last week and saw for myself some of the conditions and why we need to act. It is worth reminding the House that the reforms are the biggest in a generation and the biggest in the sector for many years. They have been welcomed by tenants’ groups, people who represent tenants, Shelter and many others that have been referenced by Members. They have also been welcomed by groups who represent landlords. It is important to get that balance right.
I know that feeling safe and secure in a home is vital to a person’s wellbeing and so that they are able to put down roots in a community. The threat of a section 21 no-fault eviction with just two months’ notice hangs over many renters and prevents them from complaining about poor standards. The Renters (Reform) Bill will deliver our manifesto commitment to end section 21 no-fault evictions. Tenants will be able to challenge poor standards without fear of retaliatory eviction. We will abolish fixed terms and move to periodic tenancies that allow either party to end the tenancy when they need to.
As Members have highlighted, there are legitimate reasons why landlords could or would need to regain their properties, which is why we are reforming the grounds so that they are fair, comprehensive and efficient. In future, landlords will be able to regain possession only if one of the grounds for possession defined in law applies. We will introduce a new ground for use when the landlord intends to sell the property and extend the existing moving-in ground so that it can also be used if close family members of the landlord intend to live in the property.
We have changed the rent arrears grounds so that they are fair and proportionate, striking a balance between protecting tenants’ security and supporting landlords who face undue financial burdens. We have retained the existing mandatory rent arrears ground that allows a landlord to serve notice once a tenant is in two months’ rent arrears, and introduced a new ground for repeated rent arrears.
To ensure that landlords can swiftly gain possession when a tenant’s antisocial behaviour is causing problems for their neighbours and communities, we are allowing landlords to make a possession claim to the courts immediately, and we have lowered the discretionary ground to include behaviour capable of causing nuisance or annoyance. We are considering further changes to the way the courts handle antisocial behaviour possession cases, including in respect of prioritisation and the matters that judges must consider when deciding whether to award possession under the discretionary ground. There are other grounds, and I encourage Members to look at the information that the Government have published.
We understand that rent is likely to be a tenant’s biggest monthly expense. It is important that tenants have notice of any rent rises so that they are able to plan effectively. Our reforms will simplify the system for tenants and landlords. All rent increases will take place via one mechanism. We will retain existing legislation that allows rent increases once per year in periodic tenancies, and increase the notice that landlords must give to two months, thereby giving tenants more time to plan and seek advice.
Our reforms will also prevent revenge or forced evictions by the small minority of landlords who may look to use rent hikes to force a tenant out once section 21 can no longer be used. That will create a fairer system that allows both parties to negotiate rents effectively, while protecting security of tenure. Where the landlord has served notice on the tenant to increase their rent, the tenant may refer the notice to the tribunal. The tribunal will assess what the landlord could expect to receive if re-letting the property on the open market and will determine the rent. That will help to avoid the large rent increases used by a minority of landlords as a back-door method of eviction. We will update the guidance to ensure that tribunal users have the confidence and information they need to engage with it effectively. That includes helping parties to understand how they can provide evidence of comparable rents.
The Conservative party does not support rent controls. Evidence suggests that they would discourage investment in the sector, lead to declining property standards, and be negative for both tenants and landlords. We are absolutely committed to outlawing the unacceptable discrimination against families with children and people in receipt of benefits through blanket bans, but we want to ensure that landlords retain the final say over who they rent to. Members have asked for more clarity on that, and we are carefully considering how we get it right. We will introduce legislation at the earliest opportunity.
Members raised local authority enforcement. We expect local councils to take a proactive approach to enforcement and make it a priority. Substantial civil penalties will be available if landlords fail to comply with our reforms. Local councils are able to keep the revenue they receive from civil penalties; it is ringfenced for further enforcement activity. In accordance with the new burdens doctrine, we will ensure that, where necessary, the net additional costs that fall on local councils as a result of our reforms are fully funded, and we will continue to explore how best to create a sustainable self-funding system over the long term, including through fees.
Members will be interested to hear that we are providing £14 million to 10 pathfinder projects that have been designed to build capacity and team capabilities and to test and disseminate innovative enforcement approaches. I am pleased that one of those pathfinder projects is being led by Liverpool City Council, which covers the constituency of the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton. It is working with a number of other key players locally to create a multi-agency, intelligence-led model for proactive enforcement in the PRS. That will ensure that enforcement is streamlined more effectively, particularly against landlords engaged in serious criminality. I have seen for myself the effectiveness of the selective licensing scheme in Leeds, to which Members referred, and how effectively the housing teams work to deal with issues.
Navendu Mishra
The Minister is generous to give way. Will she address the point that, over the past 13 years, local authorities have lost hundreds of millions of pounds in central Government funding? My local authority in Stockport has lost a significant amount of money since 2010, when the Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition came in.
The Government do not seem to have a sense of urgency in addressing the loopholes in the Renters (Reform) Bill and the crisis in the private rented sector. There are no Conservative Back Benchers in this debate; they must have either local authorities that are financially secure or tenancies that are long-term and reasonably priced.
Rachel Maclean
I gave way to the hon. Gentleman because I thought he was going to ask a question about the issues in front of me. I am happy to address them. I will continue my remarks, which will address the substantive issues of this debate.
Information is key when it comes to regulating effectively and efficiently. That is why the Bill will legislate for a new private rented sector database that will support the new privately rented property portal digital service. That service will support the Government’s aim of reducing the number of non-decent rented homes by 50% by 2030, and will give local councils tools to drive criminal landlords out of the private rented sector. It will help landlords to understand their obligations and give tenants the information they need to make informed choices.
My team is working hard to develop the portal, which recently passed its Government Digital Service assessment. It was assessed against standards to ensure that it meets clear user needs, is simple to use, is designed securely to protect privacy, and uses tools and technology that are fit for purpose. We will take forward the development of that service and continue to engage with end users to ensure we get it right.
Abena Oppong-Asare
I welcome some of the proposals, particularly the private rented database, but one of my concerns is that some of my constituents in private rented accommodation are living in poor-quality housing, and there is nowhere for them to go that will advocate for them and take that further. It is particularly important to have some sort of ombudsman for the private rented sector so that constituents can take their cases further and hold private landlords to account.
Rachel Maclean
I hope the hon. Lady will listen carefully to what I am about to say: we will introduce a new PRS ombudsman to enable all private tenants to escalate complaints when their landlord has failed to resolve a legitimate complaint, which is exactly what the hon. Lady talked about. That complaint may relate to property standards, repairs, maintenance, and poor landlord practice or behaviour. That will give all tenants free access to justice, so that they have control over the standards and service they are paying for.
All private landlords who rent out property in England, including those who use a managing agent, will be required to join the ombudsman scheme. Landlords committed to providing a decent home and a good service to their tenants will benefit from a swift and impartial decision maker having the final say on their tenants’ issues, maintaining tenant-landlord relationships and, ultimately, sustaining tenancies.
As we all know, pets can bring a huge amount of joy to their owners. That is why our reforms will ensure that private landlords do not unreasonably withhold consent when a tenant requests to have a pet in their home. We will give tenants the right to challenge unreasonable refusals. We know that some landlords are concerned about the potential of pets to cause damage; therefore, landlords will be able to require insurance covering pets, which will provide them with reassurance that any damage caused by a pet will be taken care of by the tenant, on whom responsibility for damage will fall. Alternatively, landlords could deduct damage costs from deposits, as is already possible.
Let me conclude—
Rachel Maclean
I will not give way. Can I ask for your guidance, Mr Davies, because I believe the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton will have time to sum up at the end?
Dan Carden
I am grateful to the Minister and I recognise that she has given a full response but, as she said she was concluding, I wanted to pick up on two points that I do not think she covered. I apologise if I am incorrect. The first point was on the ability of landlords to repossess properties if they declare they are going to sell them or if they or a family member are going to move in. They currently need to give only three months’ notice; will the Department consider extending that to 12 months?
Secondly, I mentioned the Secretary of State’s amendments to the Social Housing (Regulation) Bill to impose timeframes on landlords to investigate hazards and make repairs. I will table an amendment to the Renters (Reform) Bill; I would appreciate time with the Minister to discuss how we can use the Bill to ensure those protections in the private rented sector.
Rachel Maclean
I thank the hon. Gentleman. On his first point, we believe that we currently have the right balance. Of course, the Bill will proceed through the House. On his intention to table an amendment, I am of course happy to meet him to discuss that.
A number of Members referenced housing issues more generally. The Opposition Front-Bench spokesperson, the hon. Member for Luton North (Sarah Owen), referred to the affordable eco-homes being built by her local council. The House must be made aware—I am sure it is already—that those affordable homes are being built with support from the Conservative Government through the affordable homes programme. We are delivering homes all across the country.
Rachel Maclean
No. I need to wind up. This Conservative Government have made the provision of affordable housing part of our plan to build more homes across the country, including in Luton, so that we can provide aspiring homeowners with a step on to the housing ladder. The affordable homes programme is worth £11.5 billion and will deliver thousands of affordable homes to rent or buy.
The Government are committed to increasing the supply of social rented homes. A large number of the new homes delivered through the affordable homes programme will be for social rent. We have a strong record of building homes all over the country since we have been in Government. We intend to continue that.
I thank all Members for their contributions and look forward to working with colleagues from all parties as we take the Renters (Reform) Bill through Parliament.
Dan Carden
I thank the Minister for her response to the debate, and I thank all colleagues who contributed. Although there is a welcome for the legislation, which the Minister says is the biggest reform of the sector in a generation, there is a danger that it is a missed opportunity. The test will be the impact that it has on our constituents. Does it give them security in their homes? Does it rebalance the power inequality between landlords and tenants? Does it tackle the affordability crisis that exists across the sector? Does it deal with the millions of people, including children, who live in damp, squalid, unsafe houses across the country?
I look forward to following the legislation through the House and to seeking to amend and improve it. I am grateful for the time we have had for today’s debate.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered regulation of the private rented sector.
Network Rail: Doubledykes Crossing
(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
Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered Doubledykes crossing and Network Rail.
Doubledykes Road is an ancient right of way in my constituency, linking the communities of Coaltown and Milton of Balgonie to the north, and Coaltown of Wemyss, East Wemyss and West Wemyss to the south. It crosses an area of farmland, other open land and some woodland that has been well used for centuries by walkers and cyclists. The road is known locally as Queen Mary’s Road, in reference to it having been used by Mary Queen of Scots. While that story might be difficult to verify, it indicates how ancient the route is and the fact that for centuries the people of central Fife have regarded it as their public right to travel along the road any time they want to.
Doubledykes Road is certainly centuries older than the original Leven to Thornton railway, which opened in 1854. It was closed to passengers in 1969 and has not carried a train of any kind since 2001. The date 2001 is important, and I will explain why later. Throughout the time the railway operated, walkers and cyclists used Doubledykes level crossing to cross the line in safety, and I can personally testify to how well used the right of way and the crossing were on a number of occasions when I was walking or cycling through the area.
All that changed last year when Network Rail stunned local communities by announcing that, as part of the welcome, and indeed overdue, reinstatement of the Levenmouth rail link, all public accesses across the line in the area would be closed. Between Windygates to the east of the railway and Thornton to the west is a stretch of several miles of well used footpaths, all of which now run the risk of being permanently severed.
It is illegal in Scotland to block a public right of way without first going through the legal process of having it extinguished. Network Rail has closed that right of way just now, arguably for good reason, because it is a building site. Network Rail is building a railway there, so it would not be safe to have unrestricted public access. As a temporary measure, closure is acceptable, but if Network Rail is seeking to have the right of way permanently blocked, it has not yet gone through the proper legal process of having the right of way officially extinguished.
As long as Network Rail insists on looking to the law and fighting about it, we are left in this position: unless we can make Network Rail see sense, the only way the public and I, as well as their other representatives, can remedy the situation is either individually or through Fife Council embarking on probably lengthy and costly legal action, which, among other things, would cause severe delay to the reopening of the railway and could jeopardise the railway project in its entirety. None of us wants to consider that.
Like others, I have been making representations directly to Network Rail, and to the Scottish Government, whose support and money have been vital in reinstating the Levenmouth rail link. We have made representations to Fife Council, which has a responsibility, among others, to maintain public access to the countryside.
I am raising the matter here because, while there is a memorandum of understanding between the UK Government and the Scottish Government that gives the Scottish Government and the Scottish Parliament some powers over Network Rail in Scotland, the company is still legally controlled by the UK Government.
Network Rail Ltd is a company limited by guarantee. It does not have shareholders, but Companies House records show that the Secretary of State for Transport is a person with significant control. He is the only person, or corporate body, registered in such a way for Network Rail. The Secretary of State for Transport owns at least 75% of voting rights and has the power to appoint and remove directors. I am hoping the Secretary of State will not have to use the power to remove directors in order to resolve the problems at Doubledykes, but owing to the way Network Rail has been treating my constituents, a lot of them would sack the board tomorrow if they got the chance.
When I have met representatives of Network Rail face to face, they have always been keen to co-operate and have always come across as wanting to find a solution to a problem that I think has been caused by an oversight at the planning stage—nothing more than that—but as soon as they put pen to paper, or as soon as they put fingertips to keyboard to send an email, they start to give a clear message that they will not do anything that cannot be legally forced on them. Their position is that the right of way does not exist and, therefore, nobody has any legal power to force any action on them. That is not a co-operative and constructive position for any public body to take.
The law of right of way in Scotland is different from that in England in a number of important regards. First, there is no such thing as a statutory register of rights of way. A right of way just is. It does not need to be declared, registered or recorded on a map. There is no doubt that Doubledykes Road meets the four tests to have been established as a right of way. It must join two public places—yes. It must follow a more or less defined route—yes. It must have been used openly and peaceably by the general public, as a matter of right—yes. It must have been used without substantial interruption for at least 20 years—yes.
The 2001 date is so important because in 2001, the Levenmouth rail branch line ceased to be a railway. It was then open for a public right of way to be re-established over that crossing. That is what I am convinced has happened since 2001 and up to 2021. Let us remember that in in Scots law, there is no need for the right of way to be recorded or declared in order for it to be brought into existence and to be enforceable. There is no doubt that Queen Mary’s Road meets all those tests.
My constituents asked Network Rail what it was doing and how it could justify closing off a right of way without first applying to have it extinguished. The person who sent the initial reply said that the crossing could not legally constitute a right of way. They put “right of way” in inverted commas just to cover themselves. In their words:
“It is private in status with no authorised users.”
That is mince. The whole point of a public right of way is that it does cross private land, and that users are not authorised. They do not need authorisation or anybody’s permission. The public use a public right of way as a matter of right.
When I emailed Network Rail to explain that, and to say, “I think your position is completely wrong”, the same person who had definitively told my constituents that it could not possibly be a right of way replied to me and said that they could not
“personally offer an opinion on the legal status of the crossings”.
They then suggested that Network Rail’s position might not have been accurately represented to me. That was a strange idea, since the position had been represented to me by an email from the self-same person.
The person then discovered, or remembered, an old Act of this place: the British Railways Order Confirmation Act 1984, no less. Sure enough, when we look at the detail of that, we see that the Doubledykes level crossing was extinguished in 1984. I put on record, however, that some of my constituents have doubts about whether that Act was ever properly and legally brought into force. There may be a doubt as to whether the Act is enforceable even now.
Network Rail pointed out that a new right of way cannot be established over an existing railway, which is fair enough, but let us remember that it has not been a railway since 2001. Something cannot be defined as a railway if it does not have tracks or trains. There is a very strong argument that the right of way had become established by 2022.
Network Rail seemed to be hedging its bets and to have identified that possibility, because it then claimed that, even if the public had continued to use the crossing over the period of 21 years since the railway ceased to be a railway, the public were doing that
“at the invitation, even the tacit or implied invitation, of Network Rail.”
There have been disputes about how well used the crossing was until the point that Network Rail closed it. Network Rail thinks it was hardly ever used; everybody else says it has been very well used. For example, a lot of cyclists use apps that not only show where they are, but enable them to compare speeds round the route with other cyclists who sign up to the same app. Those apps show that there has been a lot of cycle traffic along Doubledykes Road and across the crossing since the apps were invented.
Network Rail was very cagey about what surveys, counts or other measures it has undertaken to establish how well used the crossing was. At one point, Network Rail even said that that had been done by a local organisation, which told us in no uncertain terms that it could not have done it, because, geographically, it did not have a remit in that area. It is worth noting that Network Rail’s suggestion that users were using the crossing at the invitation of Network Rail completely contradicts its claim that nobody, or hardly anybody, ever used it.
The towns of Levenmouth—Methil, Methilhill, Buckhaven, Leven, Kennoway and several nearby villages—represent about 40% of my constituency. Leven is partly in North East Fife. The area still has the unenviable distinction of being the largest centre of population anywhere in Scotland without a passenger rail service. I pay tribute to the Levenmouth Rail Campaign and other local activists, who have fought doggedly for years to get the rail line re-established. I will be forever proud that I was the leader of Fife Council who got agreement that opening the Levenmouth rail link was the single biggest public transport priority in Fife. We were the first administration to put its money where its mouth is and allow the first feasibility studies to be carried out.
I still think that took too long, and there were setbacks and annoyances along the way. In 2019, however, when the then Scottish Transport Minister announced that the Scottish Government would reopen and fund the Levenmouth rail link, there was absolute delight in Levenmouth and in many other parts of Fife. People still desperately want the railway to reopen. I can feel the excitement when I go to exhibitions to update the public about what is happening. They can see the new stations getting built and the rail tracks being re-laid. We hope that the first trains will run on the railway in 2024, just over a year from now.
It would be unacceptable for anything to be done at this stage to prevent that from happening. It is also unacceptable for any public body to hide behind its version of the law and fail to communicate and engage properly with the communities that are being affected by its decisions. Those communities want the rail link reopened, and they are delighted that that will happen. They are, however, becoming increasingly angry, not at the fact that a mistake was made in the early planning stages—mistakes happen—but at the attitude of Network Rail, one of the key players. Network Rail sometimes appears to be very co-operative, but as soon as it comes to sitting down and looking for a solution, it passes the whole thing over to somebody else.
For example, a couple of weeks ago, Network Rail emailed me and other local representatives suggesting that only a minority of locals are concerned about this issue. That is deeply offensive, and not to me—people can be offensive to me if they want; that is part of the job of being a Member of Parliament. Every single statutory community council with an area of operation that goes anywhere near Doubledykes has unanimously expressed the view that they want the crossing to be kept open. They have the legal responsibility to represent the views of their local communities. It is not acceptable for any public body to seek to dismiss their views as being only a minority. For the record, all constituency MPs, MSPs and councillors with a ward interest anywhere near Doubledykes Road, as well as Fife Council and the Fife Council Glenrothes area committee, have come out clearly as saying they want a solution to be found to this issue.
There are questions about what kind of crossing to use. I am not convinced about this, but a lot of people locally think a pedestrian level crossing could be operated safely. Network Rail have had none of that. A footbridge or tunnel is possible, but is clearly more expensive. In the bigger scheme of things, however, when we can spend at least £2 billion on a single railway station in London, surely we can find £1 million to £1.5 million to maintain one of the most ancient rights of way in our land. There is a question of who pays, but it would cost £1 million, not a huge amount of money. I am not asking the UK Government to fund it, by the way; I hope we can find a way to fund it entirely in Scotland.
There are questions to be answered, but I am convinced that a solution is possible if all those involved simply sit down and agree that there is answer to be found and try to find it. Everyone needs to agree to share the responsibility —and not to palm it off on everybody else—to ensure that as soon as is feasible after the rail line is opened, the ancient public right to travel along Queen Mary’s way will be re-established.
I will finish by commending the efforts of the Levenmouth Rail Campaign. The reason why we were able to persuade Fife Council to be so supportive, as soon as we came into administration in 2007, was that it was very clear from day one that the degree of public support in Levenmouth was huge. Levenmouth Rail Campaign has co-ordinated and brought together that public support and made it into a very effective public campaign. That has been led not by politicians, but by the people, and the politicians have supported it along the way. Thanks to the Levenmouth Rail Campaign and the dogged determination by local MSPs—initially Tricia Marwick and later Jenny Gilruth, with David Torrance on the south side of the line—the Scottish Government agreed to go through what can be quite a difficult process in the Scottish Parliament of getting approval for a significant capital investment to get the rail link open.
Everybody living anywhere near this rail link wants to see it opened. I believe that practically everybody wants to see it opened, with a safe pedestrian access maintained across a route that might not have been used by Mary, Queen of Scots herself, but which has been used by generations, decades and centuries of people in Fife going about their ordinary, day-to-day business. I want to see it reopened. I know that this is not entirely a decision for this Transport Minister to undertake. I appreciate that most of the persuasion has to be done in Scotland, but right now, the people need all the support they can get. If the Minister is able to commit to joining communities and elected representatives in Fife to persuade Network Rail to see sense and behave like a body that is accountable to the public, that is all we ask.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr Richard Holden)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Davies. I thank the hon. Member for Glenrothes (Peter Grant) for securing this debate, which concerns the closure of the Doubledykes level crossing in his constituency. I want to acknowledge the strength of feeling on the issue and thank the local community for presenting the petition, which has received over 1,100 signatures. Before I go into the specifics, I will talk briefly about railways, the role of Network Rail and level crossing safety more generally.
Rail is an important engine of economic growth. It serves several functions: it offers commuters a safe and reliable route to work, it facilitates business and leisure travel, it connects communities with their public services, workplaces and other economic opportunities, and it transports millions of tonnes of freight around the country, relieving congestion on roads and bringing huge environmental benefits. We want to build on the success in UK rail since the mid-1990s by improving and extending services where viable.
We are well aware of the positive impacts that improved, more frequent and direct rail services can have on communities. That includes the reopening of the Levenmouth rail link, which was approved by the Scottish Government in August 2019 and which will result in passenger services between Leven and Thornton for the first time in over 50 years. That project is scheduled to be completed by spring 2024 and will bring considerable benefits to the area and the surrounding region, in the hon. Member’s constituency and beyond.
For all its benefits, the creation of a new service does create safety risks that have to be managed effectively, not least on sections of railway track that have not seen high levels of traffic for several decades. That creates difficult choices for rail operators and for Network Rail, the operator of the mainline rail network, as it seeks to deliver faster and more frequent services safely. There are no easy solutions, and I recognise the huge responsibility that organisations such as Network Rail bear. Operational decisions such as these are rightly a matter for Network Rail, the safety duty holder for Britain’s railway infrastructure, which has the expertise needed to look at decisions in depth.
Network Rail’s responsibilities include user safety at over 6,000 level crossings on the mainline rail network. Level crossings now represent the single greatest source of risk for fatal rail accidents; there were seven fatalities at level crossings in the last year alone. In most accidents or incidents at level crossings, actions by the user, intended or unintended, have been a contributory factor.
Peter Grant
Any serious injury or fatality is a tragedy, but can the Minister clarify how many of those incidents took place on mainline railways and how many took place on low-volume, low-usage branch lines, where trains have a much slower speed than on the main line?
Mr Holden
I will happily write to the hon. Member about all the incidents in the past few years. It is probably quite helpful for him to have that specific knowledge about, let us say, the past 10 years, so I will get my officials to write to him on that. Incidents have taken place on branch lines and on the main line; I will provide a breakdown and write to him in detail about those fatalities.
Network Rail is putting significant effort into improving safety at level crossings. It is focusing on several things: first, improving the operation and maintenance of level crossings; secondly, a programme of risk assessment to identify priorities for further action; thirdly, measures to promote the safe use of crossings by pedestrians and drivers; and fourthly, where necessary, closing crossings altogether where they continue to present an unacceptable safety risk. No decision to close a level crossing is taken lightly, because level crossings often provide a really important means of access to local communities. None the less, although the safety record of level crossings in this country is among the best in the world, we cannot afford to be complacent, and we want to seek to reduce the risk of incidents wherever we can.
I turn to the Doubledykes level crossing, which is obviously of particular interest to the hon. Member and is the subject of this debate. It is one of several level crossings on the Levenmouth rail link, which on reopening will connect Leven with Thornton and join the Fife circle line at Thornton North junction.
As the hon. Member will doubtless know, Doubledykes level crossing was established in 1863 during a period of huge expansion of the rail network, both locally in Fife and right across the country. The level crossing has been used by the local community to access both sides of the railway and the surrounding area.
Since the end of passenger services on the Levenmouth rail link in 1969, services have ceased on this part of the network and people have become accustomed to using the level crossing without any risk. The reopening of the link will see, for the first time in a generation, services returning to this part of the rail network. Trains are expected to pass through Doubledykes level crossing about twice an hour. This will bring much-needed benefits to the wider community by connecting the towns of Leven and Thornton. It will also create additional risks, including at Doubledykes level crossing. Although the level crossing currently remains open, Network Rail has confirmed that it plans to close it when the new link is in operation, to protect the safety of the local community and rail users.
My Department has not been involved in the project to reopen the rail link or in the decision to close the level crossing. That decision quite properly rests with Network Rail in exercising its duty as infrastructure manager to ensure the safety of the travelling public. I understand that the decision was made in consultation with Transport Scotland, the South East of Scotland Transport Partnership and Fife Council, which are the joint project sponsors of the rail line. For that reason, it would not be appropriate for me to comment in detail on the decisions taken in this case, which are more properly a matter for the Scottish Government and the project sponsors.
I appreciate, however, that the closing of any level crossing can be inconvenient and very upsetting for local communities. That will be particularly true in the case of Doubledykes, which has not had rail traffic stopping people crossing since the late 1960s; it is evident from the large number of people who signed the petition. I cannot speak on behalf of the sponsors of the Levenmouth rail link, but I am sure that that will have been an important part of their considerations during the planning stages.
Peter Grant
I am grateful to the Minister for giving way again; he is being very generous with his time. May I remind the House that I am not particularly pushing for a level crossing? It is not the only possible answer.
The Minister mentioned risk assessments of level crossings. Does he understand the local puzzlement as to how Network Rail could possibly have done a risk assessment of this crossing if it has no idea how many people are using it just now?
Mr Holden
As I have said to the hon. Gentleman, it is obviously for Network Rail, alongside the other sponsors of the project in Scotland, to justify the assessments that it has made. They will have made the assessments as part of their planning processes; it might well be best if the hon. Gentleman directed his specific questions about how decisions are arrived at to the relevant sponsoring authorities.
Ultimately, any decision on whether to close a level crossing must ensure the safety of level crossing users and rail users. In a case such as Doubledykes, I am confident that Network Rail will have looked at the risk profile, the frequency of services and the number of people using the crossing and will have worked with others in the region to look at this. However, I understand the concerns of the hon. Gentleman and his constituents about this matter.
I have spoken to my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Huw Merriman), who is the Minister with responsibility for rail. He would be happy to have further meetings with the hon. Gentleman in person, to look further at the issues and see what can be done, if the hon. Gentleman would like to do so and if that would be useful to him. I will also happily write to Transport Scotland in response to the concerns that the hon. Gentleman has raised today, to push this issue further.
It was particularly good to hear that the hon. Gentleman is considering multiple different solutions in this space. I hope that his call has been heard by the decision makers and the local sponsors of this project so that they can also think about the other potential options to maintain connectivity, but, as I have said, the funding and the options are really a matter for those sponsors.
Once again, I thank the hon. Member and his local residents for bringing this matter to the attention of the House. I am sure that the Rail Minister will look forward to meeting him at the earliest opportunity to see what more we can do to work with him on the issue. I also look forward to writing to Transport Scotland to express the concerns of the hon. Member and his constituents about this important local issue.
Question put and agreed to.
NHS Dentists: South-West England
(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
Chris Loder (West Dorset) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the provision of NHS dentists in the South West.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Elliott. I am grateful to colleagues from across the House for attending this very important debate. If someone living in Dorset rings their nearest NHS dentist looking for an appointment, there is a 22% chance that they will be told the practice has gone private. If someone living in Dorset rings their nearest NHS dentist, there is also a 42% chance that they will be told the practice is not taking new patients with special or additional needs. There is a 50% chance that they will be added to a waiting list that is over 12 months, so half the constituents calling today could be waiting until May or June 2024 before they are seen. Finally, if someone living in Dorset is calling to book a dental appointment for their child, there is a 77% chance that they will be told the practice is not accepting new child patients.
The reason for these unacceptable statistics is because access to NHS dentistry in the south-west has been on an alarming downward trajectory for some time. Today, rural parts of Dorset, many of which can be found in West Dorset, experience worryingly low access to vital and sometimes life-saving dental treatment on the NHS. This is no doubt a widespread issue across the country, which is plain for all to see in the recent flurry of debates and questions on this subject in the House. Following this debate, there is an Adjournment debate in the House this evening examining dental care in the north-east, which shows how this issue is affecting constituents across the country.
According to recent reports, a quarter of the adult population in England have unmet dental needs, despite there being 24,272 active NHS dentists. That is enough for one for every 539 people, but these statistics can be misleading, because, importantly, even though there has been a 2.3% increase in the number of NHS dentists this year compared with last year, productivity has slowed. As many as half of these 24,000 dentists have cut back on their NHS work, according to the British Dental Association, forcing more people to either choose to go private and shoulder the burden of these additional costs themselves, or to go without and face the risks of poor dental hygiene that that can bring, such as tooth decay and gum disease.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I commend the hon. Gentleman and his team of MPs who come along to support one another on these issues. I am really impressed by how well they do their job. They did it yesterday, and they are doing it today; well done to them.
Across the whole of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, there are issues. The hon. Gentleman referred to the figures in his constituency; in my constituency, 100% of people cannot get an NHS dentist. Paying online for a whole year’s subscription to a dentist is not possible for many, including people who are elderly. Does he agree that the Minister should liaise with the devolved Administrations, in Northern Ireland in particular and in Scotland and Wales, on how we can better do this together? Clearly, it does not matter where we are in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland—dentist appointments cannot be got for those who need them most.
Chris Loder
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his short and succinct intervention, as ever. He is absolutely right and confirms that this issue needs to be addressed across the United Kingdom, not just in the south-west. I am delighted that he has attended this debate on dentistry in south-west England.
The south-west region was recently rated fifth out of seven for adult NHS dental coverage, with only 35% of adults covered by access to essential dental services, which is below the national average. Dorset fares slightly better, but adults in my constituency and those immediately neighbouring it also experience below the national average coverage for an NHS dentist.
The inequality is also affecting children, whom I am particularly concerned about. Although they are faring better than adults, with a coverage rate of 46% in both Dorset and the south-west, that is still below the national average for access to NHS dental services. Without those services, almost one third of five-year-olds are suffering from tooth decay, which is the most common reason why children aged between five and nine are admitted to hospital. Tooth decay is mostly preventable, so its effects serve to demonstrate what a lack of access to NHS dentistry is doing to our children.
Why are we faced with this difficulty? Why is dentistry in England, and particularly the south-west, under such pressure? Although the answer is multifaceted, I believe the reason is primarily threefold: first, the National Health Service Act 2006 and the subsequent dental contract; secondly, the lack of institutional services and the knock-on effects; and finally, the NHS backlog following the covid-19 pandemic.
The National Health Service Act 2006 set out the provisions for agreement between NHS England and dental practices in relation to services that would be provided and the renumeration for those services. Before the Act became law, the National Audit Office and the Public Accounts Committee both produced reports to the then Government on reforming NHS dentistry, which raised concerns about the 2006 changes. Those concerns included the urgent need to change the incentive mechanism for dentists to increase their commitments to NHS dentistry, the difficulty for patients in better-off areas in accessing public health services, and the difficulty for those in more deprived areas in accessing any services at all.
The reports also raised concerns that there would be a shortage of NHS dentists, a glut of people who would be left without access to NHS dentistry, and no guarantees that the reformed contract would be enough to commit dentists to the NHS rather than private practice.
Simon Jupp (East Devon) (Con)
My constituents in East Devon regularly contact me about difficulties getting NHS dentist appointments in places such as Sidmouth, Budleigh Salterton and Exmouth. Problems with recruitment and contracts have been compounded by the pandemic, but that excuse will not wash forever. Does my hon. Friend agree that additional reforms of the NHS dental system cannot come soon enough for the south-west?
Chris Loder
I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. I wholly agree with him that reforms are needed urgently, which is the main point I will be sharing with the Minister towards the end of my contribution. It is clear that some of the measures from the 2006 Act do not go far enough. In many cases, they actually deter NHS dentistry provision.
Many of these issues are evident up and down the country today. Discussions with my own integrated care board in West Dorset—which, as of 1 April this year, has taken delegated responsibility for commissioning dental services from NHS England—have confirmed to me that the dental contract signed in 2006 is simply not fit for purpose. It actually restricts the ability of the board to respond to the current situation. That is because the terms and structure of the contract make it incredibly difficult for the integrated care board to attract new dentists to work in Dorset. I am sure that other integrated care boards across the south-west share that problem. The ability to attract new dental talent, especially those who are working on NHS contracts, is further hindered by our specific circumstances in Dorset. We do not have adequate training infrastructure.
Selaine Saxby (North Devon) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend agree that this problem is particularly exacerbated for those of us in very rural parts of the south-west? Would the Minister consider putting dentists on a bus and bringing the dental service to us, so that our young people can see a dentist? Realistically, we will not be able to attract the new dentists we need in some of the remote locations that we love to live in.
Chris Loder
I thank my hon. Friend for her kind intervention, and I wholly agree. Her constituency of North Devon is not dissimilar to mine; we share many challenges and many wonderful things. I am sure the Minister has heard what she has to say, and I look forward to his contribution.
Without a dental school in Dorset, recruitment continues to be a real problem, as staff often leave the county, and indeed the region, after receiving their training. That leaves Dorset residents short-changed, especially given that our council tax is among the highest in the country.
The third impacting factor is the backlog following the covid-19 pandemic. We are all well versed in that, but I wonder whether we fully appreciate the pressure on dental services since then. It is estimated that as many as 40 million NHS dental appointments have been lost since the start of the pandemic, and that is exacerbated by the fact that 45% of dentists in England have reduced their NHS commitments since the start of the pandemic, which puts more pressure on an already strained system. A reported 75% of dentists say that they are thinking of reducing their NHS commitment this year, so it is important to look at what needs to be done to help the dentists still committed to NHS work and the people up and down the country—particularly in the south-west—who rely on those services. To my mind, there are two primary actions: contract reform and quick investment.
There are clearly a number of issues with the NHS dental contract, as we have said. I recently wrote to all 17 dental practices in my constituency, and I am in regular dialogue with the local integrated care board, and they all tell me that the dental contract needs urgent reform. It seems that the current terms of the contract make it incredibly difficult for local boards to recruit new dentists to meet local demand. I worry that the situation for our integrated care boards is not sustainable and could become worse.
The contract also seems to include irregular and sometimes near-nonsensical patterns of remuneration, which are undoubtedly playing on the minds of dentists considering their commitment to NHS work. For instance, dental practices are often remunerated for one filling only, regardless of the number of fillings needed for a given patient, which reduces the incentives for dentists to stay working with the NHS. That cannot be right.
Behind-the-scenes work is often missed when the work that a practice has carried out is calculated. For example, if a patient were to require one X-ray examination, two fillings, one extraction and two appointments for root treatment, that would total more than four hours of clinical time and would be counted as five units of dental activity or UDAs, which is the way that the NHS measures practice activity. Not included are the cost of materials, the nurses’ time setting up the procedures or the receptionists’ time booking the appointments and chasing patients should they not attend, all of which are hidden from the current contract. Transparency is key. As part of a wider reform of the NHS dental contract, West Dorset constituents who have got in touch with me would appreciate greater transparency in the requirements for such treatment.
One of my constituents recently had an abscess in their jaw. Like many in that situation, they called the nearest dental practice. As I said earlier, there was a 22% chance that they would be told that the practice had gone private, a 42% chance that they would be told that it was closed to new patients, and a 50% chance that they would be added to a 12-month waiting list, leaving them with an abscess until this time next year. Fortunately, those things did not happen. My constituent got through and made an appointment, although the dentist informed them that they did not regard the situation as an emergency, so my constituent was forced to go elsewhere, which reset the clock on their waiting list.
The dental practices that have contacted me have also shared stories of the abuse that their staff receive on a daily basis due to the lack of capacity, of how 111 continues to tell people to call their dental practices despite them not holding emergency contracts with the NHS, and of how the unfair UDA system acts as a direct negative contributing factor to the current situation faced by NHS dentistry.
Reformation of the service is clearly vital. When we previously debated the Health and Care Act 2022, I said that simply throwing money at the problem will not make it go away. Yet funding is, of course, the other vital area of improvement in this equation. Between 2010-11 and 2021-22, total funding for dental services in England fell by 8% in real terms, from £3.36 billion to £3.1 billion. Further, where practices have underperformed in the past, NHS England have not released the funding, resulting in an underspend of the national dental budget. I therefore urge the Minister to maintain his commitment to reforming the unpopular 2006 dental contract, to make vital and necessary changes to unfair remuneration, and to act before the situation gets any worse and more dentists are lost. That is very important.
Anthony Mangnall (Totnes) (Con)
I apologise for interrupting my hon. Friend’s concluding remarks. Does he agree that it is also worth considering whether we can improve the role of dental therapists so they can take on some of the roles, whether the £50 million underspend in the south-west should be delegated across the whole area to deal with that issue, and whether those graduating from the Peninsula Dental School—something we are proud to have in the south-west—should be encouraged to stay in the area, given that the demand there is greatest? Above all, given my hon. Friend’s excellent speech and the points he has made, does he agree that the dental recovery plan, which we have been promised and for which we have been waiting for too long, must be brought forward immediately?
Chris Loder
My hon. Friend gives me no chance to do anything other than agree. He is right. I hope the Minister is hearing loud and clear from the south-west that we cannot go on with this situation. There is no need, especially when we have dental underspends, for us not to take advantage of those opportunities as they arise. I also agree with him that we need to find more new and innovative ways of solving the issue and help a broadly willing dental team across the south-west.
To conclude, I urge the Minister to take note of all that I have said and what all my hon. Friends and hon. Members will have to say. I will also leave the Minister with a clear idea of what we need in West Dorset. First, I understand that there are plans for a substantial dental school in Dorset. I am pleased to hear that and am eager to lend my support. Can the Minister share more details? Secondly, NHS 111 needs to understand the situation of our dental practices and stop directing frustrated patients to those practices’ already swamped telephone systems, causing busy staff to receive unnecessary abuse for problems that are not necessarily within their power to fix. Finally, the contract and the amount of compliance within it, as my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Anthony Mangnall) pointed out a moment ago, needs an immediate review and immediate reform. Otherwise, we will continue to lose NHS dentists and the situation will worsen dramatically. I look forward to hearing from my hon. Friends and hon. Members in this debate and, indeed, the Minister at the end.
Several hon. Members rose—
Julie Elliott (in the Chair)
Order. A lot of people want to take part in the debate so, to try to avoid a formal time limit, I ask Members to keep to an informal five-minute limit.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Ms Elliot. I congratulate the hon. Member for West Dorset (Chris Loder) on securing the debate; the turnout shows why he felt compelled to do so.
Let me quickly outline the key problems that I see in my constituency. People who are not registered with an NHS dentist cannot get treatment now because almost all practices in the area are not accepting new patients. There are patients who are registered with a surgery but cannot get an appointment because there is no longer an NHS dentist working there. In my case, I left my NHS dentist because every time I had an appointment it was cancelled, because the practice was moving dentists around other surgeries in the chain where there was higher demand.
Practices are deregistering NHS patients—that is, removing them from the active patients record—if they have not seen the dentist within a set period of time, to make room for patients on the NHS waiting list. They are legally allowed to do that. Some practices are closing down, including the Bupa surgery in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol West (Thangam Debbonaire), which is used by a lot of my constituents and is about to close.
There is also an issue for pregnant women, who are entitled to free dentistry on the NHS yet cannot see a dentist at all. I have asked a number of parliamentary questions about that. Pregnant women are more likely to suffer particular dental issues and there is an increased risk of certain health complications if the dental problems worsen. An estimated 1 million pregnant dental care patients in England missed out on dental care between March 2020 and March 2022, and they are still finding it very difficult.
On the underlying issue of the shortage of dentists, they say they are not incentivised to work for the NHS. They intend to leave for better pay and working conditions in the private sector, or are considering going overseas. An estimated 2,000 dentists—10% of the workforce—left the NHS last year. As a consequence, patients in pain are being forced to seek private treatment because they cannot see a dentist. They have to wait for tooth problems to become emergencies before they can get urgent treatment at the University of Bristol Dental Hospital, which can offer only a certain number of emergency appointments per day.
Those who cannot afford a tooth extraction with a private dentist and cannot get an emergency NHS appointment are pulling out their own teeth in agony. Constituents have told me that that is a fact. Dentists are seeing more people with higher levels of dental need, because the wait for an NHS appointment means that a minor problem drastically worsens over time so that, in the end, they find they need to have their teeth removed. Some patients say that because they have not been able to get an appointment since lockdown, they have been kicked off the dentist’s records for not attending.
I would like to quote a few constituents. John says he was due a check-up in January 2023. It was cancelled and he was offered a new appointment for April 2023. That, too, was cancelled, and he has been told to phone again in November to make a new appointment. He has a refugee from Ukraine staying with him who managed to go back to Lviv for Christmas. She says she was almost as pleased about getting a dental appointment in Lviv as she was to see her family. John says:
“Dental care in a war zone is functioning better than”
it is in Bristol.
Another constituent, from St George, has not been able to register since she moved to Bristol a year and a half ago. A colleague of hers tripped and knocked out her front tooth. She had not been able to register with an NHS dentist and had to spend her entire £4,000 of savings on a visit to a private dentist.
Katy, another constituent, is halfway through her pregnancy and entitled to free dental care. She spent hours scrolling through lists of dentists, phoning all the ones that might take on NHS patients. She says:
“I cannot find a single dental practice which is accepting NHS patients.”
The final constituent I want to quote is a dental practice manager who says their practice is a little better able to attract and retain dentists because it holds a contract with a UDA—units of dental activity—rate of £30.92, which is well above the area average, which is £25.98. Even then, the practice has been able to fill only half of it NHS dentist vacancies. She says:
“Without long-term workforce planning and meaningful reform of the NHS General Dental Service contract, the system and those who rely on it most will continue to suffer.”
I have taken this issue up with the Government, NHS England and the local integrated care board. Generally, the Government recommend that people visit the NHS “Find a dentist” website. Local NHS services have been working hard to commission more urgent dental care appointments. They are also offering stabilisation sessions for those who do not have an NHS dentist, cannot afford to go private and need an urgent fix to a problem like a broken tooth or a damaged filling. But clearly this is not good enough.
I reiterate the point the hon. Member for West Dorset made. We need to work on retaining as well as recruiting NHS dentists and we need to reform the dental contract which, as he said, is simply not fit for purpose. Given the time, I will leave it to others to raise some of the other questions. I could talk for a very long time about the problems my constituents are suffering from.
Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Elliot. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Chris Loder) on securing this debate on a vital issue for our region.
The issues with getting a new NHS dentist in the south-west are, sadly, all too well known. I have regularly been contacted by constituents who, when their current NHS dentist has retired, or in one case converted to a fully private practice, are unable to find a new practice accepting NHS patients. Last night, when I checked the NHS website for Torquay, there were no practices listed as accepting new NHS patients. Although many were listed as not having recently given an update, their position is easy to work out from the feedback I receive. As has already been set out, the issue is not limited to Torbay.
For me, there are two key areas of focus for tackling this issue: ensuring that more of the existing dental workforce and practices offer NHS services, including by accepting new patients for registration; and expanding the future dental capacity in the south-west through training and recruitment. On the first point, the key will be to ensure that contract arrangements are attractive and provide a viable proposition to those who will provide the services.
I am aware that NHS England is holding further discussions with the British Dental Association and other stakeholders for contract reforms that are planned to take place this year. The Government talk about aiming to reduce barriers to patients trying to access dentists by changing the arrangements for treatments such as root canals, improving patient communication and recruiting overseas dentists—although we should not always assume there is a pot of skilled labour available over an immigration bridge—so it would be good to hear more about the progress being made. Where it is not possible in some areas to secure new contracts with providers, will the Government consider looking at more direct provision? We simply cannot allow deserts of treatment to exist.
On expanding future capacity, the Association of Dental Groups has said that the key to easing the burden of the unmet need for dental services is simply going to be more dentists, which includes creating more training spaces. I am aware that in England the Government fund the training of around 800 dental students per year. In the past, the Government have said that places are capped to ensure that teaching, learning and assessment standards are maintained, as well as to ensure that there are enough high-quality placements for each student.
It is clear that the current level of supply is not going to meet future demand. There does, though, appear to be more capacity for training. In 2020, the cap on the number of dentistry school places in England was lifted, to accommodate the higher number of students meeting their university offers following changes to exam arrangements prompted by the covid-19 pandemic. Similarly, in 2021 the cap was adjusted again. That suggests that capacity is available.
In 2022, the Dental Schools Council called for an increase in the number of dental school places. The DSC presented three proposals agreed by the deans of UK dental schools to safeguard dental training and secure and improve the supply of future dentists by increasing dental school places. Again, that suggests that there is capacity to expand good-quality training here in the UK, ideally in the south-west.
John Penrose (Weston-super-Mare) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend agree that it is essential that dentistry, along with other medical disciplines, is included in the upcoming NHS staffing plan, which we all hope will involve a substantial increase in the number of people being trained at all grades of medical discipline, including dentistry?
Kevin Foster
Yes.
I look forward to the Minister’s response, and have two specific questions for him, in addition to those already raised. First, what progress is being made with renegotiating the contract, and what results is he expecting to see in the south-west this year from those renegotiations in terms of the increased accessibility of NHS dental services? Secondly, what plans does he have to create additional training spaces in the south-west, given that we know that where people train is where they are likely to stay and practise?
For too many in the south-west, NHS dentistry has become a service that is difficult to access and hard to register for. I hope that in his response the Minister will set out clearly the action we will see to get more dental practices to provide NHS services, and more dentists providing NHS services across the south-west region.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Ms Elliott.
In Bath and North East Somerset, more than 105,000 adults have not been seen by a dentist for two years. That is 44% higher than the number in 2018. Children are not faring any better: nearly 15,000 were not seen by an NHS dentist last year, which is an increase of 90% since 2018. Routine dental check-ups are a vital first line of defence against more serious problems such as oral cancer, which is one of the fastest rising types of cancer and claims more lives than car accidents in the UK. Meanwhile, tooth decay is now the most common reason for hospital admissions for young children.
The British Dental Association has said that NHS dentistry is facing an existential threat that long predates the pandemic. The shortage of NHS dentists means that it is now nearly impossible to get a dentist appointment in Bath. Last year’s NHS statistics for England show that my Bath constituency is one of the worst places for NHS dentistry in the country. There were just 44 NHS dentists per 100,000 people living in the area. The Association of Dental Groups described my constituency as a “dental desert”. It stated that this already dire situation will worsen unless the Government take urgent action.
Staff are leaving NHS dentistry at an alarming rate. One in eight are approaching retirement and 14% are close to leaving the profession. Nearly 15% of dentists have been lost from Bath’s clinical commissioning group since 2016. Committed dentists are being forced out of the NHS. The Prime Minister boasted that 500 new dentists are practising in the NHS because of a Government reform; in reality, more than 500 dentists do just one NHS check-up a year.
The British Dental Association described official data on NHS dentistry as a work of pure fiction. Recent polls indicate that more than half of dentists in England have reduced their NHS commitments since the start of the pandemic. That is not tracked in official workplace data: dentists doing one NHS check-up a year are weighted the same as an NHS full-timer. The British Dental Association says the Government have never attempted to collect data on the workload of NHS dentists, or on how much time they spend seeing private or NHS patients. I would like a commitment from the Minister that such data will be collected. We need it urgently to understand the extent of the crisis.
However, we need more than just data: we need urgent reform. We Liberal Democrats are calling for an NHS dental healthcare plan to ensure that everyone can access affordable dental care when they need to. To start, we must immediately invest the money set aside for NHS dentistry and focus it on boosting the numbers of NHS appointments. The Health Service Journal reported that the national dentistry budget is set to be underspent by a record £400 million this year. How can that be when we are facing such a crisis?
The current NHS dentistry contract does not encourage dentists to take on NHS patients. Many dentists simply earn more in the private sector, but frankly many dentists tell me that they can afford to stay open and take on NHS patients only because they are cross-financing NHS and private patients. How can that be? We Liberal Democrats would carry out wholesale reform of the dental contract so that dentists are incentivised to work as NHS dentists without the fear of having to close their doors.
The Government must also encourage those who are ready and able to be dentists to enter the profession. The cap on the number of dental school places available in the UK has remained static since 2013, despite increased demand for dentists. We cannot let this crisis escalate any further. We Liberal Democrats would put into law a proper workforce plan, which would include protections for dentists and dental staff. Dental care is a right that everyone in Bath and beyond should be entitled to. It is time the Government’s response matched the scale of the crisis.
Richard Drax (South Dorset) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Elliott. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Chris Loder) on securing this excellent debate. He, like me, has been concerned about this issue for some time. As he said, NHS dentistry left NHS England on 1 April, so dentistry in our area has now been delegated to NHS Dorset integrated care board, with which we have close connections and work a lot. It has been in place for only a short time and is already looking carefully at this major issue. I hope my hon. Friend and I can get the desired result.
At risk of spouting too many statistics, I think it is worth noting that in my seat of South Dorset there are only 10 dental practices, in Swanage, Weymouth and Portland. None of them is NHS, one is now private, and none was accepting new NHS patients when contacted by Healthwatch six months ago. There are only two surgeries in Swanage. My constituents write to me regularly on this issue, and I am ashamed to say that I did not realise how shocking the situation was until we started to look into it. The figures are shocking, and I hope the Minister will respond today not least on the contract issue, which every Member has mentioned, because this has to change. It simply is not working.
Let me share what four of constituents wrote to me. One said:
“It’s impossible to find a dentist in Weymouth”.
Another wrote:
“I haven’t had a dental checkup in person for two years due to covid”.
A third said:
“Our appointment has been cancelled again and now, our dentist is retiring early”.
And another wrote:
“After telephoning 14 practices ranging from Portland to Poole, Blandford, Sherborne and Wareham in Dorset through to Castle Cary in Somerset, I was met with 12 straight negative replies and 2 offers of being placed on very slow moving waiting lists or private treatment offers”.
That is completely unacceptable.
The hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse) mentioned that children are being affected, and how right she is. I heard in a telephone call today that 300 children in Dorset have been waiting for months not for dental treatment but to go to Dorset County Hospital to be knocked out by general anaesthetic because their problems are so severe. Because of the pandemic and the backlog, they are waiting in pain. These are children. That is really, really shocking.
Healthwatch also looked at the situation in wider Dorset. I hope Members will forgive me for giving more statistics, but they are quite interesting. Of the 95 practices in Dorset, two have gone out of business, 13 did not reply and 78 responded. Of those, no dentists are taking on new adult patients; two have closed since last year; 17 are now entirely private; 18 accepted new child NHS patients; seven accepted patients with additional needs; 23 have waiting lists, although some did not know how long; 50% have waiting lists longer than 12 months; Purbeck is particularly short of dentists; 75% of registered patients are still receiving routine check-ups, which is good; and most private practices would accept urgent referrals from NHS 111.
The British Dental Association has said—and I agree, from what I am learning—that NHS dentistry is facing an “existential threat”. It shocked me to discover that before the pandemic there were only sufficient funds for dentistry to look after 50% of the population—even before the pandemic, only half the population had their teeth looked after. That is extraordinary. Some 11 million—almost one in four—adults are not having their needs met, and 10% of the £3 billion budget is set to be returned to the NHS this year, not because of lack of demand but because practices are unable to fulfil contractual commitments. Burnout and issues with retention and recruitment are causing a lack of dentists.
As I understand it, the contract, which has been touched on, is based—I hope I have this right—on a quota system, and dentists are penalised if they overperform. They are penalised if they underperform, and their funds are taken away. They are penalised if they take on patients with high needs, because they get paid the same for treating patients with fewer needs. This really is a serious issue, and I very much hope that the Minister can respond, not least on the issue with the contract.
Richard Foord (Tiverton and Honiton) (LD)
I am grateful to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Elliott, and to follow the hon. Member for South Dorset (Richard Drax), who made some excellent points that get to the heart of why the Government are failing us on NHS dentistry. I will follow him by using some examples and giving a voice to some of the constituents in my part of Devon who have written to me to appeal for help.
Chrissy Evans from Seaton wrote:
“I don’t understand why there has been no effort to address the problem of thousands of British children without free access to a dentist…We have tried all the dentists in our area and none are taking on new patients unless they are private.”
John Mason from Branscombe received an email advising him that his check-up was booked, only to be telephoned by the practice in Sidmouth a few weeks later. He wrote:
“I had been an NHS patient in Sidmouth for many years. I was telephoned by the practice”,
which told him that his options were to become a private patient, to try to find another dentist, or to call NHS Devon if he needed emergency treatment.
A woman from Honiton, who I do not have permission to name, has had dental issues since 2011. She wrote to me:
“I have been trying to sort this since 2011, I believe now I am considered too old to matter. I cannot eat, I don’t wish to be seen trying. I hide my face when possible. I don’t smile, I avoid friends and family, my speech is affected, this has ruined my life for the past 12 years and consumes my every thought.”
Finally, Edward Roberts from Tiverton puts it very plainly:
“The situation which prevails is unacceptable but no one in Government seems to be concerned about it.”
People are living in pain. The examples I have just given are a small snapshot of the heart-rending emails that I have received about people’s dental misery. As we have heard already, many in the west country do not have access to an NHS dentist. A survey by the British Dental Association in March laid bare the challenges we face. It found that across the south-west, nearly three in five dentists reported having reduced their NHS commitment by an average of 30%, but a staggering 75% also reported their intention to further reduce the amount of NHS work they undertake this year.
Why is this happening? Because the NHS work that dentists take on simply does not pay enough to be viable. Many NHS dentists are simply overwhelmed by the soaring costs of their work and, on this trajectory, the problem is only going to get worse. The BDA reports that 49% of south-west dentists say that they are likely to go fully private, with 41% likely to change career or seek early retirement. Fifteen per cent say that they will move abroad. Unless the Government take swift action now to start to address the situation, we could see NHS dentistry effectively disappear within a decade.
It is pretty infuriating to see the Government’s lack of recognition of the issue. Ministers at the Dispatch Box should not hide behind the outrageous claim, which I and others will have heard, that the Government have reformed the NHS contract. They have not. In July 2022, they simply paid dentists for a few more units of dental activity—for example, a dentist who is treating a mouth full of teeth that need repair will get paid the same as somebody who is treating a mouth that needs three teeth worked on. Instead, the Government should engage constructively with dentists and overhaul the NHS contract to compensate sufficiently for dental work carried out on the people who need it. Unless those steps are taken, people will continue to suffer in pain. Dentistry should not be only for those fortunate enough to win the postcode lottery.
I hope to hear from the Minister some unequivocal plans to reform the NHS dental contract, and I am curious to know what steps the Government will take to address the crumbling state of NHS dental services—I hope that they will include some measures that my Liberal Democrat colleagues and I have been calling for over many years. Above all else, I want some honesty from this Conservative Government: either reform the NHS dental contract properly, or simply admit that an NHS dental service for our constituents in the west country is a thing of the past that this Government are not willing to prioritise.
Anne Marie Morris (Newton Abbot) (Con)
Healthy teeth are a critical part of a healthy body; we cannot really separate one from the other. It has always surprised me that when the NHS was established, the concept of free at the point of delivery excluded dentistry, for which there has always been a charge. There is something about dentistry, because it is either too complex or too expensive, that has led it to be somewhat second class.
As the decades have gone by, Governments have recognised how important teeth are, and I am pleased to say that there is a much more enlightened view as to their inclusion. There has also been a recognition over the years of the importance of healthy teeth for children particularly, hence the free care for the under-18s. That is why it is particularly worrying that colleagues say—I have heard exactly the same comment—that although children need to be prioritised, they are not being prioritised as things stand. Indeed, on one of my more recent visits to one of my local practices, I came to understand that dentists cannot take on private patients and only child NHS patients; if they go for NHS, they have to do everybody. That is a fundamental piece that ought to be changed.
As colleagues have already said, covid has effectively exposed a pre-existing weakness in the system. There is a shortage of dentists. We have heard a lot—it is absolutely true—about the cap on training numbers and the challenge to which that has given rise. We have heard about how, year on year, more dentists are moving away from the NHS into private. Across the country, the NHS has lost 10% of its dental coverage.
In Devon, in my constituency, there are no NHS dental appointments. The situation is at least as bad in Devon as it is in Dorset. Indeed, on that same visit to the dental practice, I asked how long people would have to wait to get on the patient list—the answer was seven years. That strikes me as even worse than the position in Dorset. Our proportion of dentists, which appears to be accepted, is extraordinarily low. In Devon, there are 51 dentists for every 100,000 patients. That seems very low, but, believe me, it is actually quite good—many places are worse than that. If that is the starting point, it is the wrong starting point and needs to change.
Dental health is absolutely fundamental to the whole body. Reference has already been made to hospital admissions for children. As I understand it, certainly in my part of the country, most admissions for children between six and 10 are caused by the health of their teeth. It is not just that they happen to have a problem with their teeth that is spotted when they are in hospital.
What has to change? Clearly we need more recruitment. The cap has to go. I know that it costs £230,000 to train a dentist, but, frankly, that is good value for each dentist. We need better retention, and the contract, which has been referred to, is clearly one of the biggest reasons why we do not have the retention that we need. We need to broaden the profession. The Government have taken steps, such as the “Advancing Dental Care” review in 2017 and a dental education reform programme. But that is too slow. The ambition is right—more flexible entry, more apprenticeship, new centres of development and putting the training together as dentists get to the secondary stage of their training—but it is not enough. My hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Anthony Mangnall) suggested that dental therapists should be better used, which is absolutely right.
The trouble with the contract is, as we have heard, the challenge of how it is constructed. Dentists are not paid per patient, nor for all the work done; they are paid for the most complex work, and that decides the amount paid, which generally does not cover the value of the work they have done. The second problem is that when someone enters into the contract, if they do more work, they do not get paid for the extra, but if they do less they have to give a refund. Effectively, the challenge for dental practices—certainly, for the one I recently visited—is that they cannot use all their contracted hours because they cannot get the dentists to fulfil them.
There is work to be done. The Government absolutely need to deal with the backlog, the contract and the payments. They need to deal with the children issue and to allow individuals to treat children in the NHS, even if they cannot treat adults.
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Elliot. I congratulate the hon. Member for West Dorset (Chris Loder) on securing an important debate and opening it very well. Access to NHS dentistry is becoming harder across the country, but, as we can sense from the contributions we have heard, especially so in rural communities such as those in Cornwall, Devon, Somerset, and Dorset, as well as in areas such as my own, in Cumbria.
Rural communities struggle more than others with access to dentistry because of pressures such as high housing costs and lower working-age populations, which mean there is a smaller dental workforce. Access to dental care in rural communities is also worse because we are dealing with sparsely populated areas and fewer economies of scale are available for the surgeries in question. There is the additional and crucial matter of the physical distances that people have to travel to receive treatment. Last week, I did a quick search and found that for a family in Coniston in my community the nearest available NHS dental place was in Hexham in Northumberland, which is a 160-mile round trip.
Every month it seems that we lose another NHS dental practice. I am sure that is the case for Members in every part of the country—from the contributions so far, especially in the south-west. I have recently lost a surgery in my community that saw 5,800 patients lose their NHS status overnight. The private plan that those patients were offered to replace those places would have cost a family of four £1,000 a year just to stay registered and on the books. With increasing prices, such as the rise in mortgage costs, rental costs, fuel duty and food—the cost of just living in any respect—how is that acceptable or affordable, given that that family, like everybody here, have already paid for their NHS dentistry through taxes?
People across our country have paid for a service, as my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Richard Foord) said, that the Government have not delivered. It is about not just the financial costs to families if they have to go private when an NHS dental service is no longer available but the physical pain, the anxiety and the sense of guilt, for parents, that their child is not seeing a dentist because they cannot afford to send them because NHS dentistry is not available. My hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse) talked about oral cancers and the fact that many dentists are the first to spot them and provide life-saving treatment.
For what it is worth, I do not blame the dentists, because I speak to so many of them. They are as angry as the rest of us, for many reasons. First, the Government take the public’s money but do not pass it on to the dentists. There is not enough money in the system, as the hon. Member for South Dorset (Richard Drax) wisely pointed out. That is true nationally, but it is also true surgery by surgery. Dentists tell me that it is often the case that the Government’s funding per unit of dental activity may be less than what a patient paid over the counter for their treatment. Dentists and patients, then, are both being ripped off.
A unit of dental activity payment, at the most basic level, could net perhaps £20 or £30 for a single examination. Diligent dentists seeking to do a good job might do three of those in an hour. Let us do the maths—that funding is not enough to pay to keep the lights and heating on, pay the rent and pay for staff salaries and materials. Many dentists feel that treating patients at a good standard therefore costs them and their practice more money, and that they have to subsidise the NHS. There are incentives to cut corners, to be on a treadmill, to rush through more patients and to do a job that the dentists themselves feel professionally dissatisfied with. As we have heard, good dentists who are committed to the NHS find that they cannot afford to stay, so they leave and it breaks their heart. That leaves thousands of our constituents without access to adequate, affordable dental care, which leads to more expensive, painful and damaging emergency hospital dental care further down the line.
There are many things that we can do as local MPs. I have written to my local surgeries to encourage them to take advantage of things that the integrated care system has offered to bring some back to the NHS, but unless there is radical reform of the system, good dentists will leave the NHS and thousands on thousands of our constituents will not be able to access the dental care that they have already paid for through their taxes for themselves and their children.
Sir Robert Syms (Poole) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Chris Loder), who set out not only the problems but some of the solutions to the crisis in NHS dentistry, and my hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset (Richard Drax) reinforced his arguments.
If one is honest, there has never been an ideal NHS system. Before covid, people still needed a degree of luck and persistence to find an NHS dentist, but one of the main impacts of covid was to create a crisis in dentistry that was not there before. There is a massive backlog and a lot of people are leaving the profession. It is certainly one of those issues that needs to be higher on the political agenda.
The Government have already done one or two things to help. The changes to the annual allowance and lifetime allowance for professionals, particularly those in dentistry, will keep more people in the profession. We need a short-term and a longer-term plan to increase the number of people in the profession. Most of my hon. Friends have come up with solutions. My hon. Friend the Member for Torbay (Kevin Foster) said that we need to train more people, not just generally in the national health service but in dentistry.
We have a common problem. Parents find it difficult to find NHS dentists for their children. I get a lot of emails from pregnant women in Poole and those with special care needs who tell me that, because a number of NHS practices have packed up, they are shuttling around trying to find treatment that is not there.
Like my colleagues, I think the Government need to speed up the dental recovery plan to give those who at the moment are not getting treatment some hope of better times ahead. That is the short-term solution. In the long term, we will simply have to spend more to train people in the dental profession and raise the cap on dental schools. About 20 years ago—not too long after I was first elected—there was a proposal for Southampton to have a dental school, and the rationale for that was that dentists tend to stay in the area they train. That did not go through because the Blair Government decided not to go ahead, but I am interested in the proposals for a dental school in Dorset. We need more in the south-west of England so that people come in, train, like the communities they are living in and stay.
In our inboxes, we get a sense of our constituents’ urgency. There are people in need of treatment, so we need fundamental reforms and possibly some additional money from the Government. I know the Government and local health authorities are looking at this issue seriously. There is no magic bullet, but the sooner we get proposals from the Government to start to recover the situation, the better it will be for my constituents who are struggling to get the services they thought they would be provided with.
Luke Pollard (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Lab/Co-op)
It is rare for every single party in the south-west to agree, but we do all agree on this: NHS dentistry in the region is broken, and it is getting worse. There is a huge crisis facing NHS dentistry in Plymouth, and everyone who has tried to access a dentist in my city knows it. After 13 years of Tory government, it is getting harder and harder to see an NHS dentist. Many children in Plymouth are in pain at home, having never visited a dentist.
Hundreds of our kids are having their teeth removed under general anaesthetic at Derriford Hospital every year. Some patients, unable to afford private dental care, are resorting to pulling out their own teeth. NHS dentistry in Plymouth is an endangered species. For many, an NHS dentist appointment is already a mythical beast, spoken about only when prefaced with, “Do you remember when you could get one?” Ministers have broken NHS dentistry over the past 13 years. If they do not do something serious soon, we are not far away from the extinction of NHS dentistry in Plymouth.
I thank all the people who work in NHS dental surgeries and practices, from dentists, to hygienists, to receptionists—who often get the brunt of angry people unable to access an appointment—to trainees and students. Our NHS dental waiting list in Plymouth is now over seven years long. It has an estimated 22,000 people on it, and it is growing each and every day. That is 10% of our population. The Dental Access Centre at Seven Trees Court in Plymouth—the only emergency dental service in the city—handles demand that far exceeds the supply of appointments. It takes over 300 calls a day, but it has only 20 available slots.
We need a proper plan, not more half measures and sticking-plaster solutions. Last year, the Government announced a £50 million dentistry treatment blitz, which all hon. Members present will remember. Of the £4.76 million allocated to the south-west, the Department of Health and Social Care has clawed back £4 million. Our system is so deeply in crisis that we are unable to fulfil the contracts we already have, let alone the extra funding, because we are so short of staff to deliver them. Our NHS dental system is utterly broken.
Ministers have also failed to address the recruitment and retention crisis facing NHS dentistry nationwide, but especially in the south-west. As mentioned by the hon. Members for West Dorset (Chris Loder) and for Tiverton and Honiton (Richard Foord), the British Dental Association estimates that over half of all NHS dentists in the west country are likely to go fully private, and 75% say they are likely to reduce, or further reduce, the amount of NHS work taken this year. It is going to get worse. That is what I am hearing from the dentists.
A professional working in the sector wrote to me with an upsetting account of what it is really like to be in NHS dentistry. She said:
“As with many of my other colleagues, the state of NHS dentistry in Plymouth has broken my spirit. Our service is constantly slated by the public for not doing enough, and my colleagues are subjected to abuse via email and over the phone daily - despite us often going above and beyond what we are commissioned to do. It is not our service that is letting the people of Plymouth down but those in government.”
What on earth would incentivise someone to go to work and stay in NHS dentistry if that is their lived experience every single day?
The last Labour Government opened a new dental school in Plymouth, which is outstanding and superbly led. It is focused on social outcomes and excellent teaching, and it is rated as the best dental school in England. That is a Labour legacy that we can be proud of. However, NHS dentistry in our city is on its knees today, and responsibility for that lies firmly with the Government. Despite the heroic efforts of staff, if NHS dentistry were a hospital, it would be in special measures. That is why we need an emergency rescue plan.
There are ways out of this crisis. First, we need to reform the NHS contract. The changes announced to date are inadequate to address the systemic problems. We know what the solutions are. Let us get on with it. Secondly, we need a national plan for recruitment and retention. At the moment, there is no national plan to address that crisis. Thirdly, I want Ministers to increase the number of dental students in training, reversing the 10% cut from a few years ago. We do not have enough dentists in training to replace those who are leaving practice. The Minister could take an immediate step. The Peninsula Dental School in Plymouth wants to take on an additional dozen students for the next academic year. Please could he help it to do so by granting the funding?
Fourthly—this will be a game changer—we need to properly fund dental therapists. Dental therapists can do 80% of what a dentist can do, but they take only three years, not five, to train. Funding them could have a profound impact on rural and coastal areas across the west country. Finally, we need our fair share of funding. Per capita, the south-west receives less funding for dentistry than nearly every other region in the country. It is not fair. There is a solution to this crisis. Let us just get on with it.
Derek Thomas (St Ives) (Con)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Chris Loder) for introducing this debate. Nearly a year ago, I introduced a debate in this place on the same subject. The then Minister said it was a priority to increase the number of dentists in specific parts of the country, and she mentioned our loved area, the south-west. At the same time and soon after, contract changes were announced. I would not say that they were completely hopeless, as has just been suggested, but people in the south-west are still struggling to get a dentist, as we have heard. I still get emails from constituents who are not getting the treatment they need or spending their time and money travelling to London, Manchester or even abroad to access dentistry.
Since my debate, I have witnessed dental practices giving up NHS contracts or vastly reducing NHS treatment, forcing people to fund themselves fully, while others who cannot afford that go without treatment; I raised that issue with the Health Secretary in the main Chamber only recently. This week, a lady told me that she had filled her own tooth, using a kit she bought online and the torch on her mobile phone. She was frustrated, and so was the dental practice. It has a contract with the NHS to provide thousands of units of dental activity—UDAs—but that funding allocation is clawed back by the NHS if it cannot deliver those units. It cannot deliver those units because the value is too low to attract the staff it needs.
This year, that practice alone will pay back £132,000 in clawback—enough funding to treat roughly 1,600 patients in west Cornwall. I have asked NHS regional commissioners where those funds go and whether they can be made available for additional dentists; I have not received a reply. In fact, although I previously appreciated a very healthy and helpful dialogue with NHS England commissioners, their engagement and response rate with me and my office this year has been woeful.
Nationally, the underspend in the NHS dental budget could reach half a billion pounds. If I could get just one commitment from the Minister today, it would be to ensure that that money is spent on the dental care we need. For example, it could be used to raise the UDA value to £30. That would be a small step, within existing budgets, that could help dental practices in my constituency afford to treat more patients.
In the longer term, we know that the NHS dental contract needs reform. It does not work for dentists, and it certainly does not work for our constituents—the patients. We look forward to integrated care boards, but we also look forward to their taking ownership of dentistry and driving the delivery of dental care for their regions. In Cornwall, we have an integrated care board just for Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly. It is really helpful now to know exactly where to go to talk about dentistry. As we heard earlier from my hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset, we must work together to really have local accountability and delivery solutions to address people’s oral health.
We need better workforce data on dentistry as part of the forthcoming NHS workforce plan. We heard yesterday that the British Dental Association reported that the numbers of NHS dentists had fallen. The Minister’s Department says that not all NHS dentists have submitted their data for the year. Whatever the truth is, that shows that we do not have credible data; without data, we do not have a plan. The workforce plan needs to ensure not just the number of dentists, dental nurses and other dental professionals, but where they are located. We have a brilliant dental suite in Truro, but graduates rarely stay in Cornwall once they have been trained. We are seeing a slight improvement, with dental practices offering foundation placements for those graduates in Cornwall—something that traditionally we have not done—including in St Ives, but the potential is far greater.
Finally, I recognise that the Minister is as keen as I am to empower the entire dental team to work to their full potential for NHS patients. However, some barriers remain to fully implementing direct access in NHS-funded dental care. In dental care, a system exists that enables the administration of medicines by dental care professionals when they provide care to patients paying privately. That does not apply for NHS dental patients.
On Friday, I visited a new dental practice. Did you hear that—a new dental practice? It is not all dreadful and miserable. The owner is providing five new treatment rooms. He has two dentists and a hygienist, and he will take on more UDAs and dentists—he will have the dentists if he has the UDAs—but he explained the impact of the disparity that I just raised:
“We have therapists in most locations in the Southwest ready to increase NHS access, especially for young children as most of the work for this cohort of patients is within their scope of practice, and it is disappointing we cannot use them fully. Dentists are very reluctant to sign off prescriptions because of time issues and not understanding the process. Our therapists are only doing Hygiene, and some of them are leaving because of the lack of work.”
My understanding is that a statutory instrument in this place is required. That simple piece of legislation would provide the opportunity for NHS dental practices to use the full skillset and competencies of their dental staff to increase the delivery of desperately needed dental care. I know that the Minister is aware of that and keen to drive that forwards. Will he indicate whether that SI will be forthcoming in the near future?
Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Elliott. I thank the hon. Member for West Dorset (Chris Loder) for securing this really important debate and for the work that he does locally and here in Westminster to raise awareness of the issue. We have had a good, full debate. I thank my hon. Friends the Members for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy) and for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard) for their contributions, as well as the hon. Members for Torbay (Kevin Foster), for South Dorset (Richard Drax), for Newton Abbot (Anne Marie Morris), for Poole (Sir Robert Syms), for St Ives (Derek Thomas), for Bath (Wera Hobhouse), for Tiverton and Honiton (Richard Foord), and for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron). That stretches the geography to the limits, but the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale has raised some very important points on behalf of his constituents and rural communities across England, not just in Cumbria.
Last week I responded to a debate on behalf of the shadow Health and Social Care team on dental services, but it was about the east of England. A couple of weeks before that I responded to a Backbench Business debate on NHS dentistry in the main Chamber. I do not raise those debates today to fill you in on my diary commitments over the past few weeks, Ms Elliott, but to highlight the strength of feeling across the House about the crisis we are currently experiencing in dental care.
We are all hearing from constituents who cannot access care, about parents trying to get their children seen and, in the most extreme cases, as we have heard today, patients attempting to perform dental treatments on themselves or on loved ones. So-called dentistry deserts are not being eradicated. Instead, they are multiplying, not least of all in the south-west, as we have heard today.
Last summer it was reported that out of 465 dentists across the south-west, just seven were accepting new patients. Indeed, we have heard more up-to-date statistics from Members during this debate. The number of NHS dentists practising across the south-west has fallen by more than 200, and in areas such as Exeter the current wait to get an NHS dentist is now two years. Behind the statistics are human beings who just want to be seen and to be treated, and we owe it to them to act. So my points to the Minister today will be familiar to him, and I fear that I will keep having to make them time and again until we see the Government’s dental plan.
My first point relates to the dental contract. As I have said before, it was the Labour Government who introduced the dental contract, but by the 2010 general election they had recognised that the contract needed to be substantially reformed. That was in our manifesto. The then Conservative Opposition agreed and it was in their election manifesto, too. The Government have been in power now for 13 years and change has moved at a glacial pace. In his response to the debate last week, the Minister said that he was under
“no illusion that there are significant challenges to address”,—[Official Report, 16 May 2023; Vol. 732, c. 353WH.]
but that those would be tackled in a forthcoming dental plan. Given the urgency of the situation, can the Minister provide an update on the development of the plan and when we can expect publication?
The hon. Member for West Dorset highlighted issues with unit costs being disincentives, and that was followed by other Members during this debate. It is true that dental costs have to be looked at on a per-unit basis because there are perverse incentives, but it would also be wrong to pretend that before the dental contract was introduced, there was a golden age of NHS dentistry. As I said last week, there is a reason why I have a mouthful of fillings and my children do not. It is not because I ate more sweets and did not brush my teeth as well as my children, but because of the then even more perverse incentives for dentists to drill and fill. They were paid for every filling that they put in so that people ended up with a mouthful of fillings whether they were needed or not. We need to strike a balance so that we get the public health needs and patients’ needs as well as a financial package that works for dentists to make a living.
On a similar note, can the Minister update us on the workforce plan? We have heard about that from hon. Members across the House today. We know that it has been produced and that it is on the Secretary of State’s desk. It is particularly pertinent, given that it was revealed earlier this week that the number of active NHS dentists in England is now at its lowest level in a decade, in spite of rising demand and in direct contradiction to claims made by the Prime Minister in Parliament.
Given that net Government spend on general dental practices in England has been cut by more than a third in the past decade and the number of NHS dental practices in England has fallen by more than 1,200, it is of little comfort to patients waiting in abject pain and misery to hear the Government say that a plan is coming. We urgently need to see the workforce plan published and implemented and reforms put in place that work for both patients and staff.
Labour knows we need to change if we are to secure the future of NHS dentistry. We want the NHS to become as much of a neighbourhood health service as it is a national health service. To do that, we will encourage joined-up services in the community that include dentistry. We want to see health professionals such as dentists working with family doctors as part of a neighbourhood team. That will not only help people get access to more care on their doorstep but prevent oral health problems before they become acute. It will also dismantle the two-tier system that has been allowed to develop, where those who can afford to pay receive treatment and those who cannot are left languishing. That is being further compounded by the way the cost of living crisis means some families are unable to afford even basic hygiene products. We are witnessing health inequalities widen in real time as a result, and that must not be allowed to continue.
What does the Minister plan to do to tackle oral health disparities and prioritise prevention? Will that work be part of his dental plan? I am sure this will not be the last dental debate I take part in on behalf of the shadow Health and Social Care team, but I sincerely hope that the next time I am face to face with the Minister in Westminster Hall or the main Chamber, we will have seen some long overdue progress.
It has been demonstrated during today’s debate that this need not be a partisan issue. It is in all our constituents’ interests that the Government crack on now and get improvements to dental care. We all want better dental care for our constituents and, as I said in the last debate and probably the one before that, addressing this crisis cannot wait until we have had a general election. In that vein and in closing, I urge the Minister to recognise that fact and get on with the job.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Neil O’Brien)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Elliott. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Chris Loder) on securing this incredibly important debate. Dentistry is the No. 1 issue that I am working on, and I reassure hon. Members that we are doing so at pace. We know that there are serious challenges across the country; hon. Friends and hon. Members are quite right about the scale of those challenges, which are particularly acute in the south-west.
I met the commissioners for dentistry in the south-west earlier this week. I met the professions separately, and I had further meetings about our dental plan earlier today. This is absolutely top-priority. I have been talking for some time to hon. Friends present and to south-west Members and others to generate the ideas that will go into the plan. They are the first in my mind when I think about those who are contributing important ideas to our dentistry plan, not just in their speeches today but in our conversations.
We have already started the process of reform, but it is only a start. We have created more UDA bands to reflect the fair cost of work and to incentivise NHS work. We introduced the first ever minimum UDA value to help to sustain practices where they are low, and—to address the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset (Richard Drax)—we have allowed dentists, for the first time, to deliver 110% of their UDAs, to encourage more activity from those who want to do more NHS dentistry. We have also started the process of making it easier for dentists to come and work in the UK. Just last month, legislation came into force that enables the General Dental Council to increase capacity for the overseas registration exam. I have also met the council to discuss how we can bust the backlog that built up during covid.
Plans for the centres for dental development are emerging around the country, which is very exciting and will address the issue that colleagues have mentioned about how to encourage dentists to train and then remain in the south-west and in other areas that find it more difficult to attract dentists. We have started to empower hygienists and therapists as well, exactly as my hon. Friend the Member for St Ives (Derek Thomas) proposes. We stand ready to go further. The reforms to split band 2 and the 110% option have been well received by the profession. They are being used: the proportion of the new band 2b that is being used is going up, which is already having some effect on delivery, although of course that effect is not high enough.
In data published by NHS England this week, the proportion of contracted units of dental activity delivered went up from 85% last March to 101% this March, and the number of NHS patients seen has gone up by about a fifth over the last year, so there is progress, but there is much more to do. We will go further in the forthcoming dental plan, which I hope will be out relatively shortly.
The reforms that I have talked about and the forthcoming dental plan draw on the ideas that Members across the House have put forward today. They will build on those initial banding changes, further improve that payment model and start to take us away from the 2006 contract, which everyone agrees is broken. Exactly as my hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset pointed out, that is the core of what we need to do.
We will also ensure further measures to improve access, particularly for new patients, look at how we address historical UDA variations that are not justified, improve transparency—I think my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay (Kevin Foster) made that point—and take further steps to grow the workforce, not least through the workforce plan, which we will publish very shortly. Fundamentally, we will do everything we can to make doing work for the NHS and NHS patients more attractive to dentists. At the same time—to answer the question that the Opposition Front Bencher, the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Gwynne), quite rightly asked—we will do more to encourage prevention as well.
The devolution of dentistry from the NHS regions to the individual integrated care boards at a more local level is an important improvement that we want to build on. It provides an opportunity for much closer integration with other local care services and much more accountability about what is being commissioned and delivered at the local level. People and MPs can go and see the person responsible for delivery in their area much more easily, and our dentistry plan will build on just that.
Chris Loder
I very much appreciate what the Minister is saying about the plan for dentistry going forward. The last time I brought up the issue was in July 2022, almost a year ago. We had these problems then, and we have them much worse now. Will the Minister share with us how some of these great initiatives, which I am pleased to hear about, will be expedited so that they can have the maximum effect as soon as possible for those who are most affected in the south-west?
Neil O’Brien
I feel the exact same sense of burning urgency that my hon. Friend feels. I hope our plan will be out very shortly.
Richard Drax
The Minister may be coming to this point, but can I ask him about the disincentives—the cap beyond which dentists do not get paid, and the money that is taken off them if they underspend? Is that issue going to be resolved?
Neil O’Brien
Absolutely. I mentioned that in the last financial year we brought in the 110% flexibility so that those who do want to go further and deliver more NHS care were able to do so. We are looking at continuing that and also making some further changes to make the system more flexible and give local commissioners more power, so we do not have these rigidities in the system leading to the absurd situation where there is both under-delivery and underspend, which is completely maddening to everyone.
Once again, I thank my hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset for raising this hugely important subject. I am sure all hon. Members will want to see the dentistry plan out as shortly as possible.
Luke Pollard
Could the Minister return to the question I raised about additional training places for dentists? We have a really good dental school in Plymouth that wants to take on more dental students. That could deliver a big impact for our region. Is that something that he is minded to look favourably on?
Neil O’Brien
We will set out our plans extremely shortly on the future of the workforce and on growing training places. I am sure we will look closely and with great interest at individual proposals such as the one that the hon. Member has just made.
Not just in the south-west, but in the entirety of England, we are looking to improve and build on the NHS service that is so vital to all of our constituents. It is a personal passion of mine, and we are working at pace on it. We know it needs to improve. We have had good ideas coming from Members across the House this afternoon, and we will try to put them in place as soon as we can.
Chris Loder
I thank my hon. Friend the Minister for his kind response, not just to my contribution but to that of every Member here today. I reiterate that we are in a position of quiet desperation in Dorset. I appreciate a lot of the initiatives the Minister has shared with us today, but I must impress on him, on behalf of all those present, the urgency with which they must be expedited. We look forward to seeing some of the initiatives becoming a reality in due course.
I remind the Minister that my hon. Friend and constituency neighbour the Member for South Dorset (Richard Drax) and I see the dental training college in Dorset as an important component of resolving some of the difficulties. I was hoping to hear a little more about that. Maybe the Minister could share that with us, and write afterwards to tell us a little more. That would be much appreciated.
I am delighted that hon. Members from across the United Kingdom came to my debate about dentistry in the south-west. I was particularly pleased to see the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), who I was not expecting—he is not in his place now. As for the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron), I was getting a bit worried that he might be on a chicken run to the south-west in the next general election. We will see. I know some—anyway, there we go.
I am very grateful to you, Ms Elliott, for chairing the debate, to all right hon. and hon. Members who have contributed, and to the Minister for his response.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the provision of NHS dentists in the South West.
Social Housing: Furniture Affordability
(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
Paul Maynard (Blackpool North and Cleveleys) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the matter of furniture affordability and social housing.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Elliott. I am surprised to be starting the debate early—I was taken unawares, but strike while the iron is hot, I always say. I am delighted to be here, partly because this has been a very tricky debate to secure. Every time I go to the Table Office, they rewrite the topic. To get pulled out of the hat, I re-submit it with that same title and it gets rejected, so I have to rewrite the title again. That causes confusion.
Then we had no idea which Department should reply to the debate. Was it the Department for Work and Pensions? Was it the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities? Even the Minister did not know, but I am delighted that she has made it here today. Maybe she will enjoy the experience—who knows?
On hearing mention of the term “furniture poverty”, many people say, “What do you mean?” Some Members did so when I walked in the door. Many take it for granted that they have a chair to sit on, a fridge or freezer in which to keep food and a cooker with which to cook it. Far too many people in this country lack such basics. Some 26% of those in social housing lack one or more of the major pieces of furniture in the average household, compared with just 3% of homeowners.
Take something as basic as flooring. In social housing, more than 700,000 people—9% of those in social housing —do not have any flooring. The situation is worsening because of the cost of living crisis. Furniture inflation is running at 35%, which is even higher than food inflation. Appliance inflation is running at 21%. The answer is not to just go down to IKEA to get something cheap, because inflation at IKEA is at 80%.
The problem is not just the cost of furniture. There are some underlying problems. The first is the lack of a savings culture in this country. The average savings of people in my constituency are just £95, and most people in my constituency could not cope with an unexpected bill of even £500. That puts them in a very vulnerable position in the first place. We could have a whole debate just on the lack of a savings culture.
The second reason is the disappearance of cheap and readily available credit for the most deprived in my constituency. The usual financial service providers have withdrawn from that market entirely, leaving people with nowhere to go for credit other than to those who charge very high costs. That causes further financial problems for them.
The final reason is the lack of microinsurance products. The insurance sector has pulled out of allowing people to pay a very small amount to insure a fridge, cooker or any other piece of furniture. People are therefore flooded with large unexpected bills to replace significant items. When faced with that financial impact, they are often tipped over to the more dangerous forms of lending. I can spare the Minister a debate on illegal moneylending, but only because I recently had an Adjournment debate on the subject. Those unexpected bills push many in my constituency into risky doorstep lending. Often they borrow from illegal moneylenders, but sometimes they borrow from friends or family members. That is a type of illegal moneylending that is quite disguised, and it is a real problem.
Furniture poverty is not just about lacking items, but about the associated costs. The charity Turn2us calculates that not having a cooker can add more than £2,000 to the annual expenses that an average family of four face, because it means that they must rely on takeaways, which are becoming increasingly expensive. People who do not have a fridge cannot buy in bulk, store food for the future or plan meals. That leads to further costs, as they must rely on local convenience stores—again, we could have a separate debate on the difference between food prices in convenience stores and in supermarkets. Lacking a washing machine adds about £1,000 to the average bills of a family of four, because they have to go to the launderette to wash their clothes, which they often require for work. Launderettes are a rapidly disappearing phenomenon anyway, and significant energy costs mean that the prices they charge are going up.
There is a vicious, vicious cycle here. Let us take two examples. People may think that a dining table is almost luxury item and not necessary for a household at all—that it is something someone might go to John Lewis for, perhaps. I would argue that if we are talking about social mobility and life chances in my constituency, nothing is more important than the dining table. In smaller houses, that is where children do homework. If they have nowhere to do their homework, their educational performance will decline. There are 2.4 million people in this country who do not have a dining table, so when I hear about social mobility and everyone fretting over how to get more working-class people into Oxford and Cambridge, that is not “life chances” to my constituents. To my constituents, “life chances” means having a dining table as a space to do homework—something as simple as that.
I mentioned flooring earlier. I would love to have an hour-and-a-half debate on flooring. I put the Minister on warning: that is on the way.
Paul Maynard
Flooring, yes—I am about to talk about it. You will learn something. End Furniture Poverty, the charity that has helped me on this topic, is doing a separate piece of work on the issue of flooring, which I will come on to.
Let me share a quote from one individual in social housing. He says:
“It’s cement downstairs and upstairs it’s wood with a lot of nails sticking out. It is a hazard…I have a young child.”
The lack of flooring is perhaps one of the great unknown scandals of 21st-century Britain. When someone enters into a new social housing tenancy and moves into a new flat or property, in all likelihood the social housing provider has ripped out the flooring in advance, often when it is in perfectly good condition. They do so because they believe that that is what they should do with void tenancies, and it means the person moving in is faced with a great bill to replace the flooring. Often it is simply beyond their means and capacity to afford it.
Paul Maynard
I was waiting for the moment. I was looking eagerly at the hon. Gentleman, and he has finally taken the bait.
Jim Shannon
I commend the hon. Gentleman for bringing this issue forward. Covid had a medical effect on everybody, but it also brought about many broken relationships. What I have found in my constituency over the last three years is that families are parting because of domestic abuse, and the ladies are moving with their children into houses that are not furnished. In my area, I am fortunate that we have churches and charity groups that can help to furnish houses, but there are so many domestic abuse cases that not everybody can be helped. I support what the hon. Gentleman is putting forward. At this stage, maybe the Government, and particularly the Minister, should be looking to see what can be done to help people who have had to move out of their property because of domestic abuse and who find themselves with nothing but the clothes on their back, and certainly not the furniture that they need for their house.
Paul Maynard
I agree entirely. The hon. Gentleman makes a very important point, and he anticipates my 13th point, which I will come to, about why that does indeed matter.
The Minister might have thought that I was acting as a Labour Member of Parliament for the past few minutes, as I have been bemoaning the state of affairs and demanding that more be done. Of course the Government are doing something, but the challenge is that local government is not quite doing its part as well. The Minister will be more than aware of the local welfare assistance scheme. It is worth £167 million, which has been passported over to local councils to disburse as they see fit. Unfortunately, not every council uses that money to its fullest extent.
It is a wonderful pot of money, because it allows so many options: for example, that is where those fleeing domestic violence ought to go for help and support. The whole point of the local welfare assistance scheme is to meet that sort of need, but unfortunately, as End Furniture Poverty has discovered, 35 councils have now scrapped their local welfare assistance scheme, despite getting funding from the Department for Work and Pensions. Many more are spending less than 10% of what they have been allocated, which means that the burden is falling on a wider range of groups. Many charities, benevolent organisations and even churches are filling the gap that councils ought to be filling, including, sadly, Blackpool Council, which I gently chastise. I do not normally do that, but in this case I do, because it has shrunk its LWAS budget. The local welfare assistance scheme is there, but it is not being used by councils.
I urge the Minister not to overlook the existence of the local welfare assistance scheme, because since I started banging on about local welfare assistance about three years ago, the pandemic has come along, as has the household support fund, which dwarfs the LWAS in budget. The Minister now has a choice to make, and I am keen to hear her views. The household support fund is being put to so many different uses by so many different councils that it is marginalising the local welfare assistance scheme, but that means that there is now a focus on targeted pots of money for grants given to particular groups in society, which is how the household support fund has been devised, defined and decided on. That means less focus on the situation-specific support that is needed, such as for those fleeing domestic violence —as the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) said—who get squeezed out of the household support fund. If local welfare assistance schemes are not maintained, people cannot access the emergency support that they need to replace their furniture and white goods.
I urge the Minister to review the Welfare Reform Act 2012. Every time we have these debates, Labour Members say they want that Act to be reviewed. Even I am calling for it to be reviewed, not because I want to reverse much of what was in it, but because I want to look at the evolution of Government decision making, which I feel has been a bit patchwork. We make one change and then another, and then another, without considering the golden thread that ought to run through them, which is whether we are preventing people from falling into destitution. That is why the household support fund and local welfare assistance schemes are so important. I hope that the Minister will agree to meet me and End Furniture Poverty to discuss its ideas about how both schemes can be strengthened.
Of course, this should not just be down to the Department for Work and Pensions. One of my frustrations is that so many Departments are doing so many different things. It is often the Treasury. One of my great frustrations has been the slow gestation, and almost the non-birth, of the no-interest loan scheme, which would have enabled people to borrow money at no interest to purchase the white goods that they lack. I think the Minister needs to look at what other Departments are doing in support of that.
The private sector is doing stuff, too. Iceland—the supermarket, not the country—has a superb arrangement with a social housing provider called Clarion Housing Group to fund freezers for people who do not have one so that they can manage their food requirements more prudently and get more for their money. There are many, many ideas out there.
Another aspect of furniture poverty, particularly in social housing, is partly flooring and also the wider issue of furnished tenancies. Hon. Members might think that furnished tenancies are quite common. People often look for furnished flats and apartments in the private rented sector—Members of Parliament who are down in London for long periods of time certainly do that—but in social housing, they are vanishingly rare. A great deal of effort is being put in to encourage social housing providers to consider at least making 10% of their tenancies available on a furnished basis. I am pleased to say that Blackpool Coastal Housing does just that. It has recently approved a business case to do so, and it makes a lot of effort to improve furniture reuse, but that is by no means common across the social housing sector as a whole.
This is not about putting greater burdens on social housing landlords. A social housing provider in Yorkshire and Humberside called the Thirteen Group has gone down the path of improving its offer of furnished tenancies. It has seen its arrears fall from £7 million to £4.8 million, and the cost of a void tenancy has plummeted by £500 as those moving in can sustain their tenancies far better, because they are not lacking the essential ingredients of a household. Even the number of unstable tenancies that the social housing provider is carrying at any one time has reduced by more than half. It makes the point that it is not spending more money doing that; it is actually spending its money much better.
The Minister might wonder what in heaven’s name this has to do with the Department for Work and Pensions. This is about social housing, so it is for the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities. Actually, the funding for a lot of that capital investment comes through the services charges that are permitted through the universal credit system. I urge her—once again, we can discuss this if and when she meets End Furniture Poverty—to ensure that the mechanisms within universal credit that allow these services charges to be made are slightly easier to understand for the tenant and the social housing provider to boost the demand for at least 10% of tenancies to be furnished.
It is clear that we do not speak about furniture poverty enough in this country. The Government are trying to do a lot to put in place a safety net beneath the safety net, but the problem is perhaps the fondness of Government Members not to ringfence things in local government, and to allow councils to spend as they see fit. That means that when we pull a lever here in Westminster, we find that it is not attached to anything out in the community.
Furniture poverty needs to be part of the national conversation. It does not get debated here enough and I am not sure that it is properly understood by many Members of Parliament, yet if they went out to the more deprived parts of our constituencies, they would see it in house after house. I hope that the Minister will agree to have the meeting so that we can all learn a bit more, not least about flooring, about which I could have a separate debate. I also hope that the Department for Work and Pensions, in particular, can look again at how local welfare assistance schemes and the household support fund interact, and how universal credit can support the introduction of more furnished tenancies in the social housing sector.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mims Davies)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool North and Cleveleys (Paul Maynard) for his tenacity in securing this debate. I also thank you, Ms Elliott; it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. It is a pleasure, too, to respond to my hon. Friend. I thank him for his typical care and great regard for the most vulnerable in his community and our society, and for his focus on basic life chances, which are incredibly important. I hope to provide a multitude of responses for him this afternoon.
I am keen to touch on launderettes. The cost of those small businesses—particularly for those in work, those caring, those who need suitable drying facilities and small businesses that want to support people in the community—has been a great concern to me as a constituency MP. We should all be very mindful of that. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) spoke about domestic abuse, and I am keen to pick up on that point shortly.
I reassure the House that we are committed to a strong welfare system that, most importantly, supports those who are most in need, as my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool North and Cleveleys pointed out. In 2023-24, we are spending around £276 billion through the welfare system of Great Britain and around £124 billion on people of working age and their children. For 2023-24, we have increased benefit rates and state pensions by 10.1%.
The decisive action that we have taken over the past year and during the pandemic reflects our commitment to protecting the most vulnerable in these changing economic conditions. I am proud to be the Minister who is taking forward the next stage of the cost of living payments, made up of £650 to more than 8 million low-income households. This year, a similar number of eligible households are receiving their first payments of up to £900. I am pleased to confirm that we have made 8.3 million payments of £301—the first cost of living payment this year—to people on means-tested benefits. I was also pleased to sign the regulations that will provide more than 6 million people across the UK on eligible “extra costs” disability benefits with a further £150 disability cost of living payment this summer, to help with additional costs. Included in our cost of living support package is the energy price guarantee, which continues at the same rate until the end of June.
My hon. Friend mentioned the household support fund, which is on top of everything that I have just described. We have extended the fund by another year until March 2024. That enables local authorities in England to continue to provide discretionary support to those most in need. The fund can help with the cost of energy, food and, as my hon. Friend said, other household essentials, including furniture and white goods. I reassure him that in drawing up the fund, I looked at the particular issues, families and circumstances that he talked about. In fact, I recently visited Wolverhampton to see this being put into action in relation to bed poverty, whether that means the type of beds, sheets or bed clothes needed to keep people warm and snug at night.
I am empowering local authorities to do the right thing, look at their need and ensure that their household support fund supports their communities. I have been grateful for the feedback, engagement and consistent conversation with local authorities. We are empowering them to spend as they see fit in their communities. Devolved Administrations will receive those consequential funding pots as usual, also to spend at their discretion. Blackpool’s allocation of the extended household support fund comes to almost £3.5 million. That will make a difference.
Before I deal with some of my hon. Friend’s points, let me turn to the point that the hon. Member for Strangford made about domestic abuse. On the need to provide support on the basics, I assure him and the House that we are working with the Domestic Abuse Commissioner and with the employers domestic abuse covenant at DWP to make sure that we support people to stay in and get into work and through any changes in their household situation. Indeed, I was working on that with my team yesterday. The Home Office is also working with Women’s Aid to provide £300,000 for one-off payments to support victims and survivors of domestic abuse. The funding will provide payments of £250 and £500 to support families in exactly that situation. I am keeping a keen eye on that sort of thing.
Jim Shannon
I thank the Minister for that; it is helpful and encouraging. My understanding is that, during covid, there was a phenomenal number of relationship breakdowns and that domestic abuse was part of the reason in many of those cases. That means that a wife or partner and the children move out and they have nothing. When it comes to the large number of people who need that service, is there enough and adequate money to assist them when they need it?
Mims Davies
I reassure the hon. Member that I am looking at every area—including policy, universal credit, work across Government, work with the Domestic Abuse Commissioner and work across the violence against women and girls piece with the Home Office—to make sure that that is exactly the case. There is work to support people to get, stay and declare in work, as well as the Ask for ANI and J9 programmes in our jobcentres, so that nobody coming forward feels that their finances need to keep them in an unsafe place. I remind the House: this is criminality in the home and it needs to be stopped and declared, and those who are impacted should be roundly supported. I hope that helps the hon. Member.
On the local welfare funding assistance, my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool North and Cleveleys mentioned part of the unringfenced local government finance settlement. Councils do not have to provide local welfare assistance, but HSF is a form of that, and I understand his points. Many councils provide upstream support to stop people falling into destitution, and some of the things that he said about that are concerning. I am concerned about how this works and interacts with the household support fund, so I undertake to look closely at what he said. Blackpool Council, for example, provides its own discretionary support scheme, which can provide the essentials that he mentioned. Some local authorities operate local welfare schemes beyond the household support fund for essential costs. However, his point was incredibly well made.
On helping people with funding to manage the cost of living challenges, I point the House to the work of the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, which recently announced a new allocation of £76 million of dormant assets funding. That includes £45 million for financial inclusion programmes delivered by Fair4All Finance. Beneficiaries include 69,000 individuals struggling with their personal finance, who will have access to a no-interest loan to help them to get out of problem debt. As my hon. Friend said, it is so important that we unlock every way of helping people to make good choices.
The latest allocation is part of nearly £900 million unlocked through the UK dormant assets scheme. This is about financial inclusion initiatives to support people in vulnerable financial circumstances, particularly in the country’s most deprived areas. Through my previous ministerial role, I know that sometimes people come forward with problems because perhaps behavioural or SEND issues mean that furniture has not been looked after or is not safe—bunk beds are a particular issue—and needs to be replaced regularly. That puts a huge strain on those with the least resources.
Through the Fair4All Finance scale-up programme, £5 million of dormant assets funding has been invested in support of the Coventry-based company Fair for You, which creates affordable loans to tackle furniture poverty. I will undertake to write to my hon. Friend and other Members on this subject.
Let me turn to the issue of adequate flooring and the basic needs of housing tenants. I continue to listen with interest to the recent discussions on the letting of social housing without adequate flooring. I understand that the practice varies across the sector. Some landlords will remove flooring in between tenancies because of the poor condition, and in most cases, that is done for health and safety reasons. Floor coverings are not currently covered in the decent homes standard. It is vital, however, that adequate flooring is seen as an integral part of the physical condition of the property. We will undertake to look at that as part of the decent homes standard review.
As my hon. Friend pointed out, the DWP has a big say in this issue. We support social housing and we support those providers, and it is absolutely right that we make sure that people in need have the basics and can be supported when it comes to decent homes. I will take away and look at that point. I thank End Furniture Poverty for its report. It has highlighted, along with my hon. Friend, the points around social landlords and the issue of redistributing furniture between incoming tenants. The report shines a light on that issue and the experience that people have.
While we are tackling poverty by ensuring that people are working and supported through really tough economic times, it continues to be our firm belief that the financial circumstances of all households improve through work, hence our in-work progression focus and our focus on matching people with vacancies that could be just down their road. It is vital that we understand the issues that hold people back—the barriers and extra worries that keep people awake at night.
It is important to reiterate that the Government are fully committed to providing opportunities for people across the UK to succeed, and to understanding what their barriers may be and what may be holding them back. As my hon. Friend said, it is important to have a cross-Government focus on tackling poverty—I point out our focus on food security; the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs is another area I am looking at, as well as housing costs and needs—so that we can be clear, as every constituency MP would want, that we are targeting our support to the most vulnerable families, and ensuring that they have additional support in changing times.
I say to anybody worried: there is a benefits calculator on gov.uk and a household support fund link. If you feel as though you should have had a cost of living payment, there is a link there to make sure that you let people know about it. Please tell us, and remember that in a Jobcentre Plus, we can do very much more for you than perhaps you realise.
Question put and agreed to.
Heathrow Airport Expansion
(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
Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the future of Heathrow Airport expansion.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Elliott, and to speak in this important debate. I thank colleagues for taking the time to participate and am glad to see so many present. This issue affects the day-to-day lives of constituents in Putney, and across south-west London and the whole of the country, given the climate change issues. I am sure that constituents in Putney will be watching with interest.
There is strong opposition to the expansion of Heathrow from residents across the region; the Mayor of London; local councils, including Wandsworth Council; environmental groups; a cross-party group of MPs, many of whom are here today, along with many more; and even two former Prime Ministers. Virgin Airlines, which does not want the extra costs that expansion would bring, has not said it supports expansion. Heathrow is already the most expensive airport in the world for airlines and for customers.
Heathrow’s expansion plans were put on hold during the pandemic, but the Government are now talking about reviving them. That will result in an additional 260,000 flights a year; an increased site of 950 acres, which is twice the size of the City of London; the biggest car park in the world, with 43,000 spaces; and increased carbon emissions of 9 megatonnes. That is more than the carbon emissions for the whole of Luxembourg.
The plans were drawn up before the Government agreed to their climate targets. The promise of economic growth and new jobs, which I am sure the Minister will talk about, does not seem to stack up under scrutiny. Investing more in Heathrow will come at the cost of undermining regional jobs and regional growth. The cost to the quality of life of Putney residents cannot be underestimated. The noise is constant. It affects sleep, and physical and mental health. We cannot have it any more. I am here to ask the Government to rethink the plans and say a definitive no to Heathrow expansion.
On growth, the figures cited by the Government seem to be very misleading. The final national policy statement claims that the benefits of an expanded Heathrow would be £73 billion to £74 billion. However, that measurement does not include the actual economic and financial costs of the proposal. Buried in the Department for Transport’s own updated appraisal report is evidence that shows that the net present value ranges from an increase of £3.3 billion to a decrease of £2.2 billion.
Then there are the claims on jobs. Job-creation figures used by Heathrow are based on estimates made by the Airports Commission report in 2015. They have been revised twice since then by the Department for Transport, and are now at least 50% lower and could fall even further. Analysis of the Department’s own jobs data by the New Economics Foundation found that jobs would be drawn away from regional airports, which would see a reduction in passengers. A staggering 27,000 people could lose their jobs from cities including Bristol, Solihull and Manchester. That is hardly levelling up. Any claims on jobs or economic growth made by Heathrow should be at best only half believed.
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for securing today’s important debate on Heathrow airport expansion. No talk of expansion can be complete without first addressing the surface access requirements to decongest the roads around Heathrow and to improve the environment. More than a decade ago, the Government committed to building the western rail link to Heathrow. The successful business case was predicated on a two-runway scenario. A third runway, if it was built, would make the scheme critical; however, not a single spade has been dug into the ground. Does my hon. Friend agree that this No. 1 infrastructure priority for the Thames valley region, which has the support of the Welsh Government and others in the south and west—including in my Slough constituency—must finally be built without further procrastination by the Government?
Fleur Anderson
I thank my hon. Friend for his helpful intervention. An expanded Heathrow would see an additional 175,000 trips every day. That is more than the daily rail arrivals to the whole of Birmingham, yet the proposal does not have a plan for how to deal with it. I shall say more on that later. My hon. Friend is absolutely right.
What about green aviation? We are told that green aviation and green tech will catch up. Are we close to the breakthrough in alternative fuels, carbon capture or battery-powered planes that would make an expanded Heathrow sustainable and viable? No, we are not. In 2010, the aviation industry pledged to source 10% of its fuels from sustainable sources by 2020. We are in 2023; how is that going? Only 0.05% are sustainable fuels. There are no electric aircraft currently in development that could be commercially viable for long-haul flights. The green aviation revolution that could make the Heathrow expansion environmentally viable is a long way from taking off.
So what is the case against? I will talk about climate change, air quality, noise and transport. First, on climate change, the expansion is fundamentally incompatible with the Government’s own net zero target. Heathrow is the largest single polluter in the UK. Its emissions account for half of all UK aviation emissions. Its expansion proposals of 260,000 additional flights a year, on top of the existing 480,000, will increase carbon dioxide emissions from air travel by a staggering 9 million tonnes a year. As I said, that is more than the entire carbon emissions of Luxembourg.
The Government recently published their jet zero strategy; is that the answer? No. The strategy makes no attempt to set out what share of the transport carbon budget the aviation sector should be allocated or how that would be divided between airports, and it fails to articulate circumstances in which airport expansions could be compatible with climate change targets. Heathrow is just one of many airports across the UK with ambitions to expand, yet the Government has no overarching framework to guide airport expansion plans throughout the country.
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)
The hon. Lady is making an important speech. I also have an airport in my constituency, and it is investigating sustainable fuels. The French Government have announced that they will ban short flights when a train is an alternative; does the hon. Lady agree that such ideas should be part of the strategy we hear about from the Government? Part of the net zero strategy should be to reduce the number of ridiculously short flights in this country. I do not mean island-hopping; I mean flights between cities that are unnecessary and no one would even think about taking if we had better train routes and train services.
Fleur Anderson
I thank the hon. Member for that useful intervention. The need for investment in other areas instead of this expansion is the whole argument.
If we are really going to meet the net zero target, we cannot rely on the increasing long-haul flights that we are talking about at Heathrow. Can the Minister be clear about the trade-offs? If a third runway is built, does that mean that growth must be curbed at all other UK airports in order for the UK not to breach its carbon targets?
Air quality is also a major issue for my constituents in Putney. The additional 9 million tonnes of carbon dioxide that an expanded Heathrow will produce must end up somewhere. Unfortunately for residents in Putney, it will be dumped on our high street, school playgrounds and green spaces such as Putney heath.
Marsha De Cordova (Battersea) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this important debate. My constituents in Battersea will be hugely negatively impacted if the expansion goes ahead. Heathrow is already one of the biggest polluters, and the assessments that it previously carried out—on air quality, noise and so on—are all now outdated. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government need to revisit those assessments before Heathrow begins revisiting the issue of expansion? My constituents and I believe that Heathrow should not be expanded.
Fleur Anderson
I thank my hon. Friend and constituency neighbour for outlining what residents across south-west London are saying together. This is an outdated plan, it needs to be updated and it does not account for what we now know about the need to reduce air pollution and the damage it is doing to our children’s lungs and our health.
Putney has suffered—and continues to suffer—from some of the worst levels of air pollution in the UK, so my constituents will be devastated if Heathrow gets the green light to expand. The Government themselves accept that it would have a significant negative effect on air quality, but have provided no evidence to show how Heathrow can both expand and comply with legal limits on air quality simultaneously. It just does not seem to add up. I therefore ask the Minister: what safeguards on air quality can he offer to Putney residents today?
The constant noise, often from very early in the morning, is a serious health issue for Putney residents. The current level is already too much, and I know people who have moved away from the area because of it. We cannot take any more. According to the European Environment Agency, noise pollution is the second largest environmental threat to health, causing 12,000 premature deaths a year. It is not just an inconvenience. It is not just Putney residents who are suffering, either. The No 3rd Runway Coalition has calculated that an expanded Heathrow could see more than 650,000 people fall within the Department for Transport’s “significantly affected” noise pollution category. That is very serious.
The Government’s night-time noise abatement objective for noise-designated airports is simply not good enough. It could provide some answers, but the objective downplays the serious negative health impacts caused by aircraft noise at night. The negative health impacts should have been made the central tenet of the objective, to reduce the harm caused, but there is no definition of the objective
“to limit and where possible reduce…noise”.
The objective is far too vague; it should have much clearer commitment to noise-reduction targets, with measurable outcomes, so that successive interventions by airports and airlines can be determined, and enforcement action against noise can be taken. Otherwise, Heathrow can do what it likes. I urge the Minister to put himself in the shoes of my constituents and offer more than just vague promises that will not be kept.
Finally, on transport, an expanded Heathrow will see an increase in daily trips of 175,000 people, as I said before, and an additional 43,000 car park spaces. The biggest car park in the world is now about 20,000 spaces; this will be 43,000 spaces. Who is going to meet the extra demand of the cost of this extra transport, congestion and pollution? The cost is estimated to be £5 billion to £15 billion; to date, Heathrow has committed to contributing only £1 billion. I ask the Minister: who is going to pay for the additional transport needs? Will it be taxpayers, such as my constituents, who will be the ones losing sleep, losing out by breathing more polluted air as a result of the expansion, and losing out because of the transport costs?
I shall end with an unequivocal message for the incoming new chief executive of Heathrow. There is no version of an expanded Heathrow that is compatible with climate targets. There is no version of an expanded Heathrow that does not reduce the quality of the lives of the 650,000 people in my constituency and beyond who live under the flightpath. There is no version of an expanded Heathrow that does not make the air that our children breathe even more polluted. I implore them to put the quality of life and the planet first, and the pockets of shareholders second. The new chief executive can expect any future plans to be met with the fiercest opposition from me and colleagues present.
I look forward to the rest of the debate and the Minister’s response. When he responds, I would like answers to the following questions. Will he commit to reviewing and amending the airport’s national policy statement, to ensure that it is compatible with the UK’s climate targets? Will he commit to publishing an overall strategy setting out how greenhouse gas emissions from aviation are to be managed and reduced over the coming decades? I urge the Minister: listen to the Government’s own climate targets, listen to the experts, listen to residents and listen to MPs. It is high time that the prospect of an expanded Heathrow took flight.
Julie Elliott (in the Chair)
I remind Members to bob so that we have an indication of who wants to speak. I suggest an informal four-minute limit. We should get everybody in if we stick to that.
Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Elliott. I congratulate the hon. Member for Putney (Fleur Anderson) on securing this vital debate. We MPs across south-west London, along with councillors and thousands of our residents, are absolutely united on this issue. Liberal Democrats across south-west London have a saying that we want a better Heathrow, not a bigger Heathrow. We are not on a crusade against the airport. We recognise the importance that it brings to our communities, capital city and country, in terms of trade, tourism and employment, but we are unequivocally opposed to a third runway at Heathrow. The project is dead in the water on every possible front.
The hon. Member for Putney made a powerful environmental case against expansion, and the economic outlook is also bleak for airport expansion. The project is not financially viable for Heathrow itself, which is already in £15 billion of debt, and it is about time that the Conservative Government actually come out, unequivocally recognise that the economic, environmental and health case is absolutely clearcut, and take it off the table. We have had broken promises from this Conservative Government in the past, and we need them to come out and oppose a third runway at Heathrow.
We know that, according to the Department for Transport’s own calculations, the economic benefits are modest at best. At worst, the project would have a net-present value of minus £2.2 billion. The environmental argument against Heathrow expansion is simple: the more planes in the sky and idling on the runway, the more damaging emissions we pump into our atmosphere. As the hon. Member for Putney said, Heathrow is the biggest source of carbon emissions in the UK. If a third runway goes ahead, growth at all other UK airports would have to be halted to keep within our carbon targets, which sinks the Government’s levelling-up agenda.
With the World Meteorological Organisation recently warning that we will breach the 1.5° temperature increase in the next few years, now is the time to invest in a cleaner aviation industry and develop green technologies to cut back on emissions. One resident went as far as saying to me that building a third runway at Heathrow would be a bit like opening a brand-new coal mine slap bang in the middle of south-west London. Based on their voting record in recent months, perhaps that is why the Conservatives are so supportive of it.
At a local level, increased capacity at the airport would bring much more congestion on to our roads. That would mean more air pollution and dirty air, which my constituents and their children would breathe.
Another important consideration, which has already been referenced, is the level of constant noise from the airport experienced by residents day and night. There is a real sense in the community, and among local action groups such as Teddington Action Group, that the noise pollution is just not taken seriously by this Government. It is not monitored properly; its effects on public health have not been thoroughly investigated or reviewed; and adequate protections have not been put in place. That is despite plenty of evidence in respect of both the mental and physical health impacts of noise pollution and our children’s ability to concentrate and learn. The Liberal Democrats want to see an independent noise ombudsman reinstated and far more robust regulations on night flights, especially during the summer months, and to look at making noise a statutory nuisance.
A third runway would only intensify disruption, particularly with the prospect of airspace modernisation, whereby we could see a significant redrawing of flightpaths over London, with fewer planes over some parts of the capital but increased flights and much more intense noise in other areas. The term “noise sewers” has been used in other countries that have implemented airspace modernisation.
Christine Jardine
My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech and some powerful points. She mentioned airspace modernisation; I wonder, listening to what she has to say, whether if she shares my concern that any attempt to expand Heathrow at this stage might undermine airspace modernisation and delay any improvements we have been hoping for over the past few years.
Munira Wilson
The problem with airspace modern-isation, and the feedback I get from some of my community groups, is that the process is not transparent at all. We have no idea whether there will be benefits or a worsening of noise impacts on the local communities around Heathrow airport. That, combined with a third runway, spells a lot of trouble for our local communities.
Since the last general election, we have gone from one Prime Minister who threatened to lay down in front of the bulldozers at Heathrow—but who was tellingly missing for a critical vote in the House of Commons on Heathrow expansion—to another who actively supported expansion, although luckily her tenure was short lived. Our current Prime Minister has taken a leaf out of their book, talking tough on climate change and net zero while instructing his Chancellor to slash air passenger duty on domestic flights. I hope the Minister will clarify the Prime Minister’s position on the third runway project. In particular, as the hon. Member for Putney said, we need a review of the airports national policy statement; it is five years old, and the analysis is completely out of date, especially given the pandemic. We need a commitment to a national aviation strategy that addresses the sector as a whole, not just Heathrow.
To conclude, I speak on behalf of thousands of residents across Twickenham and south-west London, as well as London Liberal Democrat MPs, Richmond Council and members of the Greater London Assembly, when I say that we wholeheartedly and vehemently oppose a third runway at Heathrow airport. We will mobilise against any further plans. It is bad for the environment, bad for local communities, bad for our net zero targets and even potentially bad for our economy. It is time that the Government woke up, smelt the kerosene and opposed Heathrow expansion.
Julie Elliott (in the Chair)
That was more than six minutes. I did say four, informally; the limit will have to come down if people carry on like that. I call Jim Shannon.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
Thank you, Ms Elliott; I will keep to my four minutes. I thank the hon. Member for Putney (Fleur Anderson). We are good friends, but this is an issue that we are going to disagree on. I will give the other side of the story, because it is important to do so. I do so with respect for the hon. Lady, as she knows, and it will not stop us being friends. We just have to disagree on this issue.
I have put on the record before and will do so again that I am a vocal supporter of Heathrow expansion, as are my colleagues. It is an incredible opportunity to improve connectivity between Northern Ireland and Great Britain in relation to tourism, trade and air passenger duty. I travel every week. I come over on a Monday and go back on a Thursday. Aer Lingus was my mode of transport up until November last year, when they stopped running the flights. British Airways filled the gap, but I miss the fantastic Aer Lingus staff, four of whom lived in my constituency. I got to know them on a first-name basis.
The expansion is all about getting these services and more up and running, not only to Belfast City airport but to Belfast International airport. It is about having a broad range of flights, times and airlines and true connectivity opportunities that benefit all four regions of this great United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Air fares have increased in the last couple of months—that is understandable, because of the coronation and so on—but people who travel frequently, like me and other Members of this House, need greater services but at a reduced cost. That is what my constituents want, and I will reflect that.
I look to the Minister for a helpful response because the aviation industry cannot afford to suffer, especially after the impacts of covid, from which the economy and industry are still recovering. Heathrow is the UK’s only hub airport, and it is economically important for the whole United Kingdom. The combination of cargo demand helped businesses to transport £133 billion-worth of freight goods via Heathrow in 2013, making it the UK’s busiest airport. That example is from a few years ago, but it shows the situation at the time. By comparison, most airlines at point-to-point airports, such as Gatwick and Stansted—the hon. Member for Edinburgh West (Christine Jardine) mentioned short internal flights within the United Kingdom—do not transfer freight because they have smaller aircraft, short-haul routes and tighter turnaround times. Freight travel is so important to us at Belfast City airport, as the Minister knows; I have no doubt he will refer to that.
We want to be part of the expansion of a third runway at Heathrow. I believe it will boost us all across the United Kingdom, and opportunities for travel will increase. My constituents want to travel, and they want to go on holidays. I may not travel very far on holiday, but they do.
There is no doubt that the hon. Member for Putney makes some fair and accurate comments in relation to jet zero targets and the opportunities for the UK to lead the way in sustainable aviation, and others have made similar points. I, for one, must speak for my constituents, who want equal and fair opportunities and an interconnection with Northern Irish airports, with better connectivity, more options, fairer prices and more opportunities for trade. There is surely a way that we can eventually do both. I very much look forward to the Minister’s response.
We must not forget the possibilities that the expansion will bring, and not only for those of us from Northern Ireland who wish to see it happen, but for everybody across this great United Kingdom. We could all benefit from the economic benefits that will come from it. With that, I put my case; it may be different from everybody else’s, but it is my case.
Grahame Morris (Easington) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Elliott. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Fleur Anderson) on securing the debate and on her tireless campaign against the expansion of Heathrow airport on behalf of her constituents, supported by many of my colleagues. I fully support those efforts, but as a north-east MP I approach the issue from a different perspective. Our north-east economy suffers from serious imbalances compared with London, which experiences constant demands for improved infrastructure and upgrades. Although I welcome economic growth, the expansion of Heathrow makes me question the Government’s key policy of levelling up.
A recent debate in Westminster Hall highlighted the potential to use the tax structure to implement long-term policies that bridge the economic divide, rather than relying on unfair short-term gimmicks such as the levelling-up fund. The Government rejected a proportional property tax and continue to endorse an unfair council tax system that penalises the poorest communities and regional economies. Today I want the Minister to consider another potential progressive tax change, namely replacing air passenger duty with an airport congestion charge.
It was recommended in 2015 that Heathrow airport—the most slot-constrained major international global airport, as we have heard—should have an additional runway to increase its capacity by more than 50%. I fully understand the concerns of residents living under the flight path and in the surrounding areas, because increased flights result in more noise and more pollution in the air and on the ground. I appreciate how a third runway could make life intolerable for those communities.
Before proceeding with plans to exacerbate congestion at Heathrow, it is essential that the Minister consider alternatives and explore measures, including utilising the existing available capacity in regional airports. Although I appreciate the desire of Heathrow airport’s owners to expand and maximise their profits and returns on investment, the Government have a different responsibility to consider the broader public interest and policy objectives. Instead of assessing airport expansion on an individual basis, the Government should evaluate the overall capacity of UK airports and incentivise the use of spare capacity in regional airports, such as those in the north-east, rather than increasing pressure on a congested Heathrow.
Currently, cost incentives work against that goal, pushing more traffic towards already congested airports such as Heathrow. London airports benefit from substantial cost advantages because of their immense size, the competition, carrier availability and global connectivity. I urge the Government to rebalance that advantage and support regional airports through the implementation of an airport congestion charge. Passengers opting for congested airports such as Heathrow would continue to have that option but would pay a small premium, while those utilising regional airports with available capacity would be encouraged and rewarded.
The strength of Newcastle airport is linked to the vitality of our regional economy. Newcastle International airport’s contribution to the regional economy was £1.16 billion, with an ambition to grow that to £1.91 billion by 2030 and potentially by more than £2 billion by 2035. There would be an additional 1,325 jobs on site and more than 9,000 across the region. I urge the Government to consider that as a viable option.
Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Elliott. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Fleur Anderson) for securing the debate. I agree with everything that she said, including about the toxic effects of Heathrow, which apply equally, if not more so, to my constituency of Hammersmith and Shepherd’s Bush and across west London.
We know the arguments against Heathrow: congestion on the roads and on public transport, noise pollution, air pollution, safety and the threat to whole communities. Those arguments have not changed. What has changed is that the aviation sector does not support Heathrow. We have expansion plans from London airports—Stansted, Luton and Heathrow—that will take up the carbon allocation. Regional airports, as we have just heard, are severely underused. Manchester is at about 50% capacity, and Birmingham airport, which will be about half an hour from Old Oak station in my constituency by High Speed 2 when it is constructed, is an alternative and is running at 40% capacity. We have heard that the airlines have withdrawn their support and some, such as Virgin, actively oppose the expansion.
What has changed since covid and the pause is that climate targets have got harder to meet, and the cost of doing so has become greater. Construction costs have gone through the roof. Heathrow has lost about £4.5 billion. It has also lost its chief executive and not yet recruited a new one. It is not in a good state.
Like the hon. Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson), I believe in a better rather than a bigger Heathrow. We understand the advantages of Heathrow to the economy—across the whole Thames valley, as well as to London, and west London in particular—but it is obscene to think of increasing its capacity by 50%, given its location. Transport policy has moved on.
We have heard that the airports national policy statement is five years old, and the airports commission is eight years old. Transport policy has moved on and history has moved on, but Heathrow has not; it is stuck trying to talk in the language of one or two decades ago and, unfortunately, the Government are listening. Well, the Minister is clearly not listening, because he is texting away, but I hope that when he responds, he will show a shift in Government policy on the issue. It is long overdue. Other Opposition parties have thought about this and changed their policy over time. In the Labour party, we welcome that. I hope that we see a realistic appraisal by the Government—a genuine review of the situation—because from any impartial or unbiased view of Heathrow, it should not expand. There are many alternatives.
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)
I did not think that we would ever be here again, but this is like the Monty Python dead parrot sketch—it is dead; it is not going to happen. My hon. Friends the Members for Putney (Fleur Anderson) and for Hammersmith (Andy Slaughter) and the hon. Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson) put the matter forensically, defeating the whole argument that we should expand Heathrow.
I want to talk about the blight that the Heathrow expansion proposal has caused my constituents. It has been 40 years or longer. I have been there so long that I was present at the inquiry into the fourth terminal, which we all supported, by the way—we thought that it accommodated Heathrow well, and it was the size we wanted it then. At the fifth terminal inquiry, we opposed expansion. The inspector gave an indication that there should be no further expansion, because he was worried about the two issues that we presented him with: noise and respiratory conditions. What was happening to the lungs of children in our area was at virtually epidemic proportions.
At that stage, Heathrow said, “If we get a fifth terminal, we do not need and will not seek a third runway.” Can we remember that promise? The directors at Heathrow wrote to every one of my constituents and appeared on public platforms with me to read the letter out, to loud applause. Within six months, they were lobbying for a third runway. It was a scandalous betrayal of my community.
For the next 10 years, we put the case about the respiratory and health conditions, and we discovered more about cancers, coronary conditions and the mental health effects of being disturbed during a night’s sleep, and so on. Then the world changed and we all discovered something that others had told us about, but that we had not really believed in: climate change. We came together and, all of a sudden, what had been described as a nimbyist campaign became a global campaign. I joined a climate camp in my constituency. We had seminars at which local community members met climate campers, and we talked about the implications of climate change. We were so convincing that David Cameron went into the 2010 campaign—remember this one—with, “no ifs, no buts”, no third runway. We did not realise that once he got elected, he meant it for only one Parliament.
We then had the Davies commission, which came out in favour of an expansion and a third runway. Interestingly, in that commission, it was argued for the first time that the whole concept of the hub might be outdated, and that point-to-point and the development of regional airports was probably the future. That is where we are, and that is where we are going to go. There is no way that any Government that want to be re-elected will promote a third runway while trying to convince people that they will tackle climate change. It is not going to happen. Let us put Heathrow out of its misery and say that no Government will ever approve this, and no investor will ever speculate by investing in a project that will barely take off—pardon the pun. Why not just kill it off here, so that my constituents can enjoy the comfort of their homes?
I remind the Minister that the threat of a third runway means 4,000 properties in my constituency being demolished or rendered unliveable by noise or air pollution; that is 10,000 people being forced out of their homes. A third runway means the demolition of three schools, churches and the gurdwara, a number of community centres and our open spaces—the demolition of a whole community. If the Minister thinks that there is any chance that the community will not rise up against it, I tell him that that will happen right the way across London. If this Government or any Government try to move ahead with a third runway, it will be the most iconic climate change battleground in Europe.
Let us say to Heathrow that it is over, and that it must concentrate on improving the passenger experience and looking after its workers. It was this company that started fire and rehire. It needs to start paying decent wages, restore pensions and provide decent working conditions for all workers.
Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Elliott. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Fleur Anderson) for securing the debate.
As many people here know, my constituency is a long, thin constituency that lies between central London and Heathrow airport. It does not touch the airport, but we have a large amount of the impact. For most of my political life, since before the terminal 5 inquiry, I have opposed not Heathrow’s existence but its expansion, and particularly a third runway. Many of the people working in and around Heathrow in the 70,000 direct jobs, and the many more in associated businesses and services, are my constituents, so Heathrow is a massive driver of the local economy. But my constituency also has all the negative impact: the noise day in, day out; the air pollution; the congestion on our roads; and the airport’s distorting impact on our local economy.
In 2018, Labour’s then Front-Bench spokesperson, my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough (Andy McDonald), said:
“Heathrow expansion is incompatible with our environmental and climate change obligations and cannot be achieved without unacceptable impacts on local residents. The improved connectivity to the regions of the UK cannot be guaranteed and there are unanswered questions on the costs to the public purse and the deliverability of the project.”
That case is even stronger five years later. My fear around expansion is not about runway 3, however. As others have said today, that is getting increasingly unlikely. My concern is that there could be pressure for more flights on the existing two runways. We are told that that is technically possible and could generate 60,000 more flights per annum—the current cap is 240,000. The main barrier to that expansion is the planning condition on terminal 5. It would require the ending of runway alternation, which gives our constituents at least an element of certainty about peaceful periods. That would give way to mixed-mode landing or taking off from both runways simultaneously.
Rather than seeking to be bigger, Heathrow should seek to be better—specifically, a better neighbour to the 2 million-plus residents in London and beyond who are impacted by the UK’s premier airport. I welcome the simplified residential noise insulation schemes, which make life at least marginally more bearable for those nearby and which are funded by the airport, but I still have some questions about them for the airport. Historically, it has been slow and awkward about giving away or spending any money to make life bearable.
Apart from insulation, much more needs to be done to make Heathrow better. We need better public transport. For those who do not know, Heathrow tried to delay or even stop what we now call the Elizabeth line, because it would have had an impact on its company Heathrow Express. We have long had concerns about Heathrow’s lack of support for decent public transport to and from the airport for workers, passengers and so on, and our constituents want a better passenger experience. Heathrow is the entrance to the UK for many people from around the world. We must remove polluting vehicles from airside because our constituents—Heathrow workers—are inhaling those emissions every day.
Heathrow must become a better employer. On things such as the living wage and fire and rehire, it has consistently been a bad exemplar of what should be one of our best products.
Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Putney (Fleur Anderson) on securing the debate and on putting across her constituents’ position against expansion so passionately, as many others have done. Looking at all the factors involved, it is a finely balanced decision. Many wrongly demonise those opposed to Heathrow expansion as anti-progress or the like. I understand the concerns and objections of those who feel that this is an expansion too far.
Fortunately, I can look at the expansion from a distance—literally. I am not involved in any difficult changes or the upheaval that will happen across a large swathe of the local community around Heathrow and across London. Equally, it is also madness to have umpteen aircraft circling the south-east of England waiting for a slot and burning fuel pointlessly due to a lack of capacity on the ground. Continuous ascent and descent is crucial to making CO2 savings that will eventually be fully realised by the implementation of airspace modernisation. Incidentally, that is another strand of transport decarbonisation on which, despite the excellent work of the Airspace Change Organising Group and NATS, the Government have shown no urgency whatsoever.
Clearly, covid had a huge impact. We can still see the impact on passenger numbers across the sector, not just at Heathrow. If—or, more likely, when—numbers bounce back to 2019 figures, 80 million passengers will use Heathrow annually and there will be nearly half a million aircraft movements.
At the moment, there is no extra capacity in the London area. The concept of Boris island as a way to increase capacity has sunk to the bottom of the deep blue sea—rather like his bridge to Northern Ireland. Whatever connectivity benefits HS2 might bring to central London have been postponed until who knows when, after the Government’s decision to delay work on the Euston leg. If any Heathrow expansion goes ahead, regional connectivity must be at the heart of plans for how to use the extra capacity and resource. It would be ludicrous if a new asset of national importance was dominated by intercontinental A380s, Dreamliners and a new terminal packed with lucrative first-class passengers, rather than being used to transform and turbo-boost connectivity to other parts of these isles, particularly in the light of the utter shambles of HS2.
At the moment, Loganair is forced to lease Heathrow slots from British Airways to provide connectivity with Scotland, rather than being able to access Heathrow on its own terms and in its own right. The two Members representing Dundee, my right hon. Friend the Member for Dundee East (Stewart Hosie) and my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee West (Chris Law), will be well aware of the issues involved in ensuring a viable long-term future for the air link between that city and London. Loganair now serves the Dundee-London route from Heathrow, following the switch from London City airport earlier this month. It has managed to keep the London route on track, and passenger numbers from Dundee are at their highest for years. It also provides Orkney and Shetland with connectivity, showing the value of Heathrow slots to airports in Scotland and across these isles.
Heathrow used to be a public asset that was owned by the public and responsible to the public. It is unlikely that it will return to public hands any time soon, but it still has a duty and an obligation to the public to provide a public service—a service for everyone in these isles. Of course, it would be far better to have direct links from Scotland—particularly Glasgow, considering that Glasgow airport is in my constituency—to the rest of Europe and the world, so that we can cut out the middle man in the south-east and travel straight to our destination, and indeed transport our high-value exports directly to the customer, rather than shipping them through London.
But in the meantime, while Scotland continues the process of achieving full self-government and full membership of the EU, Heathrow must act in the best interests of us all, and that means supporting connectivity to and from the rest of these isles to London. It would be ignoring reality to deny the expansion of Heathrow without appropriate countermeasures to move aviation towards a net zero state. Developing sustainable aviation fuels can mitigate the impact of air travel. It is disappointing, to say the least, that we lag so far behind the rest of the world in investing in SAFs and putting them at the heart of the UK aviation sector. I understand that the consultation on the SAF mandate is ongoing and is scheduled to end next month. After that will be months of cogitation by the UK Government. If we are lucky, there might be an outcome ahead of the next general election, although I would not bet the house on it. This should have been done years ago, when the UK could have had taken a lead in developing SAFs and pioneering the technology required to produce them.
Inverness airport, which is owned by the Scottish Government, has recently introduced SAFs for all customers at the facility. That will surely help to reduce its carbon footprint as it aims to become the first zero-emission aviation region by 2040, but we need a sea change across the sector if we are serious about cutting emissions and mitigating the undoubted impact that the Heathrow expansion will have. I hope that sea change happens sooner rather than later.
Mike Kane (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Elliott. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Fleur Anderson) on securing the debate and on her passionate plea on behalf of her constituents, who have to suffer under the Heathrow flightpath day in, day out. My parliamentary assistant reminded me that Westminster bridge was opened on this day in 1862, so it seems a good day to discuss connectivity in the south-east—although for my hon. Friend, bridges in London might be quite a controversial subject.
I come from the perspective of growing up in a council flat under the flightpath to Manchester airport, so as well as speaking as the shadow Minister for aviation, I shall also have a few personal things to say. Heathrow is an enormous employer in the south-east of England and contributes billions of pounds to our economy, as has been pointed out. We welcome that contribution and have been consistent in our support for the wider aviation sector, calling repeatedly during the pandemic for a meaningful, sector-specific deal, which would have protected workers’ rights and environmental standards, and allowed us to build back better from a position of power, not weakness. On expansion, Labour has consistently said for a number of years that a third runway at Heathrow must meet our long-established tests. It must meet the criteria on air quality, noise and climate change, and it must be affordable and delivered in the best interests of consumers.
On a personal level, I represent Wythenshawe and Sale East, which contains Manchester airport and the M56 motorway to Manchester city centre. My hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury), who co-chairs the all-party parliamentary group for airport communities, and the Minister will be interested to hear that I was told in a meeting last week that the council will not invest in active travel along that corridor because the nitrogen oxide levels are too high. The council will write to me in the next week or two to explain why it will not invest. These are open sewers of the modern-day era that we have going through our community.
Any future bids for Heathrow must meet the criteria that we have set out, but let us be clear that there are also significant wider challenges that must be met. The Government have set themselves a target of 2050 for net zero aviation emissions, and we know that there is no silver bullet when it comes to decarbonising aviation. We know there has been significant progress in developing potential solutions to the environmental impacts of aviation, but we are just not there yet. Aircraft have become quieter. I grew up under the BA111s, Tridents and Concordes. We know that aircraft are quieter; what people find disruptive is the increasing number of flights.
We have much further to go to decarbonise the sector. Potential solutions to aviation’s air pollution impacts are beginning to be developed. They include sustainable aviation fuel, as the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Gavin Newlands) pointed out, and the prospect of some flights being powered by batteries or green hydrogen. However, while the US and EU steam ahead, the Government’s inaction is putting the development of emerging green technologies at risk. We know that green technologies produce well-paid, good jobs, which are often trade unionised as well. We need Government action to secure the necessary investment for those emerging technologies.
It is vital that the sector takes measures to continually support the development of innovations to decarbonise, such as electric planes and sustainable aviation fuel, which was mentioned previously. I meet business after business, week after week, which beat a path to my door, and are trying to innovate in this sector. That technological development is a critical part of net zero and must be done in partnership between industry and Government, so that the industry can help to meets its climate obligations and seize the opportunities for the British economy, investing in technologies that will tackle the climate crisis, encouraging world-leading innovation here in Britain, and supporting good, well-paid jobs. That is the future we want to see. Through our green prosperity fund, Labour will deliver that. It will be the centrepiece of a future Labour Government—one that links prosperity, social justice and climate justice.
Given the imperative of decarbonising aviation, I ask again about airspace modernisation. It has been referred to today; I hope the Minister can explain the lack of progress. It is a critical piece of national infrastructure that needs bringing up to date, but the process seems to be enormously complex. We know that airspace modernisation would reduce emissions, allowing cleaner and greener point-to-point flights, but it has been held up by a lack of ambition and urgency from this Government.
EasyJet told me last week that its flight from Jersey to Gatwick burns 24% of its fuel unnecessarily because of the congestion in the skies of the south-east, because we have an airspace modernisation system that is stuck in an analogue age when we exist in a digital age. It was developed closer to the time of Yuri Gagarin going into space. We have to change that.
It is crucial that the benefits of any future expansion are enjoyed by the whole country. My hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Grahame Morris) made a point about overall capacity. We have too much capacity in this country, but we do not have an airport capacity plan. Airports still compete with each other. That is why airspace modernisation is not being rolled out as fast it should be. Airports are competing in the south-west and in the south-east.
The sticking point for me is that the airport in my constituency is a brilliant economic driver that offers plenty of jobs. While no announcement has been made by the airport, I close by reiterating our commitment to the tests and our determination, in government, to help to build a sustainable future.
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Jesse Norman)
It is a delight to see you in the Chair, Ms Elliott. What a very interesting debate this has been. I congratulate the hon. Member for Putney (Fleur Anderson) on securing it. She is right that this is a very important matter.
As the debate has shown, many Members have very strong views on this issue, not only in relation to the benefits that expansion could bring to the national and local economy, but also because of the potential impacts that they have highlighted on those living around the airport and wider environmental commitments.
I admire the chutzpah of the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Mike Kane), in raising London bridges, when the London Mayor and the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham have so abjectly failed to reopen Hammersmith bridge over the last four years.
Andy Slaughter
That is a whole ’nother debate. Given that the Government will not fund major strategic infrastructure because it is in London—if it were anywhere else in the country, they would be paying 80% or 90%—and given how much they have dragged their feet for years on this project, the Minister has a cheek, quite frankly, to make the comment he has just made.
Jesse Norman
I do not have much time, but I think the Chamber knows that the funding per head and the sources of revenue that exist in London are vastly greater than in other parts of the country, and it is appropriate that that money should be properly invested alongside any other support that can be given.
We are not going to be distracted from this important topic. On a more constructive point, it is noticeable that the Opposition’s position on the issue of Heathrow expansion is not so very different from that of the Government. It is important to explore what the Government’s position is.
Hon. Members will recall that, in 2015, the independent Airports Commission’s final report concluded that a new north-west runway at Heathrow airport was the best solution to deliver the future additional airport capacity the country required. The Government considered the commission’s recommendation and announced in October 2016 that they agreed with the conclusions.
The Government then developed a draft airports national policy statement that provided the framework and criteria against which a development consent application would be judged. The draft statement was published for consultation in 2017 and scrutinised by the Transport Committee, before being laid before Parliament. In June 2018, the airports national policy statement was designated, following Parliament voting overwhelmingly in favour of the north-west runway proposal, by 415 votes to 119. That is an overwhelming majority in favour of the north-west runway proposal. Following its designation, the airports national policy statement was subject to a number of legal challenges, which have been heard in the High Court, the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court. The legal challenges concluded in December 2020, when the Supreme Court unanimously concluded that the airports national policy statement is lawful.
Challenges against the statement, however, did not end there. The Planning Act 2008 requires the Secretary of State to review a national policy statement whenever they consider it appropriate to do so. Between 2019 and 2021, the Department received numerous requests from third parties to review it. When the Supreme Court determined that the airports national policy statement once again had legal effect, those review requests were considered. In September 2021, the then Secretary of State for Transport decided that it was not appropriate at that time to review the airports national policy statement. The Government said that the matter would be considered again after the jet zero strategy was published, and that the timing of re-consideration would need to have regard to the availability of long-term aviation demand forecasts.
The jet zero strategy was published in July last year and sets out the Government’s approach to achieving net zero aviation by 2050. The idea that the Government have not thought at length and in depth about this, and set out a strategy for achieving it, as was raised earlier in the debate, is nonsense. The jet zero strategy and its accompanying documents set that out. The strategy focuses on the rapid development of technologies in a way that maintains the benefits of air travel while maximising the opportunities that decarbonisation can bring to the UK. It creates a strategic framework for aviation decarbonisation.
It is clear that the Government continue to support airport growth where it is justified, and that expansion of any airport in England must meet our strict climate change obligations to be able to proceed. The Government’s approach to sustainable aviation growth is supported by analysis that shows that the country can achieve net zero emissions by 2050 without the need to intervene directly to limit aviation growth. The jet zero strategy set out a range of measures to meet net zero. I will touch on three of those.
First, we are supporting the development of new, zero-carbon emission aircraft technology through the Aerospace Technology Institute programme. An example of that is the announcement last week by Rolls-Royce that it has commenced the testing of its UltraFan technology, which will enable efficiency improvements in current and future aircraft and is 100% SAF compatible.
Secondly, this year the Government have conducted a call for evidence on implementation of a 2040 zero-emission airport operations target in England. My Department is currently considering responses and will publish a Government response shortly. Thirdly, the suggestion that this country is behind its international competitors on sustainable aviation fuels is entirely wrong. We have published a consultation on the SAF mandate, and that is currently available for discussion.
Jesse Norman
I have no time, I am afraid. I have to stop in half a minute in order to allow the hon. Member for Putney to wind up the debate. I wish I had more time, but I am afraid that interventions and other speeches have not allowed for it.
Turning quickly back to covid-19, Members will be aware that covid-19 drastically revised the use of air transport. Almost overnight, most of the country’s aircraft fleet was grounded. Thankfully, the UK is now on the way to recovery, but we have not yet returned to the demand before the pandemic, and uncertainty remains around the long-term impact that the pandemic has had on aviation demand. Further work therefore needs to be undertaken before any future forecasts can be developed.
I think I had better wind up there. I apologise, Ms Elliott, for having to truncate my speech owing to the pressure of time.
Fleur Anderson
I thank all Members who have taken part in this important debate; they all added a different perspective and added to the case, giving strong reasons for why this is a deeply flawed plan. Heathrow expansion is not in the planet’s interest or the national interest. I implore the Government to stop supporting the plan and invest in trains instead.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the future of Heathrow Airport expansion.
Written Statements
(11 months, 3 weeks ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Serious Fraud Office Handling of the Unaoil Case: Independent Review
(11 months, 3 weeks ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Attorney General (Victoria Prentis)
Following the Court of Appeal’s judgment in the Unaoil case (R v. Akle and Anoi) in December 2021, the then Attorney General commissioned Sir David Calvert-Smith to conduct an independent review into the Serious Fraud Office’s (SFO) handling of the case.
Sir David’s full report was published on 21 July 2022, alongside a response to his recommendations. Sir David made 11 recommendations, which were accepted. These covered a range of matters, including record keeping and case assurance, compliance with policies, and resourcing.
At the same time, the then Attorney General laid a written ministerial statement (WMS) providing Parliament with the findings of Sir David’s review and a response to his recommendations. This statement included a commitment to update Parliament on progress in delivering these recommendations in November 2022 and February 2023.
On 29 November 2022, I laid a WMS providing the first of these updates and a detailed progress update was also published on www.gov.uk'>www.gov.uk. This update showed substantial progress in delivering Sir David’s recommendations, with the SFO having already taken significant action to implement nine of his 11 recommendations. For the two remaining recommendations, work had commenced to address Sir David’s proposals.
At the same time, this update highlighted that while many of the changes recommended by Sir David could—and have been—made quickly, it would take time to embed these changes and assess their effectiveness.
I also informed Parliament that the second progress update would be provided in May 2023 to allow the findings of an upcoming inspection of the SFO by His Majesty’s Crown Prosecution Service Inspectorate (HMCPSI) to be considered as part of the update.
Today, I am providing the second update on progress against Sir David’s recommendations. As of May 2023, there continues to be good progress. Significant action has now been taken to deliver all 11 of Sir David’s recommendations, with further activity planned in some instances. In addition, action to embed the changes that have been made and monitor their effectiveness is ongoing.
There is also independent evidence that the actions taken so far are proving to be effective. On 4 May 2023, HMCPSI published its follow-up inspection of case progression in the SFO. As part of the inspection, where issues raised in Sir David’s review were within scope, HMCPSI used the evidence gathered to assess the progress made to address his recommendations. While highlighting some areas for further work, this assessment indicated positive progress on many of his recommendations.
It nonetheless remains the case that it will take time to fully embed Sir David’s recommendations and assess whether the actions taken have been effective. To support this longer-term assessment, the Law Officers have asked the Chief Inspector of HMCPSI to consider an inspection of the recommendations’ implementation as part the HMCPSI’s inspection programme in 2024-25.
A detailed update on progress will be published on www.gov.uk today and copies will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses.
[HCWS804]
The British Nationality (Regularisation of Past Practice) Bill
(11 months, 3 weeks ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Immigration (Robert Jenrick)
The British Nationality (Regularisation of Past Practice) Bill, introduced today, will confirm in statute a long-standing historical policy under which EU, EEA and Swiss nationals living in the UK in the relevant period and exercising free movement rights here were considered to be settled.
This will protect the nationality rights of people born in the UK to parents who were considered settled on the basis of that policy, and who were treated as British automatically, and those who registered or naturalised as British citizens on that basis.
The Bill also clarifies when EU, EEA and Swiss nationals could be considered settled on the basis of exercising an equivalent right in Jersey, Guernsey and the Isle of Man, which are considered part of the UK for nationality purposes.
We want to be clear that we are not creating “new” British citizens, but rather confirming the citizenship of individuals we have long considered, and treated as, British already under established Home Office policy.
The introduction of the Bill was preceded by consultation with the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man, with relevant officials in these locations having confirmed their support for the measures that the UK Government are looking to introduce.
To support scrutiny of the Bill by both Houses, we are publishing on gov.uk and parliament.uk the following documents:
Explanatory Notes
Equality Impact Assessment
ECHR Memorandum
Factsheet
[HCWS805]
Grand Committee
Arrangement of Business
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Fookes) (Con)
My Lords, I have to give the usual notice that if there is a Division in the Chamber, which seems unlikely, this Committee will adjourn immediately for 10 minutes.
Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill
Wednesday 24th May 2023
(11 months, 3 weeks ago)
Grand CommitteeRead 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)
“Local authorities: report of land contamination(1) Within 24 months of the passing of this Act, the Secretary of State must publish a review of the incidence of land contamination in the UK.(2) The review must—(a) publish the reports in subsection (3),(b) have regard to the reports in subsection (3),(c) identify the resources required to bring all land contamination in England to safe levels, and(d) identify any necessary legislative changes to bring all land contamination to safe levels.(3) Within 12 months of the passing of this Act, local authorities in England must report to the Secretary of State on the overall incidence of land contamination in their area, and the resources needed to bring this contamination to safe levels.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would require the Secretary of State and Local Authorities to identify the level of contaminated land in England and the necessary resources to bring contamination to safe levels.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, in moving Amendment 481, I shall also speak briefly to Amendment 483, the other amendment in this group. It has not been introduced yet, so we can regard this as perhaps an amuse-bouche—a taster of what is to come—given that we are talking about growing food, as well as other things. Last week, I was at the Sheffield Festival of Debate, talking about just access to land. People were saying that what we should be doing in the House of Lords was speaking up for the right to grow food. I am looking forward to the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, and others speaking to that amendment, which really sets out an important principle.
Amendment 481 is my second attempt to bring in what is generally known as Zane’s law, named after Zane Gbangbola. The Truth About Zane campaign is still working, with a wide range of support, to get on the record the truth about the seven year-old’s death in Chertsey in 2014, when floods swept hideously toxic hydrogen cyanide into the family home. That is not what the inquest verdict concluded in 2016, but the inequality of arms in legal representation in that inquest and the illogic of the verdict—given that Zane’s father, Kye, was at the same time left paralysed by hydrogen cyanide—means that it will surely have to go back. That very much highlights a broader issue, which is why I, the family and many others are campaigning for Zane’s law.
To go back in history to set out the legal background to this issue, in 1974 the Control of Pollution Act first took control over waste disposal. When that came into effect, many historical dumps were quietly closed and, essentially, forgotten about, except perhaps by people in the local community. EU regulations on waste and pollution came in through the Environmental Protection Act 1990, tightening up controls. In particular, Section 143 provided an obligation for local authorities to investigate their area and draw up public registers of land that may be contaminated. Section 31 of that Act also gave local authorities powers to inspect and close landfills and clean them up if necessary.
The fact is that lots of housing developments are and continue to be on old landfill sites. There were three consultations between 1991 and 1993, which eventually decided that Section 143 of the 1990 Act would not be implemented and all plans for public registers of contaminated sites were to be dropped. The explanation was that it was about the cost and desire not to place “new regulatory burdens” on the private sector. Limited powers were brought back in 1995, although they did not come into force until five years later, which meant that when developers found contamination problems, public authorities had to pay. But the situation further worsened in 2011. As part of the Cameron Government’s bonfire of red tape to reduce statutory burdens, the right of the enforcement authorities to use the law was further reduced. The emphasis was on voluntary clean-up by developers, with no real power to check that it had been done.
Amendment 481 attempts to return to the situation that we would have been in if Section 143 had been implemented. In discussion about this, a noble Lord asked me who was going to pay for this measure—the big question. Being in your Lordships’ House, where we are not allowed to allocate spending, I have not addressed that issue directly in this amendment. However, proposed new subsection (2)(c) would make it the law to
“identify the resources required to bring all land contamination in England to safe levels”.
I would therefore say in answer to that question that I am going as far as I can.
The last time I brought Zane’s law before your Lordships’ House was during a debate on the Building Safety Bill in this very Room. The Labour Front Bench, albeit different from today, expressed some interest and support for the amendment—as did the Lib Dem Front Bench—but asked, “Is this really a problem?” Of course, we have the tragic death of Zane to point to and we are in a climate emergency situation, seeing increasing levels of flooding, increasing temperatures and erosion around the sea where there have often been landfill sites at sea level. These are increasing problems.
I will give the Committee some practical examples—just three cases that have been highlighted in the media in recent weeks. First, near Cedar Avenue in Coseley, Dudley, there are plans to build 72 homes on a former landfill site that was once home to hundreds of tonnes of toxic waste. It was an old open-cut coal mine that became a fishing site and then, in the 1970s, became a landfill site. Some of the things that locals recall being dumped there were fruit machines, vegetable and medical waste and up to 220 tonnes of toxic metal compounds, including industrial waste products such as mercury, arsenic, cyanide and asbestos, all of which, as I do not need to tell the Committee, are seriously concerning. There are plans to put 72 affordable homes on that site, which are currently on hold because of local controversy, as far as I am able to establish.
Secondly, in the village of Somercotes in Derbyshire there are plans to develop hundreds of homes on a patch of land dubbed the most contaminated site in England. It is supposed to include particularly highly toxic dioxins, which have been illegally dumped there in the past. My third case study is the 263-home Coppenhall Place development in Crewe, Cheshire, where it is feared that the homes have been built on a contaminated site.
We have a very clear issue here, and an approaching issue with the Government talking about building hundreds of thousands of new homes and the rightful desire to put them on brownfield sites. The first thing we have to know is what is on those brownfield sites and whether they are suitable for housing, in view of the potential contamination problems. That is what this amendment would do. It is not particularly new or creative; it simply seeks to bring in something that decades ago was thought necessary and is clearly even more necessary now.
I will keep pushing this. I would love to think that the Minister will leap up and say, “Yes, you’re absolutely right”, but I ask the Government at least to look at this issue, because there is a problem here that clearly affects many people and presents an enormous risk to their lives. Surely, a basic duty of the Government is to ensure the security of people in their own homes, which, quite frankly, they are unable to do now because they are not empowering, directing and resourcing local authorities to ensure that they know what is in their land. I beg to move.
Baroness Boycott (CB)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 483, which is in my name and those of the noble Baronesses, Lady Scott of Needham Market and Lady Young of Old Scone, and the noble Earl, Lord Caithness. I am very glad that this group of amendments has been reached today, because otherwise we would not have had the noble Earl with us. That is great.
Baroness Boycott (CB)
It is a real bonus. This is an incredibly simple amendment. It does not demand money, it demands very little to be done and it would bring an enormous number of benefits. As the amendment says, we are asking councils across the country to publish lists of where there is vacant land within their area that could be suitable for food growing or other kinds of growing. Take a group such as Incredible Edible Todmorden; it has grown both vegetables as well as flowers. It cheers up a neighbourhood but does a great deal more.
This first important thing to say is that we are not asking for allotments. Allotments are completely impossible, as anyone who has ever been involved in any campaign to get rid of an allotment will know. Allotments are there in perpetuity, as it should be, and they cover large areas, and the queues for them are huge. I have a couple of examples: the queue in Camden is 12 years, and in Southampton it is 20 years. More allotments are not going to be created—they need to be on land in the middle of town, which will therefore be seen as prime for building houses—but we can get community growing spaces.
In the belief that any good idea is best told in stories, I will tell your Lordships a few stories. In 2008 I went to work for the then Mayor of London, Boris Johnson—he later became Prime Minister, but that is another matter—as chair of the London Food Board. Not long after I got there, I was approached by a very eager group, which said: “We’ve seen something that was done in Vancouver before the Olympics, where they created edible community gardens. We want to do 2,012 gardens in London by 2012”. “Uh oh”, I thought, “How is that going to happen?” But I thought it was a good project—and, I have to say, so did the mayor.
We undertook the project and in the autumn of 2008 we opened the first garden at the Thrive garden in Battersea. It is a vegetable garden that is primarily used for people who have mental health issues—their doctors prescribe a session at Thrive for them. It is still going. There are many Thrive gardens, and it is extraordinarily important in what it does for people having a traumatic and difficult time.
However, things were very slow. We got hardly any gardens, and we could not figure it out. Councils and hospitals were reluctant; there was space, but what could we do? Then a man from the water board said, “What you need is a meanwhile lease”. That is a very simple thing: it says that you can be there for a few years but can be thrown out. That changed everything. Overnight, it flipped this project from being, quite frankly, hopeless to suddenly being a runner. We would assemble leaders of councils for breakfast, and I would collar them and say, “I want you to do 60 sites”. We would go to the housing associations and ask them to do 10 or 15 sites. Bit by bit, over years 2 and 3, we suddenly started to have this explosion of gardens.
Today, we have 2,500 gardens. We opened the 2,012th at St Charles Hospital in the north of Ladbroke Grove in the winter of 2012—it is a fantastic garden and is still going. I remember some of the objections. Most of these gardens did not have fences and it was said that people would steal from them. Weirdly, no one ever stole. In fact, we opened a garden outside City Hall, by Tower Bridge. We got the patch of land, and someone called the Phantom Guerrilla Gardener would come by and plant extra plants—it was all very mysterious but wonderful.
We had a garden in King’s Cross, which, following on from what the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, said, was on contaminated land. Some genius came up with the idea that we could have a garden in a skip, and furthermore that the skip could move. We had three skips on one of those sites just behind the station—sites which are now unrecognisably beautiful and modern. We had three gardens, which you climbed up to; they were used by schools on Tuesday and Thursday mornings. Then the building developers wanted the site back, so they picked up the skips and moved them to another site, with the gardens. We did that three times before it was finally filled in.
We had gardens that were in the middle of tower blocks. When the designers in the 1950s put up those pretty terrifying concrete blocks, they left areas in the middle. We saw photographs of people walking, pushing children in their prams and walking dogs, but nowadays they are completely terrifying, because they are full of old needles and dog poo, rather than nice dogs on leads. People did not want to come down from the tower blocks and go there. But put a garden in, and something magical happens. People became protective of it and felt they could come downstairs and join in.
Baroness Young of Old Scone (Lab)
My Lords, I support Amendment 483, to which I have put my name. I will not repeat that excellent introduction by the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, but simply commend the amendment on the basis that it is probably truer to the title of the Bill and to levelling up—which we have drifted rather away from in many of the recent amendments—than many others. It is about healthy food, environmental improvement and well-being. For me, it is mostly about allowing communities to express self-agency and be the driving force in achieving those benefits.
I pay tribute to Incredible Edible, a group that the noble Baroness mentioned, which is a force of nature. If noble Lords want to see some really uplifting stories about what communities can do, they should go on its website. The point it makes on a regular basis is that, often, the land we are talking about is already in taxpayer ownership—owned by public authorities—but temporarily not doing very much and could be brought into use for a number of months or years, until its permanent use has been agreed and taken forward.
The noble Baroness was very uplifting with her stories of success, but I am a miserable soul. I will tell the Committee why this needs to be in law, rather than simply in admonition. I was involved very tangentially in an attempt to get a community growing scheme going in one of our major cities. It was led by a celebrity gardener, working with a group of local residents. It was exactly that: an acre or two for a shorter or longer period—however long it could be released—for a community in a particularly disadvantaged area to grow their own food and encourage young people to get involved. It was hugely flexible, and we did not much care where or how long for, provided that they could get started.
There were terrific words of support from the top end of the local authority but, three years later, they still had no land, so they gave up. Every plot that was identified had some reason or other why it could not be used. The lawyers got in the way and there were always health and safety and insurance issues, which became a morass that they could not get out of. However, it is great to hear from the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, that there are lots of good examples, including from Incredible Edible.
This amendment would do a couple of things. First, it asks the local authority to do something very simple: to list the bits of land available on a transient basis that could be used for community cultivation, or even just for simple environmental improvement. Secondly, it could be underpinned by what the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, called a “meanwhile lease”—something like a certificate of lawful use, a simple agreement between the local authority and the community gardeners that is standard across the country, has already been crawled over once by the lawyers and therefore does not need to be crawled over on every occasion and avoids the expense and slowing-down effect of lawyers being involved on both sides and every agreement having to be negotiated afresh. I hope that the Government will have a rush of blood to the head in this run-up to the bank holiday and support this amendment.
The Earl of Caithness (Con)
My Lords, as we enter this record-breaking 15th day in Committee on a Bill, I pay huge tribute to my noble friends on the Front Bench and noble Lords on the Opposition Front Bench for their considerable patience, humour and endurance.
The sadness of this levelling-up Bill, which has not ground us down, is that there has been absolutely no give from the Government. I am not as hopeful as the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, for this amendment, because I fear that the top right-hand corner of the Minister’s brief will say, “Reject”. If I may say so, that has not helped the process of this Bill. Perhaps a message could be sent back to the department that, if one wants to get the Bill through this House, there could be a little more understanding that a lot of the amendments, whether from the Opposition or our side, are there to constructively help the Bill, not destroy it. Because we do not divide in Committee, we will have to go through the whole process in a few weeks’ time on Report, which will be longer and more agonising than it might necessarily have been.
I come at this from a different perspective from the noble Baroness, who made an interesting speech from her own experience. When I came here, I was told that you speak on your honour and experience and vote on your conscience. It is wonderful that we have someone like the noble Baroness, with her experience, but I come at this from the point of view of having served on the Food, Poverty, Health and Environment Committee of your Lordships’ House. The devastating evidence that we received on food made me reassess what the priorities ought to be. Food in this country will probably kill you more quickly than any disease. We eat an enormous amount of processed food—it is 57% of our diet. Some 80% of the processed food that we eat in this country is not fit to be fed to children. It is not good for us, which is why 60% of us are obese and the number is growing. It is one of the unsung scandals that will one day hit the headlines in a major way. Hopefully, we can take some action before that happens. The cost is astronomical. It is estimated that the bad food that we eat contributes to losses of about £74 billion a year to the British economy.
That is the angle that I come at this from, so let us do anything we can to help to grow and produce our own vegetables freshly. It must be devastatingly sad for farmers to grow top-quality food—because our standards are so high—only to have it macerated into virtual poison and sold in supermarkets. What a waste of time and effort, from their point of view.
I also come at this from the health and recreation angle, picking up the point of the noble Baroness, Lady Young. I do not have my own kitchen garden, but I dig my daughter’s. I have been fascinated by doing that with my grandson because, over the last three years, I have noticed a considerable change: this year, he was fascinated by the difference in the sizes of the seeds of the peas, the salads and the courgettes. He kept asking why each one was different and why they were not all the same. He has now taken charge of his vegetables in the garden. His willingness to eat green vegetables has gone up in proportion to his interest in the garden, because they are his vegetables and they are now on his plate. He has seen them grow—he helped me to plant them and will help me to pick them this autumn.
When I was doing this with him a couple of weekends ago, I thought that this amendment absolutely encapsulates that. I gave your Lordships just one instance, but, if this were done on a much bigger scale, not only would there be recreational and mental health benefits from being outside and digging the garden but the young would be educated. My grandson and I now have a competition about who is the first to see the robin once we start digging, because, sure enough, one will appear on a fence-post, looking for what we have turned over in the hope of getting a free meal. If this can be done for those who have never had the experience of handling food in its natural state, the benefits could be amazing.
Going back to what the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, said about the gardens that she helped to create in London, I multiply my experience of this and think, “Yes, we can do something”. That is why I hope that the Government will take on board that this is something where local authorities can give a real benefit. It is not allotments; it has to be on a different scale from that. We have heard about the problem with allotments and how long the waiting lists are, so a different tack has to be taken to try to get the local authorities to move, because the end benefits are so worth while.
Lord Foster of Bath (LD)
I assure the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, that we on these Benches have supported her in the past and will continue to do so. I should reveal that it was me who quietly raised the issue of resources with her just before we began. I note that the amendment mentions identifying
“resources required to bring all land contamination in England to safe levels”.
I say to her and the Committee that that will be a challenging task. She rightly pointed out that, in your Lordships’ House, we are not allowed to discuss those matters, but I hope that someone will take this on board, whether through this amendment or through anything else, because it is a big issue.
This is a helpful reminder to us that, if we recognise that huge problems are caused by land that was previously contaminated, we have to make sure that we are not continuing to create problems for the future with the contamination of land now. Separately, I have been looking into the issue of lithium-ion batteries and the way we are currently disposing of them, which I do not believe we have yet addressed. There are all sorts of problems. People have been killed by lithium-ion batteries exploding, but increasingly they are being dumped, not least in single-use vapes, which, sadly, many young children are now using. They are thrown away in landfill sites and cause all sorts of problems. It is worth checking what lithium can do: lithium toxicity can lead to cancer, brain damage and even death, so we are currently creating toxicity in our landfill sites that we need to address. This is a reminder to do that.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, we appreciate all the reasons powerfully set out by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, in her proposal in Amendment 481 to instigate a nationwide assessment of land contamination and put in place steps to mitigate that contamination. The push to use brownfield sites for development, which the noble Baroness referred to, is another key reason why this is becoming even more of an issue. As the noble Lord, Lord Foster, said, there are some practicalities around the resources that would be needed for such a survey, while mitigation might be even more challenging.
As the noble Baroness said, at present land contamination is usually determined at, although sometimes before, the planning stage. The developer is then charged, albeit voluntarily, with ensuring that contamination is cleared before the development can go ahead—except, of course, in Teesside, where the public seem to pick up the tab.
There is a case to be made for employing a polluter pays principle, which might be successful where contamination of the land is relatively recent, but that will not always be the case, so some further thought needs to be given to this. If we are going to carry on using more brownfield sites, we will have more occasions when we need to work out how this will be done. Further consideration is certainly needed for that amendment.
The amendment in the names of the noble Baronesses, Lady Boycott and Lady Scott, my noble friend Lady Young and the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, builds on a truly uplifting initiative that we have seen in many areas recently, where councils designate areas of public land that can be used for community cultivation. I was pleased to hear the fantastic examples from the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott.
In my area, we have some beautiful community orchards, funded through local council budgets, but very much at the instigation of the public and with their support for the ongoing maintenance and cultivation. It was just wonderful to hear a conversation in the orchard in my ward between two gentlemen who had harvested the quince tree—we do not have a lot of quinces in Stevenage but we have a quince tree in my orchard. They had found recipes for quince jelly and were standing there comparing notes about the variable qualities of their quince jelly, which was wonderful to hear. It has also been a real pleasure to see local groups taking on the cultivation and management of small parcels of land to improve the street scene in their own area. In some cases, these are designated as pocket parks; in others, they are operated under the licence to cultivate regulations.
The provisions set out in this amendment are proportionate and sensible in requiring a determination by the local authority of what is meant by community cultivation, how it is to be designated and nominated, the setting of clear parameters around the timescales for which land may be made available—I like the idea of a meanwhile lease on these areas—and the publication of lists of such land. We believe that a provision for community cultivation in this way would build on the initiatives already developing in our communities, provide a welcome but very different element to the ever-popular allotment movement—most areas have long waiting lists, as we have heard—and give residents a real stake in managing and cultivating their local area. In some cases, it would provide a way of growing much-needed fresh fruit and vegetables for the community. The noble Earl, Lord Caithness, referred to the quality of food. These projects of course have a double benefit, which was outlined by the noble Earl in reference to his grandson, because people learn about food as they grow it and then also have fresh food to eat.
With all the objectives of this amendment—healthy food, the environment, well-being, community engagement and meanwhile leases of land not currently being used —I cannot see any reason why it could not be accepted by the Government. I hope that it will be.
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
My Lords, in response to Amendment 481 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, of course this Government support lessening the risks from contaminated land. Indeed, I well remember our debates on Zane’s law throughout the passage of the Environment Bill and the noble Baroness’s passion for this subject.
Under Part 2A of the Environmental Protection Act 1990, local authorities already have a duty to inspect their areas “from time to time” to identify and require the remediation of any land prior to any housebuilding. Current statutory guidance states that a local authority’s approach to inspection should “reflect local circumstances”. This enables a flexible approach to providing value for money and to protecting the environment and human health. There is also a duty for the Environment Agency to report on the state of contaminated land “from time to time’, or
“if the Secretary of State at any time so requests”.
The noble Baronesses, Lady Bennett and Lady Taylor, and the noble Lord, Lord Foster, expressed concerns about resources. The 2012 contaminated land statutory guidance outlines the polluter pays principle, enabling, where possible, costs of remediating pollution to be borne by the polluter. Under Part 2A of the Environmental Protection Act 1990, the Environment Agency may inspect on behalf of a local authority if a local authority identifies contaminated land that it considers will meet one or more criteria for special site designation, as set out in the Contaminated Land (England) Regulations 2006. If the land is determined as a special site, the Environment Agency will become the enforcing authority and responsible for requiring appropriate remediation to the site.
If no polluter can be found and the site is not designated as a special site, the local authority must investigate and require appropriate remediation of the site. The Government recognise that the costs of remediation, including landfill tax, can be a financial barrier for local authorities seeking the remediation of contaminated land. Defra is currently developing a grant scheme to help local authorities to cover the cost of landfill tax in land remediation projects. In 2023, Defra will publish a revised Construction Code of Practice for the Sustainable Use of Soils on Construction Sites, which will empower and inform industry to protect its sites’ soil health, prevent contamination and mitigate soil being deposited in landfill. I hope that that provides a modicum of reassurance.
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
May I finish? Not all land contamination may be able to be remediated, for a variety of reasons. A risk-based approach is used to define contaminated land, where regulators are required to intervene in cases where land poses an unacceptable risk.
The cleaning up of contaminated land ensures that brownfield sites are safe for their intended use, such as housebuilding. Land contamination has been successfully addressed in many cases through the planning system. In the majority of cases the risk is likely to be very low and the value of the land may not be high enough for remediation to be economically viable.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
I thank the Minister for giving way. She identified cases where there is an application for building permission and a case where something is drawn to the attention of the Environment Agency. The problem is that we know that there are many hundreds of sites out there that present a risk to the local community and perhaps to houses built on it. Unless there is a survey to identify the problem, the first time we will know that there is one will be in tragic cases such as Zane’s.
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
Much of that may be down to limited resources. The grant scheme Defra is putting in place should help ameliorate that by enabling local authorities to take more proactive action if they realise their costs might be covered by the grant scheme.
On Amendment 483, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, the Government agree that community assets play a vital role in creating thriving neighbourhoods. These are places where we meet, connect and spend time with our neighbours.
The Localism Act 2011 already enables communities and parish or community councils with the right to register a building or a piece of land as an asset of community value if the asset’s principal use furthers their community’s social well-being or social interests and is likely to do so in future. I was pleased to hear the noble Lord, Lord Foster, refer to this. The assets of community value process also provides communities with the opportunity to raise finance and bid to buy a local asset of community value. This could include land for cultivation. Local communities should determine which spaces and places are most important to them.
I agree that meanwhile leases sound interesting. I certainly had not heard of them before. I should like to discuss them with the officials in Defra, whom I am afraid could not be here to respond today.
I hope this provides sufficient reassurance, and that the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, will feel able to withdraw her amendment and the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, will not press hers.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I thank everyone who contributed to this debate, which was fairly brief on my side but extremely rich on the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott. The case was overwhelmingly and passionately made on that amendment.
On my amendment, I thank in particular the two Front-Benchers for acknowledging in different ways that there is an issue that needs to be addressed. I hope that is something both parties will consider taking forward when they think about their manifestos for the election that we know is not too far away.
I am afraid the Minister might find that I will come back on the same issue on the next available Bill, because I do not want another child to die like Zane did. I think that the Government have a responsibility. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
“Removal of prohibition on local authority from making grants to churches etc.In section 8(1)(i) of the Local Government Act 1894 (works to church property), omit “, not being property relating to affairs of the church or held for an ecclesiastical charity”.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment would remove the prohibition concerning churches and ecclesiastical charities in section 8(1)(i) of the Local Government Act 1894 and would ensure that local authorities’ spending power under section 8(1)(k) could be used to make grants to places of worship.
The Lord Bishop of Bristol
My Lords, I am pleased to speak to my Amendments 485, 505, 510 and 512. I thank the Government for making time so soon after the conclusion of the debate on Monday. I declare my interests as a board member of the Church Commissioners, as set out in the register, and as the Church of England’s lead bishop for church buildings. Noble Lords will also recall the debate on Amendment 163, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Needham Market, which took place earlier in Committee on 15 March.
I tabled these four amendments to clarify the issue of local authority funding responsibilities for all Christian churches, including parish churches. The Bill affords the opportunity to bring much-needed clarity to this issue and resolve a long-standing problem. I am delighted to say that these amendments have received strong cross-party support, and I am particularly grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Cormack and Lord Best, and the noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, for acting as sponsors. The noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, is unable to be in her place today, but I am assured of her continued support for these amendments.
Lord Best (CB)
My Lords, I support the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Bristol. I will speak to Amendments 485, 505, 510 and 512 in her name and mine, and those of the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, and the noble Baroness, Lady Andrews. I declare one or two interests that have not been relevant before: until last year I was a Church Commissioner, and my wife is a member of our local parochial church council.
The amendments would clarify a grey area of the law and ensure that local parish and town councils can make grants, if they wish, to projects that involve ecclesiastical buildings. At last, we have an amendment that costs the Government nothing, does not require anyone to do anything they do not want to do, helps build and sustain local communities, chimes with the principles of devolved decision-making, involves no political controversy and deprives lawyers of undeserved fees for pointless legal cases.
The amendment addresses the situation facing a local council that wishes to support a local initiative by an ecclesiastical charity. Making grants to such bodies toward building works of any kind was prohibited by Section 8 of the Local Government Act 1894. It is believed that the Government intended to remove this barrier to local grant-making through Section 215 of the Local Government Act 1972, but doubts remained as to whether the 1972 Act achieved this intention.
On behalf of its 10,000-member local councils, the National Association of Local Councils obtained legal advice which it has been obliged to share. The advice was, unfortunately, that the 1894 Act still stands because it is a specific prohibition, despite the intentions of the 1972 Act, which addresses generalities. There is no point anyone blaming the messenger; the fact is that the legal position appears to be clear: parish and local councils cannot give grants toward works by ecclesiastical charities.
As a result of this interpretation of the legal position, some church bodies, of different denominations, have had grant applications rejected by local councils and many more are put off making applications, even though those councils may be keen to help. Often, the applications have been for small but locally significant initiatives. Typical examples collected by the Historic Religious Buildings Alliance of church-based projects where support was refused include the funding of a disabled toilet in a church hall not used as a place of worship but by a range of secular groups. Support could also not be offered for a nonconformist hall creating a meeting place for Guides and Scouts.
Many local church organisations have converted church buildings into centres for community activity—for classes, a café, food banks, youth clubs, et cetera—often while retaining use of the building as a place of worship. Similarly, ecclesiastical charities have modified their church halls for the benefit of local people. Grants for the retention of what is often a landmark building, frequently in the centre of town, for a renewed or extended purpose, give new life to places that have served local communities for sometimes hundreds of years. The alternative of demolishing a redundant church building not only loses this opportunity for the benefit of the locality but takes away a visual asset that can enhance a sense of place and belonging.
It has been suggested that local councils should take cases to the courts, as the right reverend Prelate has mentioned, to test the legal position. If it then becomes clear that no such grants can be made, new facilitating legislation could be introduced. However, this forgoes the opportunity to act now through the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill. There might be a very long wait before another legislative opportunity arises. Anyway, it seems unfair that Parliament should pass the buck to the courts to decide this matter instead of expressing its will clearly and definitively. Moreover, going to law is a costly business and should clearly be avoided if at all possible.
The wording of these four amendments may well be imperfect; I am sure the right reverend Prelate and all of us supporting them would be more than happy with a government amendment that achieves the same outcome more elegantly. There are only winners here. I look forward very much to the Minister’s response.
Lord Cormack (Con)
My Lords, I am delighted to follow the right reverend Prelate and the noble Lord, Lord Best. I agree with everything they said. I begin with an apology to the Committee; I have not played the part in debates on this Bill that I would like to have done because I have been caring for a wife recovering from an operation and have not been able to be present late into the night. I am grateful that things came to a halt in the Chamber on Monday, which enabled us to be here today.
I declare an interest in that I have been a church warden of three churches for a total of 36 years, in each of which I had to be in charge of or strongly supporting an appeal. I remember being church warden in the early 1970s in the village of Brewood in Staffordshire, when we suddenly discovered dry rot. We had to raise some £40,000 very quickly, and we did it. When I was church warden at St Margaret’s, Westminster, we had to raise £1 million in the early 1980s, and we did it. At Enville, in Staffordshire, where I was warden for some 16 years, we had to raise something like £250,000, and we did it—but with great difficulty. As one who has been a trustee and then a vice-president of the National Churches Trust for well over 40 years, president of the Staffordshire Historic Churches Trust for some 20 years, and vice-president of the Lincolnshire Churches Trust for a very long time, I speak with a little knowledge and great feeling.
Lord Stunell (LD)
My Lords, I support the amendments in this group. We had a clear and compelling case put to us by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Bristol. I thank her very much for that. She was very ably supported by the noble Lord, Lord Best, who emphasised what, to me, is the really significant part of the value that would come from the passage of these amendments.
Clearly, the heritage angle, which is one that the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, dwelt on effectively, is important. However, in the context of the levelling-up Bill, I say to Ministers that the social and community impact of investment by parish councils in their local facilities is a key part of ensuring that we have some levelling up. Perhaps principally in rural and suburban areas, but throughout the country, it is absolutely normal—I would say commonplace—for church buildings and buildings for those of other faiths to be used by the local community for a wide range of community functions, such as recreational functions, learning and educational functions, and food banks, as mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Best. I should perhaps have said by way of introduction that I am a member of the Methodist Church. Quite close to me is a Baptist church, and a significant part of its building is used as a very busy food bank; that is by no means an unusual situation.
The Minister’s letter expressed the view that this was a small issue which affected only quite a specific, niche situation. I put it to her that there are thousands of buildings which at the moment are excluded from help by parish councils and which perform valuable community functions, and where that exclusion is pointless and disabling for the development of those facilities and that community. I hope that her approach to this is gradually changing. I hope that her most recent letter gives a little glimmer of hope that perhaps she recognises the force of the arguments being deployed today, which were set out so clearly by the right reverend Prelate.
I very much hope that the Minister will offer a commitment to re-examine this before we get to Report, and, if she is able, to persuade her ministerial colleagues to table an amendment on Report that we can all enthusiastically endorse. If not, and if the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Bristol is minded to do so, I will certainly support her in an amendment of her own on Report.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, I have made only one intervention in Committee, which was on my pet subject: leasehold. I will not do that today. First, I will get on the record a number of interests. I am a vice-president of the Local Government Association, the chair of a housing association in Kent, and a director of MHS Homes, as set out in the register.
I offer my full support to the right reverend Prelate in her amendments. This is one of these debates where all sides of the Committee are happy to come together. They can see the sense of the amendments and, as the noble Lord pointed out, they are easy amendments for the government to agree. There is no cost to the Government and they are passive—no one has to do anything at all. However, the amendments would allow people to do something if they want, which is the good thing about them.
I hope that, as the noble Lord, Lord Stunell, said, we will get a positive response from the Minister—at least a commitment to meet people, go back and talk to officials, and bring back a government amendment that deals with this issue and provides for clarity. That is what these amendments are all about: providing clarity on an unclear issue. I know that the Government would want to ensure that things are clear.
I should say that I was brought up a Catholic. I grew up in Elephant and Castle in south London. I would probably describe myself as a lapsed Catholic, but I was brought up as a Catholic and come from a large, Irish Catholic family. My two younger brothers and my sister regularly attended the youth club at St Paul’s, in Lorrimore Square, run by the Reverend Shaw—a wonderful man who retired a few years ago. He set up the youth club and a mental health drop-in centre. When he retired, I had become a local councillor. We went to his retirement do and you could not move in the place. There was a complete cross-section of the community—people of different faiths and of no faith. Everyone there knew what this man had done in that parish church in the Walworth area of south London. He had done everything. If you were a young person growing up in that part of south London, there was not really much else to do. This parish church had become the centre of the community. Why can it not be that if a local authority wants to support such a place, they can do so? It seems ridiculous that they cannot.
As we have said, this is about having clarity about what councils can and cannot do if they want to support different things. My experience as a councillor was many years ago, but I am conscious of the work that churches do now, as the right reverend Prelate set out herself. People in many different situations are going through difficult times and churches host different groups and organisations—people can go in just to have a cup of tea and be warm. Such places are really important in communities and, sometimes, all that is now there is the local parish church and the church hall.
I really hope that the Minister is convinced by what she has heard today. There have been many good arguments made around the Room. As the noble Lord, Lord Best, said, these amendments on their own would not do anything at all, but they would enable things to be done. I hope the noble Baroness will support them. I will leave it there.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Levelling Up, Housing & Communities (Baroness Scott of Bybrook) (Con)
My Lords, first, I thank the right reverend prelate the Bishop of Bristol, my noble friend Lord Cormack and the noble Lords, Lord Best and Lord Scriven, for raising these amendments. They highlight the confusion around the prohibition in the Local Government Act 1894 and therefore attempt to clarify the basis on which local authorities are able to provide support to churches and other places of worship.
Amendments 485, 505, 510 and 512 aim to do this by removing some of the wording from that Act. Amendment 504GJJ, which has been withdrawn from the Marshalled List, would have aimed to do that by providing that the powers in the 1894 Act could be used to provide support to places of worship to ensure that, where they are used to offer support and services that are of benefit to the wider community, the facilities could be maintained and operated safely and effectively by, for example, helping meet the costs of maintenance and repairs. However, the Government do not consider that these amendments would be effective in achieving these aims.
The intention of the Local Government Act 1894 was to provide a clear separation between the newly created civil parishes and what are now parochial church councils. However, the Government do not consider that it includes any general or specific provision that prohibits parish councils from funding the maintenance and upkeep of churches and other religious buildings. Parish councils have other powers that enable their contribution towards the upkeep of these buildings, if it were deemed to be within their local communities’ interest to do so. However, I understand the confusion and I thank the noble Lords who have raised these amendments. We have heard their concerns that the law may be ambiguous, and I know this is of great concern to parishes and noble Lords. I can assure them that we in the department are considering this issue carefully and will reflect on the comments made during this debate.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, that was, I think, half a good answer. It was not perfect, by any means.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
Yes, it was promising. It is good that the department will look at this matter, but I hope that, as part of that reflection on the matter, the department will get the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Bristol in and speak to her and other people. It is one thing that we are all saying that it is fine, but if the department gets legal advice that it is not fine, no one will do anything, will they? That is the basic problem we have here: there is legal advice saying this is not fine. Then people will be nervous, saying “If I do this, I will be going beyond my powers”. That will cause all sorts of problems. If there is ambiguity here but all of us agree that what has been suggested is a good thing, I really do not understand why we cannot clear up the ambiguity. I hope that we can address that. If we all agree that it is good, then let us make it absolutely crystal clear and not leave it so that we have problems with legal opinions that are different from what the Government are saying.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
I am pretty sure the noble Lord opposite knows that I will not say anything further today, apart from the fact that we have had many talks with the National Association of Local Councils and interested churches, and we will continue to do so as we move to Report.
The Lord Bishop of Bristol
My Lords, I thank the Minister and my fellow sponsors for a useful and effective debate. I thank them for their support in clarifying the law. Rather naughtily, I wonder, if there is not yet enough commitment for the Government to bring their own proposals, whether the Government might fund the legal case that might otherwise be necessary to create clarity on this issue. I hope that the Minister hears that there is real confusion in localities about this and there is inhibition to supporting these ecclesiastical charities.
I hope very much that the Government will be persuaded to bring their own amendments on Report. My fellow sponsors and I stand ready to offer to help in any way. For instance, we could convene representatives of not just the Church of England but other denominations. I am grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Stunell and Lord Kennedy, for mentioning the ecumenical aspect of this. At this stage, it is necessary to achieve the clarity that the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, very pointedly mentioned. I look forward to working with the Minister and her team ahead of Report; I hope that will be possible.
I conclude that these amendments are necessary, as I have stated. They would enable all Christian denominations, like all other faith communities, to continue to live out their calling and provide a space to support those in need in their communities. However, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment standing in my name on the Order Paper.
“No fault evictionsWithin one year of this Act being passed, a Minister of the Crown must publish a review of whether legislating to prohibit no fault evictions would support the implementation of this Act.”
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, first, I apologise that I have to leave before the end of the session today. The late setting of the time for this session means that I have another engagement at the same time.
The LURB has become a bit of club, albeit niche, over these 15 days of Committee. There will be time to thank other people working on the Bill in due course, but, as she steps down from her Front-Bench role, I thank very much indeed the noble Baroness, Lady Bloomfield, for her courtesy, diligence and good humour during the days spent on this Bill.
Our Amendment 492 refers to the topic of no-fault evictions—much discussed in your Lordships’ House—and suggests putting provision in the Bill to cease this practice. At present, landlords can evict tenants without giving a reason and by issuing a Section 21 notice. This gives tenants just two months before their landlord can apply for an eviction order. Last year, research by Shelter said that nearly 230,000 private renters had been served with no-fault eviction notices since April 2019.
The utter misery and fear this creates for people in rented property is untold. I deal with so many cases of this as a local councillor. There is disruption when people have to move schools, particularly for families that have children with special educational needs and have to be moved away from one school but may not have the provision they need in another school. It disrupts work, childcare and people’s social lives and contacts. We have to think about how we address this issue.
We appreciate that there have been recent announcements from the Government about the Renters (Reform) Bill that may address this practice. However, surely the quickest and most effective way to end this practice, which has caused so much distress to renters—including the disruption to family life that I mentioned—and, importantly, adds to the homelessness burden on local authorities, is to put this measure into the levelling-up Bill.
We understand that, under the proposed reforms, landlords will be able to evict tenants only in certain circumstances, including when they wish to sell the property or when they or a close family member want to move in, and only after a six-month notice period. However, we believe that after three months they will be free to put the property back on the rental market. We also point out that, under the current proposals, renters who receive a possession notice will no longer have the right to immediate help from their council to avoid homelessness. Shelter is calling for these time periods to increase and for the notice period for evictions to increase from two to four months. In areas of high housing demand where supply is limited, it can take months for a family to find a new property suitable for their needs. These short time periods for evictions cause untold stress and harm to the families affected.
Our Amendment 504GJF in the name of my noble friend Lady Hayman and the noble Lords, Lord Young, Lord Wasserman and Lord Best, refers to the long-standing issue of the Vagrancy Act 1824. It asks Ministers what impact they think the continuing provisions of this ancient Act will have on levelling up and regeneration. As recently as 17 May, my noble friend Lady Kennedy of Cradley raised this issue in your Lordships’ House, pointing out that
“the delay in commencing the repeal of the Vagrancy Act has left this matter unresolved for more than a year. In that time, more than 1,000 vulnerable people have been arrested under its provisions”.
In response to the Minister’s Answer that
“we will repeal the Vagrancy Act when suitable replacement legislation is brought forward”,
my noble friend pointed out the concern that the Government are seeking
“to recriminalise homelessness through new anti-social behaviour legislation … contrary to the principles established in the Government’s rough sleeping initiative. That is, in effect, the Vagrancy Act by the back door.”—[Official Report, 17/5/23; col. 240.]
We believe the Government could now move past criminalisation as a response to homelessness and offer genuine, workable support. It is simply not acceptable as we move rapidly forward towards the second century of this punitive Act being in place that we are waiting to repeal it until we can find a similarly punitive alternative. The levelling-up Bill could and should be the place to address the issues of those who are street homeless.
Look at projects such as the Finnish Housing First, where packages of support for people with complex needs are delivered alongside housing. We have delivered some of this in my borough, using modern methods of construction homes. They make a real difference; four out of five of the people supported in this way end their homelessness for good and get themselves on a different path in life. The levelling-up Bill would really be doing its job properly if it addressed issues such as that. Our amendment would start the process of making sure that we consider street homelessness a levelling-up challenge. I beg to move.
Lord Best (CB)
My Lords, I support Amendment 504GJF from the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, also supported by the noble Lords, Lord Young of Cookham and Lord Wasserman. However, this is not the amendment I would have liked to see. That would read: “The Vagrancy Act 1824 is hereby repealed”. That amendment was ruled to be outside the scope of this Bill. This amendment is a tentative step in the right direction and the very least we should be taking forward at this stage.
Your Lordships’ House played a crucial part in getting the repeal of this antiquated Act into the House of Commons’ version of the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022. This House passed the repeal amendment on a cold February night, at 25 minutes past midnight, earning the thanks of the coalition of homeless charities, led by Crisis, that had campaigned for this change over many years. In the Commons, Nickie Aiken MP and the right honourable Robert Jenrick MP helped secure this repeal, and all that remained was for the commencement date to be set. But the Government postponed the repeal for well over a year, pending the results of consultation on whether losing the 1824 legislation would deprive police forces of powers they need to address “aggressive begging”.
Those of us involved in the efforts to get rid of this archaic Act have emphasised two points. First, the criminalisation of people sleeping rough not only sends out all the wrong messages in a civilised society but directly undermines efforts to help people off the streets and provide them with the support—for example, to tackle alcohol and substance misuse and mental health problems—that they desperately need. Many homeless people, knowing that homelessness is itself illegal, will not come forward, even if they are abused and harassed by obnoxious bullies. The police have a role not in arresting the homeless but in supporting them to receive the help they need. Indeed, it would seem a step forward if the Homelessness Reduction Act 2017—which requires certain public bodies, including prisons, to notify local authorities when they know of people at risk of homelessness—could be extended to embrace the police as well.
Secondly, there is the objection that powers need to be retained from the old Act—invented or included in a new Act—to protect the public from anti-social begging. We considered this point when discussing the repeal of the Vagrancy Act with Ministers. We were not convinced that there are gaps in existing legislation that need new laws. The Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 provided a range of powers to deal with nuisance of this kind. Other legislation, including the Modern Slavery Act 2015, addresses cases where criminal gangs are involved. Drawing upon the expert legal advice of the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, we concluded that it was entirely unnecessary to create new legislation to supplement all of the existing police powers. Indeed, only a very small minority of police forces currently make use of the Vagrancy Act, strongly suggesting that, since the others are operating without recourse to the penal measures in the old Act, a new Bill is quite unnecessary.
I recently asked the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe of Epsom, for news of positive action by the Government to end street homelessness, which they aspire to do by the end of 2024. It was good to hear the positive measures being taken to fund local initiatives and support multiagency working. There is much more to do, and I encourage the Government to step up the important positive work to ease the miseries of those sleeping rough on our streets. In the meantime, let us have all the evidence that government has collected on the Vagrancy Act, including its damaging impact. Let us move forward as quickly as possible towards the repeal of this dreadful relic of the Napoleonic Wars, before its 200th anniversary.
Lord Foster of Bath (LD)
My Lords, I am sure that we are all disappointed that we will not hear from the noble Lord who also sponsored these amendments—
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
There is a convention that, if you speak in a debate, you have to stay until the wind-ups. Sadly, I have a commitment that means that that would not be possible. I endorse everything that has been said.
Lord Foster of Bath (LD)
We are grateful to the noble Lord, and we will miss him for the rest of our deliberations.
We have had many interesting debates on the issue of housing during the discussion on the Bill, from the need to introduce the decent homes standard into the privately rented sector or to address much more urgently the need to improve the energy efficiency of our homes. But I would argue that these amendments are particularly critical, not least during the cost of living crisis, as they deal with the really important issue of evictions and homelessness. Of course, they come at a time when there is huge pressure on temporary accommodation, given all the additional demands being made—not least, in housing refugees. We know that local councils are massively stretched and are using bed and breakfasts and hotels well beyond the legal limit.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, I am glad to address the important issue of no-fault evictions in response to Amendment 492 from the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Stevenage. The Government strongly feel that the threat of eviction means that renters cannot feel secure in their homes and that many do not have the confidence to challenge their landlords on poor standards.
For this reason, the Government have introduced the Renters (Reform) Bill, which will abolish Section 21 no-fault evictions. This was introduced in the other place on Wednesday 17 May. To answer the noble Lord, Lord Foster of Bath, that Bill has only just started and it has not begun substantive debate in the other place. Subject to that—and we anticipate that the Bill will proceed at the normal pace—it will be before your Lordships’ House in the next Session after the King’s Speech.
The Commons Levelling Up, Housing and Communities Select Committee recently published a report on the private rented sector. The Government are grateful for this and look forward to responding shortly. In the light of our upcoming response and legislation, we do not think that the review proposed in the amendment would add any further detail to the debate. I reassure noble Lords that the Government’s commitment to abolish no-fault evictions is unwavering and that there will be ample opportunity for scrutiny of this legislation.
In response to Amendment 504GJF, which the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Stevenage, spoke to, I assure her that the Government are clear that no one should be criminalised simply for having nowhere to live. We have committed to repealing the Vagrancy Act, which is outdated and not fit for purpose. However, we have been clear that we will repeal the Act once suitable replacement legislation has been brought forward. This is so we can ensure that the police, local authorities and other agencies have the tools they need to respond effectively to begging and rough sleeping, so that they can keep their communities safe, restore pride in place and direct vulnerable individuals to the support they need.
Last year, we consulted on options for replacement legislation. We have considered these responses alongside other feedback from stakeholders and continue to give these complex issues careful consideration. Provisions relating to the Vagrancy Act have therefore been removed from this Bill and replacement powers will be the matter of separate legislation.
In the meantime, the Government have made the unprecedented commitment to end rough sleeping within this Parliament. We remain steadfastly committed to that goal. In September, we published a bold, new rough sleeping strategy, backed by £2 billion, which sets out how we will end rough sleeping for good. The Government’s Anti-Social Behaviour Action Plan, published on 27 March, reconfirms this commitment. It also sets out our intention to bring forward new powers to tackle begging and rough sleeping, with the detail to be brought forward in future legislation, which will be subject to full parliamentary scrutiny.
I hope this provides reassurance for the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Stevenage, and that she will withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I am not going to say that I am grateful for the reply on this occasion because it was really disappointing. We have here a mechanism that we can use to do two things that there is broad consensus about in your Lordships’ House, one of which has already been passed through legislation, which is to repeal the Vagrancy Act, and the other of which is subject to new government legislation but could be done much more quickly by using this Bill. On the Vagrancy Act, as the noble Lord, Lord Foster, and I mentioned, 1,000 people were arrested under it during the course of last year, and on no-fault evictions, families are living in misery now. Anyone who has been a councillor—I know the Minister has been—will have heard the terribly distressing stories from families when they get evicted and end up finding it very difficult to find somewhere else to live.
When we went through the Covid crisis, I was very pleased to see the Government taking immediate action with their “Everyone In” programme, getting people sleeping rough into accommodation as quickly as possible. We have the opportunity to build on that, but rough sleeping is already starting to go up again. Why not take the opportunity of this Bill to do something about it now? Can the Minister tell us how many people are sleeping rough tonight, or any night in the coming week? If you can do something about this, why would you not?
The noble Lord, Lord Best, rightly mentioned that a number of powers have been introduced in recent Acts, particularly the Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014, that already allow the police to address anti-social begging, and there are powers for councils to set aside areas where they do not allow people to hang around. There are lots of powers already. We do not need any more powers; we need the Government to get on and scrap this 200 year-old Act that criminalises those who are sleeping rough. The postponement of this repeal for over a year is already far too long. I shall withdraw my amendment for today, but I am sure that we will come back to this on Report.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
“Social mobility(1) Within one year of this Act being passed, a Minister of the Crown must publish a strategy for increasing social mobility which includes an assessment, in respect of each local authority, of—(a) the number of pupils previously in receipt of free school meals now attending university,(b) available careers guidance, and(c) access to apprenticeships.(2) The strategy must consider the impact of this Act on social mobility.”Member's explanatory statement
This means a Minister must publish a strategy for increasing social mobility.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, Amendment 498 is in the name of my noble friend Lady Taylor of Stevenage, who has to leave early, as she has told the Grand Committee.
In a world of increasing inequality, helping improve social mobility is hugely important, as I am sure we all agree. Everyone, irrespective of their background, should be able to achieve their full potential. However, the UK has one of the poorest rates of social mobility in the developed world, which should be a concern for us all. This means that people born into low-income families, regardless of their talent or hard work, do not have the same access to opportunities as those born into more privileged circumstances. In other words, your social background still impacts on your opportunities in life.
By the age of three, poorer children are estimated to be, on average, nine months behind children from wealthier backgrounds. By 16, children receiving free school meals achieve 1.7 grades lower at GCSE. Just 7% of children in the UK attend independent schools, but 30% of all A* grades at A-level are achieved by these children. Some 32% of Members of Parliament, 51% of top medics, 54% of FTSE 100 chief executives, 54% of top journalists and 70% of High Court judges went to an independent school, compared to 7% of the population. Those figures tell us something. The transition to a green economy will also bring challenges for social mobility.
Amendment 499 in the name of my noble friend Lady Hayman of Ullock seeks to probe the disparities in cost of living between rural and urban areas. Roughly 19 million people live in England’s rural communities, some 17% of the population. Since the 1990s, Governments of all persuasions have taken the view that urban and rural areas are sufficiently different to merit different treatment in terms of public policy. However, there is a growing disconnect between urban and rural areas, with a sense of rural communities coming off second best in many areas of national decision-making and resource allocation. The last 13 years saw an austerity cuts programme to public expenditure, which exacerbated this feeling, to the point that many rural, small-town and village dwellers feel left behind and left out of national life, along with the consideration of their needs.
The decline in the provision of services, public or private, is prominent among those concerns. Some 20 years back, most small towns and villages would have had a choice of pubs, a post office, a police station, access to a doctor’s surgery, a primary school, a bank and maybe a range of shops. Most would have been on a bus route with a reasonably regular connection to large population centres, providing wider access to the facilities and services that cities and towns provide. Of course, with those connections come opportunity, aspiration and well-being. However, in many parts of Britain, especially England, those assumptions no longer hold. As I said, I grew up in central London, but I now live in West Sussex, and what surprised me was the infrequency of bus services—it is shockingly bad. If you live in a small town or village, how do you get into the bigger population centres?
Baroness Blower (Lab)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow my noble friend Lord Kennedy. I shall speak specifically to my Amendment 504GC. As evidenced in previous debates on the Bill, levelling up can clearly be about large and strategic macro issues, but a significant aspect of it is that, on an individual level, some people simply cannot read as well as we would want. On an individual level, there must be an aspiration to ensure that all adults are literate. Speaking on this issue in another place, Margaret Greenwood MP said:
“Poor literacy skills and illiteracy often consign people to insecure and low-paid work. They are a form of deprivation that can lead to isolation and poverty and can leave people vulnerable to exploitation”.—[Official Report, 23/11/22; col. 353.]
It would seem that the most recent national survey of adult basic skills in England was as long ago as 2011. It showed that 1 million adults had literacy skills at entry level 3 or below. At this level, people are deemed to be functionally illiterate, although they can, for the most part, read straightforward text on familiar topics and obtain information from everyday sources—but this is not reading at a level that any Government should want the population to function at. It is not the level at which a parent can be confident to read with a child beyond infancy, and it is not the level at which a parent can assist with, or show interest in, schoolwork with children as they grow up. It is not the level at which a worker can seek retraining, upskilling or new opportunities.
As is often said, talent is everywhere but opportunity is not. Adult further and community education provision is not uniform. This provision affords opportunities to adults who have a lower level of literacy than that which we want for everyone. For precisely that reason, this amendment calls for a report on the “impact of geographical disparities” in adult literacy on levelling up and regeneration and for the Secretary of State to publish a strategy
“setting out steps they intend to take to improve levels of adult literacy”.
In 2022, 11 years after the survey to which I referred, the National Literacy Trust found that 7.1 million adults can be described as functionally illiterate. If this is accurate, we are, as a nation, allowing about 16% of our population to languish without the skills they need both personally and to be effectively economically active. As I said, the provision of adult learning opportunities to address low levels of literacy in the population is not uniform, and therefore neither is the participation. This amendment would require the Government to publish the information and then the strategy. If we accept, as I am sure we all do, that employers value and require essential skills, of which literacy is clearly the foundation, improving the capacity of those who struggle to read and write must be a priority.
Speaking as a teacher of many years, it pains me to recognise that not every young person finishes their schooling able to read and write as well as they might or as we would want. However, for a variety of reasons, adult illiteracy and low levels of literacy are a fact in our society. Regrettably, there have been significant cuts in adult education, with as much as a 50% fall in classroom-based adult learning opportunities. This must be addressed if we are to afford the opportunities needed to ensure that all are able to reach their potential.
The Government should not ignore this, especially now, as we continue to tackle education issues arising from the Covid pandemic. There can be no real levelling up without attention to adult illiteracy and a strategy to eradicate it. It is a matter of levelling up but also of social justice.
Lord Foster of Bath (LD)
My Lords, I will speak extremely briefly and only to Amendment 499, just to ask the Minister two very basic questions.
It is my firm belief that, for far too long, there has been a failure by Governments of all parties to tackle the inequalities between rural and urban areas. So much of government policy is designed for urban areas and ignores the special and different requirements of rural areas. So, frankly, it is no wonder that there is a disparity in the cost of living between urban and rural areas. In rural areas, house prices are higher and wages are lower; council taxes are higher, but government support for their councils is lower; and the funding per head for services such as healthcare, policing and public transport is lower, but it costs more to provide those services. If you look at other issues, from broadband coverage to banking, you will see that rural areas lag way behind urban areas.
I said in my speech at Second Reading that the Rural Services Network used government metrics to come to the conclusion that, if all rural areas were treated as a single region, their need for levelling up would be greater than that of any other region. At the time, I asked what in the Bill would address that disparity. I ask again: in relation to this amendment, what aspects of the Bill will address the need to level up between urban and rural areas? Related to that is a question that I have also asked but that has not been answered: can the Government tell us how the absolute requirement for rural proofing of all legislation was carried out in relation to the Bill?
Lord Stunell (LD)
My Lords, I will speak to all three amendments. In different ways and on different aspects, they set out a clear path for the Government to address some significant issues that, unfortunately, are not covered in the main text of the Bill at present.
In passing, I say to the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy of Southwark, on his experience of public transport: welcome to everywhere that is not London. It is not just that there are no buses in rural areas outside London; he should try the urban areas.
At the moment, there are fundamental problems with how we deliver education to potential parents on how they might best help their children to develop and grow. There are also problems with delivering education in our formal education system for children and in our adult education and further learning courses and opportunities that are available to people not only immediately after leaving the school system but in later life. The noble Baroness, Lady Blower, made that point powerfully, and I will reinforce it: in a rapidly changing technological society, what you might describe as in-course training is vital, even for people like me, to discover how to use the latest devices properly and effectively. That is very much the case for those who come out of the education system with a limited level of skills, and maybe without even having the resilience and skills to learn and develop themselves without substantial help and assistance.
So we have a ladder: literacy is certainly an issue in the absolutely crude sense of the word—whether people can read and write—but, as the noble Baroness, Lady Blower, pointed out, it is a question not just of that but of being able to use that process to inform and educate yourself, to learn from what people present and give to you. That shortage spills into an inability or failure, at the end of your school career, to get magic pieces of paper that are the doors to routes to acquiring skills and qualifications. Of course, that failure means that there is an inability to get and hold high-value, high-quality jobs.
The consequence for the individual is, clearly and very often, a waste of their potential, a lack of fulfilment and, sometimes, an alienation from wider society. But the impact for the community is also negative, and the impact for our country and economy is very negative indeed. I say to the Government that, for levelling up to be successful, there has to be more economic growth in areas that are not flourishing at the moment.
To best spend taxpayers’ money on levelling up, however and wherever that tax is collected, it needs to go to areas that need the growth and help. It is exactly those areas where there is that deficiency in skills and professional qualifications, and where it is difficult to recruit people. That means that we are not getting the productivity growth in the industries and geographies where they are most needed. For instance, we get high economic growth in London and the south-east but not in the north-east of England. Unfortunately, all of these are connected in a line that starts with the process of how children grow and flourish in our education and training system.
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
My Lords, Amendment 498 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Stevenage, seeks for the Government to publish a social mobility strategy. The issues raised in this debate are all indeed important and vital if we are to deliver social justice. However, they provided the rationale for the levelling up project itself, and the levelling up White Paper provides a clear plan to level up every corner of the UK, underpinned by 12 ambitious missions over 10 years and tracked by an annual report.
I also reassure noble Lords that the Office for Students has launched the equality of opportunity risk register, which will set national priorities for tackling inequalities in higher education, including geographical inequalities. It was heartening to see the recent climb up the international league tables for literacy rates in younger children in the UK, which is a hugely encouraging sign.
We are committed to ensuring that more people from disadvantaged backgrounds enter apprenticeships—a great driver of social mobility—and we are increasing the apprenticeships care leavers’ bursary to £3,000 from this August. We are also providing additional funding to support social mobility generally in apprenticeships, which includes £1,000 payments to employers and training providers who take on apprentices aged under 19 or apprentices with a learning difficulty or disability, as well as a £1,000 bursary payment to apprentices who were previously in care, as mentioned.
The Government are also investing over £18.8 million in 2023-24 to support the rollout of a network of careers hubs across the country, to help drive improvements in careers education. Schools and colleges in the most disadvantaged quartile are reporting the strongest progress.
Numerous measures in the LURB will improve outcomes and reflect better the interests of rural communities across the country. Rural communities will benefit from opportunities for increased democracy, measures designed to improve housing affordability, and improved infrastructure. The new infrastructure levy will be designed to deliver as much, if not more, affordable housing.
That really related to the next amendment, Amendment 499, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock. The framework set out in the Bill provides ample opportunity to scrutinise the substance of the missions against a range of government policies, including levelling up in rural areas.
As the noble Lord, Lord Foster, outlined so passionately, we know that some cost pressures, including transport and energy, can be even greater in rural areas than in urban areas. That is why the Government have, for example, offered rural energy support through alternative fuel payments and extended the subsidy scheme for buses to protect vital bus routes, helping with the cost of living and enabling people to get to where they need to affordably and conveniently. The recovery grant scheme comes in addition to government investment of £3 billion promised for bus services by 2025.
The Government are already committed to delivering an annual report on rural proofing. The White Paper trailed the publication of the second annual report, Delivering for Rural England, which was published in September 2022. It set out specific considerations for levelling up in rural areas and how government departments seek to address these through targeted approaches, where needed, as well as broader measures to strengthen the rural economy, develop rural infrastructure, deliver rural services and ensure good management of the natural environment. It also announced the launch of the £110 million rural England prosperity fund so that local authorities can support rural businesses and community infrastructure.
Amendment 504GC, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Blower, considers the extremely important issue of adult literacy. I should declare that I have a very personal interest in this whole area, having taught literacy in Huntercombe young offender institution for a while. The levelling up skills mission sets out an ambition for 200,000 more people to complete high-quality skills training in England each year by 2030. As part of this, we are fully funding study for adults in England who do not have essential literacy up to level 2. We have a strategy. Approximately 60% of the adult education budget is devolved to nine mayoral combined authorities and delegated to the Mayor of London, acting through the Greater London Authority. These authorities are responsible for the allocation of the adult education budget in their local areas and are best placed to understand local needs.
In the light of these efforts and commitments, I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Stevenage, is reassured and that her noble friend feels able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for that response. However, while listening to the response, it was easy to think, “Well, everything’s great, isn’t it? Nothing is going wrong; there are no problems”, when in fact the house is on fire. Everybody can buy into levelling up, but you then have to actually do some levelling up. It is very frustrating—we cannot equip people with the skills they need to read, to write, to get the job, to make their lives better. It frustrates me that what the Minister said suggests that there is not really a problem here and it will all be fine. We have to invest in people. That is so much of what is wrong here.
We mentioned transport services. If you cannot get on the bus to get the job, you will not get the job. I know that I am a Londoner and sound like one, but I did live in the Midlands for 20 years—in rural Leicestershire, in rural Nottinghamshire, in Nottingham and in Coventry—so I know a bit about living outside London. If you cannot connect areas of deprivation with areas of prosperity, you will not make any progress.
What worries me is that levelling up will go like the big society—do we remember that one? It disappeared after a couple of years; it was quietly pushed away. It was the big thing and all over the Tory manifesto in 2010, then it just vanished without a trace. After about two years there was never any mention of it, except by the Opposition. I worry that this Bill will become an Act but, when we look back in three, four or five years’ time, we will ask how much has really been enacted. After lots of consultation and lots of discussion, how much will have been enacted and how many regulations will have been laid?
I will leave it there and withdraw the amendment. This is such a big area that has cross-party support. We need to see more action, and things are not quite as rosy as the Minister said.
“Duty to produce a land use framework(1) The Secretary of State must, no later than one year following the passing of this Act, lay a land use framework for England before Parliament.(2) The framework must—(a) outline government objectives and principles in relation to the multifunctional use of land;(b) be based on the principle of multifunctional land use and take account of the whole range of land uses, including agriculture, climate change, biodiversity, access, development, housing, infrastructure, water, energy, natural capital and ecosystem services;(c) promote collaboration and integration across the statutory organisations impacting on land use;(d) provide guidance on the application of the framework to enable decision making at national, regional and local levels and to assist individual landowner decision;(e) provide accessible data on land use to support decision makers at national, regional and local levels, including the decisions of individual landowners.(3) Before laying the framework before Parliament, the Secretary of State must publish a draft framework and consult with such bodies as have relevant interests in land use and also with the general public.(4) Subsections (2) and (3) apply to a revised framework as they apply to a framework laid under subsection (1).”Member's explanatory statement
The new Clause would require government to publish a land use framework for England to improve the ability of decision makers at all levels, including individual landowners and managers, to reconcile conflicting land use pressures, make better decisions about conflicting land uses and enable scarce land resources to be used to deliver for multiple objectives.
Baroness Young of Old Scone (Lab)
My Lords, in moving this amendment I will also speak to my Amendment 504G, both of which are on land use. A number of noble Lords will have heard me bang on about this interminably, so I shall try not to take too long. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Foster of Bath, and the noble Baroness, Lady Willis of Summertown, for putting their names to these amendments. Alas, the vagaries of timing have meant that the noble Baroness cannot be with us.
Land is a finite resource and pressure on it is growing. There are needs for land in a whole variety of areas, not just for traditional uses such as agriculture and timber production but for carbon sequestration, green energy generation—solar and wind—housing and development, biodiversity recovery, water protection and flood risk management, infrastructure, transport, energy transmission, recreation, mental health and access to the countryside. Recent research has shown that, if you put all these competing needs together, we will require a third more land than we possess. I do not know whether noble Lords have recognised this, but we are not making any more land at the moment.
These competing demands are already being felt by landowners, farmers, communities and leaders in local authorities and other areas, but we do not have any framework in this country within which those who make that multitude of decisions on land use priorities at a national and local scale can work. This means that decisions on how to make the best use of this scarce, pressurised resource are being made on a piecemeal basis and often in silos.
For example, good agricultural land can be used inappropriately for solar arrays and land important for biodiversity recovery can be threatened by inappropriately routed infrastructure development. Everybody says that we need to plant more trees, but they need to be planted in the right place, which is not always the case as a result of the current dash for carbon; we see investors with very deep pockets buying up good agricultural land to plant it with trees that will attract for them carbon payments. Land that could deliver for biodiversity and carbon is being planted just for carbon, which is not the most efficient way of using land in a multifunctional way. All these pressures are adding to the price of land. If you are looking at buying land in any way, for whatever use, it is a bit like the wild west out there.
There is a real and growing pressure on land, and therefore a real and growing need for a land use framework which would consider how increasingly scarce land resources can deliver for multiple objectives at the same time and deliver a range of outcomes across several policy areas in a co-ordinated and optimised way which makes the best use of that scarce resource. A framework would harness the rapidly accruing wealth of data on land use and use modern mapping techniques to provide principles and tools about land use for decision-makers, ranging from national government to individual, small-scale landowners and farmers to enable them to make the best decisions on the competing priorities that they face day in, day out. It was good to see the national Geospatial Commission release a report on this issue yesterday, demonstrating the power of modern, accessible open-access data.
There is also growing support for a land use framework. Two House of Lords Select Committees have commented on it; the Rural Economy Committee, chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Foster, and the Land Use in England Committee, chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Dillington, both called for a land use framework—as have the Climate Change Committee in its report Land Use: Policies for a Net Zero UK and Henry Dimbleby in the national food strategy.
Other organisations are recommending such an approach. They include such august bodies as the Royal Society. I should declare several interests, having sat on both the Select Committees I mentioned and having helped to produce the Royal Society’s recent report on multifunctional land use. Others that I have not laid a hand on are the Royal Town Planning Institute, Green Alliance, the RSPB, CPRE, the County Councils Network, Chatham House and the Government’s Geospatial Commission. The Food, Farming and Countryside Commission, which I also sit on, is piloting a couple of multifunctional land use frameworks in two counties, Cambridgeshire and Devon. So a lot of folk out there are saying that a land use framework is the right way forward.
Lord Foster of Bath (LD)
My Lords, I rise to support Amendments 504F and 504G. I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Young, for the work that she has done, not only on this but on many related issues. She is a great asset.
As the noble Baroness mentioned, back in 2019 I chaired your Lordships’ special Select Committee on the Rural Economy. Part of our deliberation addressed the issue of land use at a time when regional spatial plans had been withdrawn with nothing to replace them. Several witnesses at that time told the committee that they were unhappy with the situation. For example, Hugh Ellis of the TCPA said:
“For me, a national spatial plan is essential. Almost every other advanced economy has one”.
It was hardly surprising that the committee concluded that the
“Government should revisit the merits of a spatial plan for England”.
Of course, much has happened since then, but we still have no form of detailed spatial plan. However, we are delighted that the Government have committed to publishing a land use framework, as they call it, by the end of the year. We know that your Lordships’ Land Use in England Committee recently considered the issue and welcomed the Government’s intention to produce a framework. As we have heard, there was some uncertainty as to whether the Government’s intentions were to have a framework that covered the full range of demands on the use of land, from food production and energy resilience to nature recovery strategies and access to green and open spaces.
The committee’s proposals are neatly summarised in Amendments 504G and 504F: to establish a land use commission
“to prepare and publish for consideration by Government the draft land use framework for England”,
and a requirement that the Government
“lay a land use framework for England before Parliament”.
Amendment 504F may seem redundant, given the Government’s commitment to bring forward such a framework this year, but it seems vitally important that we have something like this on the statute book pretty quickly to ensure that the commitments given by the noble Lord, Lord Benyon, earlier this week are followed through. It is not just a framework. The amendment is very clear that the output must cover the full range of demands on the use of land, and that, crucially, an exemplar list, while not exhaustive, is included in the amendment. However, it goes further, making it clear that numerous bodies, including other government departments as well as Defra, local authorities and relevant public bodies, should be involved and that there should be wide-scale consultation. It is important to set these down very clearly.
It may be that the Government will agree with such an idea in some form or other and bring forward some wording on a similar line. If there is to be further consideration of the wording, there is one other issue which I hope will be included. It would allay some fears if it was made clear that the proposed framework that the Government are going to bring forward is not seen as replacing, or even being in conflict with, the current planning regime. Your Lordships’ land use committee was very clear about this. It said:
“It is not suggested, and we do not propose, that the land use framework sets any distinct housing development policy or replaces the planning system in any way. Nevertheless, the framework cannot ignore the interaction of housing with land use and so it must incorporate some acknowledgement of this”.
I hope that it may be possible, at least in the Minister’s response. Further paragraphs in the report suggest a way forward, but the clear statement that the land use framework does not replace the planning system may be a useful addition to the amendment.
It is clear—and the situation is clearly changing—that the Government are not yet persuaded of the need for Amendment 504G, which proposes, as we have heard, the establishment of a land use commission. It is worth recalling that when the Government responded, quite recently, to the land use committee’s report, they said,
“we disagree with the proposal for a separate Land Use Commission”.
There has obviously been some shift, and it is good to hear that. Perhaps the Minister can at least confirm that she agrees that the Government have not yet been persuaded—not that they disagree. That is quite a significant shift in the language.
I genuinely hope that the Government will take this on board. A separate commission, as the amendment proposes, with commissioners from a wide range of backgrounds and experiences, will also ensure other things: that relevant data is collected on a regular basis, dialogue between all involved parties continues, advice and best practice is widely shared, an annual report is presented to Parliament for debate, and modifications to the framework can be proposed to the Government. These are all important things to ensure that we do not do it just once and then forget it, and that we ensure that we can move forwards.
Baroness Wilcox of Newport (Lab)
My Lords, I am afraid that you have the understudy. As a former leader of a city council, I have followed the Bill very closely. I am delighted to make a contribution, even if it is in the last minute of the game. I thank my noble friend Lady Young, the noble Baroness, Lady Willis, and the noble Lord, Lord Foster, for their detailed and careful consideration of these issues—land is, indeed, a finite resource—and how these might be incorporated into the Bill, as well as for their long-standing championing of the issues of shared land use. These challenges are of incorporating the needs of competing demands, alongside ensuring proper protections for the environment and that consideration is given for access to green space and all the benefits that that brings to people and communities.
It continues to be a disappointment that no progress has been made on a land use framework in spite of ministerial promises, which have been reiterated by both noble Lords in the earlier part of this debate, and to hear that the Government seem to be rolling back from a land use framework that addresses all the issues flagged up in your Lordships’ Select Committee, including planning, development, housing, infrastructure, energy and transport. If these issues are not addressed in a land use framework, it will be seriously incomplete, which will undermine its ability to ensure that our scarce land use resources are able to deliver for all the policy areas covered by the levelling-up Bill.
The introduction of this Bill, with its intention to reshape the planning framework—I have had plenty of headaches about planning in my time in local government—and to deliver on cross-departmental and multifunctional land uses, seems like an opportunity too good to miss. I hope that the Minister will give careful consideration to using this legislation to give some impetus to the introduction of a land use framework, and that all the hard work that has gone into the Bill from all sides of the House will lead to a satisfactory conclusion in an extremely important area.
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
My Lords, Amendment 504F in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, would introduce a legal duty for the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to lay a land use framework for England before Parliament no later than one year following the passage of the Bill and would also define content and scope.
The Government agree with the principle and recognise the need for the land use framework, which is why we committed in the food strategy to publish one this year, earlier than this amendment would require. The Secretary of State for Defra reiterated this commitment in the environmental improvement plan in January this year. The noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, has been unduly pessimistic: there is progress on the work on the land use framework. It is under way and will build on the insights presented by the Land Use in England Committee in its recent report. The noble Baroness and others are right to focus on multifunctional land use. That will be critical in delivering on this Government’s ambitious plans.
The noble Baroness, Lady Young, also asked for clarity on the progress of government work. I can reassure her and the noble Lord, Lord Foster of Bath, that several government departments have targets with land use implications. We are working with them all to understand and take account of their land use expectations. As well as Defra, this includes the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero, the Department for Levelling Up and the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology. I hope that provides some reassurance.
Amendment 504G introduces a legal duty on the Secretary of State to establish a land use commission as an independent arm’s-length body reporting to the Cabinet Office. The amendment builds on the work of the House of Lords Land Use in England Committee, as has been said, which recommended this in its final report. The Government accept some of the reasoning behind the proposals for a land use commission, including there being significant opportunities for government departments to collaborate on research, analysis and policy development on land use.
In the Government’s response to this recommendation in the committee’s report, they do not agree that a separate commission is necessary. This is because many of the potential benefits of a commission are achievable with improvements in collaboration on land use between the different departments. This improvement is already under way through the preparation of the land use framework.
The noble Baroness, Lady Young, mentioned the different experience of Scotland. While the department agrees that there are strong similarities, there are differences between the biophysical, cultural and ownership characteristics of land in England and Scotland and a number of important matters for land use, such as planning, are devolved. While we want to learn from the experience of the devolved Governments in land use, we do not think that we will share all the same issues and solutions.
As I think my noble friend Lord Benyon mentioned at the Dispatch Box this week, the cost of a land use commission would be somewhere between the Scottish Land Commission’s £1.5 million and the Climate Change Committee’s £4.5 million. I hope this provides sufficient reassurance.
The noble Lord, Lord Foster of Bath, asked about planning system additions. The Government’s response to the House of Lords Land Use in England Committee report stated:
“We agree with the suggestion that the framework should not replace the planning system, which is the main mechanism through which development is considered strategically”.
With those few comments, I hope the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, will feel able to withdraw this amendment and not move the other.
Baroness Young of Old Scone (Lab)
I thank noble Lords for their contributions and support. I very much value and endorse what the noble Lord, Lord Foster of Bath, said about it not replacing or being in conflict with the planning system. It was good to hear that reinforced by the Minister, because it is an important reassurance that we need to give to local landowners, who might otherwise see this as a bit of a bogeyman.
The response on progress is encouraging, but it would be good to know what that progress is. It is all very well getting assurances of progress, but this is such an important issue, impacting so many people, that there ought to be a much more public element to the process to demonstrate how that progress develops over time.
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
I can offer to write to the noble Baroness and Members of the Committee on the progress being made.
Baroness Young of Old Scone (Lab)
That would be extremely helpful; I thank the Minister. I also very much approve of the assurances we have got that the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero, DLUHC and the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology will be an integral part of the process. We just need reassurance that there will not just be consultation with these departments on Defra land use issues but that this will cover the policy areas of these departments that have land use implications.
I accept that Scotland is different—I kind of know that, because I am Scottish—but I have been very encouraged recently by work beginning on a land use strategy in all-Ireland. I spent some time with civil servants in Northern Ireland and representatives of the south on the importance of a land use strategy there. It was heartening to see that it was being accepted on the island of Ireland.
On the cost of a commission, task force, expert group or whatever body might carry the flag to help the Government on land use, I think that £1.5 million to £4.5 million is a drop in the ocean these days. I do not know about other noble Lords, but I have been really taken by the fact that, during Covid, we got used to dealing with billions rather than millions—£1 million or £4 million is kind of just the fluff out of the Chancellor’s back pocket rather than a substantial element of national investment for such an important issue.
To finish, history is always a good teacher and, although I cannot remember because I was just a twinkle in my daddy’s eye at that stage, the post-war settlement very much stressed the fact that there were three important pillars of the national resource. The first was capital investment, the second was labour and skills, and the third, strangely enough, was land. Over the years, we have forgotten about land being an important national pillar of resource. We need to get back to giving it that degree of priority.
Although I beg leave to withdraw the amendment at this point, I am afraid that I cannot promise not to keep banging on about it. I may well come back with one or other amendment in some form at a later stage.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook
“(ja) under section (Power to replace Health and Safety Executive as building safety regulator);”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment provides that any regulations made under the new Clause inserted by the amendment in the Minister’s name after Clause 214 (Power to replace Health and Safety Executive as building safety regulator) are subject to the affirmative procedure.
“(ea) under section (Street votes: modifications of the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2017);”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment provides that the new power in the amendment in the minister’s name to make regulations to modify the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2017 is subject to the negative resolution procedure.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment provides that the new power in the amendment in the minister’s name to make regulations to modify the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2017 extends to England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland.
“(d) section (Participation in certain proceedings conducted by, or on behalf of, the Secretary of State) extends to England and Wales and Scotland.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment provides that new Clause (participation in certain proceedings conducted by, or on behalf of, the Secretary of State) in the minister’s name extends to England and Wales and Scotland.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the second amendment in the Minister’s name to Clause 221, page 250, line 32.
“(8A) Part 11 extends to England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment provides for Part 11 to extend across the UK (but see the first new Clause in the Minister’s name before Clause 204).
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment provides that the new Clauses inserted by the amendments in the Minister’s name after Clause 214 (Power to replace Health and Safety Executive as building safety regulator) and (Transfer schemes in connection with regulations under section (Power to replace Health and Safety Executive as building safety regulator)) extend to England and Wales only.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment provides that the new Clause inserted by the amendment in the Minister’s name after Clause 214 (Transfer of land by local authorities) extends to England and Wales.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment provides that the new Clause relating to open access mapping inserted by the amendment in the Minister’s name after Clause 214 (Open access mapping) extends to England and Wales.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook
“(aa) in Schedule 4—(i) if a provision amended by any of paragraphs 51, 55, 56 and 57 has not come into force before the end of the period mentioned in paragraph (b), that paragraph comes into force when the provision that it amends comes into force (but otherwise it comes into force at the end of that period);(ii) paragraphs 59 to 63 come into force on such day as the Secretary of State may by regulations appoint;”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment makes provision for the commencement of certain amendments made by Schedule 4 in cases where the provisions amended are not yet in force.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the amendment in the Minister’s name inserting provision after line 21 of Clause 222.
“(ia) section (disposal of land) comes into force on such day as the Secretary of State may by regulations appoint;(ib) sections 71 and 72 come into force at the end of the period of two months beginning with the day on which this Act is passed;”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment provides for new Clause (disposal of land) to be brought into force by regulations made by the Secretary of State and makes other consequential amendments to Clause 222.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment provides that the new power in the amendment in the minister’s name to make regulations to modify the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2017 comes into force two months after Royal Assent.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment provides that new Clauses (power for appointees to vary determinations as to procedure) and (participation in certain proceedings conducted by, or on behalf of, the Secretary of State) in the minister’s name come into force two months after Royal Assent.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment provides that the new clause inserted by the amendment in the Minister’s name after Clause 214 (Transfer of land by local authorities) comes into force in accordance with regulations.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment provides that the new Clauses inserted by the amendments in the Minister’s name after Clause 214 (Power to replace Health and Safety Executive as building safety regulator) and (Transfer schemes in connection with regulations under section (Power to replace Health and Safety Executive as building safety regulator)) come into force 2 months after Royal Assent.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment provides that the new Clause relating to open access mapping inserted by the amendment in the Minister’s name after Clause 214 (Open access mapping) comes into force 2 months after Royal Assent.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment amends the long title to reflect the new Clause inserted by the amendment in the Minister’s name after Clause 214 (Power to replace Health and Safety Executive as building safety regulator).
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment amends the long title to reflect the new Clause inserted by the amendment in the Minister’s name after Clause 214 (Transfer of land by local authorities).
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment amends the long title to reflect the new Clause relating to open access mapping inserted by the amendment in the Minister’s name after Clause 214 (Open access mapping).
House of Lords
Windrush Generation: 75th Anniversary
(11 months, 3 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Berridge
To ask His Majesty’s Government what plans they have to celebrate the 75th anniversary of the arrival of the Windrush generation on 22 June, and what progress they have made in relation to those plans.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Levelling Up, Housing & Communities (Baroness Scott of Bybrook) (Con)
My Lords, we expect Windrush Day 2023 to be a bigger national event than any year to date. In January, the Government announced that they are increasing this year’s Windrush Day grant scheme from £500,000 to £750,000 to mark the 75th anniversary, with funds aimed at commemorating, celebrating and educating people about the contribution of the Windrush generation and their descendants. We will announce all successful projects shortly. In addition, we are progressing several further events across government to celebrate and honour the Windrush legacy on this important milestone.
Baroness Berridge (Con)
I am very grateful to the Minister, particularly for the additional funds that have been made available. As I am sure she is aware, many of that generation came for better education and opportunities for their children, so it is sad to note that the Commission on Race and Ethnic Disparities found that the only ethnic minority group not out- performing their white counterparts at age 16 is the black Caribbean and mixed white and black Caribbean cohort. Can the Minister please ask whether Windrush scholarships, in FE as well as HE, could be established?
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My noble friend brings up a really interesting idea, and I will certainly take it back to my colleagues in the Home Office. I am pleased the Minister in question is sitting here, and I hope he is listening carefully because I think that would be a very nice idea for the 75th anniversary.
Baroness Benjamin (LD)
My Lords, I wrote to the Prime Minister in February suggesting that, like his predecessors, he host a reception at No. 10 to celebrate Windrush Day and to meet the Windrush community and Windrush victims to hear their harrowing stories. I have not received a reply. He did not attend the Stephen Lawrence 30th memorial service, despite being down to speak. The Windrush community is questioning his support for them, so can the Minister assure the House that the Prime Minister is intending to demonstrate that he cares about the Windrush 75th anniversary?
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
I am afraid I cannot give that sort of information about what the Prime Minister is doing for Windrush, but I can say that across government there are numerous events going on. For a start, the Foreign Secretary has visited Jamaica only recently and discussed the positive contribution that Caribbean immigration had made to the fabric of the UK. The Ministry of Defence is using Windrush 75 as part of its Armed Forces Week, and we will be announcing plans in due course about what other departments will be doing to celebrate.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
My Lords, in addition to parties and such celebrations, which I am sure we all welcome, might the Government not remember the Windrush generation by adequately compensating all those who are still waiting for justice—and not getting any younger?
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
We are paying out continually under the compensation scheme, and the Home Office continues to make improvements to how easily people can access that scheme. We have paid out £59.55 million across 1,599 claims to the end of March 2023, a further £11.11 million has been offered and is awaiting acceptance, and a final decision has been made on 62% of the claims—so we are working on this. We are working with claimants on how we can make it easier and will continue to do so.
Lord Kamall (Con)
I thank my noble friend the Minister for sharing the plans to celebrate the Windrush generation, but can we make sure that we celebrate the full diversity of that generation—not just the Afro-Caribbeans but the Indo-Caribbeans and Chinese-Caribbeans who came to the UK and worked in public services? I declare a personal interest in that my father came in 1952 on two boats: one from Guyana to Trinidad, and then one from Trinidad to the UK.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My noble friend is absolutely right that we should celebrate the whole generation and that group of communities. Looking at what is happening in London and Birmingham, I am sure that all those communities will be represented and celebrated.
Lord Dobbs (Con)
My Lords, is my noble friend aware of the beautiful statue in Waterloo station commemorating the Windrush generation? It shows a father looking forward with ambition and determination, accompanied by a mother and a young daughter looking around with expectation and trepidation. They are standing on a pile of suitcases, which mark all their possessions in the world. There is an accompanying poem called “You Called … We Came”.
I hear the Minister’s reflections on the amount that has already been paid out, but there are still some outstanding claims. One wonders whether it is bureaucratic difficulties, rather than genuine will, driving that. Could not all those outstanding claims be settled almost in an afternoon, with people—including Ministers, with all their genuine determination to get this fixed—sat around a table, rather than having the ongoing questions that the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, has asked about when this will finally be settled?
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
First, yes, the monument is beautiful; if anybody has not seen it, they should do so. It is very moving and beautiful. The Home Office is making the compensation payments as quickly as possible, but each person’s claim is deeply personal and deserves to be processed with the utmost care and sensitivity, so that the maximum payment can be made to them. That is the way we are going to deal with these claims.
The Lord Bishop of Chelmsford
My Lords, the way that this country welcomes a stranger has never been more important, as we will be reminded later today when we debate the Illegal Migration Bill. Why are His Majesty’s Government, but more specifically the Home Secretary, rowing back on the commitments they made following the Windrush Lessons Learned Review, especially on the establishment of a new migrants’ commissioner?
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
The right reverend Prelate is referring to the Wendy Williams recommendations. Home Office officials looked at them and recommended to the Home Secretary that three of them are not needed. Extensive consideration has been given to how we deliver all the recommendations in an appropriate and meaningful way, ensuring that individuals have the opportunities to tell all their stories, amplifying the voices of individuals, engaging with the immigration system and driving scrutiny of the department. We think that those recommendations are unnecessary at the moment.
Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)
My Lords, we all owe enormous gratitude to the Windrush generation, who played a pivotal role in rebuilding the Britain that we know today. The Minister may recall that, during a debate in January, I asked her for a timetable for the Home Office’s implementation of the Wendy Williams recommendations. Unfortunately, less than a week later, the Home Secretary announced that some measures would not be delivered. I ask the Minister today for an update on the implementation of the measures the Government are committed to. It is tragic that the Home Secretary has not learned the lessons of that appalling scandal. Are the Government still not introducing the proposed safeguards to strengthen the borders inspectorate?
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
As I said in a previous answer, we will not be implementing those three recommendations. I probably have not got time to address here how far we have got with the other recommendations, but I will write to the noble Lord once I get that detailed information from the Home Office.
Baroness Blower (Lab)
Does the Minister agree that on the occasion of this anniversary, it would be extremely fitting for His Majesty’s Government to announce that anti-racism should be an explicit part of the national curriculum, to be taught in all our schools in England?
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
That should be discussed and decided by the Department for Education; but now, when we are celebrating the wonderful part that the Windrush generation has played in our society, is not the time for us to discuss that.
Lord Polak (Con)
My Lords, the 75th anniversary is perhaps a good moment for the Government to look at the issue of frozen pensions. Many people came over, helped to rebuild Britain, went back to retire in their home countries in the Caribbean and found that their pensions had been frozen, thereby missing out on thousands of pounds. Can the Minister go back to the department and find a way to alleviate this problem?
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
Yes, my noble friend is right: it is an issue and a problem. I will make sure that the Home Office is working on it and we will give him an update.
Tourist Spending: VAT
(11 months, 3 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Doocey
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the impact of VAT on tourist spending.
The Parliamentary Secretary, HM Treasury (Baroness Penn) (Con)
The Government engaged with varied stakeholders and produced analysis on the cost of VAT-free shopping before withdrawing the previous scheme. Government analysis done in 2022 that took increased tourist spending into account found that introducing worldwide VAT-free shopping would come at a fiscal cost of £2 billion each year. Furthermore, the OBR’s assessment of the previous VAT-free shopping scheme showed that its withdrawal would have a limited behavioural effect on decisions to visit or spend in the UK.
Baroness Doocey (LD)
I find it so difficult to understand why the Government keep saying that the reintroduction of VAT-free shopping for tourists would be a problem for the country and would cost much more than it would bring in. All the mounting evidence suggests that the opposite is the case. The tourists who come to the UK at the moment are spending about the same as they did in 2019, but US tourists who are going to France, Spain and Italy are spending at the rate of three times what they did in 2019. Does the Minister really believe that this disparity is nothing to do with the fact that we abolished duty-free spending for tourists? I ask the Minister to at least re-look at the figures as a matter of urgency, because our retailers are really struggling, and they need and deserve a level playing field.
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, I reassure the noble Baroness that the Government continue to monitor the evidence around VAT shopping, as we do keep all taxes under review. As to the process the Government went through in making their decision, I reassure the noble Baroness that we engaged with a wide variety of stakeholders on the removal of the VAT scheme, including Border Force, retailers, VAT refund providers, refund agents, airport operators and shoppers. That research took place in parallel with a consultation which produced a range of views. So the Government did make every effort to look at the evidence available when reaching this decision, including their analysis of the costs of the policy.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)
My Lords, would my noble friend welcome the conversion of the Liberal Democrats to the idea that cutting taxes results in more revenue? Could she explain to them that, at the moment, we need that revenue because of the level of borrowing the Government have?
Baroness Penn (Con)
I absolutely agree with my noble friend that levels of government borrowing are high because of the impact of both the Covid pandemic and the war in Ukraine. One of the reasons that levels of debt are high is that we have provided strong support to sectors such as tourism during the difficult years of Covid, and we are also providing strong support to them to recover from the pandemic and build back visitor numbers.
The Earl of Clancarty (CB)
My Lords, the Minister should look at the Oxford Economics report from last year, which showed a net economic benefit from tax-free shopping. Does she not accept that this is about an ecology of tourism—not just high-end shopping but the hospitality trade, theatres, concert halls and more? The UK needs to clearly show that it is open for business, as other countries are capitalising on this failure.
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, I would say to the noble Lord that the Government have looked very carefully at the Oxford Economics analysis, and we do appreciate that some of the costs would be offset by higher visitor numbers and their spending. However, the OBR’s and the Government’s previous analysis suggested that the offset was marginal and the policy still comes with significant fiscal costs. One of the key differences between the Government’s costings and those produced by Oxford Economics is the assumptions around additional visitor numbers, with the OBR estimating that VAT-free shopping could bring in 50,000 to 80,000 additional visitors and the industry commission report suggesting 1.6 million additional visitors.
Lord Livermore (Lab)
My Lords, major UK tourist attractions last year saw 38 million fewer visitors than in 2019—a 23% fall—suffering first from lower international tourism because of the pandemic and then lower domestic tourism because of the cost of living crisis. Many of the UK’s seaside towns, already neglected, and with tourist spending in long-term decline, have suffered particularly badly. I ask the Minister what steps the Government are taking to support the regeneration of our seaside towns.
Baroness Penn (Con)
The noble Lord makes an important point. We have taken steps during the pandemic to provide support for those towns that rely on tourism; £37 billion of support went to tourism, leisure and hospitality in the form of grants, loans and tax breaks. We have the tourism recovery plan, which is focused on both international visitors and domestic tourism within the UK. We also have the towns fund, which is specifically focused on helping regenerate towns, including many of the seaside towns that do not tend to benefit from the bigger-city deals.
Lord Lee of Trafford (LD)
My Lords, last week, as president of the Association of Leading Visitor Attractions, I received an email from Dr Julia Knights, the deputy director of the Science Museum, who wrote:
“It is devastating to see so few schoolchildren now visiting the Science Museum from France and Germany especially.”
Could the Minister urge our trusty and well-beloved Home Secretary to again press the accelerator, but this time to urgently expedite the visa passport situation for visiting European schoolchildren and, similarly, to urge the Chancellor of the Exchequer to man up and admit that the VAT refund policy needs to be reversed, and do it now and not wait until the Autumn Statement.
Baroness Penn (Con)
I am not sure that the reversal of the VAT refund scheme would encourage more schoolchildren to visit the Science Museum. But I will certainly take back the noble Lord’s point about visas to the Home Office.
Lord Hannan of Kingsclere (Con)
My Lords, there seems to be a discrepancy between the Treasury figures quoted by my noble friend the Minister and almost every independent survey, including the one referred to by the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty. There is a persistent pattern of the Treasury refusing to take into account the secondary, more dynamic impact of taxes—the way in which lower rates can generate more economic activity. Does my noble friend the Minister think that it might be time to revise the way in which the Treasury does these forecasts, to take account of our observed experience?
Baroness Penn (Con)
As I have said to noble Lords, the Treasury took into account a wide range of information when reaching its decision. Indeed, the Treasury was judicially reviewed on the decision to withdraw the VAT RES scheme in Great Britain and successfully defended it, with the judge noting the thorough government analysis. As more evidence and data emerge in this area, we will of course keep it all under review.
Lord Watts (Lab)
My Lords, perhaps the Minister could give us two figures. What has been the increase or decrease in VAT since this change took place, and what has been the increase and decrease of sales in duty-free shops?
Baroness Penn (Con)
It is difficult to disaggregate the impact of this policy versus the overall take of VAT, which will be affected by a wide range of economic factors during this time. When we think about the tourism sector, we must remember that China represents a large number of visitors to the UK and China opened up only at the beginning of this year. Based on that, we hope to see a stronger recovery this summer, compared with previous summers.
Baroness Wheatcroft (CB)
My Lords, it is not the number of tourists that is important but the type of tourist. The higher-spending tourists are being deterred from coming to this country because of the lack of VAT-free shopping, as the figures quoted by the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, made clear. Those tourists are heading to Spain and France and spending their money there. I declare an interest as chairman of the Association of Leading Visitor Attractions. Our members are losing out because these high-spending tourists are not coming to this country, doing their retail therapy and then taking in museums, galleries et cetera. Will the Minister undertake to take into account our cultural heritage when she looks at this issue?
Baroness Penn (Con)
I do absolutely appreciate the point that the noble Baroness is making. As part of the research that we did in considering this question, HMRC surveyed VAT RES users and the scheme did not make the top 10 in their list of reasons for visiting Britain—and that was for the 8% of visitors who qualified for the scheme who actually used it. We also asked them whether they would continue to purchase in the way they had previously. Two-thirds of those surveyed said that they would have purchased the same items regardless of the scheme, and 95% of people said that they would still shop. I appreciate that there is a wider impact, but we considered that when taking this decision.
Baroness Foster of Oxton (Con)
My Lords, tourism in England generates £106 billion to the Treasury and underpins 2.4 million jobs. I could never understand why we stopped encouraging people and businesses with the VAT situation and when they were in-bound at airports. I ask my noble friend seriously to reconsider this. Why we would wish to encourage tourists to shop and holiday in different countries around Europe and around the world when we have the greatest capital city on the planet is beyond me.
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, the Government are a strong supporter of the UK’s tourism industry and absolutely recognise the contribution that it makes to our economy. As I said earlier, we previously surveyed users of VAT-free shopping. Fewer than 8% of non-EU visitors used it and, for those who did, it was not in their top 10 reasons for visiting the UK. There are many great reasons to visit our country and we will continue to promote and advocate them to people across the country and across the world.
United Nations Population Fund Report
(11 months, 3 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Anelay of St Johns
To ask His Majesty’s Government whether they plan to support the recommendations in the United Nations Population Fund report 8 Billion Lives, Infinite Possibilities: the case for rights and choices and, if so, how.
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park) (Con)
My Lords, the UK is proud to champion comprehensive sexual and reproductive health and rights, which are fundamental to unlock the potential agency and freedom of women and girls. This is at the heart of our international women and girls strategy. We endorse the recommendations for rights and choices for all. We have a strong relationship with the UNFPA, with funding in place to support programmes that avert millions of unintended pregnancies and unsafe abortions, and prevent hundreds of thousands of maternal and child deaths.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns (Con)
My Lords, does my noble friend agree with the report that, in trying to find solutions to build “demographic resilience”, we need to work with
“civil society, the private sector, and families to adopt holistic policies”
on health, better regulation of the labour market and better management of migration, as well as promoting reproductive rights for women and girls? Can he give an example of a FCDO-funded programme which is successful in that regard?
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
The Government share the view outlined by my noble friend, on all the points. As she said, the report makes for grim reading in parts, although I think it is optimistic. We learn, for example, that, in the 68 reporting countries, around 44% of partnered women are unable to make decisions over healthcare, contraception or sex, which I found a shocking figure. The FCDO invests in a broad range of programmes in maternal, newborn and childcare, such as on access to voluntary family planning, HIV/AIDS care and ending FGM. My noble friend asked for examples. These include: the Global Financing Facility; reproductive health supplies; and our support for the FP2030, the grass-roots Safe Abortion Action Fund, and the Africa-led movement to end FGM, to name just a few.
Baroness Blackstone (Lab)
My Lords, the UN report estimates that 257 million people around the world do not have direct access to safe and reliable contraception, which means that they have no choice in deciding how many children they want. In the light of this, is it not crucial to restore the family planning programmes that have been cut by the Government as a result of the reduction in development aid from 0.7% to 0.5% of GNI? How soon will these reductions, which the Government made, be reversed, in particular to their aid for family planning?
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
I cannot give a date for the return to 0.7% from 0.5%. I hope that happens as soon as possible; I know that view is shared by many in this House. But we remain a significant funder. Between 2015 and 2020, we supported an annual average of 25 million women and girls to use voluntary modern contraception. We believe that, every year, that prevented nearly 9 million unintended pregnancies and 2.8 million unsafe abortions, and saved more than 8,000 women’s lives, as well as preventing the trauma of over 81,000 stillbirths and 48,000 newborn deaths. Since 2018, our aid to the women’s integrated sexual health programme has supported nearly 10 million women to use modern methods of contraception. We believe that in 2021 over 12,000 maternal deaths and 1.8 million unsafe abortions were averted as a direct consequence.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My Lords, I totally agree with the noble Baroness’s supplementary question about taking a holistic approach, but the noble Lord keeps quoting spending figures. I respect the Government’s commitment, but they implemented an 85% cut in funding to the UNFPA. Instead of telling us what they are spending, can the Minister tell us what the impact of that 85% cut was on the women’s health programmes on which we have been focused?
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
My Lords, I cannot put numbers to the noble Lord’s question, but I can say that in our integrated review and the international development strategy—IDS—the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister have set a clear direction and this remains a priority issue. We remain significant global funders. We are a long-standing partner of the UNFPA and we remain a lending funder of its Supplies Partnership, which is dedicated to the procurement and distribution of contraceptives and maternal health medicines in 53 of the world’s poorest countries. The impact of that has been dramatic; I will avoid the temptation to go through the figures, but I do not think anyone doubts the UK’s commitment or the impact of its funding.
Baroness Hussein-Ece (LD)
My Lords, I declare an interest as the co-chair of the APPG on Population, Development and Reproductive Health. The Minister quite rightly quoted the staggering figure of 44% of partnered women who are unable to exercise bodily autonomy and said that we should be ensuring that each individual is free to choose their own reproductive future. Can I ask him specifically what the FCDO is doing to promote the fact that as a global society we must guarantee that women have the ability and rights to make reproductive and sexual health decisions free from discrimination, coercion and violence? What specific programmes are attached to the ones he has already mentioned that will underline these choices?
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
Again, I agree with the premise of the noble Baroness’s question. In 2021, we were the second-largest global bilateral donor on family planning. We delivered on the 2017 summit commitment to spend an average of £225 million a year on family planning over five years to 2022. Between 2015 and 2020 we believe we reached nearly 25.5 million women and girls with modern methods of family planning. This remains a major focus in UK bilateral and multi- lateral spending in relation to women and girls.
Baroness Sugg (Con)
My Lords, given the findings of the UNFPA report, I welcome the publication of the FCDO’s international women and girls strategy. As my noble friend the Minister says, it recognises the importance of continued UK work on sexual and reproductive health and rights and notices the regrettable global rollback on women’s rights. What are the Government doing to ensure that the strategy is properly institutionalised across our diplomatic networks?
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
My noble friend is right to make this point. There is no point having a strategy of the sort we have just published if it is not embedded internationally through our posts. I assure the noble Baroness and the House that all posts will implement the strategy. They have been directed to do so by the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary. To reinforce that, although it preceded the strategy, this issue is placed centrally as a high priority, indeed a top priority, in both the IDS and the integrated review.
Lord Watts (Lab)
My Lords, does the Minister share our amazement that despite the amount of money we spend on aid here, around Europe and around the world that so many women have no access to family planning? Surely this should be our number one priority and should take precedence over some of the other programmes.
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
On one level I am inclined to agree with the noble Lord but there are so many important themes that the Foreign Office has prioritised in our integrated review and our IDS—there is permanent tension between competing causes. It is a priority for the Government—that has been made crystal clear in all the key documents that have been produced in the last couple of years that set the direction of our funding for the next decade—but it is not the only priority.
Lord Farmer (Con)
My Lords, the report we are discussing says much about rights and choices but nothing about parenting capacity and skills. What are the Government doing, particularly in the education system, to inform our young people about the responsibilities and realities of parenthood, which are hugely demanding, regardless of income levels?
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
This is another important point. I assume that the noble Lord is talking about what we are doing here in the UK. I am straying a bit but to prepare children for life in modern Britain pupils need to understand the world in which they are growing up. We want to support all young people to lead happy, healthy and safe lives and to foster respect for other people and for differences. That is why we made the new subjects of relationships education for primary schools and relationships and sex education for secondary schools and health education for all pupils in state-funded schools compulsory as of September 2020.
The Earl of Sandwich (CB)
My Lords, the Minister has given us an impressive list of programmes for women and girls and emphasised the human rights, which is correct, but no mention was made of men. Presumably men are the target of family planning programmes as well. Do the Government have any method of monitoring what they are doing to involve men in these family planning events?
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
The noble Lord makes an important point—
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
I am talking about the noble Earl over here, although I will convey the other noble Lord’s comments to my friend in the other place. Of course, many of the programmes that I have described—and I do not have time to go into detail—focus not just on women and girls but on the entire family. They focus on society. I mentioned earlier and repeat that 44% of partnered women are unable to make decisions over their own healthcare, contraception or sex. The answer to that lies not just with women but with broader society as well, of course.
Sudan: Refugees
(11 months, 3 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Archbishop of Canterbury
To ask His Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to assist the government of South Sudan to support refugees from the conflict in Sudan.
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park) (Con)
My Lords, I thank the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury for his Question and for his long-term and outstanding commitment to the people of South Sudan, including on his recent visit to Juba with the Holy Father and the Moderator of the Church of Scotland.
The violence in Sudan has displaced more than 1 million people internally within the region, including approximately 73,600 people fleeing to South Sudan, where the humanitarian situation is already at crisis level. The UK Government allocated an initial £5 million, including £2 million in South Sudan, to meet the urgent needs of refugees and returnees who are fleeing the violence in Sudan. Today, the Minister for Development and Africa has announced £143 million in humanitarian aid for east Africa, including nearly £20 million for South Sudan.
The Archbishop of Canterbury
I am grateful to the Minister for his response. Given that the peace agreement in South Sudan remains extremely fragile and the Government there are at best dysfunctional, incompetent and corrupt, what other measures are the Government taking beyond humanitarian aid in order to address the situation, especially in other countries in east Africa? Will they consider seriously channelling the funds they are making available through civil society groups, especially faith groups, which tend to be more effective in that country in getting money on the ground?
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
The most reverend Primate is right; he should perhaps not mince his words so much in describing the Government there. The UK is pursuing every diplomatic avenue we can to bring about an end to violence, establish humanitarian corridors, which are essential, and pave the way for meaningful talks. The Prime Minister, the Foreign Secretary and the Minister for Africa have engaged on a regular basis with their counterparts in the region, including with partners in neighbouring countries—Kenya, Djibouti, South Sudan and Egypt—with the African Union and with the Intergovernmental Authority on Development. The Foreign Secretary has also engaged directly through various intermediaries with the two military leaders to press further for a cessation of hostilities, and we will continue to work with the international community in every way we can in order to push for a longer-term and more permanent end to the fighting and a return to talks on transitioning to civilian rule.
I apologise that I did not answer the most reverend Primate’s question about funnelling finance through civil society. He is absolutely right: we do not funnel money through Governments in the region; we rely increasingly on established NGOs on the ground, which are often far better placed to direct that money in a useful manner.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My Lords, the announcement today in New York is very welcome, but let us not forget that that pledge still represents a 13% cut on previous commitments to east Africa. The UN High Commissioner for Refugees, Filippo Grandi, said that resources are essential if we are to address this issue. Can the Minister tell us whether, in addition to financial support, we are able to provide technical support to those countries to ensure that proper assistance is given to those refugees? Can he also tell us how we are supporting the African Union’s efforts for peace and stability in that region?
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
My Lords, we work very closely with the African Union, as I said, and also with neighbouring countries. I cannot add to the data that I have already provided in relation to the financial support we are providing, but I am not sure a 13% cut is correct—I am going to have to get back to the noble Lord if I am wrong about that. However, I think it is the case, based on the figures I have seen, and I will check with the Minister for Africa, that our contribution to the region is increasing, not decreasing, partly as a consequence of the humanitarian crisis that we are discussing today.
Lord Bellingham (Con)
My Lords, the Minister mentioned the AU, as indeed did the Opposition Front Bench spokesman. Surely the time has come for the AU to mobilise and energise those front-line states neighbouring Sudan, including—as the Opposition Front Bench spokesman mentioned—Egypt, but also Ethiopia, Chad and the Central African Republic. They have a crucial role not just in stabilising the region but in helping with this appalling refugee crisis unfolding on their borders.
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
My noble friend is absolutely right that this is a growing crisis that has huge ramifications for neighbouring countries, as we have already seen, not least from having to cope with the huge movement of very large numbers of people who are often in desperate circumstances. The responsibility, therefore, to forge a lasting ceasefire rests not just on our shoulders but on those of the neighbouring countries as well. That is why the Foreign Secretary, the Prime Minister and the Africa Minister have been engaging so frequently with those neighbouring countries.
Baroness Hussein-Ece (LD)
My Lords, we have heard mention of the other countries that are bearing the brunt, such as Chad, which has received around 60,000 refugees, adding to the 600,000 already there. Does the Minister accept what the charities are saying about the British Government simply not doing enough to facilitate family reunions with safe and legal routes from Sudan? Those from the UK who were eligible for evacuation were told that they would have to leave family members behind in Sudan. There was one example of a British national taking his two children, but he could not bring his pregnant wife because she was a Sudanese citizen. Is enough being done to facilitate children—especially those on their own, who have been abandoned—coming to this country where they have family members? Are we doing enough when other countries, such as Chad and other neighbouring countries, are suffering so dreadfully?
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
I want to acknowledge the huge contribution being made by neighbouring countries. The noble Baroness mentioned Chad, which I think has taken 75,000 people, but Egypt has taken well over 100,000, South Sudan 71,000 and Ethiopia, the Central African Republic, Saudi Arabia and Libya have all taken significant numbers. If there are other specific examples of difficulties—she alluded to two—I will be keen to ensure that they are seen by the Home Office, which holds responsibility for this policy. To reiterate, our current refugee resettlement schemes allow us to support the most vulnerable refugees direct from regions of conflict and instability. Through those schemes, the UNHCR refers refugees whom it has assessed as in need of resettlement here. For some —indeed, for many—people, it is nevertheless in their best interest to stay close to the region or in a neighbouring country, where there are often similarities in culture, language and bureaucracy, and where they can be supported by international organisations, including the UN, which we support financially.
Viscount Stansgate (Lab)
My Lords, the Minister mentioned that more than 1 million people have been displaced, and that is very serious. But can he tell the House why the Government brought to an end a year early the money allocated to Sudan through their own programme under the Conflict, Stability and Security Fund—the CSSF? In retrospect, does he not agree that this was a mistake? In light of the continued violent conflict, will the Government now restart funds for Sudan under the CSSF programme?
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
My Lords, the CSSF is one tool, or fund, within government that has targeted support historically to Sudan and a whole range of other countries, but it is by no means the only fund available to government. As I mentioned earlier— I will not repeat the figures—we remain a very significant funder. The commitments that we have made in recent days and weeks have added to what is already a significant flow of support to the region.
The Earl of Sandwich (CB)
Can the Minister confirm that as much as 17,000 metric tonnes were looted from WFP warehouses in Khartoum in the early stages of the crisis? The WFP itself is 15% funded for its work not just in Sudan but in South Sudan, including with those returning every day. How are the Government sustaining the World Food Programme at this critical time?
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
I have to admit that I am not aware of the example that the noble Earl gave. I will have to put that to the Minister for Africa and provide a proper response in due course. On the issue of food provision generally, we have provided emergency food aid to an estimated 193,000 people as well as daily water and sanitation provision for 83,000 of the most vulnerable displaced people in South Sudan. This is a key area for us and the record is one that we should not be complacent about but can be proud of.
Baroness Sugg (Con)
My Lords, the refugees referred to by the most reverend Primate in his Question include women and girls who have suffered horrendous sexual and gender-based violence, including rape used as a weapon of war. What are the UK Government doing to help to ensure accountability for the actions of those responsible for these crimes?
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
Our starting position is that a competent national or international court should determine whether crimes against humanity or genocide have been committed and who is responsible, and there have been numerous allegations, many of them backed up with impressive evidence, to suggest that very serious things have happened in the region. We remain a staunch advocate for justice. We support the role of the International Criminal Court in investigating war crimes, genocide and crimes against humanity. We work with a wide range of NGOs that are monitoring the situation closely, and we will continue to do so.
Energy Bills Discount Scheme Regulations 2023
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist
That the Regulations laid before the House on 25 April be approved.
Relevant document: 38th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee (special attention drawn to the instruments). Considered in Grand Committee on 22 May.
Financial Services and Markets Bill
(11 months, 3 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Penn
That the amendments for the Report stage be marshalled and considered in the following order: Clause 1, Schedule 1, Clause 2, Schedule 2, Clauses 3 to 8, Schedule 3, Clauses 9 to 13, Schedule 4, Clauses 14 to 20, Schedule 5, Clause 21, Schedule 6, Clauses 22 to 48, Schedule 7, Clauses 49 to 51, Schedule 8, Clause 52, Schedule 9, Clause 53, Schedule 10, Clause 54, Schedule 11, Clause 55, Schedules 12 and 13, Clauses 56 to 69, Schedule 14, Clauses 70 to 79, Title.
Child Support Collection (Domestic Abuse) Bill
Wednesday 24th May 2023
(11 months, 3 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Child Support Collection (Domestic Abuse) Act 2023 View all Child Support Collection (Domestic Abuse) Act 2023 Debates Read Hansard Text Amendment Paper: Consideration of Bill Amendments as at 3 March 2023 - (3 Mar 2023)
Lord Farmer (Con)
My Lords, I understand that no amendments have been set down to this Bill and that no noble Lord has indicated a wish to move a manuscript amendment or to speak in Committee. Unless, therefore, any noble Lord objects, I beg to move that the order of commitment be discharged.
Offenders (Day of Release from Detention) Bill
Wednesday 24th May 2023
(11 months, 3 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Offenders (Day of Release from Detention) Act 2023 View all Offenders (Day of Release from Detention) Act 2023 Debates Read Hansard Text
Lord Bird (CB)
My Lords, I understand that no amendments have been set down to this Bill and that no noble Lord has indicated a wish to move a manuscript amendment or to speak in Committee. Unless, therefore, any noble Lord objects, I beg to move that the order of commitment be discharged.
Illegal Migration Bill
Wednesday 24th May 2023
(11 months, 3 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Illegal Migration Act 2023 View all Illegal Migration Act 2023 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 133-I(b) Amendments for Committee (Supplementary to the Marshalled List) - (24 May 2023)
Lord Hope of Craighead
“(za) defines “illegal” and “unlawful” migration for the purpose of this Act;”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment, and another to Clause 2 in the name of Lord Hope of Craighead, seek, in the interests of legal certainty, to provide a definition of what amounts to illegal migration at the outset of this Bill.
Lord Hope of Craighead (CB)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 1, 3 and 5. It is a privilege to open the Committee stage of this important Bill. Before I come to the amendments themselves, there is one thing I wish to point out. Nothing that I may say in support of my important but relatively minor amendments is intended to undermine, or detract in any way from, the much more important and fundamental points raised by the other amendments in this group, in particular Amendments 2 and 4. I seek to reassure those in whose names those amendments stand. I am seeking to draw the Government’s attention to points raised by the Constitution Committee, of which I am a member, in its examination of the Bill.
Nobody can predict what shape the Bill will be in once it reaches its Third Reading, so it is as well for your Lordships to put all the cards on the table in Committee. Some will be more important than others, but one has to grasp the opportunity to put them on the table now. That is all that lies behind these amendments, and I hope that will be understood.
Amendments 1 and 5 deal with the use of words and the need for a definition. In its Short Title, the Bill refers to what it calls illegal migration, and so do the Explanatory Notes in their overview of the Bill on page 3:
“The purpose of the Bill is to create a scheme whereby anyone arriving illegally in the United Kingdom … will be promptly removed to their home country or to a safe third country to have any asylum claim processed. The Bill will build on the Nationality and Borders Act 2022 … as part of a wider strategy to tackle illegal migration”.
It says that the purpose of the Bill, among other things, is to
“deter illegal entry into the UK”.
But when it comes to the Bill itself, the language changes. The purpose of the Bill, it says, is
“to prevent and deter unlawful migration”.
The question is: does this mean the same thing as illegal migration?
The committee noted on page 1 of its report that the Bill does not define “illegal” anywhere. On the other hand, the Secretary of State’s duty to remove a person is triggered when the four conditions in Clause 2 are met. This suggests that the right way to define the expression “unlawful” for the purposes of this Bill, and what “illegal” migration for this purpose means as well, is to refer to these four conditions, which is what my Amendment 5 does. The fact is that Bills come and go, and expressions of this kind can be and are defined in different ways. Indeed, the words are interchangeable, as the language of the Explanatory Notes and the Bill itself has demonstrated.
The purpose of Amendment 5 is to make it clear that, whatever might be said in any other Bill or in any other circumstances, all one needs to know as to what makes a migration unlawful or illegal in the case of this Bill is what is in Clause 2. This is all about legal certainty and the accuracy and use of the words, which is an important constitutional principle. That is why the committee has made this important point.
Before I move Amendment 1, I will also speak to Amendment 3 in my name. It would require the Secretary of State to provide guidance as to how the provisions of the Bill are to be read and given effect. This follows another recommendation by the Constitution Committee in its report on the Bill, which was prompted by what we see in Clause 1(3) and (5). Clause 1(3) says that,
“so far as it is possible to do so … this Act must be read and given effect so as to achieve the purpose mentioned in subsection (1)”.
There is an echo here, which all lawyers will recognise, of the wording of the direction about interpretation given to the courts by Section 3 of the Human Rights Act 1998, but Clause 1(5) says that Section 3 of that Act
“does not apply in relation to provision made”
by the Bill. As the committee said, these are novel provisions and it is difficult to predict how they will be interpreted by the courts.
The Bill has been accompanied by a statement that the Minister is unable to say that the provisions of the Bill
“are compatible with the Convention rights”.
However, the Government’s ECHR memorandum on the Bill appears to be more confident that the clauses it identifies as engaging with convention rights, taken one by one,
“are capable of being applied compatibly”
with the relevant ECHR articles. As for Clause 1(5), all that the memorandum says about it is that the disapplication of Section 3 of the Human Rights Act
“does not affect the Government’s assessment of compatibility of the Bill with the Convention rights as set out”
in the memorandum. The Constitution Committee says that the Government’s position on this “requires further explanation”. I am sure that will be explored much further in the other amendments in this group.
Baroness Ludford (LD)
My Lords, I would like to speak to Amendment 2—unless the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, wants to go before me.
Baroness Meacher (CB)
My Lords, with some trepidation, I want to comment on Amendments 1 and 5, tabled by my noble and learned friend Lord Hope. Under the refugee convention, anyone approved as a refugee has never been an illegal or unlawful immigrant, however they came to the UK. To define anyone as an illegal immigrant who may subsequently be deemed a refugee surely flies in the face of the refugee convention—or that is how I read it. I am sure that my noble and learned friend has a very good riposte to what I am saying, but if by any chance he does not feel he has, he may want not to press those two amendments.
Lord Hope of Craighead (CB)
My Lords, in fact, the noble Baroness makes my point. What I am really saying is that those who are affected by the Bill want to know what it means by “unlawful”. We may not agree with it, but the Bill has a formula which is to be used and we need to know what it is. That is the purpose of a definition. I absolutely understand what the noble Baroness says about the convention, but it is about the need to understand the Bill’s use of the word “unlawful”.
Baroness Meacher (CB)
Is it not our job to ensure that the Bill does not come up against the convention?
Baroness Ludford (LD)
My Lords, I would like to speak to Amendment 2, which is in my name and those of my noble friend Lord Paddick, the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, and the noble Lord, Lord Coaker. I will take just a little while. We had only six minutes at Second Reading and this group is key to the whole Bill. My remarks will follow on almost seamlessly, if I may say so, from those of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope.
Baroness Ludford (LD)
No, I referred to Amendment 2, which is the second one in this group.
Before I move to human rights issues, I want to make a couple of preliminary points. First, it is incumbent on this Committee to subject this Bill to very detailed scrutiny. It proposes to strip human rights protections from a group of people excluded from the democratic process. It is a core part of our justification, as an unelected revising second Chamber, that we do this kind of detailed scrutiny.
In the other place, there was quite a compressed timetable—that is an understatement. Second Reading there was expedited, only a few days after the Bill’s introduction. Instead of the usual detailed consideration and evidence-gathering in Committee, the Bill had only two days on the Floor of the House, during which its provisions were considered out of sequence. On Report, the Government published more than 100 amendments at late notice, dealing with both substantive and highly technical issues, many of major constitutional importance. Particularly in the case of this Bill, it behoves us to carry out intense scrutiny.
My second preliminary point was made in a briefing from the Law Society. It stressed the importance of the UK’s reputation for its commitment to the rule of law and international obligations, including human rights obligations, to our attractiveness as a place to do business. It says:
“Senior representatives of the UK’s biggest law firms have told us they are concerned about the damage non-compliance”
with our legal commitments
“could do to the UK’s economic competitiveness, by undermining the confidence of businesses looking to invest in the UK”.
I think we recently saw a reported drop in UK inward direct investment, and Germany has shot up the list. It is not just for us human rights nerds that international legal commitments are important. Global business places great importance on these issues too.
This is a perilous moment for human rights protections in Europe, as the war on Ukraine by Russia continues and Russia has been expelled from the Council of Europe. The UK’s reputation is strengthened by being not only a founding party to the European Convention on Human Rights but an active, leading member of the Council of Europe. It was therefore good news that the Prime Minister went to the recent Council of Europe summit of Heads of State and Government.
Now is precisely the moment for the UK to lead on the world stage in reinforcing basic human rights norms and international law, including the ECHR. Pushing this Bill through this Chamber when the Government cannot confirm that in their view, multiple provisions in it are compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights, threatens our reputation as a country that upholds international law.
As has been noted by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, the Home Secretary has been unable to make a statement under Section 19(1)(a) of the Human Rights Act that the Bill is compatible with convention rights. This is an extremely unusual step, and it means there is a high risk that the Bill will violate rights under the ECHR. Then, we have a bit of snakes and ladders. We have the Section 19(1)(b) statement, but in a Home Office Oral Statement delivered in the Commons on 29 March—which the Minister repeated here—entitled “Illegal Migration Update”, the Minister for Immigration said:
“Of course, as we reform the asylum system, we will continue to honour our country-specific and global safe and legal commitments.” —[Official Report, Commons, 29/3/23; col. 1017.]
In his letter to us on 27 April, the Minister said:
“As the Minister made clear in the House of Commons, the Government takes our international treaty obligations incredibly seriously”.
We have the statement with the Bill, but when the Home Secretary introduced the Bill, she expressed confidence that it was compatible with international law, as the Minister’s statements have said. However, her justification for being unable to make a statement of compatibility with the convention was that the Government’s approach was “robust and novel”. We are getting considerably mixed messages: on the one hand, the Government cannot confirm that the Bill is compatible; on the other, there are statements from the Home Secretary that she is “confident” and certain that the Bill’s measures are compatible.
How she can have that stated confidence—when she had to make a Section 19(1)(b) statement that she cannot confirm that it is compatible—is a mystery. We have a juxtaposition of different measures. If the Government cannot confirm that the provisions are compatible with the ECHR, it threatens our reputation as a country that upholds international law. I am sorry that I have taken a bit of time on this amendment, but it seems crucial to the whole passage of the Bill through the House.
Finally, I turn specifically to Amendment 2. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, mentioned, it would remove Clause 1(5) of the Bill, which disapplies Section 3 of the Human Rights Act 1998. I remind noble colleagues that Section 3 places a duty on a judiciary to interpret, so far as it is possible to do so, all legislation
“in a way which is compatible with the … rights”
under the ECHR, which are incorporated into domestic law through the HRA. The effect of the provision in the Illegal Migration Bill is that judges will be unable to reconcile its provisions with our human rights obligations under the HRA and the ECHR. The only option available to the courts would be to issue a declaration of incompatibility under Section 4 of the HRA. However, that merely flags incompatibility to the Executive. The court cannot do anything about it; it just has to flag it, which puts the ball back to the Government to have responsibility to initiate measures to rectify the incompatibility.
The possible likely outcome of all this is that these cases will go to the Strasbourg court. Given that the UK court has already found that there is a violation, because it had to issue a declaration of incompatibility, it is likely that Strasbourg will find a violation, thereby putting the UK on a collision course with the European Court of Human Rights. It would be a serious breach of international law if the UK refused to comply with a binding judgment issued by the Strasbourg court.
All in all, I put it to the Committee that the Government have got themselves in quite a mess with the HRA and the ECHR. Removing the scope of Section 3 of the Human Rights Act suggests that the Government are in fact worried about the provisions of this Bill being incompatible with our international law obligations under the ECHR. Otherwise, what would there be to worry about? If the Home Secretary is “confident” et cetera, leave it to the courts to interpret the Bill’s compatibility with convention rights. If human rights compliance is truly sought by this Government, why is it necessary to oust the duty to do nothing more than interpret the Bill in accordance with the Human Rights Act—if the Bill’s wording can provide for that?
Removing this provision, Clause 1(5), from the Bill, as Amendment 2 requests, would go some way to resolving anxieties about the impact of the ministerial statement under Section 19 of the HRA, whereas retaining the application of Section 3 would help to uphold the UK’s reputation as a jurisdiction which upholds the rule of law and respect for human rights. That is what I suggest should happen.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment 4 in this group, in my name and those of the noble Lords, Lord Paddick and Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton. I have also added my name to Amendment 2 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, and I have some thoughts on Amendments 1, 3 and 5 in the name of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead. Amendment 84, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Alton of Liverpool, is partly duplicative of mine, but focuses specifically on international anti-trafficking provisions. In as far as it adds the EU anti-trafficking directive to the Council of Europe Convention on Action against Trafficking in Human Beings, I support it; however, I think we should settle on a single, holistic list of obligations that, crucially, includes the precious refugee convention and its principles of non-penalisation, non-discrimination and non-refoulement, which the Government seem so intent on violating by this obscenity of a Bill.
I turn briefly to the amendments in the name of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope. I thank him for his explanation earlier. Contrary to the explanatory statement for Amendment 1, I cannot quite agree that this does anything for so-called legal certainty. To the contrary, it seems a rather circular amendment, in defining “illegal migration” according to the conditions for removal in the Government’s own Clause 2. As the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, suggested in her very pithy intervention, as a matter of international law, someone who qualifies for protection under the 1951 convention can never have been illegal.
Noble Lords who have come to the Committee sensibly armed with copies of the Bill might care to compare its Short and Long Titles. It has become quite fashionable in recent years for Short Titles to become creatures of political spin, but parliamentary counsel guard the Long Titles—so crucial for scope, for example —rather more jealously. While the Short Title is the Illegal Migration Bill, and our graveyard humour alights on the adjective accurately describing the second noun, the Long Title refers instead to
“persons who have entered or arrived in breach of immigration control”.
As the refugee convention was effectively the world’s apology for the Holocaust and the insufficient and inconsistent protection given to those attempting to escape the Nazis, the convention always contemplated some genuine refugees having to escape persecution and enter places of safety by clandestine means and in breach of ordinary controls.
That is why
“in breach of immigration control”
is accurate and appropriate for the Long Title and “Illegal Migration” is not appropriate in the context of refugees, who, as a matter of declaratory law, will always have been refugees, even before they were given their status—hence the excellent point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher.
The probing Amendment 3 from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, helps to draw attention to contradictions in the Government’s public positions around the ECHR compatibility of the Bill. As the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, pointed out, the Section 19(1)(b) statement on the tin indicates one thing—that no statement that the Bill is compatible can be made—but aspects of the ECHR memorandum of ingredients suggest another. However, the medicine prescribed by the noble and learned Lord and the noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich, is far too weak a remedy. When a Government are so intent on violating rights to protection from torture, slavery and death, allowing the same Government to issue guidance on interpreting their offending legislation is like handing burglars the keys to the house. Therefore, the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, is right to seek to remove Clause 1(5), which seeks to disapply Section 3 of the Human Rights Act, which, as we have heard, requires that legislation be interpreted compatibly with the European convention so far as possible. That is why I added my name to her Amendment 2.
Amendment 4 in the names of the quartet of the noble Lords, Lord Paddick and Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton, and myself goes further. It does not just remove subsection (5); it replaces the whole of Clause 1 with the requirement that this legislation shall not require violation of any of the key international legal obligations that we fear would otherwise be violated by it, namely the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights, the 1951 UN refugee convention, the 1961 UN Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness, the 1989 UN Convention on the Rights of the Child and the 2005 Council of Europe Convention on Action against Trafficking in Human Beings. I am very proud to stand with noble Lords from four corners of the Committee whose experience includes high-level legal adjudication, law enforcement, and Home Office ministerial duty. What brings the senior judge, police officer, Conservative former Immigration Minister, and human rights lawyer together around the amendment is our desire that the United Kingdom remains committed to the international rule of law.
As we heard, last week, alongside other European leaders, the Prime Minister signed the Reykjavík declaration. It begins:
“We, Heads of State and Government, have gathered in Reykjavík on 16 and 17 May 2023 to stand united against Russia’s war of aggression against Ukraine and to give further priority and direction to the Council of Europe’s work … We reaffirm our deep and abiding commitment to the European Convention on Human Rights and the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) as the ultimate guarantors of human rights across our continent, alongside our domestic democratic and judicial systems. We reaffirm our primary obligation under the Convention to secure to everyone within our jurisdiction the rights and freedoms defined in the Convention in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity, as well as our unconditional obligation to abide by the final judgments of the European Court of Human Rights in any case to which we are Parties”.
Mr Sunak said:
“We remain a proud European nation. And we must work together to defend the values we all hold so dear … Because we know what we can achieve together. Just look at this Council’s extraordinary legacy: protecting human rights, abolishing the death penalty in Europe, supporting media freedom and championing democracy across Central and Eastern Europe after the Cold War”.
Those fine words from the Prime Minister must not be contradicted by the Home Secretary’s illegal Bill.
Noble Lords will no doubt explore the many violations of our common and constitutional law tradition, as well as international law, via the anxious scrutiny of this Committee. At the very least, the Bill violates Articles 2, 3, 4 and 14 of the European convention in failing to protect victims of torture and trafficking and those at risk of death, and in allowing the Government to pick and choose which refugees from different countries it finds palatable from time to time. The Bill fails to protect stateless people and children in the context of its provisions on removal, detention, accommodation and age assessment. In the words of the UN High Commissioner for Refugees, it amounts to
“an asylum ban—extinguishing the right to seek refugee protection in the United Kingdom for those who arrive irregularly, no matter how genuine and compelling their claim may be”.
This must be one of the strongest condemnations of a democratic and rights-respecting nation ever uttered by the commissioner.
If Ministers seek to argue that the Bill does not violate these various linchpin treaties, many of which the United Kingdom played a leading role in negotiating, they should have no problem with the requirement that the Bill be read in that way by Ministers, officials and the courts. If, instead, Ministers wish to argue that it is time to renegotiate these obligations, fair enough. Let them try to do so with such reserves of soft power as they think we have left. In the meantime, in contrast with Russia and other pariah states, let them respect the law.
Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness. I support her Amendment 4 for the following reason. If I was a person in a country far from here who faced torture and very serious discrimination, possibly for his or her political views or opposition to the Government, or possibly for their sexual orientation which is an issue in quite a number of these cases, I might look up what the United Kingdom stands for in international law before I make my decision as to whether to seek asylum in the United Kingdom or some other country. And what would I read? With a couple of clicks on the internet, I would read exactly what is set out, or aspired to, in Amendment 4 tabled by the noble Baroness. In my view, that is the principled position to take.
I also understand completely—I think—the views expressed by my noble and learned friend Lord Hope when, if I can be permitted to use a little bit of transatlantic language, he pointed out certain uncertainties about the Bill in the speech with which he opened the first debate.
I want to challenge the Minister to do something he has failed to do—I say this with respect, because he is known for his clarity in this House. I challenge him to return to the very first page of the whole Bill, where the statement under Section 19(1)(b) of the Human Rights Act is set out. The first sentence reads:
“I am unable to make a statement that, in my view, the provisions of the Illegal Migration Bill are compatible with the Convention rights, but the Government nevertheless wishes … to proceed with the Bill”.
Does that mean, “I don’t know if the provisions of the Bill are compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights”? Does it mean, “I know that it is not compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights”? Or does it mean that some parts of it are compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights and others are not?
Viscount Hailsham (Con)
My Lords, I have only a very brief intervention to make, but I want to speak to Amendment 4. I have two questions for the Minister which I think require serious clarification. First, do the Government accept that the Bill, if enacted, should be implemented in such a way as to comply with the convention rights that are itemised in Amendment 4? We are entitled to know what the thinking of the Government is. Do they intend that the Bill, if enacted, complies with convention rights?
The second question is contrariwise and actually is a suspicion. What is the purpose of the purpose test set out in Clause 1(2)? My suspicion is that the purpose test is designed to displace the convention rights if they come up against the Bill, if enacted. In other words, is the purpose test designed to override convention rights? I think this House is entitled to a very direct answer on both those questions.
For myself, let me make this absolutely plain to the Government. If Amendment 4 is put to a vote at any stage, I shall vote for it, because I believe that this Government and this country should comply with convention rights. If the purpose test is designed to override convention rights, I shall vote against it if given the chance.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords—sorry, we have had quite a lot of Tories, have we not?
Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate (Con)
I am sorry, my Lords. I want to indicate that I think all of us in this Chamber wish, as the Government put it, to stop the boats. We all want to stop the suffering of people who are coming to this country in a particular manner at the moment. I am sure those of us proposing amendments all have that very much in our minds.
I support Amendment 4, which bears my name and others, and very much support what the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, said about it. I refer to my entry in the register of interests as a lawyer and a former Immigration Minister, and I have real concerns about any legislation that appears to threaten the important laws or agreements in place and signed in international forums by this country. I know that there are those who take a divided view between domestic law and international law. There are those who regard treaties, international agreements and conventions which bear the signature of the UK as being less important, and inconvenient when the Government and others promote domestic policies. However, if the Government wish to either disregard or, worse, discard, these obligations, I find that fundamentally unacceptable, and I hope that my noble friend, at least, as a fellow lawyer, would agree.
The Home Secretary has stated that there would be no problem in pursuing her new ideas. Apparently, she stated that she had consulted and secured the support of “the finest legal minds in the country”. As my noble friend knows, I asked at Second Reading whether he would list these minds, in case I wished to pursue some briefing or instruction, but I failed to get an answer to that, so he now has a further opportunity to let us know who the Home Secretary was referring to. The eminent lawyers I have consulted seem fairly confident, as was said by the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, that no asylum seeker can per se be described as illegal, and this worries me intensely.
At the Reykjavík summit last week, which was referred to earlier, a declaration was signed by all the participating states, including us, which stated great support for the international conventions. It said:
“We recall the increasing challenges of migration and the necessity to fight against trafficking and smuggling of migrants”.
I am sure we all agree with that.
“We commit to intensifying efforts to foster and improve international co-operation in this regard, while continuing to protect the victims and respect the human rights of migrants and refugees, as well as supporting frontline States, within the existing Council of Europe frameworks”.
I could not agree more—and, as I said, it was signed by the United Kingdom. It called for
“building a European legal community of shared values”.
That is something we should all agree with too.
It also referred to the Venice commission, which was referred to by my honourable friend the Member for Henley, John Howell, while this matter was before the other place. It is a legal body that is equipped to deal with interpretation of concerns over conventions, and the rule of law checklist is an inherent function of that body. That reference is important, in my opinion. As has been mentioned, our Prime Minister was very clear in his remarks at the end of that meeting. He was talking about how and why it was so important that our work with our friends on the continent went on to support the
“values of freedom, democracy and the rule of law”.
So I am confident—in fact, I am sure—that my noble friend will not only accept the amendment but will embrace the opportunity it provides to restate this country’s important position in the rule of law and our international relations. Those principles are so important.
I finish my remarks by pointing out that the amendment exemplifies our nation’s traditional unwavering dedication to upholding international law and being part of the development of international law. That is terribly important. By supporting the amendment, we reiterate our commitment to fairness, compassion and the respect for human rights, while remaining cognisant of the complexities and sensitivities surrounding the issue, of which we are all aware. By upholding these principles, we also strengthen our global standing, and that is surely something we ought to embrace ourselves. Whether or not the Minister embraces some of the things we are suggesting, I want to embrace that situation for our country.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhope. It was an excess of enthusiasm in coming in after the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, and actually agreeing with him on something. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhope, as well.
At first glance, this looks like an illegal Bill; it certainly looks as if it violates international law and suspends the Human Rights Act. Before I came into the Chamber today, I took some legal advice from a very fine legal mind—apparently a very sought-after Silk—and I was assured that the Bill is not unconstitutional or illegal. I would like to take another opinion on that because, quite honestly, I do not believe it. Even if it is legal—which I do not accept—it violates so many principles that you have to ask: how can we not be ashamed to let a Bill like this go through? It is all very well talking about legalities, but there are also such things as embarrassment and humiliation, particularly on the world stage. I think that is what the Bill offers, as other noble Lords have said.
What we are seeing, not just in this Bill but in other Bills, is the removal of our rights—all sorts of rights: parliamentary rights but also human rights in wider society. We have to be very careful about that. We, in many ways, are seen as the last bastion of humanity and respectability out there. People constantly say to me now, “We really thought the House of Lords was a complete waste of time, but we’ve changed our minds”. It is because we have been fighting this Government and trying to say to them that this is wrong. I think we have to say that this Bill is wrong.
The Government have tried to make us focus on other people. They have othered a lot of people: migrants, trade unions, even nurses, and of course protesters. They are trying to make us think we are providing solutions with a Bill like this, but we are not. We are not stopping the boats. We are not solving any problems with this Bill; we are creating more problems. I support all the amendments in this group. Amendment 3 is too cautious and I would like to see it strengthened, but Amendment 4 is very clear and strong.
The Lord Bishop of Chelmsford
My Lords, I support Amendments 4 and 84; I also have a great deal of sympathy for Amendment 148. I declare an interest as vice-chair of the independent Commission on the Integration of Refugees. I have been listening with great interest to the expert points raised by particularly the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, but also other noble Lords.
I am sure noble Lords will be aware that Clause 1, as it stands, is a narrative introduction that sets the scope and intent of the Bill as a whole. Crucially, it defines the purpose of the Bill as
“to prevent and deter unlawful migration, and in particular migration by unsafe and illegal routes”.
I am sure we can all sympathise with the desire to make the migration system thoroughly orderly and predictable in nature, but I question whether this is plausible and whether what it entails is indeed desirable, particularly if it cannot guarantee compatibility with those international treaties, as we have heard. The sort of circumstances of catastrophe and persecution that drive refugees do not tend to allow for orderly or safe departures. I know this from my own personal experience but also from having spoken to many asylum seekers and refugees over the years.
The Government deserve credit for the design and delivery of the Homes for Ukraine scheme. My diocese has been delighted to welcome more than 50 Ukrainian guests into our scheme and to hear many incredible stories of welcome and community building. However, we should not forget the huge amount of effort and time that went into getting that scheme off the ground. It was not swift, and to be delivered at all it required an enormous redistribution of Civil Service and local authority capacity, to say nothing of the vast civil society contribution that needed to be harnessed. It is an incredibly labour-intensive model in its administration, neither sufficiently swift nor flexible to account for sudden or immediate crises, of which we are bound to see many more.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
My Lords, I speak in support of Amendment 4 and draw attention to my entry in the register, with regard to support from RAMP for this and later amendments.
It is vital that, in line with our international obligations, we uphold the human rights of men, women and children who seek asylum in the UK. It is worth remembering what Theresa May—no softy when it comes to immigration matters—said in the Commons:
“That matters because of the reputation of the UK on the world stage, and because the UK’s ability to play a role internationally is based on our reputation—not because we are British, but because of what we stand for and what we do”.—[Official Report, Commons, 13/3/23; col. 592.]
Related to this is a warning from the Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights in her letter to the Lord Speaker that the Bill, as summarised in Clause 1, would
“provide an incentive to other states, in Europe and beyond, to follow the UK’s lead in evading and abdicating its responsibilities to people in need of protection”.
Given that much of the Bill is justified with reference to incentives, one hopes that this warning might resonate with Ministers. If other countries follow suit, we could well find that we have more, not fewer, asylum seekers trying to cross our borders.
Of the conventions listed, I will focus just on those relating to refugees and children, although I also draw attention to the concerns raised by Redress, which warns that the Bill threatens to cause the UK to violate key provisions of the UN convention against torture. I will not repeat the highly damaging verdict of the UNHCR, other than to note, as did my noble friend, the unprecedented strength of its criticism, reflected in the stark warning that the Bill amounts to an “asylum ban” in contravention of the refugee convention. Every briefing that we have received, including from the EHRC and the Law Society, echoes these concerns about the refugee convention. Indeed, the UN special rapporteur on the human rights of migrants, and other UN rapporteurs, have urged the Government to halt the Bill’s passage so as to bring it
“in line with international human rights standards”.
However, according to the Home Secretary, such claims are “simply fatuous”. She put forward two arguments in the Commons to justify her position. The first is that while the
“convention obliges parties to provide protection to those seeking refuge. It does not require that this protection be in the UK”.
However, the UNHCR explains that, under the Bill, the Home Secretary
“will not be required to assess whether removal”
to a supposedly safe country
“would be safe or reasonable for a particular individual or whether they will be able to claim asylum there. Individuals would have very limited opportunities to present evidence of the risks they would face”.
Thus, it warns that the removal duty placed on the Home Secretary
“creates real and foreseeable risks of refoulement”.
This is echoed by the UN rapporteurs. The proposed responsibility-sharing arrangements lack the required safeguards to protect the rights of asylum seekers and refugees.
Secondly, the Home Secretary prayed in aid Article 31 of the convention which, she argued,
“is clear that individuals may be removed if they do not come ‘directly’ from the territory where their freedom is threatened. Denying those arriving illegally from France, or any other safe country”
is, she concluded,
“therefore, entirely consistent with the spirit and letter of the convention”.—[Official Report, Commons, 13/3/23; col. 580.]
However, the UNHCR is clear that it is not consistent. Its legal observations on the Bill are explicit:
“Mere transit in an intermediate country cannot be considered to interrupt ‘coming directly’”.
As the EHRC points out, because of geography, “direct” routes to the UK are rarely available. Exploiting our geographical position to abdicate responsibility for asylum seekers shames us as a country. I therefore repeat the question that I asked at Second Reading: can the Minister explain why we should accept the Government’s interpretation of the refugee convention over that of the body with supervisory responsibility for it? That body was recently described by another Lords Minister as “a key partner”.
The UNHCR also warns that
“The Bill is inconsistent with the UK's obligations under the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child … because of the many ways it threatens or undermines the safety and welfare of children”.
I will not go into detail here, because a number of amendments specific to children will follow, but it is worth noting now that, in the view of UNICEF, which is mandated by the UN General Assembly to uphold the UNCRC and promote the rights and well-being of every child, children should be removed from the scope of the Bill in order to uphold the Government’s
“duties to act in the best interests of the child”
as set out in the UNCRC. Similarly, the Children’s Commissioner, who has demonstrated a passionate concern about the Bill’s implications for children, has warned that it
“would place the UK in clear breach of its international law obligations under a range of children’s rights treaties”.
The equality impact assessment, which finally appeared on the morning of Second Reading, assures us that
“the Home Office will continue to comply”
with the duty under Section 55 of the Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Act 2009
“to have regard to the interests of children as a primary factor in immigration decisions affecting them”.
As UNICEF reminds us, this duty was enacted in order to implement the UNCRC “best interest” requirement. Yet, the equality impact assessment tries to wriggle out of the duty by arguing that:
“The duty does not mean that it is the only factor that must be considered”.
In effect, it is being treated as a secondary rather than a primary factor, an issue to which I will return in a later group. We still await the child rights impact assessment called for by the Children’s Commissioner as essential to ensure consistency with the best interest requirements. It was promised “in due course” in a Written Answer on 17 May, so where is it?
Relevant here too is the position of the devolved nations. The Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission has warned that the Bill could contravene the Good Friday/Belfast agreement and Windsor Framework in a number of ways. Has the Minister read its critique, and will the Government be publishing a response to it? The Welsh Civil Society Forum points out that Wales’s “child first, migrant second” approach, in line with its incorporation with the UNCRC, risks being undermined. As the Constitution Committee points out in its critical report on the Bill, while
“international relations are reserved matters … observing and implementing international obligations are devolved”.
What is the view of the devolved legislatures?
In conclusion, we must take note of what national and international human rights bodies are saying about this Bill. To echo a point made by other noble Lords, if the Government genuinely believe that the Bill meets the obligations in the conventions listed in the amendment, why not accept it now? Refusal to do so will only reinforce the belief of the UNHRC and others that this Bill marks the abrogation of the UK’s global responsibilities.
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)
I would happily support all the amendments, although I would prefer Amendment 4, which I think expresses it more accurately, perhaps, than the others. I only really want to make one point because so many points have been made with which I entirely agree and they are almost unanimous across the Committee, as perhaps the Committee is noticing. We heard from other speakers that the Prime Minister put his name to that convention or treaty earlier in Reykjavik in which he is supporting international conventions. The Minister in the other place spoke about caring about international conventions. The question I want to ask the Minister is: looking at this Bill, looking at how it has been pulled apart in Clause 1, does the Minister really feel able to say that the Government care at all about international obligations?
Lord Horam (Con)
My Lords, I want to comment on the speech made by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chelmsford just now. She made a very important point which the Committee should take note of. She said that the amount of work that went into the programme to deal with people fleeing Ukraine was significant and she praised that. She understood from her experience the amount of effort that the Home Office made in that particular case.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)
My Lords, first, I apologise for not having been able to participate in the Second Reading of the Bill. I support Amendment 4 very strongly because I believe it goes to the heart of the problems presented by the Bill.
The list of the international conventions which we should not infringe is pretty long and very important. I will start with the Convention on the Rights of the Child, which is perhaps sometimes a little overlooked in debates. The noble Baroness, Lady Lister, spent some very valuable time explaining why the Bill will contravene some of our obligations there. I had the honour of sitting beside the late Baroness Thatcher on the day she signed the Convention on the Rights of the Child— 28 September 1990. I can remember that as it is my birthday. I do not think she would have been terribly happy with legislation that cut across an international convention she had signed. I would like to hear from the Minister when he winds up how he answers the criticisms made by UNICEF, which is the body set up by all of us to adjudicate whether or not countries are living up to their obligations under the convention. I would like him to answer the question of the areas of the Bill which appear to be in contravention.
Then there is the refugee convention, which has been referred to on several occasions. The Minister has tried on previous occasions to say that there is nothing in the refugee convention being countered by the Bill, but I am afraid that, like many other statements he has made on the matter, it is a bit like the Red Queen in Alice. He is saying, “It is so because I say it is so”; that is not usually a convincing argument. I would like to hear from him which explicit provision of the convention allows us to extinguish the right of someone on our soil to claim asylum.
Of course, we have the right to reject that claim; if we do so, and if they cannot be sent back to their country of origin due to a risk of torture and death, we have to find an alternative place to send that person. I would like to hear what explicit provision in the refugee convention permits us to extinguish the right to claim asylum—not to have it, but to claim it.
A lot has been said about the European Convention on Human Rights. I will not weary the Committee with much more, except to say that the route down which the Government will go seems clear. They might say that they do not intend to get into a position of confrontation with the European court and so on, but they are either bluffing—and bluffing does not usually work terribly well—or they are setting off down a slippery slope, which will lead us into direct confrontation with the European Convention on Human Rights and with the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg.
If we do that, we put at risk a substantial and extremely important chunk of the trade and co-operation agreement with the European Union. For that to fall away would be to have jumped out of the Northern Ireland protocol pan into the fire of losing a large chunk of justice and home affairs legislation, on which we worked together with the European Union.
Why do all these international complications matter? I would suggest that they matter a great deal because our Ministers—I applaud them for it—are standing at the Dispatch Box and going to international meetings, and they are saying that Britain stands for the rules-based international order. We are spending a lot of money and providing a lot of weapons—quite rightly so—to Ukraine to uphold the rules-based international order; but the list of obligations in Amendment 4 is a substantial part of the rules-based international order. If we contradict those obligations, what credibility will we have when we go around the world trying to uphold that rule? Not much, I would think. I would not fancy going to the countries of the global South and saying, “You really must take a stronger line on Ukraine”, to be told, “You say you are supporting the rules-based international order; well, here is a list of areas where you are breaking it”.
This is a serious matter that goes way beyond the responsibilities of the Home Office itself. Like others who have spoken in this debate, I do not wish for one minute to suggest that unlimited immigration is a good thing—that we do not want to stop the boats and so on. That is, frankly, not serious; it is just debating. I hope that, when the Minister replies to this debate, he will take on some of these international points and answer them in detail, with precision, and in a way that can convince us. Until that point in time, I remain a strong supporter of Amendment 4 and hope that it will stand in the Bill.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I apologise that I did not get to speak at Second Reading. I misread the Order Paper and thought that the day started with Questions. However, I listened to all the speeches and I certainly got a sense of the mood of the House; I note that, perhaps, that mood is at odds with the mood beyond the House. A previous point was made about unanimity; well, unanimity can be a cause for celebration but it can also be an echo chamber.
However, there are specific problems in the Bill that undoubtedly need to be tackled during scrutiny in the House of Lords. They need to be tackled if the Government are to fulfil their promise to the electorate to get to grips with controlling the borders of our country—controls that people feel are being flouted by an inability to stop the small boats. If this House can ensure that the Bill works, all to the good.
One aspect of that is that we are going to need some clarity about what and who will be affected by the Bill, and why. In that context, I am sympathetic to Amendment 1 in the name of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, because it is a valiant attempt to provide a definition of illegal and unlawful migration and it could be helpful in improving the public debate on the issue, which often gets in a muddle. So often when the issue of channel crossings arises and people say that they are illegal crossings, they are scolded and told that they are not illegal and that they ought to know the law better. If there is a way of clarifying what the law is, all to the better, because that can be frustrating. Many people feel they are being gaslit on the question of the law. Amendment 1 may give us some clarity, but achieving such clarity probably cannot be done just via definitions.
There is certainly an impression outside this House— I am sure that people will put me right—that whole swathes of lawyers, along with NGOs and their legal advisers, provide those in the boats with legal get-out clauses and exemptions such that, frankly, it looks like an organised system to game the system, and that is coming not from the people in the boats but from the legal minds that are sympathetic to their cause.
I can completely understand why anyone from many of the countries that they are travelling from would want to live in the UK and to improve their circumstances, but by any reasonable definition, many or at least some of the people in the boats are not refugees in need of asylum, even if they are desperate to improve their standard of living to get away from countries that they do not want to live in. I understand that they can be encouraged to follow a script to find a way to stay in this country—we can empathise with the desire to do that—but we can also note that, frankly, that tests the bounds of legality, and in the process there is a serious danger of discrediting, for example, what we mean by modern slavery, which I think is being exploited, and what we mean by legitimate asylum status.
I wonder what the noble Lord, Lord Best, would make of the legal rows that happen within the legal and judicial community about definitions—what words mean. It is not as though if you put it down it is always clear. We keep hearing about eminent lawyers, fine minds and so on. Believe it or not, among those fine minds, there are eminent lawyers who disagree with each other. I listened to a lively row between two fine, eminent legal minds about the legal interpretation of Article 31 of the refugee convention. One read it to say that refugees must come directly from a place of danger —that is, not France—present themselves immediately, show good cause for their illegal entry and so on. Then the other person explained that coming directly, among some judges, would mean having come through other countries. Anyway, the row went on and I am not saying I understood it all, but it is not as though, every time, great legal minds give a sense of legal certainty. All this legal confusion can and does lead to cynicism that people are illegally breaching border controls, and that illegality is not being tackled. There is a danger that this can discredit the rule of law itself. I certainly agree with the shadow Immigration Minister, Stephen Kinnock, who has talked about the whole process being slowed down and clogged up by legal challenges and the problems that that causes.
In a way, my question to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope is: even if we establish a clear legal definition, how do we tackle the various loopholes and spurious claims that can create incentives for illegality which we cannot deny happen? Adults claiming that they are children when they are adults in order to stay, destroying papers proving country of origin and so on—are we just to say that that never happens?
Viscount Hailsham (Con)
Is the noble Baroness really suggesting that this country should depart from treaty obligations without much of a qualm?
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
Having no qualms is something that I would never do, but I am also suggesting that having qualms, or using those qualms, to undermine what the British public would like to do is something that other people should have qualms about. I think that people are tearing their hair out outside of here being told, “You cannot do that; you may have voted for that, but that cannot happen”. When international treaties are used in that instrumental way—which is the way I think they are being used—that is difficult.
May I ask noble Lords to put aside the specifics of this Bill just for one moment? I know that people are very emotional about this Bill, but what if, on another topic, the UK Government—perhaps another Government, not this one, whom more people in this House might be sympathetic to—brought in a different Bill? Just imagine if such a worthy Government, with a popular mandate, tried to bring in a radical, novel, innovative law; for example, enhancing workers’ rights or improving women’s reproductive rights—things that I would support. Just imagine if that Government tried to bring that Bill in and it got to the Lords, where they were told, “You cannot do that because there are all sorts of international treaty clauses that prohibit you doing it”. Imagine your frustration: would you break your promise to the electorate in that instance? I just want us to acknowledge that asking the Government to break a promise on the small boats—
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
Would the noble Baroness like to remind the Committee which limb of the constitution takes responsibility for negotiating and revising treaties on the world stage? Is it the judiciary? Are they the wicked people who run off, committing us to all these international obligations? Is it parliamentarians who go and negotiate these instruments that she is finding instrumental, or is it the Government who negotiate, renegotiate and, in some cases, even walk out of international obligations?
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I do not think there are evil people involved in this and I have not gone down the moral/immoral route. I am concerned, genuinely, with ensuring that the electorate and citizens of this country do not feel that parliamentary discussion uses international treaties as an excuse to not do what they anticipate that Parliament was asked to do. For example, this could be about the abolition of the Vagrancy Act. Let us be honest; a lot of promises have been broken recently. I have heard excuses made for why we have not yet abolished that Act. I have heard excuses for why we can no longer get rid of tuition fees, and for why leasehold will not be abolished—
Lord Balfe (Con)
The noble Baroness will recall that we had a referendum to leave the European Union. Many of us opposed that, but it was the clear will of the democracy of this country that we left. Surely, on these international obligations that we are saying we are bound by, if the demos—the people of Britain—feel that they wish not to be bound by them, that is perfectly legitimate. We have to find a way to carry the wishes of the people into legislation and not use international agreements to say that the wishes of the people must be ignored.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
I am coming to an end. I understand the noble Lord’s point and I am endeavouring to explain that I think those international agreements are being used in a particular political way on this issue. I have suggested that breaching promises to the British electorate—I was trying to give some examples across party lines, so that nobody would think I was having a go at any one party—is leading to cynicism and bitterness in the electorate. The low turnout at the local elections was an indication of the fact that many people feel politically homeless.
I do not necessarily support the Bill. I want it to be scrutinised by this House, but I felt that the amendments I was referring to were almost avoiding scrutiny by simply ring-fencing the whole nature of the Bill and saying, “You can’t do that because of international treaties”. That would seem to render us even trying to scrutinise the Bill a waste of time and it will lead to even more cynicism about the lack of democracy. That is my point and it has nothing, as it happens, to do with Brexit or the EU. Although the desire to control one’s borders and one’s laws was undoubtedly part of that, I was not making that point in this instance.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts (Con)
I think it is this side.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts (Con)
Speaking independently, I think it is this side, but I will give way to the noble Lord.
Lord Cashman (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for giving way and therefore I will be brief. I am not a lawyer, but I come to these matters from a very personal perspective.
I stand here as someone who, for most of my life, has faced discrimination and illegality. Why? Because the views of a majority were used against people like me enjoying the equal protection of the law and freedom from discrimination. I believe it is incumbent on anyone in public life to challenge public opinion, to lead public opinion and to have the courage to do the right thing for the long term, and never follow the short term.
I am grateful for the many briefings I have received on this from the Refugee Council, the Red Cross, the Law Society and many other eminent organisations. I think it is the first time that I have read from such reputable organisations that a Bill should be rejected on grounds of legality and constitutionality.
I particularly welcome Amendment 4 in this group because it states, quite rightly, our legal obligations. It neuters the power of Clause 1 to mandate that the rest of the Bill be in conformity with what I believe is an attempt to deny the right to seek asylum and refuge in this country.
I am lucky that I was born in the United Kingdom. I have to stand back and say: what if I had not been? What if I had been born in a country where I could not be myself, love someone of the same sex or have a different political opinion or a different religion? What if I was that person? What would I do to value my family, my life or my liberty? I would seek refuge.
To leave your home is not an easy option. I say to the Government: do not represent it as a rush through Waitrose with a three-wheeled shopping trolley. It is about life and death. Yes, there are young men who have the courage to step into a leaky boat at the end of their journey and cross the English Channel. They cross the English Channel so that they can find a place where they might belong, where they might be able to use the language or learn the language or seek out others who have similar cultural and social values. What about them, coming to earn money to send back home to liberate their families from poverty and oppression? Are they not worthy of being given the right to a fair hearing and the equality of the law?
Finally, as I said, I was born in the United Kingdom, but I am told that my family left Spain as Jews in the 16th century and travelled across Europe for the centuries that followed in search of refuge—in search of asylum. Some ended up in Ireland, where they had enough of persecution because of their religion and converted to Roman Catholicism. That branch of my family came here, and I come from that branch of the family. When I was old enough to understand that my religion was being used against me to deny me my rights and to deprive me my place and my right to love, I became a born-again atheist.
The noble Baroness, Lady Fox, referred to the speeches she had heard. She might have heard me refer to a brilliant speech in a play by Shakespeare, which I am not going to give to your Lordships this afternoon.
Lord Cashman (Lab)
It is a brilliant speech, which reminds us that what was done hundreds of years ago is still being done: othering. “You bid that the strangers be removed”. These strangers have made their way from Calais to Dover to London.
“Imagine you are the stranger, with your children upon your back, your family at your side, your belongings at your feet. Imagine you are the stranger and bid that they be removed and show your mountainish inhumanity”.—[Official Report, 10/5/23; col 1849.]
That is what these amendments address and if, at some later stage, Amendment 4 is pressed, I will have absolutely no hesitation in supporting it.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts (Con)
My Lords, I am pleased to follow the personal and moving speech from the noble Lord, Lord Cashman. One always has to bear in mind the personal nature of many of the discussions and speeches we are hearing today.
I share one thing with the noble Lord: like him, I am not a lawyer. Therefore, to talk about the rule of law—which, in essence, is what this group of amendments is about—is to put one’s head into the legal lion’s mouth, but I am proposing to do that because I think that some important points need to be made from outside the courtroom. Before I get to the substance of my remarks, particularly on Amendment 4, I will set in context my strategic support for the Bill and the direction of travel, which I explained at Second Reading, because it will colour the background to the remarks I will make now and the remarks I hope to make in future stages of the Bill.
We are meeting on a very important afternoon. In 2021, we gave the right to remain—not the right to enter—to 504,000 people. That is equivalent to a city the size of Cardiff. Tomorrow, at 8 am, the ONS will release the figures on the right to remain for 2022. Unless the press has got it completely wrong, we will have given 700,000 people the right to remain in this country in one year. That is equivalent to a city the size of Newcastle. There must be a serious question as to whether that rate of population growth is sustainable, particularly within the confines of an already pretty crowded and small island.
I am sorry that the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham is not in his place. Although we had many confrontations on the borders Bill last year, one thing we could agree on—and I suspect that there will be general agreement in Committee—is that people who are here legally, and who have legal rights to come here, need to be welcomed and given all the advantages and rights that we enjoy. The creation of two classes of citizens would surely be fatal for our country and our society. So, when we allow people to come here permanently, we take on a considerable debt requirement for investment in various aspects that make our lives suitable and happy.
The right reverend Prelate and I would also agree, I think, that, when these rights are being given, responsibilities are simultaneously imposed. If you wish to take out of our society, you must put back in —as indeed we all must. But, if the Committee accepts that we cannot, with advantage, build a Cardiff one year, a Newcastle the next year and so on into the future, we have to find ways to restrict the inflow. By the way, the unofficial figures for the first four months of this year will show higher than 700,000 if it goes on at that rate. The 67.3 million people of our settled population—18% of whom come from minority groups —deserve no less. Therefore, as I listen to noble Lords explaining how the Bill should be removed, I think they need to think about how we tackle the question of a country which has taken on 1.2 million people— 2% of its population—in the last two years.
The Archbishop of Canterbury
I entirely accept, and everyone who has spoken so far has agreed, that we have to control migration. I do not think there is any argument about that, but does the noble Lord accept that of that 700,000 last year, or whatever the number turns out to be exactly, the Bill will cover only 45,000? The Bill is not about overall immigration.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts (Con)
The most reverend Primate is exactly right: we have failed to start the conversation across the country as to what the number we can reasonably absorb is. Once we have had that conversation, the second stage of the conversation is: how does that number divide up between, as the most reverend Primate has just referred to, people who are coming here to fulfil jobs we cannot do and people who are coming here because they have money or ideas or are brilliant academics? That way, the people of this country would have some understanding of what is in store for them. I certainly accept that 40,000 people—but it may be 80,000 people—is only a fraction, a small part, of the problem that we face.
I turn, without further delay, to the rule of law. I need to begin by stating that I am an enthusiastic supporter of the rule of law, a rule of law that interprets the views of Parliament and provides the framework under which our society can operate with confidence, our freedoms are protected and our property rights are respected. Indeed, at various times since I joined your Lordships’ House, we have had debates on the importance of the rule of law which I have been pleased to participate in. At this point, Members of your Lordships’ House who are of a judicial turn of mind will no doubt be pleased by what I have been saying. I am afraid that what I am about to say is going to be rather less acceptable.
As I have explained, I am not a lawyer, but I think the rule of law is too important to be left entirely to lawyers to speak about and interpret; there are wider societal consequences. I do not wish to get involved in legal niceties and drafting. I have heard the Government’s view, expressed by my noble friend the Minister, that the UK will be in compliance. I have heard endless briefings about how the UK will not be in compliance. Let me explain from a non-lawyer’s point of view what I think the man on the Clapham omnibus thinks, which is that the rule of law is not a stand-alone, immutable entity. To be effective and accepted, it needs to be well integrated into the civil society which it seeks to protect. Specifically, in my view, to carry public confidence the rule of law needs to meet four tests: it needs to be relevant; it needs to be open to scrutiny; it needs to be applied in accordance with the original purpose of the law; and it needs the informed consent of the British people. I shall deal briefly with those points.
The first is relevance. Of the list in Amendment 4 of five conventions, two are 70 years old, one is 60 years old, one is 30 years old and only one was signed this century. The noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, proudly read them out. In 1950, in the aftermath of the appalling events of the Second World War, the challenge of refugees, in terms of numbers, scale and distance, bears no relation to the situation we face today. Of course, I accept that there are areas of read-across from 1950 to today, but to see a direct comparison in every aspect stretches public credibility.
The second is openness and scrutiny. Again, as a non-lawyer, I expect there to be open hearings, with pleadings by both sides, followed by a detailed reason for reaching a particular decision by an identified judge or judges. I am not clear that this has invariably been the situation in some of the key aspects that form the background to the Bill.
The third is applicability. I was an enthusiastic supporter of the Modern Slavery Act—which is not on the list in Amendment 4—but now I see it being misused as a means to frustrate the proper operation of our immigration system and so devalue and undermine the original purpose of the Act. I find it hard to believe that the increase in case load from an anticipated 3,500 cases per annum to the current 17,000 cases last year can all be based on genuine circumstances.
Fourthly and finally is informed consent. I return to a point I covered a bit earlier: successive Governments have never been courageous or honest enough to explain candidly to the British people the implications of these conventions. It has been easier to present the country with a series of faits accomplis and then wonder why there is a degree of public cynicism and toxicity about the process.
I hope that my noble friend the Minister will reject amendments that place excessive weight on the narrow interpretation of the rule of law. I respectfully suggest that Members of the Committee who have amendments in this group reflect on how the outcome of their decisions and discussions may serve across the country to undermine the credibility of and public confidence in a concept—the rule of law—which we can all agree lies at the heart of our society.
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)
My Lords, I largely made at Second Reading all the points I would have wished to make in this debate, and they were admirably made earlier by the noble Lord, Lord Hannay. I look forward to the Minister’s response to the challenge from the noble Lord, Lord Carlile of Berriew, to construe for us the meaning of the Section 19(1)(b) statement. The Minister made a sporting shot at it at Second Reading when he said:
“I think it is fair to say that there has been a misunderstanding of the effect of such a statement. We have designed a scheme that is novel and ambitious”.
One can say that again. He continued:
“as a result, we have made a Section 19(1)(b) statement under that Act. This simply makes it clear that we cannot say definitively that we will win a challenge in Strasbourg. However, we are confident that Strasbourg will respect the will of Parliament and our domestic court processes. We make no apologies for taking this approach. This is what the situation demands and what the British public expect”.—[Official Report, 10/5/23; col. 1921.]
I find that a slightly sinister statement. It seems to carry the ring of, “And the court had better find for us, or else”—and we all know what the “or else” is that is talked about in some quarters. To be fair to the Minister, he did not try to argue that, in a dualist state like us, breaching international law is a legitimate action, but some he cited in his speech are so arguing.
I say to the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, that if one thinks that these conventions are a bit old and wants to change them, the way to go about that is to call for an international conference and put down proposals for amendments to the conventions. The refugee situation and the problems of asylum are not less now than they were when the conventions were created, so the need to defend and perhaps develop them—there is a case for trying to develop them—is more important now than it was even when they were first set up.
I strongly support Amendment 4. I also support Amendment 2.
Lord Hacking (Lab)
My Lords, I support Amendment 4 for all the reasons that almost every Member of the Committee has expressed in the debate, but I will not repeat any of those arguments. I am a little disappointed that we have not heard from the noble Lords, Lord Sandhurst and Lord Wolfson, both of whom are sitting on the Government Benches. As a fellow lawyer, I would be interested to know their position on Amendment 4. I think that I saw the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, attempt to stand up, so I may get an answer to that question.
I am going to read to your Lordships a short quotation from the brief I have just received from Justice. I should tell your Lordships that I am on the council of Justice and have been a member for many years. It reads as follows:
“This is a perilous moment for human rights protections in continental Europe, as the war in Ukraine continues and Russia is expelled from the Council of Europe (the leading human rights organisation on the continent). The UK’s reputation is strengthened not only by being a party to the European Convention on Human Rights but an active leading member of the Council of Europe. Now is the moment for the UK to take the lead”.
Lord Desai (CB)
My Lords, I am not a lawyer; I am an economist. When the most reverend Primate raised this question on 9 December last year, I spoke on this matter. It is not that there is any problem with Amendment 4; I accept it entirely. A sense of this issue is in Amendment 1: the Bill should not have been called an illegal immigrants Bill. It should have been called an economic migrants Bill, because the whole idea, as mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Horam, and the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, is that we cannot distinguish between economic migrants and genuine refugees. In trying to make that distinction when somebody arrives on our shores, having paid some smugglers, we have to undertake a lot of expense, and it takes a lot of time before we can decide that so-and-so is not a refugee, because not everybody who arrives is a genuine refugee. It would help if we could separately define economic migrants and refugees.
Being an economist, I think unlimited migration is good. Let me put it this way: I do not want to exclude economic migrants, because I think they are very useful people. They have talents and are willing to risk smugglers, small boats and their lives to arrive here, so they genuinely want to come here, work hard and make a fortune—that is very good. We need people like that.
For the purposes of the law and popular sentiment, it would be helpful if we started with a distinction between economic migrants and genuine refugees. I can see why it may be a very difficult thing to do, but if you could make the distinction then we could live with Amendment 4 very happily, and in Amendment 1 we could define precisely how our courts can quickly define economic migrants. Then we should charge them money to come here—I do not see any problem with that. We have visas, and green or red cards—whatever it is—and if you are willing to pay the smuggler, why not pay us? Rather than lose money, we should have our own boat services across the channel and say, “Please come, get into our boats and pay us the money you were going to pay the smugglers”. We are losing money and not solving the problem. I know this is shocking, but these things happen.
Let us decide who is an economic migrant and who is a refugee. If we can make that distinction logically and clearly, a lot of our problems will be solved.
Lord Sahota (Lab)
My Lords, I will be very brief in speaking to the amendments in the names of my noble friend Lady Chakrabarti, the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, and the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford.
As the son of an immigrant, it always makes me uneasy when that word is spoken in vain. I am the son of an immigrant who was a member of the Sikh community which came to the UK in the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s and helped to build this country by working their guts out in the foundries of the West Midlands. Most of the foundry workers were Sikhs.
The Sikh population in the UK is now about 550,000 people. It is one of the most successful communities in the UK, with the lowest number of benefit claimants, the lowest unemployment rate and high rates of home ownership. Only 4% of the Sikh community lives in social rented housing, compared with 18% of other groups. It has the highest proportion of people in high-skill occupations at 39%, compared with 30% among other groups. Only 2% of the Sikh elderly are in care homes compared with a much higher number in other communities. A recent BBC study found that Sikhs are the most generous group when it comes to giving to charities. Over 60,000 meals—langar—are served every week on the streets of the UK by Sikhs. And yet—this is my first point—in a recent faith report for the Government by Colin Bloom, the impression given was that Sikhs are terrorists and extremists. I do not accept that characterisation of the Sikh community.
As for the Bill, I wish the Prime Minister had shredded it along with the other European papers. Whichever way you look at it, the Bill stinks to high heaven. It does not speak to our country’s traditional moral values, our international obligations on human rights, the UN convention on refugees, the European convention against human trafficking, other international treaties and so on and so forth. All these have been mentioned by other noble Lords. There is not a decent principle in the Bill that does not break human rights. I fully agree with these amendments.
We shredded our position and power in the world by pulling out of the European Union. Now, we are shredding our moral obligation in the world with this Bill—and what for? For a few votes in so-called “red wall” areas. Our Prime Minister and Home Secretary should think again before pursuing the Bill. As the son and daughter of immigrants, they should know how much immigrants have given to this country. I support these amendments.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
My Lords, I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, brought his copy of Hansard from Second Reading with him. My recollection of the Minister’s explanation regarding Section 19(1)(b) was that the matter had not been tested by the courts. That sticks in my mind because I thought it was curious, since the Government are rather critical of people running off to the courts for interpretations of the law.
I will say quickly, because I want to put it on the record, that I subscribe to the view that no asylum seeker can be illegal and to the comments about international law which have been made. I am afraid that I am going to retreat from the big picture and Second Reading to Amendment 1—possibly unconventionally. I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for tabling it, because it made me start thinking about the definitions of a lot of other terms used in Clause 1. The term he has singled out—I agree with him that it needs clarity—raises a lot of issues. There is a sort of endless loop of argument about compliance by the individual and compliance by the Government in their assessment of what they are doing.
In my mind, that is not the only phrase in Clause 1(1) that needs to be clearer. The same sentence uses the wording,
“and in particular migration by unsafe and illegal routes”.
That raises a lot of issues, does it not? Unsafe, of course, is a matter of judgment. As for illegal routes, in legislative terms, how does a route become illegal? What does “and in particular” signify in this context? Does the reference to unsafe and illegal routes exclude other routes? I really do not know. It is good prose, but not in this context.
Another phrase which bothers me at a technical and, I have to say, a political and a practical level is
“in breach of immigration control”.
Superficially, one understands what that means, but I do not know and was unable to find whether this is a technical phrase and so legally clear within domestic law. Immigration control is breached by a contravention of legislation, I would think, at a given time. That is clear enough. However, in the area we are discussing, the Immigration Rules—which we know are constantly changing and which come from Ministers and do not touch the sides for parliamentary scrutiny—are part of immigration control. So, I would be interested to know what that means in this context. It seems to me that one could portray this as delegation to Ministers by another mechanism. It is not clear—this is the political point, I suppose—so it is not a deterrent. I think it is inappropriate and gives more power to the Executive, which the Constitution Committee reports are given
“an unusual degree of power”
by the Bill.
I have added my name to Amendment 84. The noble Lord, Lord Alton, is not in his place; I did not expect to find that the debate on this would come today, and possibly neither did he. I am grateful to the right reverend Prelate for highlighting compliance with the anti-trafficking conventions. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, that we need to come together with a single list that we can gather around.
I do not want to pre-empt debates on the substantive issues regarding trafficking and slavery—I say that without intending to suggest that the conventions and directives are not significant; they are—but will simply say that I expect the term “world-leading” to be used quite a lot with reference to the Modern Slavery Act when we get to that part of the Bill. The international nature of trafficking means that the UK has to consider it internationally and comply with conventions and directives—which brings us directly back to the point that many other noble Lords have made.
Lord Sandhurst (Con)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 2, 4, 84 and 148. I shall not speak to Amendments 1, 3 and 5. As for those later amendments, I will wait to hear what the Minister has to say about their meaning and effect on the Bill.
I turn to Amendment 2. Let me begin by way of introduction by explaining what I understand to be the effect of Clause 1(5) of the Bill, which will disapply Section 3 of the Human Rights Act 1998. Importantly, it does not mean that the convention ceases to apply to matters covered by the Bill or to acts by Ministers and officials; they will still be covered by it. Section 3 provides that
“primary legislation and subordinate legislation must be read and given effect in a way which is compatible with the Convention rights”.
Lord Hacking (Lab)
If the noble Lord looked at the national statistics on immigration for 2022, he would see that the figure is about 47,500 immigrants coming in by boat, but of those, there was a large portion of Albanians, and none of them were permitted to stay; they were shipped back to Albania.
Lord Sandhurst (Con)
That may be so, but the numbers are on a rising plane, and it is not simply Albanians now, they are coming from elsewhere. All I say is this. This is a carefully interlinked package of provisions. It may not be attractive or how we have done things in the past, but we face very different circumstances, and I suggest we should not seek to unpick its structure.
Baroness Ludford (LD)
I just ask the noble Lord about his point on Section 3 of the HRA, which he regards as disadvantageous. He talked about courts having to make a strained interpretation. I wonder whether he would give me some idea of how many cases there have been where the courts have had to strain to make this interpretation. Presumably, if they felt they had to do that, they would have had to resort to Section 4, declaring incompatibility. The review by Sir Peter Gross did not have a major problem with Section 3—I think there was a little tweak that has escaped my memory for the moment. It was broadly satisfied with the operation of Section 3, so I wonder why it is so difficult. With Section 4 and declarations of incompatibility, there is the disadvantage of having to make remedial orders—and there is not really capacity in the Commons to do that—and/or end up in the Strasbourg court. It seems to me much better to give some leeway to the courts to interpret legislation compatibly with the convention.
Lord Sandhurst (Con)
, I looked at Sir Peter Gross’s report yesterday and the night before to remind myself of what it said. Two points are important. One is that it was not unanimous on that point, unlike on everything else. We are not told where the disagreement was, but at least one member did not agree that nothing should be done. Secondly, it lamented the fact that there had been no statistics kept of the cases in which the court has gone down the route of Section 3, so we do not actually know when there has been what might be called a strained interpretation or when it has been a perfectly natural interpretation. You can read it if you look at individual judgments. The one in which Lord Steyn spoke is the case of Ghaidan—I cannot remember the other name in the case—
Lord Etherton (CB)
I have a very short point to make. I was delighted to hear the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, say that he was a great fan of the rule of law, but he, like the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, seems to think that it is something that can be moulded in accordance with political desire in Parliament. We should be quite clear about this, and the point is not a difficult one.
The rule of law is made up of various ingredients. One of those ingredients is compliance with international obligations. If you do not like the obligations and wish to comply with the rule of law, you either secede from the convention or international obligation or you change it. So long as it is there, you have to comply with it if you want to say that you are a country that observes the rule of law. We are a leading world democracy. If we do not abide by the rule of law, we place ourselves in the company of numerous rogue nations. This country deserves better than that.
Lord Griffiths of Burry Port (Lab)
I feel a little intimidated to follow such an intervention. I am not a lawyer either, but I am a member, as I have said repeatedly in the past, of the delegation from this Parliament to the Council of Europe; and I can attest, from conversations I have had in its migration committee, plenary sessions and other meetings in Strasbourg and other parts of Europe, that there are a number of countries in Europe at the moment that are looking to us to uphold standards that will give them the courage to maintain their current position with regard to these conventions. It is a very perilous moment. Our role in Europe is key to keeping quite a lot of others on board, and I want to emphasise that.
I feel it almost impossible for me to want to give even a shred of support to a Bill that, as has been quoted, has as its preface a statement by the Minister that he cannot give any guarantee, et cetera. I find myself at a loss to be looking at a piece of legislation—a law that will go on to our statute books—that begins this process with this degree of ambiguity written into it. Can lawyers not give the rest of us a starting point more certain than that?
Finally, let me say at this point that, long before I got involved in European matters, I had a lot to do with migration from Haiti to the United States, which is not a signatory to the convention. The methods open to countries that are not signatories to the convention are not pleasant at all, and I simply would not want the United Kingdom to have the opportunities to behave in that way.
Baroness Lawlor (Con)
My Lords, I oppose Amendments 2, 4 and 148 in this group because they would subvert and obstruct Clause 1, which sets out the purposes of the Bill and how they are to be advanced. I also oppose Amendment 3, because it would do so in a more subtle way, in requiring the Secretary of State to give guidance to Parliament on
“how the provisions … are to be read and given effect in a way that is compatible with the Convention Rights within the meaning of the Human Rights Act”,
and it includes a new obstacle that this
“does not have effect until approved by each House of Parliament”.
In this Bill, the Government are proposing to tackle unlawful migration—people coming into this country via unsafe and unlawful routes. The Government have a duty to enforce the laws of this country. They also have a duty to ensure the security of this country, including the security of its borders. International rules require asylum seekers to seek refuge in the first safe country in which they are.
Baroness Lawlor (Con)
It is a long-established tradition.
The Government have proposed a scheme to remove those who did not, in this case, seek refuge in France and those who do not comply with this country’s immigration controls, as has been said. The Bill’s purpose is to deter and prevent unlawful migration. To advance that purpose, it is disapplying Section 3 of the Human Rights Act 1998. That is supposed to have the effect of making the laws clear. To this end, the disapplication matters.
I therefore oppose these amendments because they seek to subvert the aims or obstruct the purposes and methods proposed by this measure. They would remove the clarity on how the Bill is to be interpreted. They would obstruct the duty on our Government to ensure the security of our country and uphold the law. They would also mean that the democratic will of the people of this country, which is that our borders are controlled, is frustrated in the case of this sort of migration. I urge the Minister to reject these amendments.
Lord Patten of Barnes (Con)
I apologise for not taking part in the Second Reading debate on this Bill, but I have made amends by sitting through the entire debate this afternoon. I am sure that, when I reflect on the last few hours, I will realise how much I learned. There are two points I would like to make.
First, I am surprised that, despite the intervention of the right reverend Prelate—and despite, I am sure, his prayers as well—some Members of the House continue to conflate the issue of what was once disgracefully called by a Minister the invasion across the English Channel with the general issue of immigration. We can deal with the issue of immigration—and there is nothing wrong with that at all—best of all by having a serious labour market policy. That is the only way we will deal with immigration that does not set one party against another in a sort of auction of prejudice. I hope we will stop making it more difficult to discuss this Bill by talking about it as though it were a key to deal with the issue of immigration.
Secondly, I was surprised to find a spokesman for the People’s Republic of China. Why did the Chinese say they were perfectly at liberty to break the joint declaration? They said it was a historic agreement; it was out of time; it was like a packet of peanuts that had passed its sell-by date. So, I am never going to believe that, simply because we signed something 10, 20, 40 or 50 years ago, it does not have any relevance today. But I am looking forward to hearing from the Minister whether or not he thinks this Bill is in line with international obligations, and I am looking forward, I suppose, to the contribution from the Chinese ambassador in the next debate.
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
My Lords, like my noble friend Lord Patten, I have sat through all of this debate. I rise because my name—or, at least, a name close to mine—was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, at one point. The reason I rise with a little diffidence is that I have to catch a flight later this evening. I anticipate that I will be able to stay to the end of this debate and still make the plane, but if that turns out not to be right, I hope noble Lords will forgive me and not think that I mean any discourtesy to this Committee or those sitting in it today. I hope everybody will appreciate that is the last thing I would want.
Unlike other speakers, I cannot disavow being a lawyer. For better or worse, I am a lawyer. Therefore, let me make two short points at the outset. First, international law obligations are important. We ought to abide by them, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton, said. I would expect Parliament not to legislate contrary to a treaty obligation unless there were absolutely compelling reasons to do so and, in those circumstances, to make that very clear. Otherwise, we should always be legislating consistently with our international law obligations.
Secondly, as I made clear from the Front Bench on a number of occasions, I support our membership of the European Convention on Human Rights. I do not always agree with the decisions of the court—I do not always agree with the decisions of our domestic courts either—but that is a separate matter. I support us being in the convention.
I will not refer to all these amendments. I start with Amendments 3 and 148, which go together. Essentially, they refer to the statement that the Secretary of State must set out as to whether the Bill is compatible with the convention rights. Section 19(1)(a) and Section 19(1)(b) were put into the Human Rights Act as a political point. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, made this absolutely clear when the Bill was going through this House. It was to keep people’s minds focused on whether the Government could say at that time that the Bill was compliant. It was never intended to be a legal bar. There is precedent in this House. The Communications Bill is a precedent for the Government being unable to state that the Bill was compatible with convention rights. When they were challenged, the challenges failed.
One cannot draw a line between being unable to make a Section 19(1)(a) statement and the Bill being in breach of convention rights. Section 19(1)(b) is very carefully drafted, and I listened carefully to the noble Lord, Lord Carlile of Berriew, who asked what it means. That statement is in the form that it is in the Bill because those are the words in Section 19(1)(b). That is what Parliament told the Minister to say. The structure is that if the Minister cannot make a Section 19(1)(a) statement, he or she makes a Section 19(1)(b) statement. Rather oddly, all that Section 19(1)(b) says is, “I can’t make Section 19(1)(a)”. Is that sensible? With respect, I do not think it is. If it were up to me, I would take out Section 19(1)(a) and Section 19(1)(b), which add more distraction than assistance. They were put in for political rather than legal reasons, and that is why the Section 19(1)(b) statement is in the form that it is in.
Lord Hope of Craighead (CB)
I recall saying once in the Appellate Committee that the courts were not bound by the statement—it has no legal effect.
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
The noble and learned Lord is absolutely right; it has no legal effect. Can I put this another way? The Minister can make a Section 19(1)(b) statement and the court can find that the Act is compatible. The Minister can make Section 19(1)(a) statement and the court can find that it is not.
Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)
Does the noble Lord not agree that the Section 19(1)(b) statement on this Bill is very different from the Section 19(1)(b) statement on the Communications Bill? I am sure that he has looked at it. Secretary of State Tessa Jowell made the following statement:
“I am unable (but only because of Clause 309) to make a statement that, in my view, the provisions of the Communications Bill are compatible with the Convention rights”.
By making that statement, Tessa Jowell made it clear that in a massive Bill there was only one clause that she could not make such a statement about. In effect, she stated that everything apart from Clause 309 was compliant with the Human Rights Act. That is how it was understood; we can all read the debates. Is it not incumbent upon the Government, when they make a statement as vague as that on this Bill, to explain what is and what is not compatible with the Human Rights Act?
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
The noble Lord is making a political point. It may be good politics or bad politics, but whether the Government want to do that or not, my focus is on Section 19 of the Human Rights Act, which is very clear:
“A Minister of the Crown in charge of a Bill in either House of Parliament must, before Second Reading … (a) make a statement to the effect that in his view the provisions of the Bill are compatible with the Convention rights … or (b) make a statement to the effect that although he is unable to make a statement of compatibility the government nevertheless wishes the House to proceed with the Bill”.
We could have a nice debate about whether the statement in the Communications Act 2003 was consistent with Section 19, but that is not my point. My point today is simply that we cannot legitimately criticise the Minister for making precisely the statement that Parliament told him to make in Section (19)(1)(b) if he cannot make a Section 19(1)(a) statement.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
With respect to the noble Lord, nobody is criticising the Minister for making the statement. The noble Lord is the distraction, not Section 19. We are criticising the Bill that cannot be stated as compatible. It is the legislation that we have a problem with, not the honesty of the Minister in saying, “I can’t say that I believe this to be compatible”. It might be politics, but politics is the process of legislative scrutiny. The objective of Section 19 was to force Ministers to put their money where their mouth is in the debate and to say whether they believe that this draft legislation complies. If they say, “I can’t be sure”, it is quite right for us to do what we are doing. With respect, this is smoke and mirrors and not to the substance of this Bill.
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
It is certainly not smoke and mirrors. The force of the noble Baroness’s point is, “If you can’t make a Section 19(1)(a) statement, there is something irremediably bad with the Bill”. My point is that if you are legislating in a novel area, there may well be circumstances in which you cannot make a Section 19(1)(a) statement. A Section 19(1)(a) statement is a 51:49 statement that, in your view, it is compatible. If you therefore think that it is finely balanced as to whether it is, you cannot make a Section 19(1)(a) statement. It would be wrong in those circumstances for a Government to think, “I shouldn’t bring this Bill before Parliament merely because I take the view that it is 50:50”.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
I am grateful to the former Minister and sure that he listened carefully to how Section 19 was introduced into the deliberations of the Committee earlier, not least by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope. Members of the Committee have been pointing to the contradictions in the Government’s position around the compatibility of this Bill—Section 19(1)(b) on the tin and then something else in the ECHR memorandum. It is the clarity of the Government’s belief that Members of the Committee have for some hours this afternoon been looking for.
Baroness Ludford (LD)
To avoid the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson, having to be up and down too many times, I will jump in here. The noble Lord, Lord Carlile, pointed out that the Secretary of State’s inability to make a Section 19(1)(a) declaration was in relation to only one clause. The content of that clause was the proposed ban on political advertising across all broadcast media. One can see why that might inhibit a Section 19(1)(a) declaration, but it is not on the same scale as what many of us in this Chamber this afternoon maintain are the various and extremely serious breaches of the European convention commitment. It is apples and pears, or chalk and cheese—I am mixing my metaphors horribly. It is not a good precedent for saying why there cannot be a declaration of compatibility for this Bill. It is not on the same scale.
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
I am grateful for that shortish intervention. Essentially it raises the same point that the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, put to me and, without any disrespect, I give the same answer. I am focused, as a matter of principle, on what Section 19 does.
Amendment 2, which has already been referred to by my noble friend Lord Sandhurst, disregards Section 3 of the Human Rights Act 1998, which is a very odd section. Uniquely in our law, it requires that other Acts of Parliament be interpreted:
“So far as it is possible to do so”
in accordance with the convention rights. We do not do that in any other area of our law.
The case law under Section 3 is extremely complex. As has been referred to before, Sir Peter Gross set this out in his review of the Human Rights Act. I would be entirely content if I could be sure that the current law on what Section 3 does remains the law. What we have seen, however, when we look at Ullah, Al-Skeini or other cases, is that what Section 3 means and how it is interpreted by the courts has moved. In those circumstances, the Government are right to exclude Section 3 of the Human Rights Act from the Bill by way of its Clause 1(5).
Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)
I am most grateful to the noble Lord, because I was following with interest his argument, which seems to be that there are two sorts of obligation—those we incorporate in domestic law and international obligations—and the international obligations are less binding, important and necessary. Perhaps the noble Lord could tell me what the status of the UN charter or the Brussels treaty on NATO is. Does he mean that we, as a Parliament, could decide not to apply Article 5 of the NATO treaty? That would be a pretty serious statement to make.
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
I am reluctant to give the noble Lord a private lecture on this, but I will set out a very short answer. I will be blunt but, I hope, legally accurate. The short answer to the noble Lord’s question is yes; we could do it. International treaties are not part of our domestic law. As far as our domestic courts are concerned—please let me finish and I will give way—if we were to legislate completely contrary to an international treaty, our domestic courts would have to abide by the Act of Parliament, because that is domestic law. Of course, that would put the UK in breach of the international treaty. It is not something I would recommend, but the noble Lord asked me a direct question about how the two interrelate, and that is a necessary consequence of being a dualist state. International treaties are not part of domestic law, unless and until they are incorporated.
Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)
This could develop into a really interesting argument, I am afraid—between lawyers. The noble Lord just referred to the dualist theory, which of course is very important, but, in reality, international treaties are not usually entered into legislation because they are made under the royal prerogative. But that does not make them any less binding.
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
I started my remarks by saying that international treaties are extremely important and that we should always legislate consistently with our international obligations, except in the most unforeseen and unusual circumstances. But that is not the question I was asked by the noble Lord, Lord Hannay. We are a dualist state. That is why we should object to these amendments, which seek to incorporate treaties by the back door.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
As a matter of fact, the European Convention on Human Rights was incorporated by the Human Rights Act 1998, the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child was incorporated by the Children Act and so on. These particular treaties have been given special status in our domestic law. I also take some exception to the idea that Amendment 4, which everybody can see, is somehow surreptitious or “back door”. We are having this debate because, by definition, some of us want this protection very much via the front door.
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
With great respect, the noble Baroness is wrong. The Human Rights Act did not incorporate the convention. Can I just finish what I was saying? It took certain articles of the convention and reproduced them in a schedule to the Act of Parliament. That is not incorporating the convention; it is reproducing certain articles of it in the Human Rights Act. The point is not relevant to today but, if I am going to be interrupted on a point of law, at least let it be right. One has only to look at Schedule 1 to the Human Rights Act to see what that Act did.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
Before the noble Lord sits down, I hesitate to butt into this very exciting conversation between some great legal minds. I will of course pore over it in Hansard tomorrow. The point about courts saying “Did the Government mean this or that?” is that we are passing very bad laws that are not explicit—that is the fault of the Government—and this will be one of them.
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
I entirely agree with the noble Baroness that we should pass clear legislation. I think she used the word “exciting” to describe lawyers.
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
That is the first time I have heard the word used. The noble Lord, Lord Carlile of Berriew, used the word “interesting”, which is at least better than “expensive”, which is the usual word used. On that, perhaps I should sit down.
Lord Dubs (Lab)
My Lords, as a non-lawyer, I have found the last few minutes absolutely absorbing. I have learned a great deal without having to pay any tuition fees. I shall peruse Hansard with a great deal of interest and will advise any law students to do the same.
Although I am not a lawyer, I will make two brief comments. For some years, I have served on the British delegation to the OSCE, the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe. It is slightly different from the Council of Europe, but it involves a lot of discussion nevertheless. I serve on its migration committee and we have had a lot of discussion about how we do things in this country and about how other countries behave.
What I have noticed in recent years is that the respect which we as a country have earned has been somewhat diminished, and I am asked, “Why are you doing this?” and “Isn’t this a departure?”. I remember some years ago, when we still had a lot of respect, I was asked what I thought in terms of the British experience of the rule of law and so on and how I would approach a particular issue; I ventured to indicate how I thought we would do it. But those questions are not being asked any more. We are no longer treated as a model that has earned international respect because of abiding by the rule of law and doing things properly and openly.
I would have thought this Bill has debased our reputation, certainly in countries that follow these issues, and I think that is a matter of enormous regret. I used to take pride in the fact that, in international gatherings, I came and represented a Parliament of a country that was treated well by other countries. They regarded us as an example to follow, and I fear that that is much less the case than it used to be.
I will briefly make one other point about public opinion. Of course, I am aware that what we do and what public opinion thinks is crucial. We cannot just act as if public opinion did not exist. I remember when I introduced an amendment in 2016 about refugees—Theresa May was then Home Secretary—public opinion influenced the Government’s attitude. Initially, she asked me to withdraw my amendment, and I said I would not and then public opinion woke up to what was happening: it was the television pictures of the Syrian boy, Alan Kurdi, drowned on a Mediterranean beach.
I have told this story before. The amendment was going through and I heard somebody shout at me in the street. Now, we know that normally, when people shout at us in the street, it is abuse because we are politicians. In this case, a woman shouted out: “Keep going with your amendment”. It made me realise that public opinion is not monolithic and opposed to refugees; it moves with the times. The sad thing is—I am not allowed to call anybody a liar, am I?
Lord Dubs (Lab)
I shall be very careful—I do not want to be thrown out of here. During the referendum campaign, Boris Johnson said that if we did not leave the EU, 70 million or 80 million Turks were poised to enter Britain. That inflamed public opinion and moved it away from sympathy for immigrants, and indeed for refugees, as the public do not always distinguish between the two. It made me realise that public opinion can move about, but it is important. I have said all along when I have talked about refugees that it is important that we explain what is going on in such a way that public opinion is on our side.
On Amendment 4, I believe that the British public on the whole, if it was explained sensibly and objectively, would say, “We understand why we adhere to these international treaties, why they matter and why they are important”. I fear that, when eminent members of the Cabinet talk about “invaders”, they seek to poison public opinion and make it less sympathetic to how we treat asylum seekers and refugees. I think that is very sad indeed. The language we use too often does influence public opinion and I hoped at least some of this debate would have gone the other way. I think those of us who believe in the 1951 Geneva convention and the other international agreements have a responsibility to try and explain the issues in such a way that British people understand what is at stake. I believe there is a great deal at stake here.
Lord Paddick (LD)
My Lords, we support the clarifying amendments in the name of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, and my noble friend Lady Ludford has explained at length the reasons for her Amendment 2. I, too, will read the official record in an attempt to understand the points raised by the noble Lords, Lord Sandhurst and Lord Wolfson of Tredegar. Having done that, I may just leave that to the lawyers to argue among themselves.
However, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, has said, if this Bill is not compliant with the European Convention on Human Rights, then the Government should say why or which bits of it are compliant. If there is a precedent for the Government to say that a Bill is not in compliance with the European Convention on Human Rights—the precedent set in the 2002 Act—then surely the precedent set by the 2002 Act is that the Government also say which bits of the Act are not compliant with the European convention.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts (Con)
I draw the noble Lord’s attention to the fact that he is conflating two different purposes. One is rights of admission—that is for the 1.3 million—the 700,000 have the right to remain. They are quite different, and the 1.3 million do not impose the burden on us in so far as 1.3 million people, but 700,000 people here permanently need to have, as I have said, houses, schools, jobs and all the other stuff which we expect and which they must have if they are fully paid-up citizens of this country.
Lord Paddick (LD)
I will apologise to the noble Lord if I am wrong, but my understanding is that the 700,000 is net migration. That is the number of people whom the Government have given permission to come and live here—1,370,000—minus the number of people who have left the UK, so not exactly what the noble Lord has said at all. It is an issue. As the most reverend Primate said, this Bill deals with 45,000 compared with the 1,370,000 the Government have given permission to come here.
Similarly, we support Amendment 148 in that none of the Bill’s provisions should come into force until the Secretary of State makes a statement that this Bill is compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights.
To the Minister, I would say that with noble friends like the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, and the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate, the Government clearly have serious questions to answer. In answer to the noble Lord, Lord Horam, and the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, whatever the solution to the overall immigration issue is, it cannot involve this country riding roughshod over its international obligations. As a commander said to me when I presented my solution to a very difficult problem in the police, I do not know what the solution is but it is not this.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
My Lords, it is a privilege to wind up for His Majesty’s Opposition. I start by declaring my interest as a trustee of the Human Trafficking Foundation and my work with the University of Nottingham’s Rights Lab. I thank the Minister for arranging for my noble friend Lord Ponsonby and I to visit Western Jet Foil in Dover yesterday and the Manston reception centre to see the work that they do there. I know the Minister will join us in saying to noble Lords that, whatever our debates about policy, the work, commitment, professionalism and dedication of those people who are saving lives at sea and helping people when they come ashore are second to none, and they deserve our praise and tribute.
Having said that, nobody is saying, as we debate the Bill, that there is not an issue about the boats and those coming across the channel in that way. Nobody is disputing that. Nobody is saying that there is no need to control our borders. Nobody is saying there is no need for any of the sorts of policies that we have been debating. What is before us is the way that it is done. What is the policy objective? What is the way of doing it? What is the way of controlling it? From the contributions that have been made, the debate that we have had here is saying that the Government have got it wrong and that not only will it not work—and I will come to the other points in a minute—but that it is not consistent with the principles we hold. That is a perfectly acceptable view to have. It does not mean that you are in favour of as many boats as possible coming across without any reflection on what we might do about it or that we do not care about that; it is saying that it is not the right way of going about it.
Many noble Lords have been Members of the other place, as I have. Nobody is seeking in the slightest sense, as a couple of noble Lords have suggested, to block the will of the House of Commons as it has been expressed. That was defeated by a heavy majority in the vote last week, or whenever it was. That majority included me as I did not think it was right thing to do, but I will not be intimidated by the other place into not saying that this House has the perfect right to stand up, to change the Bill if we think it is wrong, to take out of it things we think are wrong and to say to the other place that it should think again because what it is seeking to do is not right. That is a perfectly reasonable thing to do and is the constitutional position of this House.
My noble friend Lord Dubs is right: sometimes people will pray in aid public opinion one way or another and it changes. I could quote the local election results and some results where one would think that if the “stop the boats” message was working, there would have been different results from those that happened, but I will not make a political point. The point that I am trying to make is that public opinion changes, it moves and sometimes, as my noble friend Lord Dubs reminded us, it is incumbent upon people to say, without being arrogant or out of touch, that in this respect we think this is the right way to go forward, this is the right thing to do.
The other point I want to make is that we are not a direct democracy; we are a representative democracy. That is an important point to make.
Although I signed Amendment 2, which is important, Amendment 4 goes to the heart of this group. The noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, the noble Lords, Lord Paddick and Lord Kirkhope, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton, deserve a lot of praise for tabling it because it goes to the heart of the Bill. I think that in many ways—I disagree with noble Lords who say that this is not the case—it is unbelievable that we are having to discuss an amendment to a Bill which says that this Bill, which a Government of this country are bringing forward, has to be consistent with the international conventions that we have signed. I would have thought that was a given.
I know there has been a great legal debate about what law means and whether we are a dualist country. I had never heard the word “dualist” until about a week ago. My simple understanding was, and the noble Lords, Lord Hannay and Lord Patten, and others made this point, that whether we are a dualist country or not, when a country signs an international convention, when it agrees with other countries that these are the rules that it is going to abide by, I think they probably think that means that it is going to abide by it whether you are a dualist country, a monist country or whatever country it is, because they believe that the Government of the country that they have negotiated an agreement with have made a binding commitment in terms of how they will proceed. That is the point. The noble Lord, Lord Patten, knows what happened in Hong Kong with the agreement. That is the whole point. The noble Lord, Lord Hannay, has done more of those negotiations. What are we doing with Russia? We are saying to Russia in Ukraine that we are not going to stand by and watch it drive a coach and horses through international agreements and international conventions. We are not going to stand by and watch that happen. I am proud our country is doing that.
That is why Amendment 4 is so important, but it is, frankly, unbelievable, as I said at the beginning, that it has had to be tabled. Is it really the case that our Government are telling the United Nations commissioner, the Council of Europe commissioner and all the other people who have said that this Bill breaks those conventions and things that we have signed, “You are wrong and we are right”? Is that really what we have come to? Is that really the situation that we are in? Are we not concerned about our reputation? The Government will say that it is not the case. I am sure the Minister will get up and say that we are abiding by these conventions and that the Government do not understand why the commissioner has written and that he or she is wrong in writing to us and saying that we do not abide by this convention or that convention. I am sure that the Minister will say that, but why are they writing to us? They cannot both be right. Either they are right or the Government are right, and yet they are saying to the Government that many of the conventions they have signed are being broken by the Illegal Migration Bill. What is our Government saying? Has it really come down to our Government just dismissing it, just a shrug of the shoulders, it does not matter, who cares, we are not bothered? That is no way for a Government to run their affairs. The consequences of doing that are enormous.
I finish by returning to the point about Amendment 4. I think it does us a favour; there might be one or two other conventions, but the amendment lays it out. These are fundamental ways in which countries have come together to say that, when dealing with some of the most difficult situations that we face, including the mass movement of people across borders, no country can do it alone. There must be co-operation, agreement and understanding—and those agreements and that understanding are based on countries believing that what they are told by another country will be adhered to and promises will be kept.
If that is not the case, all this will fall apart and we will have international anarchy. Our country cannot solve the problem of refugees and migration alone; it needs to work with others. That was the basis of the conventions that we signed and of the agreements that we made; our international reputation stands on it and we should keep it.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Migration and Borders (Lord Murray of Blidworth) (Con)
My Lords, we have had a very interesting, long and good debate, which has had perhaps more than a hint of a Second Reading debate—but, of course, that is unsurprising, given that Clause 1 sets out the purpose of the Bill. We will of course be able to revisit this debate in the second group when we have the “clause stand part” Question.
We have heard thoughtful speeches from many noble Lords, but I particularly valued the insights from the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, my noble friends Lord Hodgson, Lord Horam, Lord Sandhurst and Lady Lawlor, and my noble and learned friend Lord Wolfson.
For now, let me respond to the amendments directly. First, Amendments 1 and 5, tabled by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, seek to add into the Bill definitions of “illegal migration” and “unlawful migration”. The noble and learned Lord has suggested that this would be helpful in the interests of legal certainty. As a lawyer myself, I am all in favour of legal certainty but, in this instance, I am not persuaded that adding these definitions helps in this regard.
It is important to incorporate Bill-wide definitions in a Bill where terms are used across the Bill. We have done that in this Bill and, as noble Lords will have noticed, Clause 64 includes an index of defined expressions. But I put it to the noble and learned Lord that nothing hangs off the terms “unlawful migration” or “illegal migration” and, consequently, there is no need to define them. The term “unlawful migration” is used only once in the Bill, in Clause 1(1), while the term “illegal migration” is used only in the Short Title, as the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, observed. Moreover, it is clear from Clause 2 that the duty to make arrangements for removal applies to persons who meet the four conditions in that clause. It does not apply to other persons who may be in the country unlawfully—for example, because they have overstayed their limited leave to enter or remain. In short, the Bill is clear without these two terms being defined.
As regards the early intervention in the debate from the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, a point repeated by both the noble Baronesses, Lady Chakrabarti and Lady Hamwee, as well as my noble friend Lord Kirkhope and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chelmsford, I remind your Lordships that the Immigration Act 1971 was recently amended by the Nationality and Borders Act 2022 with regard to the criminal offences relating to illegal entry and arrival. This includes people who enter the UK without leave or arrive in the UK without permission: for example, without a visa where that is required under the Immigration Rules. This means that such persons are illegal migrants whether or not they go on to claim asylum. This, if I may say, answers the question from the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, of what makes a route illegal. The answer is: legislation, passed in the normal way, and scrutinised and passed by this House.
The suggestion by the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, that anyone making claims under the refugee convention can never be illegal, represents, with respect, a muddled reading of the convention. The convention is clear that states can still operate controls on illegal migration and, under Article 31, it is expressly permitted to disadvantage those who have arrived illegally from safe countries—which is true of all who come from France. This embodies the first safe country principle in the sense that Article 31 protections apply only to those who have come directly from unsafe countries—a point made by my noble friend Lady Lawlor.
The first safe country principle is also widely recognised internationally, including in the Common European Asylum System, a framework of rules and procedures operated by EU countries together, based on the refugee convention. I would add that the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, may have overlooked the fact that, under Clause 2(4) of this Bill, the “duty to remove” does not apply to those who have come directly from unsafe countries, in line with the refugee convention.
The refugee convention seems to be raised to support statements that are not all borne out by its terms. We must interpret the convention as it is written, not as others would wish it to be written.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)
I thank the Minister for giving way. I merely want to ask whether you are recommending that all of the 46,000 who arrived last year should be sent back to France. If so, has the Prime Minister had any discussions with President Macron about that?
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
As the noble Lord knows, the Prime Minister and President Macron have had regular discussions and there have been regular treaties and agreements in relation to the enhancement of police powers in France, but it is not presently the position of the French Government that they are willing to accept the return of those who have entered the UK illegally. That is what drives the Government to look for other avenues to dissuade people from embarking on the dangerous journey across the channel.
Turning to Amendment 2, tabled—
Baroness Ludford (LD)
I am sorry to intervene on the Minister, but I wonder if he could direct my attention to where in Article 31 of the refugee convention it refers to “illegal migrants”. I can find a reference only to “illegal entry or presence” or “entry or presence without authorisation”. It is the entry or the presence that is illegal or unauthorised; it is not the person. That is the problem that many of us have with the term “illegal migrant”. I cannot find it in Article 31 of the refugee convention; perhaps I have not looked hard enough.
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
I am very grateful to the noble Baroness. I was indeed about to mention her in my next sentence. Let me address that point and repeat what I said earlier. The phrase “illegal migration” in the Short Title of the Bill refers to the fact that the act of entering otherwise than in accordance with immigration controls was criminalised by an Act passed by this House and the other place in 2022. That is why it is correct to describe such people as “illegal migrants”—because they did not enter in accordance with immigration controls. That is the long and the short of it. The interpretation of Article 31 is irrelevant as regards that point of certainty.
I turn now to Amendment 2, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford. This amendment seeks to strike out subsection (5), which disapplies Section 3 of the Human Rights Act 1998. The disapplication of Section 3 will ensure that the Bill’s provisions will be interpreted to meet the legislative intent of Parliament, rather than the strained interpretations imposed by the courts to achieve compatibility with convention rights. As my noble and learned friend Lord Wolfson, King’s Counsel, pointed out, Section 3 is an unusual provision in UK law and there is, in principle, no reason why it cannot be excluded in cases like this.
It is our view that Parliament and the Government are better suited to address the sensitive policy issues involved in this legislation. It is therefore only right that Section 3, which requires the court to interpret the provisions to achieve compatibility with convention rights, must be disapplied so that courts interpret the law in accordance with the purpose of the Bill. Through this, we are ensuring that the balance between our domestic institutions is right and that Parliament’s intent is clear to the courts.
As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, explained, Amendment 3 flows from the recent report of the Constitution Committee. I am very grateful to that committee for its scrutiny of the Bill. We are studying its report carefully and will respond in full ahead of Report. As for the genesis of the amendment, the noble and learned Lord explained that the Constitution Committee considered that more explanation was needed around the Section 19(1)(b) statement that I made on the introduction of the Bill in this House.
Notwithstanding that the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, quoted from my Second Reading speech on this issue, I reiterate the point I made at that stage: a Section 19(1)(b) statement means not that the provisions of the Bill are incompatible with the convention rights, only that we cannot be certain that they are compatible. The assertion suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, in his speech a moment ago, that the statement amounts to a concession that measures in the Bill are incompatible, is not the case. The purpose of Section 19, as my noble friend Lord Wolfson set out, is that it is a statement that the provisions of the Bill are incompatible with convention rights and we cannot be certain that they are compatible. It is of course a measure in a piece of legislation passed by the last Labour Government and therefore something that the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, would no doubt place great weight on. Those are the terms that we find in Section 19 of the Human Rights Act.
Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)
Does the Minister not think that it might at least be a courtesy to the Committee to set out which of the provisions, in his view and that of the Home Secretary, are or are not compatible with the convention? That would help us to determine the quality of the legislation that is proposed.
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
I will come to address the issues of the broad applicability of the Section 19(1)(b) statement. There is no requirement in the Act for a statement to identify any particular section. Indeed, I do not want to wade into the waters that were nearly ventured into during the interventions on my noble friend Lord Wolfson’s speech about whether the Section 19(1)(b) statement in relation to the Communications Bill, as it then was, was in accordance with the statute.
In any event, I return to the principle of Section 19(1)(b) statements. It is right to say that they have been made by Governments of all stripes, not least in the Communications Bill, as we heard earlier in the debate, but also by the coalition Government and by Nick Clegg in the House of Lords Reform Bill 2012. As my noble friend Lord Wolfson rightly indicated, issuing a Section 19(1)(b) statement is a legitimate choice given to Ministers under the Human Rights Act. Why else would the Act provide for such a course?
As I have said, previous Governments have issued such statements, and clearly that has not caused our international reputation to collapse. More broadly, I encourage the Committee to approach questions of international reputation with a proper perspective. The world can be in no doubt that we are defenders of rights and liberty, the most obvious example being our leading support for Ukraine.
Requiring guidance to be approved by Parliament on how the Bill’s provisions are to be interpreted within the meaning of the Human Rights Act is unnecessary. On 7 March the Government published a memorandum addressing issues arising under the ECHR, and a supplementary memorandum was published in April in relation to the government amendments tabled for Report in the Commons. These memoranda set out a provision-by-provision ECHR analysis, so I submit that the Government’s position is clear, and the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, will find the answers to his questions about what sits behind the Section 19(1)(b) statement in those memoranda.
It will undoubtedly be necessary to provide Home Office staff, immigration officers and others with appropriate guidance to support the implementation of the Bill. It would not be appropriate for such routine operational guidance on the implementation of a particular Act to be subject to parliamentary approval.
Lord Lamont of Lerwick (Con)
When my noble friend was replying to the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, he said that the ECHR memorandum set out precisely which articles of the convention had that effect and which clauses in the Bill were compatible or not, and, as he says, different rights are listed. But what is the status of that definitive document? He says it is the answer to the noble Lord’s question, but what is its status? Presumably it does not have legal effect in itself.
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
That is correct: the ECHR memorandum is one of the documents prepared to support the Bill in its passage through Parliament. Obviously, if a matter of interpretation were required, it is the sort of material that those looking for an interpretation might be minded to refer to. Indeed, it is open to those in Parliament to refer to such documents. It is, of course, right to say that the ECHR memorandum is a standard part of the package in relation to public Bills—so, in that sense, it has regular status.
Viscount Hailsham (Con)
Before the Minister leaves this part of his address, will he tell the House whether it is the intention of the Government that the implementation of the Act should be compliant with all the conventions that are set out in Amendment 4? Do the Government intend to comply with those conventions? This House is entitled to know.
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
As I have already outlined, it is clear that there is nothing in the Bill that would require the UK to breach its international obligations. The UK takes compliance with those obligations very seriously. As for the other international instruments referred to in these amendments, they have not, by and large, been incorporated into UK domestic law, and we should not seek to do so in this Bill through the back door.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)
The Minister seems to be placing a great deal of weight on there being nothing in this Bill that requires the Government to take action contrary to our international obligations. He would surely agree, however, that there is a great deal in this Bill that enables the Government to take action that would be contrary to our international obligations—and that without any recourse to Parliament.
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
I am not sure that I agree with the noble Lord. There is no requirement that powers should conceivably be expressed on the face of every Bill in such a way that they are trammelled by international obligations. That would be contrary to the dualist system, as my noble and learned friend Lord Wolfson made abundantly clear. I am reluctant to reopen that particular exchange at this juncture, given the time that we have remaining prior to the dinner break.
States take different approaches to their international law obligations. Some states treat international law as part of their domestic law, but the UK, like other countries with similar constitutional arrangements, including many Commonwealth countries, has the dualist approach that we have discussed before. In those states, international law is treated as separate from domestic law and international law is incorporated into domestic law only by decisions of Parliaments through legislation. That is a point we have already discussed. The effect of these amendments would be to make the provisions of all the listed international agreements effectively justiciable in the UK courts. It is legitimate for noble Lords to make the case for incorporation into domestic law of one or more of these international instruments, but that is not the Government’s position, and we should not be using this Bill to secure that outcome.
I hope that, in light of my explanation, the noble and learned Lord will be content to withdraw his Amendment 1.
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)
I wonder whether the Minister could help me. He said that the Government would apply—I gather—all the conventions that are in Amendment 4. May I suggest that it would be impossible for the Government to apply the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child? It is perfectly obvious that the best interests of a child throughout the Bill will not be recognised.
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
Clearly, as I have already said, it is the Government’s view that nothing in the Bill requires the UK to breach its international obligations, whether in relation to the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child or any of the other listed international instruments. Of course, the United Kingdom takes compliance with its international obligations very seriously.
Lord Hope of Craighead (CB)
My Lords, I am very grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part in this very interesting and far-ranging debate. I am conscious of the time, and I am sure the Committee would not wish me to go over the ground in any detail, and I am not going to do that.
The Minister, with great respect, has not really answered many of the questions that have been raised. We will come back to this, I am sure, possibly in the next group, but certainly these questions will come back on Report and will need to be answered in much more detail. So far as my own amendments are concerned—the definition point—the Minister has pointed out that nothing hangs on these words because they do not reappear elsewhere in the Bill. I was well aware of that when I tabled the amendment, but that raises the question: why brand the actions of these people coming here as unlawful or illegal, unless, of course, they are in breach of specific legislation, which is not always the case? That illustrates the unfortunate wording of Clause 1, which we will come back to.
As far as Amendment 3 is concerned, which deals with the question of guidance, I do not think, with great respect, that the ECHR memoranda amount to the kind of guidance that is needed in a situation where access to the courts is being denied. Something more specific is needed, and that is what the amendment is driving at. Perhaps we will come back to that at some later stage. For the time being, I think the simplest thing I should do, so that we can move on, is beg leave to withdraw Amendment 1.
Royal Assent
Wednesday 24th May 2023
(11 months, 3 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
G7 Summit
(11 months, 3 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord True) (Con)
My Lords, I shall now repeat a Statement made in the House of Commons on Monday 22 May by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister. The Statement is as follows:
“Mr Speaker, the whole House will join me in remembering the victims of the horrific Manchester Arena bombing six years ago. 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 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 this 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 strangle- hold 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: that we will stand with Ukraine for as long as it takes.
Of course, we have seen a huge collective effort across our allies, not least 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. We are now at the forefront of a coalition to train and equip the Ukrainian air force. We gave £2.3 billion in military aid last year—second only to the United States—and we 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 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 using economic coercion to interfere with the sovereignty of others—concrete actions, not rhetoric. But 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 CPTPP, 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.
We are also 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 and France and, starting just at last week’s Council of Europe, with the EU border force. At this weekend’s summit, we have secured agreement that we will increase G7 co-operation too, 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 United Kingdom.
That is not all. We have announced billions more for our defence, as the largest European contributor 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”.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Lord Privy Seal for repeating the Statement. It is very helpful to the House, and I am grateful to him for doing so. I reinforce the comments that he made about the Manchester Arena bombings and the murder of Lee Rigby. There are certain events that, when they happen, all of us remember where we were when we heard about them. I certainly think we still feel the emotions that we felt when we heard about those two.
Having read the communiqué from the summit before I heard the Statement, I have to say the Statement covers a lot more self-congratulatory comments that are not directly related to the summit. That is not the norm, but perhaps I can focus on the parts of the Statement that are relevant. It seemed particularly poignant that we were discussing one ongoing war, in Ukraine, at the scene of a peace memorial park in Hiroshima. That backdrop is a symbol of how the horror of war just haunts for generations.
Putin’s violent and illegal invasion has had an immediate effect on millions of Ukrainians today, and the post-war reconstruction of that amazingly resilient country will take decades. We also have to factor in the longer-term consequences for the future security of Europe. That is why a united front on this issue, here, across Parliament and internationally, is so vital. We continue to welcome the Prime Minister’s commitment to Ukraine, which has the full support of the Opposition Benches. But it is clear that as Ukraine prepares for a counter-offensive, there is no room for complacency or letting our guard down. The international agreement to start providing Ukraine with F16 fighter jets is progress. It is a sign of the unwavering united stand.
New trade restrictions should continue to hamper Russia’s military capabilities, but until a Ukrainian victory delivers peace, we must continue to examine ways of strengthening our support. It is right that the UK’s sanction regime, which I welcome, is broadly aligned with our allies and that designations are being updated. But the noble Lord knows, as I do, that improvements should be made on enforcement. Is my understanding correct that no fines have been imposed for any sanction breaches? Is the noble Lord confident that this is because there have been no breaches? It would be helpful if he was able to provide information and assurances on how we are working with our allies to monitor the effectiveness of sanctions. We have to do this to ensure that breaches are identified and offenders held to account.
As we all know, Ukraine is experiencing a humanitarian crisis as a result of the invasion, which has a wider destabilising effect, including from the weaponisation of food. We welcome that the leaders’ statement on Ukraine references support to vulnerable countries, including from the World Food Programme. However, I ask the noble Lord specifically: how is the UK working with the UN Refugee Council to support those who have fled the conflict into neighbouring countries?
I was pleased to hear the comments on China. The noble Lord will be aware that we have had many debates and questions in this place about our relationship, business and political, with China and the risks posed. The Government’s commitment to de-risking our economic relationship is of course welcome. Does the noble Lord accept that we really need a full audit of our relations and our engagement with Beijing, and will he look into that?
We must remain at all times committed to our democratic values, the rule of law and the primacy of human rights, at home and abroad. The communiqué’s commitment to being
“more united than ever in our determination to meet the global challenges of this moment”
is both welcome and essential across a range of issues, including support for Ukraine and our relationship with China. The communiqué rightly referred to the situation in the East China and South China Seas. If we are to play our part in this joint approach, can the noble Lord tell us how we will strengthen our defence ties across the Indo-Pacific?
There were key issues discussed at the summit that I was surprised were not even mentioned in the Prime Minister’s Statement, including energy security and climate change. Russia’s weaponisation of energy has acted as a wake-up call, but while it illustrates a vulnerability in our supply, it also provides an opportunity to make Britain a clean energy superpower. Homegrown, cheaper, clean energy will cut energy bills, help tackle the cost of living crisis and support manufacturing and other industries. These issues are reflected across the G7.
It is one thing to discuss these issues, but can I press the Lord Privy Seal on how the Government will deliver on accelerating the transition to clean energy agreed at the summit? How will the UK play its part in the collective increase in wind capacity? He will be aware that the Government are opposed to the cleanest, fastest and cheapest energy sources: onshore wind and solar. That will make the objectives harder to achieve, so can he say something about the plans in place to compensate for that government policy?
The Lord Privy Seal will also be aware that there is a direct link between the environmental commitments and energy security. There were key commitments at the summit which are not even mentioned in the Statement. If he is able to say any more, the House would find it very helpful. Can he say why this is and perhaps provide some reassurance on the Government’s commitment on these issues and the action that will follow the summit?
Other issues that were not mentioned in the Statement include: health and pandemic resilience, digital technologies, artificial intelligence, multilateral development banks, human rights and equalities. I appreciate that not everything can be mentioned, but I hope we will hear more about these between now and the next summit.
In the Statement, the Prime Minister spent some time telling us how well things were going for the Government on foreign policy. There is absolutely no doubt that work internationally is crucial to our future as we seek to meet global challenges together. I have to say I found that part of the Statement really disappointing in its complacency and its quite selective reporting of these issues, so can I press him on a couple of points?
The Government promised a free trade deal with the US by the end of last year, but there has been no reference to this. Perhaps President Biden let the cat out of the bag when he was in Belfast, when he disclosed that talks will not begin until 2025. This is a key relationship for the UK. Is the noble Lord able to say whether the Prime Minister raised the timing of the start of those talks with the President to see if they could be brought forward? Despite the focus on trade in the Statement, there is no mention of the commitment to securing free trade agreements covering 80% of UK trade by the end of 2022. Can the Lord Privy Seal say when the Government now expect that commitment to be met?
There is a real fear that the Government’s lack of ambition and action will mean lost opportunities for the jobs and economic growth that we so badly need. We see other countries forging ahead. For example, the Government’s response to the US Inflation Reduction Act is so critical. We should be using that as an opportunity to seek out new opportunities for the UK. He will also be aware of today’s news that UK borrowing has reached significantly higher levels than expected, and of the associated costs of that. Was there discussion about how the Government expect to restore global confidence in the UK economy, which continues to lag behind international competitors in terms of growth and investment?
This was clearly a valuable summit with some very important outcomes, particularly on Ukraine and China. But if the Government really want to be a leader on the international stage, they have to be more proactive in securing a stable and growing economy here in the UK.
Lord Newby (LD)
My Lords, I would like to thank the noble Lord the Leader for reading out the Statement. Normally I am happy for it not to be read out, but on this occasion I welcome the fact that he did so, because it demonstrates the gulf between the Prime Minister’s self-congratulatory posturing and the substance of what was actually discussed at the summit.
The Prime Minister devotes one-quarter of the Statement to Ukraine. On these Benches we strongly support the UK efforts in supporting the Ukrainian people in their struggle against Russia. But all the Statement does is boast about what the UK has already done, not what the Prime Minister thinks the summit might have achieved in supporting Ukraine in the future. The Statement then speaks briefly about the discussion about China in Hiroshima, before veering away from the summit altogether and making a series of breathless assertions about how terrific the Government’s foreign policy is. These take up getting on for half of the total content of the Prime Minister’s Statement. I will just raise two of them.
First, the Prime Minister talks about our post-Brexit, “hugely ambitious trade policy”. He particularly basks in the glory of deals done with the CPTPP, Australia and New Zealand. The noble Lord knows as well as the rest of the House that these deals promise potential increases in our level of trade which are a small fraction of the loss of trade we have suffered as a result of Brexit. Could he remind the House of the increase in GDP these deals promise according to the Government’s own impact assessments compared with the reduction in GDP of Brexit estimated by the OBR?
Secondly, the Prime Minister talks about the carrier strike force group returning to the Indo-Pacific region by 2025. Could the noble Lord say how many ships this strike force group will consist of? Is it not the case that we have so few frigates that any strike force group we send will be a sitting target, unless it has a huge amount of covering support from allies? We are deluding ourselves to suggest that we have the capacity to provide any meaningful naval force so far from home waters.
Compared with the Prime Minister’s Statement, the communiqué from the summit, which runs to some 41 pages, covers substantial proposals on some of the most important issues facing humanity. As the Prime Minister did not think any of these were worthy of a mention in his Statement, I wonder if the noble Lord could enlighten us. For example, the summit reaffirmed support for the sustainable development goals to be achieved by 2030. In particular, it stresses the importance of mobilising public and private sector resources for this. In light of the Government’s abandonment of the 0.7% target for development assistance, can the noble Lord explain what the Government are doing to reinforce their efforts in this area? Given the importance of the issue, can he say which UK Government Minister will attend the SDG summit in September? On climate change, the summit reaffirmed its support for “robust” pledges of funding for the green climate fund. What sort of robust pledge has the Prime Minister made, or does he plan to make, on this issue?
The other issues discussed in Hiroshima, as the noble Baroness already mentioned, according to the communiqué were disarmament, the global economy, the environment, energy, economic security, food security, health, labour, education, digital, science and technology, gender and countering terrorism. None of these subjects rates a single mention in the Prime Minister’s Statement. Could the noble Lord the Leader tell the House whether the Prime Minister expressed a view on any of these issues and, if so, what it was?
When Boris Johnson was Prime Minister, we became used to Statements which were full of bombast, self-congratulation and exaggeration. It is depressing to find that his latest successor has decided to follow the same songbook. In doing so, he does a disservice to Parliament and to the country.
Lord True (Con)
That was one of the more jaundiced responses I have heard to a Statement, even in the history of some of the responses from those particular Benches.
I will answer some of the points. The Prime Minister certainly addressed a number of these things in the conversation. One of the key features of the summit, which I believe without any bombast, was that it was extraordinarily successful, and the atmosphere was very positive. The arrival of President Zelensky ignited the summit. I totally agree with what the noble Baroness opposite said about the poignant symbolism of Hiroshima and the desperate need for the world to unite, so far as we can, against the bestiality of war. The climate at the summit was extremely positive.
I will not apologise for the Prime Minister pointing out some of the many successes and progressive actions that he has taken since he became Prime Minister, a number of which were mentioned in the Statement. There is no doubt that we have seen a series of successful summits and engagements, including bilaterals with France and the immensely successful bilateral—probably the most successful ever—with Japan. The range of commitments that Japan and the UK have made to each other is certainly unprecedented in the post-war era. Also, I will not deride the trade partnerships we are working on globally; the Statement referred to the Council of Europe, and we have had the G7 successes.
I will address some of the questions. I was asked whether there was a discussion of development finance—yes, there was. The Prime Minister confirmed that the UK aims to mobilise up to $40 billion by the end of 2027 through our British investment partnerships. We have already been active since 2021 and, so far, have created 30,000 jobs and supported 950,000 jobs directly.
I heard the comments about the international financial system reform, and I agree that there are issues here. The sustainable development goals are off track, and we need to build a bigger, better and fairer international financial system that meets future challenges. That means unlocking more finance from international financial institutions such as the World Bank, and from the private sector, to support the poorest countries. The UK, at the G7 and outside it, is working with others to reform the system, and we are playing our part to unlock more finance. Since COP 26 we have announced guarantees to expand multilateral development bank lending by more than £6 billion. The Government are active in those areas, even if they were not mentioned in the Statement.
On global health, the global health framework set out the UK Government’s ambition to play a leading role in improving health globally and in building resilience to future threats. At the G7 we endorsed the Hiroshima Vision for Equitable Access to Medical Countermeasures and agreed to work with the G20 to ensure equitable access to safe, effective and affordable vaccines. These positive things were done and discussed, even if they were not mentioned in the Statement, which, understandably, majored—as the noble Baroness opposite did, rightly—on the crisis in Ukraine.
On climate and nature, which are also important, the G7 ended public support for the international unabated fossil fuel energy sector in 2022. It has done that already but we will, and must, continue to build on it. We are working with our neighbours domestically to develop the North Sea into a green power plant of Europe, and we will meet the $100 billion climate finance goal this year. At the G7 we have committed to spend £11.6 billion of international climate finance.
I agree with the noble Lord that food security is important. Together with guest countries such as India and Brazil—it was good that they were there, as well as representatives of smaller nations such as the Cook Islands and the Comoros—we agreed the Hiroshima Action Statement for Resilient Global Food Security. We remain absolutely committed to that. As I heard my noble friend Lord Goldsmith say earlier, the Minister for Development announced a further £143 million in humanitarian support for crises in east Africa for this financial year. A lot is being done.
I was asked about the Indo-Pacific. It is of immense importance; it is critical to our economy, security and ambition to support open societies. I disagree with the noble Lord’s rather jaundiced view; that region is central to global and UK supply chains. Some 60% of global trade already goes through the region, and that is set to increase further. We are deepening defence ties via GCAP and AUKUS; we have engaged with more than 40 countries in the region with the carrier strike group, about which the noble Lord was a little disparaging; and we intend to strengthen further ties.
I was asked by the noble Baroness about the state of discussions. We obviously hope for good and positive discussions with the US. I cannot comment on what may or may not have been said to President Biden, but it is an area of important, ongoing discussion. We have a strong free trade agreement policy, which will put the UK at the centre of a network of modern deals that spans the Atlantic, the Pacific and our friends in Europe. We have secured trade deals with 73 countries, plus EU partners, accounting for £852 billion in UK bilateral trade in 2021.
In conclusion, I hope I have not belittled the very important remarks that the noble Baroness made. I am very grateful for the comments from both the noble Lord and the noble Baroness on the horror of Putin’s war and for their support on that. We have sanctioned roughly 1,500 individuals—I will get the exact figure for the noble Baroness. It is certainly not the case that sanctions are not biting and being felt to bite; the G7 agreed to increase them.
Lord Howell of Guildford (Con)
My Lords, many issues were covered in the G7 and in the Statement. Does my noble friend the Minister care to reflect on one of them, which is mentioned only briefly in the Statement: the huge importance of Japan to our future prosperity and defence? Japan is the third industrial power in the world and, in fact, much richer than China in second. Statistically, it is enormously active. It has been a massive investor in this country in the past, and I believe it can be again.
Is it not important to remind ourselves that, through closeness with Japan in dealing with security issues—the recent agreements, the building of combat aircraft for the future and the whole range of innovations—this is a nation with which we should stay extremely close? We should reflect on and remember that in our future policies. I declare an interest as an adviser to a number of Japanese companies. Does my noble friend the Minister acknowledge that Japan and Britain can again be, as they have been in the past, very important partners?
Lord True (Con)
I strongly agree with my noble friend. Indeed, I pay the most fulsome tribute to the Japanese Prime Minister for the conduct of the G7 discussions. To repeat what I said, the depth of the agreements between the UK and Japan is reflected in the historic Hiroshima accord—the new agreements on defence, trade, investment, science and technology collaboration, and tackling global issues such as climate change. These are hugely important. There is the new UK-Japanese defence co-operation; the new cyber partnership; a set of science and technology programmes we will work on together; the semiconductors partnership that my noble friend mentioned; and a renewable energy partnership, which I think should delight the noble Lord, Lord Newby, aimed at accelerating the deployment of clean energy in the UK, Japan and third countries. It was extremely positive. The Prime Minister has reflected the warmth of the feeling that he has towards Japan; I think he felt that was strongly reciprocated by the G7 hosts, and we are very grateful for that.
Lord Campbell of Pittenweem (LD)
My Lords, I know a little about the background to the murder of Lee Rigby. It was a particularly cowardly event, taking down a well-versed and popular servant of the military of the United Kingdom.
The other point I make by way of a preliminary is that I personally support, as indeed we all do on these Benches, the Government’s position on Ukraine. Significant consequences are arising out of that military engagement and, although this is perhaps not the time to discuss them, the United Kingdom’s support for Ukraine is absolutely fundamental.
Sometimes, reports of such things as the G7 repay rather closer attention to detail. At page 3 of 10 in the print I have, it says:
“Russia’s military is failing on the battlefield”.
Would it not be prudent to wait until we see the outcome of the spring offensive of the Ukraine Government before reaching a conclusion of that kind? Further, on page 7 of the print I have, it is indeed welcome that there is £18 billion of new investment into the United Kingdom from Japanese businesses. Can the Minister say what financial support the United Kingdom has offered and how much? Because it is being suggested that there were very substantial financial inducements.
Finally, on the question of the carrier strike group returning to the Indo-Pacific once more, the last report about one of the carriers that I have been able to find states that on 13 February, HMS “Queen Elizabeth” set sail for a month’s training but without any aircraft. That, of course, reflects the fact that we do not have sufficient F35 aircraft to allow the training of those pilots who are scheduled to fly them. So perhaps a little more candour would have made the Statement rather more credible.
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his support for the overall stance vis-à-vis Putin’s aggression and our support for Ukraine. Since I had run out of time, I was not able to be warm enough about the consistent support from the parties opposite and indeed throughout the House. It has been deeply valued, not only by the Government but, as I know, beyond these shores and in Ukraine. I hear what he says about the carrier strike force. The agreement is to deploy it, and that proposal has been greatly welcomed by our allies. The previous deployment was very widely welcomed by 40 countries; let us look forward with ambition to a positive outcome from this next deployment.
I listened carefully to what the noble Lord said. It is absolutely right to say that war is an ongoing and unpredictable thing best not entered into, ever—but it is forced on us by Mr Putin. It is undoubtedly the case, and we should not forget it, that the heroism of the Ukrainian army and the Ukrainian people has led to the recovery of substantial territory that Mr Putin thought that he would annex. Indeed, I suspect that Mr Putin thought he might annex Kyiv very swiftly at the start, and it was British support, among other things, that enabled that not to happen. It is my judgment that, since Russia’s illegal invasion, Ukraine has turned the tide, regaining territory, as I say, and it has done it thanks to the bravery of its forces but also to the record-breaking level of international support which was reaffirmed in the G7. We will continue to accelerate support. We have seen the Storm Shadow missiles and the training of Ukrainian soldiers, and that effort will continue.
Once upon a time, someone far more distinguished than I spoke from this Dispatch Box, and I am certainly not going to make any forecasts about the outcomes of war, but I will say that the resolve of the Ukrainian people is unbreakable. They are determined to succeed, in our judgment they will succeed, and we will support them for as long as it takes.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, following on from the Minister’s remarks, I have to say that, having visited Irpin and Bucha and met some of the defenders and survivors of those towns where the Russian advance on Kyiv was stopped, I very much echo his comments about the Ukrainian people, who are the ones bearing the enormous human weight that we have to keep acknowledging.
However, my question follows on from the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Newby, and the noble Baroness, Lady Smith. There is a word that is missing from the Statement—shockingly, I have to say. The word “climate” does not appear in the Statement, despite the fact that the Integrated Review of Security, Defence, Development and Foreign Policy, and the refresh as well, say that Britain will make a major priority of its international efforts in
“leading globally on climate change and biodiversity loss”.
That is despite the fact that a large amount of the coverage of the G7 very much focused on its failures on climate. I will quote just one Financial Times headline:
“G7 disappoints on climate progress without deadlines on gas and coal use”.
This is in the context of what was happening in the world as the G7 was meeting. Italy, Croatia, Ethiopia, Kenya, and Somalia all suffered significant deadly floods. In Canada, unseasonal wildfires have burned an area the size of Wales. India is facing even more potentially deadly temperatures that are unsurvivable. Can the Minister explain how it came to be, in that context, that the word “climate” did not appear in the Statement?
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, I have in the past written Statements for Prime Ministers. The Prime Minister writes his own Statements, but if the noble Baroness reads Hansard she will find that there was a substantial discussion of these matters. As I said in my response to the very legitimate question from the noble Lord, Lord Newby, and the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, the importance of the green transition was reaffirmed and we are committed to increased support for renewables. As I said, the G7 ended public support for the fossil fuel energy sector in 2022 and continues to advance on that in its ambitions.
Sometimes, when I hear the noble Baroness, one forgets that we were the first major economy to legislate to end our contribution to climate change by 2050. One forgets, listening to her, that our 2030 nationally determined contribution is one of the most ambitious contributions in the world. One does not hear from her that between 1990 and 2021, we cut emissions by 48% while growing our economy by 65%. One does not hear from her that we have decarbonised faster than any other G7 country and that we have set out to be an exemplar for others. The Government’s support is accelerating the production of clean energy. In 2020 renewable electricity generation accounted for 41.4% of total electricity generation. Why does the noble Baroness, who believes so passionately in these things, not sometimes help to talk up what we are achieving, instead of constantly talking it down?
Lord Adonis (Lab)
My Lords, I reinforce the cross-party unity on the issue of Ukraine. Might this be an appropriate time to congratulate all our fellow citizens who have been giving personal support to Ukrainians by hosting them in their own homes? This is now going into a second year and is a huge commitment which the British people are making directly to Ukrainians.
However, beyond the G7, alas, support for our robust action in Ukraine is less uniform. It is very notable that among our Commonwealth partners there has been less support for Ukraine and, indeed, too much support being given to Russia, particularly in buying Russian products and Russian oil. I am thinking particularly of India and South Africa. These are very close Commonwealth partners of ours. Will the noble Lord say something about what British diplomacy is seeking to do to bring about stronger support for our action on Ukraine from South Africa and India in particular? It is a big mistake to think that the Ukrainian war is an assault on just the European order: it is an assault on the international order and it is vital that our Commonwealth allies and friends are as robust in resisting it as we are.
On the section of the Statement on trade, I support what my noble friend Lady Smith and the noble Lord, Lord Newby, said about it being deeply complacent. To take a specific example of how complacent it is, is the noble Lord aware that we have lost half of our car manufacturing capacity as a country in the last seven years? We have done that almost entirely because of a deterioration in the terms of trade with our European partners and lack of investment, including investment from Japanese car manufacturers. They may be very strong on the rhetoric of partnership, because they are very polite—the Japanese are a notably polite nation—but when it comes to actual investment, they have been cutting investment, not increasing it. Unless we can deal with this issue of rules of origin and our lack of battery manufacturing capacity, we could lose the other half of our car manufacturing capacity in the next few years too.
Leaving the complacency and self-congratulation aside, does the noble Lord support urgent trade negotiations with our European partners to get a better deal for our car manufacturers, in particular, an industrial policy that sees us starting to produce those vital components, and big new industrial sectors, notably battery manufacturing, without which we could see a really significant loss of industrial capacity in this country over the next few years?
Lord True (Con)
I thank the noble Lord for his comments. I agree that the challenge from Mr Putin is not just to Europe but to the international world order. Our expectation is that any just peace must recognise and come according to the rules of international law. The United Kingdom and others have fully accepted and understood the diplomatic challenge of making the case across the world—among our friends and sometimes people who are not so much our friends—that Putin’s illegal war must be confronted. That was reflected in the extraordinary support for the UN resolutions at the start of the conflict. Obviously, this is ongoing and is an effort that we must and will keep up. I will not comment on the specifics of what went on at the summit because I do not have full read-outs, but obviously it was important that India and Brazil were there. The Prime Minister met Prime Minister Modi in the margins of the G7 on 21 May. There were very positive reflections on the deep ties between the UK and India. Both leaders agreed to work intensely towards a UK-India free trade agreement, which is ambitious but would be mutually beneficial. We committed strongly to support India’s G20 presidency.
I am sorry that the noble Lord is less than rapturous about the inward investment to which I referred. The Covid pandemic, the war in Ukraine and the energy crisis shocked supply chains in the EV industry. That has been a problem for manufacturers across Europe, not just in the UK. We need a joint UK-EU solution and have already raised the matter with the European Commission, at both official and ministerial level. We are ready to work with it and industry to find a solution, and will continue to develop and invest in the UK’s world-leading automotive sector. The Government have committed a record £211 million to battery research. I acknowledge that there is ongoing work to do in the sector but we are ready and talking to our European friends on these matters, quite contrary to the noble Lord’s implication.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I will resist the urge to turn this into a to and fro, although, given that the Minister came back to me rather robustly on climate, I point out that the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, indirectly referred to one of the major reasons for the reduction in the UK’s carbon emissions: the collapse of our manufacturing sector. The Committee on Climate Change says that we need to shift to looking at consumption emissions, on which figures the UK reduction is considerably less than on territorial emissions.
The question that I actually wanted to raise was about the Statement’s reference to the AUKUS submarine deal. Since that was announced, there has been considerable debate. One issue on which there is grave concern is the potential risk to nuclear non-proliferation. Australia is the first non-nuclear-armed state to remove nuclear material from the IAEA inspection system. That sets a new precedent about which many people are expressing concern. The IAEA is of course not able to monitor outside the current nuclear powers’ naval nuclear reactors, especially on submarines, given their secret location and being inaccessible while submerged. Do the Government acknowledge that there is international concern? What are they doing to address those nuclear non-proliferation concerns?
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, I will not repeat the facts that I gave the noble Baroness, which stand for themselves. I am sorry if they felt robust. They were not intended to be robust; they were intended to be informative, but there we are.
So far as the AUKUS arrangement is concerned, I do not want to trespass into internal considerations of a great ally such as Australia. I hear what the noble Baroness says, but the reality is that this is an enormously significant agreement. I give my right honourable friend the Prime Minister full credit for it. International co-operation on submarine development and compatibility is a real step forward. The security of Australia—a much-valued ally and friend of this country—is important to us, as is the security of the Pacific; as I said, 60% of global trade will move through that region. Co-operation with Australia in Five Eyes and other sensitive arrangements is an important part of not only our security but that of our allies, and of world security. I make no apologies for the agreement.
Illegal Migration Bill
Wednesday 24th May 2023
(11 months, 3 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Illegal Migration Act 2023 View all Illegal Migration Act 2023 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 133-I(b) Amendments for Committee (Supplementary to the Marshalled List) - (24 May 2023)
Lord German (LD)
My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Paddick, who will respond later, I am pleased to suggest the deletion of Clause 1, largely because some parts of it have been scrutinised in huge detail but it has not had that scrutiny as a whole. Also, I suspect that many Members of the Committee are waiting for answers to some of the questions that they raised in the earlier debate. I particularly enjoyed the company of noble and learned Lords of all varieties. During the break, I was trying to think what we might call a collection of lawyers giving such erudite opinions. I have perhaps alighted on “a mêlée of lawyers”. It was interesting that, while they had very different views about what was happening, it was clearly not as simple as saying, “This will be the way in which matters arise from the clause”. We have not yet reached an understanding of the legal position, certainly on Clause 1(5).
The clause is the prism through which the whole Bill is understood. It speaks to its true purpose and impact: to prevent and deter people arriving in the UK irregularly by the threat of their removal, regardless of the rights and conventions disregarded in the process.
While stopping the boats has been the headline, at its heart this Bill enables removal as its primary aim and, in mandating it by statute, people will not have a chance to put their case for asylum in the UK and never be able to acquire leave to remain. There will be extremely limited opportunity for judicial oversight and detention powers will be significantly enlarged.
This is deeply concerning, and it is an approach for which the Government are not even able to provide an impact assessment to demonstrate its efficacy—we have been promised it, but it has not yet been published. Thankfully, the Refugee Council has done an impact assessment based upon the statistics and figures produced by the Home Office, so it would be useful to know, in his reply, how the Minister intends to answer this impact assessment, which is based upon their own figures, without providing the evidence themselves to be able to combat it.
I will not go through the whole detail of the impact assessment produced by the Refugee Council but will focus on some of the headlines. They say that, in the first three years, 30,000 people will be sent to Rwanda; the Government have said that is the total number of people who can be accommodated in Rwanda. Some 257,000 will have their claims rendered inappropriate, undesirable and certainly not admissible. Of those 257,000 people, 45,000 will be children.
Some 193,000 inadmissible people will remain in the United Kingdom because, apart from Rwanda, there is nowhere else to send them. They will be stuck in limbo indefinitely until such time as an alternative can be found. The cost of keeping that number inside the United Kingdom, based upon the current estimates provided by the Home Office, will be £9.6 billion in those first three years. On top of that, we have to add on the 181,000 people still inside the United Kingdom who are waiting for a decision.
It is doubtful, to put it mildly, that this will act as a deterrent to the boat owners. We are currently 20th in Europe, by headcount, on receiving migrants and therefore we are nowhere near the top of the league. The question for the Minister is: does he accept that these figures, which have been produced based upon their own, are correct? If they are not correct, when will we have the evidence to say that they are not?
In excluding the application of Section 3 of the Human Rights Act to those covered by the Bill, there is an expressed acknowledgement that the Bill risks putting human rights at bay. It is interesting that paragraph 5 of the Government’s own European Convention on Human Rights Memorandum says that Clause 1(5), which removes Section 3,
“does not affect the Government’s assessment of compatibility of the Bill with the Convention rights”.
If that is true, I would like the Minister to tell me whether the removal of Section 3 of the Human Rights Act, as contained in Clause1(5), will still mean that those who are seeking refuge here in the United Kingdom will be afforded the rights under the convention, which says that they will be allowed to have their case heard quickly by those who are detaining them. That is a right under the convention. Is that in contradiction to what the Government are proposing, and is it in contradiction to paragraph 5 of the memorandum which the Government have provided?
The concern, which has not yet been answered clearly and to the satisfaction of many Members of this Committee, about the human rights matters and Section 3 of the Human Rights Act, is a concern also highlighted by the Equality and Human Rights Commission, which of course advises the Government. It advises them that it will create a two-tiered system of human rights protection in this country, whereby an individual’s human rights will be interpreted solely on the basis of how they entered the United Kingdom. That is wrong: a human right is a human right, regardless of whoever that human being is. Here, we are talking about some of the most vulnerable people in the world: the female political activist from Iran; the gay man from Uganda; the young man escaping forced conscription in Eritrea; a family fleeing war in Sudan. Those are the people who are going to be affected most by this clause and this Bill.
The provision of Section 3 is an essential mechanism through which courts can correct human rights violations and enable individuals to access justice. It is a basic moral requirement for governing and one which is in the convention. In its report on the Bill, our Select Committee on Constitution confirmed there has been no Act of Parliament which has yet sought to disapply Section 3 of the Human Rights Act 1998. By its application, Section 3 has also reduced the number of people currently pursuing litigation in Strasbourg because they have been able to secure justice domestically. This clause therefore brings with it the potential for extensive litigation in the future. Any observer of the proceedings on the previous group of amendments will have noted that this may well provide a fair playing field for lawyers as these legal battles develop down the line.
In taking this approach in Clause 1, the Government have accepted the likelihood that they could possibly lead to the UK breaching its international obligations. That puts us on that collision course with the Council of Europe and the ECHR. Having the High Commissioner for Human Rights send a letter to the Lord Speaker, in order that all Members of your Lordships’ House should be able to see the views of the human rights commissioner, was most telling. The last but one sentence was a message to all of us from the commissioner:
“it is now essential that Members of Parliament and Peers prevent legislation that is incompatible with the UK’s international obligations being passed”.
That is the chilling message for us.
I heard earlier about the impact on the rule of law and the way in which these matters will be interpreted by those who look at the reputation of the United Kingdom. I noted the words of the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, in the previous debate. The implications for how people will look at this country seem not yet to have been considered.
The fact that all the provisions in the Bill will have to be read in line with this clause means that it has profound cross-cutting detrimental implications for human rights. Parliament is here as the supreme lawmaker in the United Kingdom, yet this Bill hands broad lawmaking powers, which implicate fundamental human rights, to the UK Government in the form of delegated powers and explicit shifts of power. Our democracy depends on there being a clear separation of powers, and this Illegal Migration Bill represents an attempt at a power shift which enables the UK Government to play the roles of all three branches of state: lawmaker, adjudicator and administrator. In undermining the separation of powers in this way, both the UK’s constitution and our democracy is diminished.
Clause 1 is an extreme assault on the ability of people to have a fair hearing in the UK. The rule of law is essential, and undermining that will upset the influence we have as a country across the globe. The stated purposes, as I outlined at the beginning of the speech, to detain people and send them away from the United Kingdom without having their cases heard, will undoubtedly be debated further in the clauses that are to follow. However, it makes me feel very sad that, at this point, this clause, which lays out in such detail the purpose of the Bill, is one that runs so counter to the principles we uphold as a nation.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord German. In arguing for Amendment 4, I have already suggested why I think Clause 1 should be replaced by a clear commitment to key international obligations and a requirement that the Bill be read accordingly by officials, Ministers and the courts. However, whether or not noble Lords eventually agree with Amendment 4 down the road, Clause 1 in its current form must not stand part.
The noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, who is no longer in his place, rather smelled the rat earlier. Clause 1 is not some innocuous attempt to repeat the Long Title and extrapolate it into the body of the Bill. Instead, it is a direction to the courts to ignore international obligations in favour of the Executive’s purposes—they are executive purposes because we are part of Parliament and we have not finished with the Bill yet. Ignoring international obligations was the subject of so much of the earlier proceedings of the Committee and I do not think anybody put the problem with that better than the noble Lord, Lord Patten, with his peanut analogy, to which I am sure many people will return for a very long time.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, rather nailed it, if I may say so, by pointing to the particularly perverse nature of subsection (3). Language once crafted by the great Sir Edward Caldwell, the former First Parliamentary Counsel, for the purpose of ensuring human rights compatible interpretation via Section 3 of the Human Rights Act is now being appropriated—or, to use the eloquent language of the noble Baroness, Lady Lawlor, subverted—for the purposes of ensuring that human rights are violated. For those reasons alone, Clause 1 should not stand part.
Lord Hope of Craighead (CB)
My Lords, I would like to come back to the points I raised in the first group, because they are the basis for my support for the argument presented by the noble Lord, Lord German. I agree with very much of what he said.
I have two points. The first is why we have to have Clause 1(1) in the Bill at all. As the Minister explained, nothing hangs on “unlawful” or “illegal”. They are tendentious words and I find it uneasy to know what they mean unless they are properly defined. The Minister was not prepared to give me a definition which tied them down to what is in the Bill. I do not see why he is not prepared to do that. His answer was one which I think any parliamentary draftsman would give him, which is that nothing hangs on them because the words do not reappear elsewhere—but that does not remove the need for a definition.
The other point comes back to what the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, has been saying about the combination of subsections (3) and (5). I find them really quite sinister. During the passage of the REUL Bill, we debated the need for parliamentary scrutiny in the face of an aggression by the Executive to reform the whole body of retained EU law without parliamentary scrutiny. Here we are again: the Executive assuming to themselves control over the convention without recourse to the courts. Indeed, there are other provisions in the Bill which exclude any kind of judicial scrutiny at all. That is taking matters a very long way and setting an uneasy precedent.
I would much rather this whole clause was taken out for these reasons. They give rise to real concerns about where this country is going, and indeed where legislation of this kind is going, in the future.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)
My Lords, I wonder whether I could come back to some of the questions the noble Lord failed to answer after the first debate, perhaps understandably in the desire to have a dinner break. Perhaps now he could apply himself to some of those questions.
First, could he please tell me which part of the refugee convention explicitly authorises a country to refuse to even hear the asylum request of a person who arrives on its shore? I would like to hear which bit of the convention says that that is a legitimate thing to do. The answer is not, I am afraid, to go into this rigamarole about returning to the first country they were in.
Secondly, the noble Lord said that nothing in the Bill requires the Government to take action contrary to our international legal obligations, but does he not agree that large parts of the Bill empower the Government, without further recourse to Parliament, to act contrary to our legal obligations? I would be grateful for an answer on that point too.
Lord Paddick (LD)
My Lords, my noble friend Lord German has clearly set out why Clause 1 should not be stand part of the Bill, supported by, among others, the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti.
The Bill is about depriving a particular group of people of their human rights. That is disgraceful. The impact assessments provided by NGOs that my noble friend cited show that the operation of the Bill will be hugely expensive and create a permanent underclass, unable to work and dependent on the state.
I asked the Minister at Second Reading, and I ask him again: when will this Committee receive the Government’s impact assessment? I am not talking about the equality impact assessment; I am talking about the financial impact assessment. Or do the Government consider that an impact assessment is unnecessary because they agree with the impact assessments that we have been provided with by NGOs? The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, and the noble Lord, Lord Hannay of Chiswick, both highlighted the questions that they asked on the previous group, to which the Minister did not provide a satisfactory answer. Perhaps he will take the opportunity to answer those questions now.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
My Lords, I will just add my voice to the requests from various noble Lords across the Chamber for specific answers to these specific questions that have been raised; I think the Committee deserves those answers.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Migration and Borders (Lord Murray of Blidworth) (Con)
My Lords, Clause 1 sets out the Bill’s overarching purpose and provides an overview of the provisions in the Bill. The purpose of the Bill is to prevent and deter illegal migration and, in particular, migration to the UK by unsafe and illegal routes, by requiring the removal from the UK of individuals who arrive in breach of immigration control.
Subsection (2) then summarises the key provisions of the Bill that advance this core purpose, including the duty on the Secretary of State to make arrangements for the removal of persons from the UK who meet the conditions in Clause 2.
The numbers arriving on small boats in 2022 exceeded 45,700, and, as I set out at Second Reading, the Bill is essential to deal with these illegal, dangerous and unnecessary channel crossings. Putting the purpose of the Bill front and centre, right at the start of the Bill, will make it abundantly clear to all, including the illegal entrants themselves, NGOs, the courts and others, what Parliament’s intent is in enacting this Bill. As subsection (3) provides, the subsequent provisions in the Bill should be interpreted by the courts and others in line with this statutory purpose. Again, it is incredibly helpful to make this explicit on the face of the Bill, although I should add that subsection (3) simply reaffirms the established principle that the courts and others should interpret the Bill to deliver its purpose.
To assist this purpose, Clause 1 also disapplies Section 3 of the Human Rights Act 1998. As I have already explained in the previous debate, the disapplication of Section 3 will ensure that the Bill’s provisions will be interpreted to meet the legislative intent of Parliament, rather than strained interpretations by the courts to achieve compatibility with convention rights.
The noble Lords, Lord German and Lord Paddick, asked about the impact assessment. We have already published an equality impact assessment and will publish an economic impact assessment in due course. The noble Lord, Lord German, referred to the purported impact assessment published by the Refugee Council. We do not recognise the assumptions and costs referenced in that document. Any assessment of the impact of the Bill must also acknowledge the cost of not proceeding with it. Our broken asylum system is costing this country £3 billion a year, and over £6 million a day in hotel costs. This cannot continue. The noble Lord also seems to be labouring under an assumption that Clause 1—
Lord German (LD)
The noble Lord has made two points. I am particularly asking about this sentence in the Government’s ECHR memorandum—so the Government’s position. It says at paragraph 1.5 about the removal of Section 3 of the Human Rights Act:
“This does not affect the Government’s assessment of compatibility of the Bill with the Convention rights”.
Article 5 of the convention clearly states:
“Everyone who is deprived of his liberty by arrest or detention shall be entitled to take proceedings by which the lawfulness of his detention shall be decided speedily by a court”.
So is the paragraph in the memorandum compatible with what I have just read out? If so, it means that when people are detained, they will be able to take their cases to a court in this country.
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
The answer to the question, if I have understood the noble Lord, is yes, but I think he misinterprets the purpose of Section 3 of the Human Rights Act. It is not the clause by which the articles of the European Convention on Human Rights are reflected in UK domestic law. Section 3 of the Human Rights Act invites a court to construe parts of other domestic statutes or secondary legislation compatibly with convention rights. It does not mean that this is the mechanism by which convention rights are actionable in UK law, which is the standpoint that I think the noble Lord, Lord German, appears to suggest is the basis for his point. I fear that, as a matter of legal analysis, I think that to be wrong.
The noble Lord also seems to be labouring under an assumption that Clause 1 somehow upsets the separation of powers. It does not. It simply makes it clear that in interpreting this legislation, judges should seek to advance the purposes of the Bill. The Bill, and actions taken under it, are still clearly capable of review in the courts, and individuals can seek to prevent their own removal by making a suspensive claim. So, the courts are still involved, and regulations are still subject to approval by Parliament. I hope the noble Lord can rest assured that on closer inspection, this Bill leaves our separation of powers undisturbed.
I also want to pick up on a point made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, who suggested that the Bill prevents human rights challenges. This is simply not the case. The Bill provides for two kinds of challenges that would have the effect of suspending removal. Other legal challenges, whether on European Convention on Human Rights grounds or other grounds, are not precluded, but they do not suspend removal. As I have indicated, Clause 1 makes the purpose of the Bill crystal clear for all to see. This will help to guide all decisions made by officials and immigration officers, Ministers, the courts and others in giving effect to the Bill. I commend the clause to the Committee.
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)
My Lords, I wonder whether the Minister can help me on this. The “strained decisions” of the courts is a phrase that has been used at least three or four times this evening. As a former judge, I find that difficult to understand. I would like some elucidation as to what is meant by “strained decisions” and what examples there are.
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
The context of a strained decision, as the noble and learned Baroness will be aware, are circumstances where there is an ordinary, natural reading of a statute but a judge feels constrained to interpret the words of a statute in a particular way to give effect to a convention right. As the noble and learned Baroness is aware, this is a fairly obvious application of the term, and it is quite usual for such—perhaps more difficult—interpretations to be described as “strained”. I can certainly identify a number of examples, and I will write to the noble and learned Baroness in relation to them.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)
My Lords, the Minister is a persistent non-answerer of questions; I am a persistent asker of questions. The two questions I asked—I will repeat them at dictation speed if he wishes—were echoed by the Liberal Democrat Front Bench spokesman and the Labour Front Bench spokesman. I think we are due a reply to both those questions. Does the Minister have the answers, or do I have to repeat the questions?
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
The noble Lord does repeatedly ask questions, and I repeatedly answer them. As he identifies, there is a difference in interpretation of Article 31 of the refugee convention. I entirely appreciate that he does not accept my interpretation; and I do not accept his. That is where we are. It is not a rigmarole. This is a matter of position and legal analysis, and I am afraid that this is the Government’s position.
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
I believe I have answered both the noble Lord’s questions.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)
The second question was: could the Minister please tell us that the phrase that he used, which was that nothing in this Bill “requires” the Government to take action contrary to our international obligations, does not obviate the fact that the Bill enables the Government so to do if they so wish and without any further recourse to Parliament?
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
That is consistent with the normal practice in statute.
Lord Hope of Craighead (CB)
My Lords, perhaps I might come back to the question asked by the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss. I think the Minister said that he would write to her with examples of strained interpretation. I sat for many years on the Appellate Committee in the Supreme Court dealing with cases under the Human Rights Act, and I am not aware of any particular case where I was straining the language. I do not think I went very far beyond the ordinary meaning of the words.
I remember we were faced with a very difficult case involving two men who wanted to marry. In those days, the Marriage Act was very specific that marriage was between a man and a woman. We could have strained the language, but we did not do that; we said the provision was incompatible, which I think the Minister would recognise as a perfectly orthodox way to proceed. I think we were quite careful not to stray beyond the bounds of reasonable interpretation. I would be very interested to know whether he has examples of where we really did go beyond the bounds of reasonable interpretation.
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
As I said, I will be writing to the noble and learned Baroness, but the House will recall that the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson, set out various examples, including Ullah and Al-Skeini, and there are others. This has been a matter of jurisprudential development since the commencement of the Human Rights Act. It is a well-known evolution in interpretive principle, and it is that which is addressed by the provisions in this Bill.
Lord Paddick (LD)
Following-up on my question about impact assessment, the Minister says that the Government do not recognise the impact assessments provided by NGOs, but why not? How can they say that they do not recognise the impact assessments provided by NGOs when they do not have their own impact assessment with which to contradict them?
The Minister also talked about the cost of not enacting this legislation, in terms of the current cost of what I think he called the “broken asylum system”—of a Government who have been in power for 13 years. To what extent is the high cost of accommodating asylum seekers in the UK down to the fact that there is a huge backlog of applications that have not been processed by the Home Office, when some 15 years ago there were almost double the number of applications and hardly any backlog?
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
The Government do not recognise the figures in the purported impact assessments provided by the bodies that were referred to, such as the Refugee Council, because we do not recognise the assumptions and costs referenced in them. Furthermore, those documents do not acknowledge any assessment of the impact of the effect of not proceeding with the measures in the Bill.
Lord German (LD)
What is the Minister’s definition of “soon”, which he said was when we would receive the impact assessment? Will it be before the end of Committee, before the start of Report or after Report and before Third Reading? Perhaps he could be more explicit.
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
The impact assessment will be provided when the decision is taken that it is appropriate to disclose it.
Lord German (LD)
Does the Minister therefore think that it is appropriate that the body which is deciding about this Bill—Parliament—should receive the impact assessment, and should that impact assessment be with us before we complete Committee on the Bill? Surely that is appropriate. It is not for the Government to decide. It is for the Government to make their case to Parliament. If they cannot do so, because they have not got the document, because the document is not sufficiently robust or because it is not available, then the Minister should be able to tell us that right now, so that we know the basis on which we are judging this Bill.
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
I am afraid that I can tell the noble Lord only that it will be published in due course and that this is entirely normal.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
Frankly, this is unacceptable. Without being rude, I say that the Committee must at some point have the impact assessment. How on earth can we make many of the judgments on amendments and on the various things that we may wish to come forward with on Report if we do not have an impact assessment? It is normal practice for an impact assessment to be provided so that proper decisions can be made. Can the Minister at least go back to the department and say that this Chamber—I think I speak for everyone —is very unhappy that no impact assessment is due, and that we need one? Will he ask his department to provide one for us—at least well before Report?
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
To add to that, we should have had a child rights impact assessment. That is supposed to be done right at the outset of the policy discussion. Therefore, it would have been appropriate for it to have been published at the same time as the Bill.
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
The House knows my position. I have obviously heard what the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, and the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, have said, and I will of course take those points back to the department.
Lord Carlile of Berriew
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment ensures the duty to deport in Clause 2 does not apply retrospectively to those who entered or arrived in the United Kingdom before the Bill comes into force.
Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)
My Lords, I beg to move Amendment 6, which stands in my name. There are some other amendments associated with it. I am very grateful to the noble Baronesses, Lady Hamwee and Lady Chakrabarti, and my noble and learned friend Lord Etherton for putting their names to Amendment 6. I am also grateful to the many well-known organisations that have made representations on these matters, including Justice and a number of others; some of them will recognise their views in what I am about to say.
These amendments are about a tension between what is fair and proportionate and what is unfair and disproportionate. Despite the fact that all those who have signed this amendment are lawyers, I do not use those terms in a narrow legal sense but as ordinary language, which I invite your Lordships to use as the template for your judgment.
I suggest that the Government are attempting to negate the legality of the exercise of rights permitted by UK law long after those rights have been exercised, and that to do so is unfair and disproportionate. We had a little discussion about strangeness in judgments that were allegedly made. In relation to these amendments, the only organisation that is doing something strange is the Government, because they are doing something that is very unusual and that falls straight into the literal definition of strange, although it is not unprecedented. The whole issue is about proportionality, as I have said, and Governments unfortunately do strange things fairly often.
These amendments deal with parts of the Bill that are retrospective in effect. Retrospectivity is contrary to the legal certainty of which we are proud and other principles that underpin our law. The amendments deal with Clauses 2, 4, 5, 15 and 21. Clause 2(3) means that the duty to deport would apply to an individual who entered or arrived in the United Kingdom on or after 7 March this year. The normal course of events is that a Bill comes into force when it is passed—at that moment when we hear that it has had Royal Assent and has gone through any other provisions contained in it as to when it comes into force. But this one is retrospective.
Clause 4(7) would disapply asylum or human rights claims which were made on or after 7 March 2023 but were simply awaiting a decision. There you are, awaiting a decision and, suddenly, the possibility of a decision is simply removed from you by the diktat of government.
Clause 5(12) and (14) would extend the removal provisions applied to those who had made an asylum or human rights claim on or after 7 March 2023 but were awaiting a decision. Clause 15(4) would give the Home Secretary retrospective power over the accommodation of unaccompanied migrant children—a very dramatic piece of retrospectivity.
Clause 21(8) to (10) would allow the Home Secretary retrospectively to revoke limited relief to remain, granted lawfully, to victims of modern slavery and human trafficking, thereby undermining commitments made by Theresa May—she was referred to earlier—when she was Prime Minister. They were very carefully considered, and rightly much vaunted, provisions to protect people from modern slavery and human trafficking.
I think we have already heard today, and I have certainly heard it at other times, that the modern slavery provisions have been abused. Yes, to an extent they have, but I would challenge anyone who has experience in the law to find any provision of a comparable nature that has not been abused and misused. That is what courts are there for: to deal with the misuse and abuse of such provisions.
The point about legal certainty is that it requires that individuals know what their rights are and how they can be implemented and enforced. This is especially important at a time when, as we have heard repeatedly from the Minister, the Government have decided that the UK’s international law obligations are dispensable and that the fundamental rights of individuals can be cast aside. The importance of legal certainty, and having very rare retrospectivity in our legal system and our common-law traditions, has been stressed repeatedly by the senior courts.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
I heap plaudits on the shoulders of the noble Lord, Lord Carlile of Berriew. That was worthy of a legal lecture. I hope the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson, caught his plane, but that was a common-sense lesson in the law spoken with a great deal of humility. I will not call it a lecture because it was too humble and too articulate for that. I associate myself with all those remarks. I have signed only some of the amendments, but I am happy to endorse all the amendments that are against retrospection in the Bill. Our position on retrospection comes from common decency, common sense and common law before we get anywhere near ECHR obligations and other international obligations. Do not change the rules after the game has begun.
I notice that the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, is back in his place. He is a great one for the Clapham omnibus. I think this idea of changing the rules half way through the game is something that anyone on the Clapham omnibus or any lay person anywhere in our country would completely understand, and that is why all the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, are so important. It is profoundly unfair to say to people who are already in this country, who have already come to claim asylum, whether they will eventually succeed in their claims or not, should be subject to this new, punitive, retrospective regime.
The noble Lord, Lord Carlile, is clear and articulate, but he is also forensic because there are some extreme situations in which retrospection is permissible and even I would support retrospection. The famous one is marital rape. We know that once upon a time in our country it was not considered rape for a man to rape his wife. That position was changed in the courts in relation to a particular case. This had been brewing for some time. People thought the law was out of step with contemporary views on equal treatment of women and what is acceptable even within marriage. That was changed in a single case in which a man was successfully prosecuted for raping his wife. He took his claim all the way to the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg, and the court said no, this rape is so profoundly contrary to our international accepted norms that in this case we will accept that retrospection did not offend the common decency principle that you should not punish people retrospectively.
That is the kind of case we are talking about, in which it is acceptable to do that—not in this context. These are very vulnerable, desperate people. Whatever the views of noble Lords in this Committee about the acceptability of this regime, and we will disagree about that, in my view and that of many Members, as we have heard today, applying this to people who came here in good faith, and in many cases in desperation, on the understanding that the refugee convention would be applied in one way, is punitive and discriminatory, contrary to the convention. Retrospection adds insult to injury. I hope the Committee will not accept it and will instead support all the amendments that deal with retrospection in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Carlile of Berriew.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
My Lords, I am glad to have been able to add my name to the noble Lord’s amendments. I am grateful to him for introducing them so clearly. I am conscious that my name is among those of noted advocates in different contexts.
We are already in an Alice in Wonderland—although I am not sure it is really a wonderland—world, where we are told that asylum seekers will know enough about UK restrictions and provisions to be deterred from trying to get here. I do not recognise that proposition. Added to that is the idea that people who are already here should have known what is in the Bill even before most MPs had an opportunity to pick up a copy of it.
The noble Lord referred to legislation coming into effect when it gets Royal Assent. Yes, of course it does, but very often—almost invariably—in a limited way. Some clauses come into effect, usually the jurisdiction and that type of thing, but many of the provisions and most of the legislation that we deal with have to wait for secondary legislation: that is, the provisions that implement what is in the primary legislation.
I absolutely agree with what has been said about certainty, clarity, predictability and so on. This Bill displays a casual attitude, which goes against not only legal principles but, as I think has been said, common decency. If I were to ask the Minister what is so compelling about the Bill that it should be an exception to all this, I have no doubt that I would be told, “We’ve got to stop the boats”.
As the noble Lord just said, the Nationality and Borders Bill—now Act—had the same policy objective, yet the channel crossings kept on rising and they have gone on rising. If I wanted evidence that retrospectivity had an effect in practical terms, I would have expected to find that they had come down in number since 7 March—but they have not.
I have two amendments in this group; my noble friend Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville also has her name to the first of these, Amendment 9, which proposes to leave out Clause 2(7). Subsection (7) provides that
“limited leave to enter or remain given”
to an unaccompanied child “is to be disregarded”. It says, in effect that, for the purposes of Clause 3(1), we are to disregard what has already happened. It is another bit of retrospectivity. What use is the leave that is referred to in Clause 2(7)? To disregard it is unprincipled. Such leave should be taken into account in determining whether a child has leave to enter or remain; the Government have given it.
I will raise a point that the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, and myself, were discussing during the dinner break—it justifies our having had a dinner break, I think—and that is the question of adoption. I have not seen the comment made by the Children’s Commissioner, which no doubt the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, will talk about, but I understand it suggests that, in the case of a child who has been adopted, and who falls within the provisions of the Bill as currently set out, that adoption in some way could be undone, despite the fact that the child has become a member of a British family.
I would have thought that the four conditions would not have been met, but we must be absolutely clear about this. If someone with the credentials of the Children’s Commissioner suggests that there is an issue here, we must have an absolutely clear statement from the Dispatch Box that that is not so and, preferably, an amendment from the Government making it clear that it is not so.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, for having run a trailer for the question that I asked at a very helpful meeting that was arranged with the Children’s Commissioner.
Many of those coming here at the moment—apparently about 5%—are girls. They are generally in a much poorer state than the young men and boys, and many have been sexually assaulted or raped. I ask the Minister to be quite specific about this: in the event that one of these girls is pregnant and she decides either to give up the child for adoption or to keep the child herself, or in the event that she dies in childbirth either in this country or following deportation to Rwanda, and that child is then orphaned either in this country or in Rwanda, and that child is given up for adoption in this country, what is the status of that child? Would the child be at risk of being deported at the age of 18?
And what is the status of that child’s children, given that the child will have arrived in this country in utero, with no form of permission to come here, but would have had no choice in the process, and what is the position of the adopted parents? In the event that the child is not adopted but has been in foster care up until the age of 18, what is the status of that child? Can there be any retrospection applied to the ability of that child, who will have been completely brought up here, gone through schooling and had career prospects created in this country, simply because that baby arrived in utero?
Baroness Suttie (LD)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 12, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie of Downpatrick, to which I have added my name. A very similar amendment was tabled in the House of Commons by my honourable friend Stephen Farry MP. Unfortunately, the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, is unable to be present this evening, as she is in Brussels on a delegation, so she has asked me to speak to the amendment in her absence.
As the Minister knows, we had a debate along very similar lines yesterday evening on a regret Motion on the requirement for an electronic travel authorisation and the potential impact on tourism in Northern Ireland. Amendment 12 is primarily a probing amendment that would seek to exempt from Clause 2 of the Bill people crossing the border from the Republic of Ireland to Northern Ireland. I will highlight two particular concerns about Clause 2, as it affects the land border on the island of Ireland.
The first is the enforcement of the provisions contained under Clause 2. The issue of who decides whom to check and on what basis, given that routine immigration checks across the land border on the island of Ireland do not happen, is an area of very grave concern. Maintaining the freedom to travel north-south without restrictions remains a key element of the peace process, and any changes to this could constitute a breach of the Good Friday/Belfast agreement. The Government have confirmed—and it was reconfirmed last night by the Minister—that Irish citizens will be exempt from the need to apply for an ETA when travelling to Northern Ireland. However, there remains a considerable amount of legal ambiguity for residents in the Republic of Ireland who come from a third country whose citizens currently require a visa to enter the UK and therefore Northern Ireland.
During the debate on this issue in the House of Commons, examples were raised about the impact of Clause 2 on individuals legally resident in Ireland who cross the land border from Ireland to Northern Ireland, perhaps to visit friends or to go shopping, but who have not applied for an ETA. During the debate yesterday evening on the introduction of an ETA, the Minister—the noble Lord, Lord Murray—said that,
“those who are legally resident in Ireland may instead, if required by a UK immigration official, present physical evidence that demonstrates their legal residence in Ireland”.
He added that the Home Office would publish guidance in July on what would be considered as acceptable evidence. Therefore, following his statement yesterday, will the Minister tell us what the consultation process will be in advance of publishing this guidance? Will there be an information campaign to ensure that people are aware of these requirements? He will, I hope, be aware of the sensitivities of requiring people to carry official documentation when there is supposed to be unrestricted north-south travel.
During yesterday evening’s debate, the Minister said that
“prosecutions for illegal entry offences will focus on egregious cases and not accidental errors”.—[Official Report, 23/5/23, col. 836.]
Can he say whether it is the Government’s intention to publish guidance on what is likely to be defined as an egregious case? Perhaps most importantly, what assurances can he give that random checks by UK immigration officials will not result in the creation of a border on the island of Ireland by stealth?
My second area of concern is the potential risk of racial profiling resulting from these random checks. Migrant-led organisations such as the North West Migrants Forum have been raising concerns about the impact of visa requirements on the land border on the island of Ireland. They have highlighted the disproportionate impacts on black and minority ethnic, and migrant, people. Clause 2 risks exacerbating these issues and further hardening the border on the island of Ireland for some communities. The Minister will know that, in response to these concerns, Alyson Kilpatrick, the chief commissioner of the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission, has called for all journeys into Northern Ireland originating from Ireland to be exempt from the ETA provisions in the Bill. Can the Minister say what measures will be put in place to prevent racial profiling as a result of random checks and, in particular, what steps the Home Office will take to ensure proper training of UK immigration staff in monitoring these random checks?
Finally, can the Minister clarify whether non-visa nationals entering Northern Ireland and the UK from the Republic of Ireland without an ETA will impact the validity of deemed leave, as set out under Article 4 of the Immigration (Control of Entry through Republic of Ireland) Order 1972? If he does not know the answer to that one immediately, I will be happy to receive a letter if it could be placed in the Library.
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)
My Lords, I ought to apologise to the Committee. I failed to say that I was unable to speak at Second Reading; I listened to a great deal of it, but I had a commitment that I could not avoid. I also should have announced earlier that I am co-chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Human Trafficking and Modern Slavery and a vice-chairman of the Human Trafficking Foundation.
I totally support Amendment 6. The retrospective effect is shocking but it has been dealt with by other people, so I will move to two other amendments that I am very anxious to say something about.
There is a mantra about the best interests of children. It has, rightly, been followed throughout the United Kingdom for many years. It originates in the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, as has already been referred to. It is also incorporated in the Children Act 1989, in which I was very much involved. Consequently, the clauses in the Bill—not just the one with which we are dealing, Clause 2—are utterly shocking in their derogation from the best rights of the child.
It is truly worrying that this is happening. Clause 2 specifically includes, of course, children and the ability to remove them. Part of Clause 2 includes the possibility of children not being included, but it leaves it to the Secretary of State as to when to exercise that discretion. I am extremely concerned about this. It is not only in Clause 2; it arises in other clauses which I will speak about later, so I will not refer to them now.
The other two proposals that I am concerned about are dealt with in Amendments 9 and 11. I very much support Amendment 9, for the obvious reasons of its connection with children. Indeed, what has been proposed by the noble Baronesses, Lady Hamwee and Lady Bakewell, about Clause 2, at page 3 on line 39, is replicated later in an amendment that I have put down.
I am also very concerned about Amendment 11. If one just thinks with a bit of reality about the Bill, one really important thing which is utterly underused is the prosecution of the perpetrators—not the people smugglers but the trafficking smugglers who are bringing in people for wicked purposes. If you are going to require a person who has been abused or exploited by a trafficker to go to Rwanda, and to give evidence from Rwanda, who on earth in their senses will be bothered to give evidence to help a prosecution in England if they are stuck in Rwanda? It is just not feasible.
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)
The noble and learned Baroness makes a very strong case and I give her my full support.
My name is on Amendments 80 and 91 in this group. Amendment 91 is concerned with victims of human trafficking, but both fall at the hurdle of retrospection, as has been explained by the other signatories, in particular, my noble friend Lord Carlile, and by the noble Baronesses, Lady Chakrabarti and Lady Hamwee. I have the luxury of being able to add virtually nothing to the arguments already made.
I think the best description of the case against retrospection is in my noble and learned friend Lord Hope’s explanation of Amendment 39, which
“seeks to give effect to the principle that, unless for good reason, legislation should operate prospectively and not retrospectively”.
What is the conceivable good reason? What are the very exceptional circumstances that the Constitution Committee suggested might excuse retrospection?
The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, suggested that the Minister might try to say that stopping the boats is so exceptional as to justify retrospection. But there are a lot of other ways of dealing with that; for example, the safe passage visa argued for at Amendment 130. The Minister might say that that it is the cost of housing those who have come across the channel or in the back of a lorry and have been apprehended. But the costs of detaining and deporting those declared inadmissible under this Bill will be much higher.
That is the point the Refugee Council made in its impact assessment and estimate of the costs. It estimated a cost of £9 billion over the first three years. The Minister says that he does not recognise those numbers. That is not a sufficient argument. He needs to tell us what is wrong with those numbers and what his numbers are. It is not good enough just to sit there and say, “Well, I’m not going to engage in this debate because I don’t recognise the numbers”. I think retrospection is fundamentally unacceptable.
A few years ago, when I was driving up Headington Hill in Oxford, I forgot that, eccentrically, the set speed limit there is 20 miles per hour. I was required to present myself in Milton Keynes four months later for a speed awareness course, because I had been travelling at 27 miles per hour. Eccentrically, because I am a very eccentric person, I failed to ask my wife to see whether I could have a personal course. Nevertheless, I would have been very taken aback if, when I got to Milton Keynes—it was extremely hard to find the place and I was driving rather fast trying to find it—I had been told on arrival, “Actually, we have changed the penalty and we are going to export you to Rwanda”. I would have objected, and I object to retrospection.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
My Lords, I agree with everything that has been said so far, but I will focus on the opposition to Clause 2 standing part of the Bill. This clause is, in many ways, the nub of the asylum ban to which the Bill gives effect. To place a duty on the Home Secretary to remove virtually all those who seek asylum through irregular routes is an unprecedented step going far beyond simply giving her the power to do so. Here we are talking about those arriving not only by boats but by any irregular route; the boats are used as a justification for the Bill, because the Government know that we all want to see an end to those very unsafe journeys. The fact that it is a power only when it comes to children is a small mercy, given that they will be removed when they reach the age of 18. However, I will leave the treatment of children to a later debate, because there is still a lot to be said about the impact on children.
Calling those affected “illegal migrants” does not alter the fact that the majority are exercising their right in international law to seek asylum. That goes back to the point that the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chelmsford made earlier. In the words of the UN rapporteurs that I quoted earlier,
“the act of seeking asylum is always legal, and effective access to territory is an essential precondition for exercising the right to seek asylum”.
When she first introduced the Bill, the Home Secretary accused critics of naivety in suggesting that
“everybody coming here on a boat is a genuine asylum seeker fleeing for humanitarian reasons. The reality is that many of these people are economic migrants who are abusing our asylum system, and that is what this Bill aims to stop”.—[Official Report, Commons, 7/3/23; col. 174.]
Could the Minister give us the evidence on which that assertion is based? It has been reported that the Home Office does not have that evidence, but, if it does, now is the opportunity to provide it.
No one is suggesting that everyone who comes here on a small boat has a genuine case for asylum, but we know that the majority are likely to have such a case. According to the Refugee Council’s analysis of official data, six out of 10 of those who crossed the channel in small boats last year stood to be recognised as refugees—yet they will no longer be able to make their case.
The Home Secretary has argued that the Bill’s critics
“ignore the fact that our policy does in fact guarantee humanitarian protection for those who genuinely need it”.—[Official Report, Commons, 13/3/23; col. 576.]
However, many of those whom she has given herself a duty to remove will genuinely need humanitarian protection. Yet there will be no mechanism for ascertaining whether that is the case before they are simply removed to be dealt with elsewhere, like a parcel marked “don’t return to sender”. To quote the UN rapporteurs again,
“any steps taken to legalize policies effectively resulting in the removal of migrants without an individualized assessment in line with human rights obligations and due process are squarely incompatible with the prohibition of collective expulsions and the principle of non-refoulement”.
The Government talk as if we take a disproportionate number of asylum seekers, yet the opposite is the case— that point was made earlier today, though it seems a long time ago now. As I asked earlier, what happens if other countries follow our lead and also put up the “no asylum seekers here” sign? The chances are that the numbers seeking asylum in the UK will go up, not down.
In practice, the general view, including that of the Law Society, is that removal of those deemed inadmissible will be very difficult in the absence of adequate third-country agreements, making the Bill, in effect, unworkable. The fear of the Refugee Council, the UNHRC and others is that it will mean many thousands left in semi-permanent limbo, at risk of destitution. As I said at Second Reading, the mental health implications are likely to be serious, as spelled out by the Royal College of Psychiatrists, which has many concerns about the Bill’s impact on mental health. For those who are removed to a third country, there is no guarantee that the country will be equipped to assess their asylum claim, so again they could be living in limbo, but out of sight and out of mind of the UK Government. How can all this be described as compassionate and humane, as Ministers repeatedly do?
The Lord Bishop of Chelmsford
My Lords, I do not wish to delay the House for long, especially given the excellent speeches we have already heard delivered on this group, but I support the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, and the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, about retrospection. I add my support, in particular, to the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, and those other noble Lords who have tabled Amendment 11, on which we have already heard the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss.
A succession of migration, public order and modern slavery Bills in recent years have drastically raised the length of sentences and the severity of punishments that can be brought to bear on people traffickers and smugglers. While this may look tough, it is difficult to say that it has had much impact; indeed, the entire purpose of this Bill is to try to put a stop to arrivals which have not, apparently, been impacted on at all by the deterrents that are already in place. Nor is this surprising, given the very low number of prosecutions and convictions for such offences. Regrettably, it seems that smuggling is a crime with enormous rewards but relatively little risk for the perpetrators. Instead, we seem to almost exclusively punish those who are smuggled, often in highly dangerous circumstances.
We know that securing prosecutions and convictions is incredibly difficult because it requires the willing co-operation of those who have been smuggled. This is no small thing, for they are often traumatised and often in significant debt to the smugglers. They may have friends and family abroad or here in the UK who will be put at risk if they come forward. That difficulty is only exacerbated by our migration enforcement policies, which also deter victims from coming forward for fear of the hostile environment, detention and removal—including potentially to Rwanda or some other third country with which they have no connection. There is little incentive to co-operate with law enforcement, and significant risk in doing so.
My fear is that the Bill as a whole will not improve this situation, but at the very least, Amendment 11 provides a modest mitigation of the damage, without undermining the effect of the Bill overall, by exempting those co-operating with law enforcement from the prospect of removal. I hope that Ministers will listen to this, or at the very least come back with detailed proposals for how victims, both of smuggling and of trafficking, slavery and other forms of abuse, can be better supported to co-operate and help bring down those who have abused them.
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)
My Lords, I apologise for not being able to take part at Second Reading. I shall speak to Amendment 9 in the name of my noble friend Lady Hamwee, to which I have added my name.
This group of amendments concentrates on the duty to make arrangements for removal of migrants trying to enter the country. My noble friend set out very clearly the arguments for the amendments to which she has added her name. Amendment 9 proposes that the whole of Clause 2(7) should be removed. This would ensure that the treatment of unaccompanied children will be considered under existing UK domestic legislation, whereby Section 55 of the Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Act 2009 puts a duty on the Secretary of State to safeguard and promote the welfare of children in any of their functions relating to immigration, asylum or nationality.
Lord Cashman (Lab)
My Lords, I speak in favour of the amendments in this group, including my Amendment 8; I thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton, for adding his name to it. My amendment deals specifically with Clause 2(4) and would include persecution of a person on the basis of gender, sexuality and gender identity for the purposes of the third condition under which a person could be removed. However, I wish to now speak against Clause 2 and the duty to deport.
As we have heard from other noble Lords, the Bill seeks to give unprecedented powers to the Home Secretary to deport people without even a fair hearing of their case. The Home Secretary is in fact compelled to carry out that duty, even when it conflicts with human rights protections. The Bill seeks to limit the circumstances in which legal challenges could prevent a removal and allows the Home Secretary to add or remove countries to the list of so-called safe countries. This is even more worrying, looking at Schedule 1. At present, four of the countries on that list are not signatories to the UN convention, and some may not even have a functional asylum system. I will come back to this later on a further grouping but, if a person were deported or returned to most of the countries on the list in Schedule 1, they would face discrimination on the grounds of their sexual orientation or gender identity. Nigeria is one that springs to mind.
Without the requirement to make individualised assessments about whether it is safe to remove a person seeking asylum, and in providing very limited opportunities for individuals to present evidence of the risks that they could face, there is a real concern that many refugees will be deported to a country where their safety is at risk, or returned to their home country where their life could be threatened again, as I have said. The refugee convention makes it clear that return is prohibited to any country where a refugee could face persecution and not just their own.
I return now to the thinking behind my own amendment. In passing through a so-called safe third country, I refer to the internationally accepted definition of a refugee, which makes reference to five possible grounds for persecution: race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political opinion: UN General Assembly 1951, page 137. These grounds are also recognised as covering persecution on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity and gender-based human rights abuses.
Such examples also illustrate that persecution may happen where the state is not itself the perpetrator. Although some definitions have in the past required this, it is not universal. I believe it is therefore right to expand within the Bill the acceptance of individuals becoming refugees both when persecution is perpetrated by the state and where there is a failure of the state to provide protection against persecution by others. On that basis, I commend my amendment to noble Lords.
Baroness Ludford (LD)
My Lords, I will quickly speak on Amendment 12, otherwise I fear there will not be a second voice in support of the very important issue of the potential impact of the Bill in respect of Northern Ireland. The Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission has pointed out that the human rights memorandum does not include an assessment of compliance of the Bill with Article 2 of the Windsor Framework, so my first question to the Minister is: will that memorandum be amended to include such an assessment?
The Bill raises significant concerns about compliance with the Belfast/Good Friday agreement and with the Windsor Framework, because the incorporation of the European Convention on Human Rights into Northern Ireland law was an explicit commitment of the Good Friday agreement and was achieved through the Human Rights Act. The Bill would constitute a breach of two core elements of this commitment: the guarantee of direct access to the courts and the obligation to provide remedies for breach of the convention, under the relevant chapter of the agreement. That chapter extends to everyone in the community, which includes asylum seekers and refugees.
I believe the Bill is also inconsistent with obligations under Article 2 of the Windsor Framework, which details various equality and non-discrimination EU directives with which Northern Ireland must keep pace. This includes the victims’ directive and the trafficking directive. The potential for the Bill to lead to failures in identifying and supporting trafficking victims, as well as the provisions on detention and removal, would place Northern Ireland in direct contravention of those directives. I believe that the Government’s explainer document on the Windsor Framework, Article 2, acknowledges that its protections apply to everyone who is subject to the law in Northern Ireland. Asylum seekers are part of the community and therefore protected by the Rights, Safeguards and Equality of Opportunity chapter of the Good Friday agreement. I understand that in ongoing court proceedings—I prefer “continuing” court proceedings—the Home Office has not disputed the argument that the protections of the relevant chapter of the Good Friday agreement extend to asylum seekers and refugees.
The Bill instructs the Secretary of State to declare inadmissible any claim that removal of an individual would breach their convention rights, if that individual met the extremely broad criteria covered by the duty to remove. It says that this inadmissibility cannot be appealed, so if those provisions were applied to someone arriving in Northern Ireland, it would be a direct breach of the Belfast/Good Friday agreement because it makes convention rights inaccessible and restricts that individual’s direct access to the courts and remedies for breach of the convention. Also, the application of the Bill to land border crossings could constitute a breach of Article 2 of the Windsor Framework and indeed of its very objectives.
To try to compress all that down, it is a matter of considerable concern that there is a failure to address compliance with Article 2 of the Windsor Framework, and more broadly with the Good Friday agreement, in the human rights memorandum to the Bill. I will end where I started, which is to ask the Minister whether such an assessment is going to materialise.
Lord Etherton (CB)
My Lords, I have co-signed the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Carlile or Berriew, and that in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Cashman. I will make some very brief comments on both.
The principle against retrospection in statutory provisions is very long-standing and well-established because it upsets settled status and settled rights. It follows that it can, save in exceptional circumstances, operate both unfairly and so as to create legal uncertainty in the way that people conduct their affairs.
The best example of where retrospection would be appropriate is in relation to a finance Bill and Act giving effect to a Budget, with the time lapse between the two enabling people to enter into tax avoidance arrangements. But here it would be utterly impossible—certainly without any credibility—to suggest that those who are either crossing the channel or promoting that crossing unlawfully or illegally have organised their affairs, or were ever likely to organise them, on the basis of the complex provisions of this statute. I have never heard anybody suggest to the contrary. For my part, I can see absolutely no sound reason why the normal rule—which is one of fairness and certainty, as I said—should be upset in this case.
I support the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Cashman, because extending the definition of the third condition to include gender identity and sexual orientation brings to the forefront something which has plainly been ignored in the drafting of the Bill. There is absolutely nothing in Schedule 1 which excludes from the places to which people can be removed those LGBT people who would undoubtedly face extreme persecution, varying from sentence of imprisonment to death and assault. Raising this issue here will, I hope, direct the Government and the Bill team to a serious lacuna in the legislation.
Lord Hope of Craighead (CB)
My Lords, I can be very brief. I have one amendment in this group, Amendment 39, which raises the same point as Amendment 6 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Carlile of Berriew, on retrospectivity. I support all the amendments in his name to that effect. The only point I would have added would have been to read out my explanatory statement, which my noble friend Lord Kerr of Kinlochard has already done, placing particular stress on “for good reason”. If the Minister is not going to accept these amendments, I hope he can give the good reason in each case.
Baroness Lawlor (Con)
My Lords, I am puzzled by Amendment 6 and the reasons given by some of your Lordships for opposing the start date of 7 March 2023—a criticism made on grounds of retrospection. There is nothing unclear about the start date, and nothing hidden: 7 March is published as the start date for the Bill itself. It is the date of the Bill’s First Reading. I am also slightly puzzled by the desire to omit from subsections (4) and (5) of Clause 2 people who enter this country in breach of our Immigration Rules and do not come from a country in which their life and liberty are threatened.
Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)
The noble Baroness has had quite a lot to say today about the wishes of the people of this country. Would she like to tell us what her evidence is that the wish of the people of this country is that people should be retrospectively affected by legislation of which they plainly had no awareness at the time when it had its First Reading?
Baroness Lawlor (Con)
I thank the noble Lord for his question. As far as I can see, the Bill was published on 7 March. It was very well publicised at the time. It is designed to deter—
Baroness Lawlor
I think the noble Lord is not aware of the very good access to news which people coming to this country have—and which people traffickers have. It was no surprise that this Bill had its First Reading on 7 March.
I conclude on a point made earlier. This is not a Bill against asylum seekers; it is a measure to deter and prevent those coming to this country by unsafe and unlawful routes.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I will go where I was going without being distracted. I am aware that there is no Green group name on any of these amendments, which is the result of an administrative hitch earlier in the week, so I will be very brief—I am also aware of the hour. I shall make just three points about this group of amendments.
First, we have discussed the issue of retrospectivity a great deal. I align myself with the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, among many others, who talked about approaching this as a lay person, which indeed I do as a non-lawyer. However, I have had a lot of contact with the law through my time as a journalist, and one of the things you learn is that the nature of the law is that they do not make laws retrospectively. That is in the general public understanding of what is law, so I associate myself with all the anti-retrospectivity amendments.
However, I particularly want to address Amendment 91, to which there has not been much attention given, which aims to prevent victims of human trafficking and modern slavery from having their leave retrospectively revoked to permit their deportation. This is leave granted to people under the Nationality and Borders Act 2022. I am sure many noble Lords taking part in this debate can think of victims of trafficking and modern slavery whom they have met. I am thinking of one in particular, whom I will not identify in detail. She was a person who had clearly been enormously mentally scarred by the experience of losing control of her own life and being a slave. To think that we would put them in this position again, having granted them status and then snatched it away, highlights the emotional damage that that would do to people.
Secondly, my favoured position is to write out this whole Bill but, if we do not do that, then that Clause 2 should not stand part. The noble Baroness, Lady Lister, made a powerful speech on this point. I want to raise a point no one else has raised. I ask the Minister to answer, although I expect he will be reluctant to, so maybe some of the other legal minds in the Committee can be put to this. Let us imagine that, after the next election, we have a change of government, and there has been written into law a duty for the Secretary of State to deport people. There is going to have to be an emergency Bill passed as soon as possible to stop that. I very much hope that would be the case for whoever the next the Government are. But there is going to be a total legal mess, I would imagine, when the people of the country have elected a Government standing on a different platform—I would hope—but that is the law of the land. I am not sure where that would leave us; I do not know if anyone could help me with that one.
I also want to address why the duties to remove in Clause 2 should not remain. Some 90% of the people in need of international protection who come to the UK could not do so directly as defined by this Bill. The refugee convention prohibits states from imposing penalties on refugees for how they have entered the country, because most people have no choice but to enter a country irregularly. The convention explicitly states that you do not have to come directly to the country; there is no requirement of “first safe country”. That is the convention, yet we are writing this piece of this Bill. This clause simply must not stand part.
Thirdly, I want to identify particularly with Amendment 8. The noble Lord, Lord Cashman, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton, have already made this argument very powerfully. All I want to say is that my Second Reading speech addressed this issue at some length, and I would like to stress the Greens’ support for Amendment 8 in particular.
Lord German (LD)
My Lords, there are two matters in this group that are in my name, but I shall address just one of them briefly—the other matters having been covered by earlier speakers—and that is the issue about coming directly to the United Kingdom.
The UNHCR, in its legal opinion, says that the vast majority of people in need of international protection will meet those criteria of not being able to come directly to the UK. Almost 90% of people in need of international protection globally come from countries where it is impossible to come directly to the UK—there are no direct flights, nowhere to get a visa, nowhere to make any of the paper arrangements we have set up. We will come to the issue of safe routes later, but the question I have to ask relates to the role of the UNHCR in supporting those who are in need of protection.
Apart from the one relating to Afghanistan, the UNHCR states that there are only two active legal resettlement schemes in the UK. The first is the UKRS, which is the UK resettlement scheme. Since 2020, the UNHCR
“has been requested by the Government not to submit new cases other than in extremely compelling circumstances and on an ad-hoc basis, amounting to a handful per year”.
The second one is the mandate resettlement programme, which provides a pathway for refugees:
“An average of fewer than 25 people a year come to the UK on this route. … they must be identified and referred by UNHCR in accordance with criteria agreed upon with the receiving State”.
So, essentially, the UNHCR has been told that it can have probably about 25 and perhaps five or six more. That is the total—apart from the Afghani stream—from the resettlement schemes that are open. In his reply, perhaps the Minister could tell us how people can get to the UK directly from the places from which they are seeking refuge, and also how these people can be filtered so that only the 30 or so people who can currently come per year will be accommodated.
Lord Paddick (LD)
My Lords, this group covers a wide range of amendments concerning the duty to make arrangements for removal. To summarise, it shows that the Government have not thought through the issues that arise from Clause 2. The noble Lord, Lord Carlile of Berriew, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton, have spoken compellingly about the unfairness and uncertainty of retrospection. My noble friend Lady Hamwee spoke about the impact on unaccompanied children affected by the retrospection caused by Clause 2. My noble friends Lady Suttie and Lady Ludford spoke about the extreme dangers around the impacts of Clause 2 on the arrangements between the north and south of Ireland. The noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, spoke about the perhaps unintended consequences of impeding the prosecution of traffickers and perpetrators of modern slavery.
The noble Lord, Lord Cashman, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton, spoke about neglecting issues around sexual orientation and gender identity, which could be an extreme risk to people if they were to return to certain countries; they are completely left out of the Bill. My noble friend Lord German raised the important point about what it means when somebody has not come directly to the UK, and what the higher courts in this country have said about that. It was debated endlessly during the passage of the Nationality and Borders Act but goes even further in this Bill, which is why Clause 2 should not stand part of the Bill.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
My Lords, much of what I want to say about Clause 2 standing part of the Bill will be reflected in what I say on Amendment 13 in the next group, as otherwise I will end up repeating myself.
I very much welcome Amendment 6 moved by the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, and the points he made on the retrospective nature of some of what is included in the Bill. It was a very powerful contribution that the Committee will need to reflect on. The amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Cashman, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton, about the need to reflect sexual orientation and gender identity, is important as well. On Amendment 7 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord German, this issue of what is a safe country, and not being able to transit through a safe country, bedevils the Bill. The Minister cannot answer the question of how somebody gets here without going through a safe country if there is not a safe and legal route without flying. It is not feasible or possible.
I have always found astonishing the argument that nobody can come here if they travel through a safe country. If you take that to its extreme, it will mean that countries such as Italy, Spain and Turkey would have every single asylum seeker there was, because hundreds of thousands come through those countries. Are we saying that they should stay there? It is a shared responsibility. In Africa, some of the poorest countries in the world take millions of refugees. It is just not a feasible or credible statement to say that if somebody comes from a country where they are not threatened, they should stay there and claim asylum. It would essentially mean that no one would ever come here or be able to arrive in this country. It is a nonsense statement.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, and my noble friend Lord Hacking for their support for my Amendment 11. I tabled it as a marker because it seeks to provide an exemption from the duty to remove for those people co-operating with the police on people smuggling. For the reasons that the noble and learned Baroness, the right reverend Prelate and others pointed out, that co-operation with the police is essential for us to get the criminals who are involved in people smuggling.
In Clauses 2 and 21 the Government talk about exemptions from the duty to remove for people who co-operate with the police on modern slavery and trafficking. One of the reasons I have tabled my amendment is because I want the Minister to spell out what that actually means, apart from the obvious. People need to know and understand that the Government are saying that, if the police believe that you have been trafficked or identify you as a victim of modern slavery, you will absolutely be exempted—no exceptions—from the duty to remove under Clause 2. It does not include people smuggling, which is why I have put it in my amendment, but it also tests, in Committee, what the Government mean by Clause 21 in particular, about exempting people with respect to modern slavery and trafficking. Does that mean exactly what it says—that those people will be exempt from the duty to remove? I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
My Lords, as the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, said, echoed by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, Clause 2 is the centrepiece of the scheme provided for in the Bill. At its heart, the Bill seeks to change the existing legal framework so that those who arrive in the UK illegally can be detained and then promptly removed, either to their home country or to a safe third country.
Clause 2 seeks to achieve this by placing a legal duty on the Secretary of State to remove those who come to the UK illegally. The duty applies where an individual meets the four conditions set out in Clause 2, which I will briefly rehearse.
The first condition is about the lawfulness of the person’s entry into the UK. This underlines the Government’s commitment to take all possible measures to stop people making dangerous journeys to enter the UK illegally, particularly across the English Channel.
The second condition is that the individual must have entered the UK on or after 7 March—the day of the Bill’s introduction in the House of Commons, as my noble friend Lady Lawlor noted. This is a crucial condition that will ensure that we do not create a perverse incentive for migrants to take illegal and dangerous journeys in an attempt to avoid being subject to the Bill’s provisions. I will return to this point in a moment.
The third condition states that the duty will apply to an individual who has not come directly from a country in which their life and liberty were threatened. That means that anyone entering the UK from another country where their life was not in danger will fall within the scope of the duty. This is consistent with our obligations under the refugee convention and upholds the principle that asylum seekers should claim asylum in the first safe country they reach. There is manifestly no need for people to make those dangerous journeys when they are already in a country where they are safe or could, in the case of France, for example, claim asylum. It places themselves and others at risk and puts money into the hands of organised criminals.
The fourth and final condition is that an individual requires leave to remain but does not have it. The duty to make arrangements for removal is subject only to very limited exceptions signposted in Clause 2(11), which we will come on to at a later date when we come to a later clause.
The fundamental point is that, subject to these limited exceptions, the Home Secretary will be under a clear and unambiguous legal duty to make arrangements for the removal of persons from the UK who satisfy those four conditions. She should not be deflected from fulfilling that legal duty. These provisions make it very clear that if you meet these four conditions you will not be able to make a new life in the UK.
A number of the amendments in this group relate to the four conditions I have described. Amendment 6 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, relates to the second condition. In effect, this and other amendments tabled by the noble Lord seek to do away with the backdating of the duty to remove so that it applies only to those who illegally enter the country from the date of commencement rather than from 7 March. Amendment 39 in the name of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, deals with the same point.
The explanatory note to the noble and learned Lord’s Amendment 39 sums up the position well, as was noted by the noble Lord, Lord Kerr. It says:
“This amendment seeks to give effect to the principle that, unless for good reason, legislation should operate prospectively and not retrospectively”.
I was challenged by the noble and learned Lord to explain what that good reason was. The Government entirely agree with the explanatory note from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope. The Committee will know that it is not uncommon in exceptional circumstances for legislation to have retrospective effect, as the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, noted. But as the noble and learned Lord has acknowledged, there must be good reason for such exceptions. I suggest to the Committee that there is good reason in this instance for retrospection.
I would say that the retrospective nature of these provisions is critical. Without it, we risk organised criminals and people smugglers seeking to exploit this with an increase in the number of illegal arrivals ahead of commencement of the provisions in the Bill. This would likely lead to an increase in these unnecessary and dangerous small boat crossings and could even place more pressure on not only our asylum system, but our health, housing, educational and welfare services, not to mention our services for saving lives at sea.
Lord Paddick (LD)
Can the Minister explain why in that case the Nationality and Borders Act does not have a retrospective clause? What evidence does the Minister have, having announced the retrospective elements and that the provisions apply from when the Bill was first introduced into the House of Commons? What deterrent effect have we seen in terms of reducing the number of boat crossings?
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
Certainly. The structure of the Nationality and Borders Act 2022 was very different. It was not a Bill like this one, which focuses on a duty to remove and is targeted at creating a disincentive effect on people crossing the channel. This is a very differently structured piece of legislation and therefore the retrospective element is a vital and logical part of the scheme in the Bill.
As to the evidence of the deterrent effect taking effect from the date of introduction, this is seen potentially in the fact that—and one can only draw inferences from the figures—it would appear that the numbers are down on this time last year. I accept that the weather has facilitated a good measure of that, but it is certainly right to say that had there not been a retrospectivity measure in the Bill I would conjecture that the numbers crossing the channel would have been far higher. It would have been easy for people smugglers to advertise their services—and I will come to this in a moment—as something of a fire sale, saying, “Get across the channel now. Here’s your opportunity before these measures in the Government’s new scheme take effect”.
The provision in the Bill does not mean that all those who enter the country illegally on or after 7 March will be subject to the duty to remove in Clause 2(1). We have expressly provided in Clause 4(7) that asylum and human rights-based claims made on or after 7 March may be decided by the Secretary of State prior to the commencement of Clause 4. Where a person is then granted leave to remain, they will not be removed.
The noble Lord, Lord Carlile, noted that retrospectivity is problematic because it impinges on legal certainty. The key here is that we have been clear in the Bill and in the public messaging—for example, in the statement given by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister and the other messaging—that this is the date when the scheme will commence. That means that there can be no uncertainty about the Government’s intention. While I accept that this is unusual in our legal system, it is not unheard of. The Revenue sometimes announces intended changes to tax law which are then later introduced by Finance Bills but backdated to the date of the announcement. In those cases, it is usually to prevent a closing-down sale of improper tax structures. There, retrospectivity is designed to protect tax revenue. Here, it is to prevent a closing-down sale of dangerous, sometimes fatal, channel crossings in the lead-up to some prospective date. We do not take this step lightly but feel it is necessary to reduce this perverse incentive.
I say “reduce” advisedly. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton, has pointed out that migrants on the other side of the channel may not be as well advised as some taxpayers, but it is clear they are alive to changes in policy in the UK. For example, it is clear that announcements of a change in the approach to Albanian illegal migrants has led to a very significant dropping off of that cohort in the small boats, even before removals have begun at scale. This shows that the criminal gangs and migrants are aware of policy announcements in the UK, as my noble friend Lady Lawlor has pointed out. Similarly, the original announcement of the Rwanda scheme was known in the camps in Calais, with some suggesting in reporting that asylum seekers sought to go to the Republic of Ireland instead to avoid being sent to Rwanda. Indeed, the then Taoiseach Michael Martin noted a surge in applications and partly blamed the Rwanda announcement.
While clearly announcing the start date of the new scheme may not have had a decisive impact, it is important to do everything we can to discourage those dangerous journeys. Announcements such as this can have an impact on behaviour, and we hope they will reduce the incentive for a surge in dangerous crossings, perhaps at a time when the weather makes crossing very dangerous. To answer the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, these are the compelling and exceptional circumstances that justify this decision.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
I apologise to the Minister for intervening at this late hour. If I understand him correctly, it will now be permissible to legislate retrospectively in any case of criminality because, by definition, it is very important not to have a fire sale. If we believe that certain conduct is wrong and there is a gap, whatever that conduct is, and if it is a serious enough matter to legislate in criminal terms, for example, it would now and in the future be permissible to legislate retrospectively.
My second point is that the Minister seems to suggest, like his noble friend Lady Lawlor, that because Ministers have announced a prospective change in the law, that should be good enough, because presumably we now believe that executive fiat and ministerial announcements and pronouncements are enough to suggest to people, not just in our own country but across the world, that that is what the law is and will be and always was. Have I understood the Minister correctly on this point?
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
No, I am sorry to say. Clearly the position is not that in every case where there is a change in the criminal law it should have retrospective effect to the date of the Bill’s introduction. That is absolutely not what I am saying. What I am saying is that, in this context, to prevent a rush of people into these dangerous vessels, crossing the channel at a time when there is potentially bad weather, those were the special circumstances that justified retrospection in these provisions. To go back to one of the last major Bills to go through your Lordships’ House, which became the Public Order Act, I would not dream of suggesting that the offence of locking on should have had retrospective effect to the date of the introduction of the Bill; there would have been no exceptional circumstances for that.
While I am on the topic of the speech just given by the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, I would like to address her suggestion that limited retrospectivity will lead to refoulement. This is clearly not the case. I can do no more than repeat that this Bill does not allow refoulement. It does not allow the Government to remove individuals to places where they will be in danger—and that, quite rightly, is under the supervision of the courts.
In particular, I would refer noble Lords to the clauses in the Bill relating to suspensive claims—Clauses 37 to 50—which allow Upper Tribunal judges to determine whether an individual faces a risk of “serious and irreversible harm”. If such a case is made out, the individual will not be removed to that place.
Amendment 7 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord German, relates to the third condition and to the issue of whether a person has or has not “come directly” from a country where their life and liberty were threatened. It is right that we prioritise protection for the most vulnerable people arriving through safe and legal routes rather than those who are strong or rich enough to have journeyed through safe countries and paid the people smugglers before they reach the UK.
In answer to the question put by the noble Lord, Lord German, repeated by the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, people seeking sanctuary should apply for asylum in the first safe country they reach. There is no uniform international interpretation of the many concepts of the refugee convention. However, the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties provides the treaty to be interpreted “in good faith”. It is on this basis that we have set out our interpretation of “come directly” through Clause 2. I might add that, were Amendment 7—
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
The Minister is beginning to address the question that I have raised twice: why should we accept this Government’s interpretation of the refugee convention over and above that of the body that is given authority by the UN to interpret it for the international community? Every other organisation that has briefed us has followed the UNHCR in its interpretation and there are very real fears of refoulement. As a noble Lord opposite said earlier. the reason given seems to be “Because we say so”, as you would say to a child. That is not good enough. We want to know exactly why we should accept the Government’s interpretation.
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
I thank the noble Baroness for that intervention. The reality is that the Government take legal advice. The UNHCR is clearly a UN body; it is not charged with the interpretation of the refugee convention. Some parts of the UNHCR have views on the Government’s position, but it is always worth recalling that the UNHCR itself maintains refugee arrangements and accommodation in Rwanda. In December, the High Court considered the submissions from the UNHCR and discounted what was said. So I invite the noble Baroness, rather than simply taking the Government’s word for it, to review the judgment of the Divisional Court, a careful and considered judgment, which considered the legality of the removal scheme.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)
The Minister has latched on to the wrong point—not the point that the UNHCR has made again and again that it is not compatible with the obligations of our membership to refuse to consider a request for asylum. It is nothing to do with Rwanda; it is to do with refusing a request for asylum. The Minister admitted earlier that there is no explicit provision in the refugee convention that permits us to do that. That is the basis of the UNHCR’s position. Frankly, his suggestion that there are differences of opinion in the UNHCR is pretty contemptible. The High Commissioner for Refugees has said he does not think this is compatible.
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
I am afraid that I again find myself at odds with the noble Lord. The reality is that the UN itself relocates refugees to Rwanda. As I say, there is no suggestion that people’s asylum claims will not be dealt with under this scheme; their asylum claim will be dealt with in Rwanda once they are removed, and that is entirely compatible with the convention. There is no requirement on a member state of the convention to determine asylum claims within its own territory. That is abundantly plain.
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)
The Minister says there is no requirement in the convention for a convention state to handle an asylum request on its own territory, but surely the deal with Rwanda rules out our ever hearing these cases. In Rwanda, people are allowed to apply for asylum in Rwanda, but their case for asylum in the United Kingdom will never be admitted. Is that not correct?
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
That is entirely correct, yes. Their asylum claim will be determined by the Government of Rwanda. That is the system that the High Court found to be entirely lawful in December.
If Amendment 7 were agreed, removing the third condition, the duty to remove would also apply to those who had come directly from a country where their life and liberty were threatened, and I am sure that is not what the noble Lord would want.
Amendment 8 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Cashman, also relates to the third condition. I put it to the noble Lord that the wording in Clause 2(4), referring to threats by reason of a person’s race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, reflects the definition of a refugee in Article 1 of the refugee convention. We have heard a lot today about adherence to the refugee convention and other international treaties. There may be a case for amending the definitions in the convention to reflect the world of today rather than what it was in 1951, but we should not put the cart before the horse and insert wording in the Bill at odds with the current wording of the convention.
I add that the reference to membership of a particular social group may, on the facts of a particular case, cover a person fleeing persecution on the basis of their gender, sexual orientation or gender identity. Lastly, it is not right to suggest, as the noble Lord does, that the Bill removes individualised assessments. It does not. Officials will make assessments and those can be challenged, including by way of suspensive claims, as we have already discussed.
Amendment 9 tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, would remove subsection (7). This ties in with the fourth condition, which is that a person requires leave to enter or remain in the UK but does not have it. We will have a fuller debate about unaccompanied children later in Committee, but subsection (7) recognises that the duty to remove does not apply to unaccompanied children, and where they are not to be removed under the power conferred in Clause 3, the expectation is that they will normally be provided with temporary permission to remain in the UK until they are 18 years old under provisions to be made in the Immigration Rules. If subsection (7) is removed from Clause 2, an unaccompanied child given this temporary permission to remain would not then satisfy the fourth condition, thereby undermining our approach to unaccompanied children. As I say, we will have a fuller debate on this issue when we get to Clause 3, which feels like some time away.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, also has Amendment 10, requiring the Home Secretary to inform people when it has been decided that the duty to remove applies to them. Such information would include providing details of any evidence relied upon to make that decision. We have already provided, in Clause 7(2), for a person to be issued with a removal notice detailing, among other things, their right to make a suspensive claim. It is implicit in these provisions that the issue of a removal notice follows a determination that the person satisfies the four conditions in Clause 2. The four conditions relate to issues of fact. A person in receipt of a removal notice will themselves know, or ought to know, whether the conditions apply. If they have compelling evidence that the Home Secretary has made a mistake of fact, they can submit a factual suspensive claim to challenge the removal notice. We will return to those provisions, too, in due course in Committee.
Amendment 11 was spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, and others. As we will come on to in later clauses, we have made particular provision for potential victims of modern slavery who are co-operating with law enforcement agencies, and it is necessary for them to remain in the UK in furtherance of such co-operation. In later debates, we will address the wider issue of the progress being made by the NCA and others in tackling the criminal gangs that are not perpetuating human trafficking but are engaged in people smuggling. It is worth also noting, in response to the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, that if an individual who had been trafficked came forward, they would be sent only somewhere where they would be safe—whether their own home country, if it was safe, or a safe third country. In all cases, they would no longer be in the control of their trafficker.
A key purpose of the Bill is to break the business model of the people smugglers. That will not happen if we undermine the central tenet of the Bill: that if you come here illegally you cannot stay, and instead you will be liable to detention and promptly removed. If we build exceptions and loopholes into the fabric of the Bill, it will be undermined and will not work. If those coming over on small boats have information that will assist in the investigation of people-smuggling offences, they can provide it, but this cannot be a reason to delay removal. Any co-operation with law enforcement agencies can, if appropriate, continue from abroad. If the experience of the pandemic has taught us anything, it is that a lot can be achieved remotely. Indeed, our domestic courts and law enforcement are well used to this by now.
Finally, Amendment 12 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie of Downpatrick, deals with the issue of entry into the United Kingdom over the Irish land border. We discussed this at length during the dinner break business yesterday in relation to the recent SI on electronic travel authorisation. I note that this is a probing amendment relating to the concerns that have been raised regarding tourists and other people who inadvertently arrive in the UK from the Republic of Ireland via the land border with Northern Ireland. As is currently the case, tourists from countries requiring visas to come to the UK as visitors should obtain these before they travel. That is as it should be. That said, I recognise the issue she has raised and accept that some individuals may, entirely unwittingly, enter the UK without leave via the Irish land border, as I said yesterday.
We are examining this issue further. I would point the noble Baroness to the regulation-making power in Clause 3, which will enable us to provide for exceptions to the duty to remove where it would be appropriate to do so.
The noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, asked me about the status of a child born in the UK to a woman who meets the conditions in Clause 2. The short answer is that the child will not satisfy the conditions in Clause 2, but I will write to her with a more detailed explanation.
The noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, asked about compatibility with article 2 of the Windsor Framework. There is a later amendment to which she has added her name, Amendment 137, on this very issue. We will come on to that later in the Committee.
As I indicated at the start, this clause provides the foundations for the Bill as a whole. It is fundamental to the effective operation of the scheme and my fear is that the amendments put forward would serve only to weaken the effectiveness of the scheme. On that basis, I invite the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, to withdraw his amendment.
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)
My Lords, there was an issue about adoption of a child who came to this country, or came in the womb of somebody arriving in the country, into a British family. Are they at danger under the Bill?
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
Forgive me: as I thought I said, the status of a child born in the UK to a woman who meets the conditions in Clause 2 is that they would not satisfy the conditions in that clause. I realise that there were a number of hypotheticals in the way that that question was written. If I may, I would like to go away and think about them. I will reply by letter in due course, and obviously publicise that letter.
Baroness Ludford (LD)
The Minister talked about an amendment that I had co-signed. Was it Amendment 132?
Baroness Ludford (LD)
Sorry—I will look and check that it covers the point.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
The Minister, not to my surprise, did not address my question about what happens after the election. I will phrase the question another way. In your Lordships’ House, we often ask about “must” and “may” provisions. Rather than a duty to remove, surely the Government could make it that the Secretary of State “may” remove. That would allow this Government to act as they wish but would not attempt to tie the hands of any future Government.
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
I am afraid the structure of the Bill is that it creates a duty on the Secretary of State. That is in order to send the deterrence message that entering the country illegally is unacceptable and to reduce the number of people crossing the channel. I am afraid to say that it is a logical step that if the Government were to change, then it would be open to that other Government to pass legislation of their own. That is democracy.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
I am very grateful to the Minister for his patience, but it is not quite right that that is the reason for the “must”, is it? It is not to send a signal to all those people overseas who are reading our draft legislation; it is to give a direction to our courts. The Home Secretary is choosing to tie her own hands. It is really in order to oust the jurisdiction of the courts and their ability to say that where the Secretary of State has a choice, they should exercise that choice in compliance with international law.
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
Clearly, the intent is to send a message—that people really must not make these dangerous journeys across the channel. As I say, all the avenues of legal challenge are open but there are only two categories that will suspend removal. There are a number of provisions—I am sure the noble Baroness and I will be debating them at length over the coming days in Committee—and that is how the Bill will have its effect.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
Could I ask that the Minister copies everyone who took part in this debate into the letter he is going to send, because it is of interest to many of us?
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
I will certainly place a copy in the Library of the House. I hope that suffices. I am sure that my private office can work out who is here and is participating.
Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)
Before the noble Lord stands up again, I feel I should bring this debate to a close. I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate, particularly those who supported the amendments in my name. A number of other very interesting issues have been raised. I have no doubt that we will be returning to a number of them on Report; I certainly will.
The reasons given by the Minister for what he recognises is the exceptional course of retrospectivity—I am using his words—involved conjecture: a conjecture that a very small change in the numbers, for whatever reason, of people coming on boats shows that the retrospectivity is working. I have been a Silk for 39 years. Along with the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, we have probably met more criminals than the rest of this Committee added together. My observation would be a rather less naive one than that made by the Minister. Criminals are infinitely adaptable. If the Government think that the boats are being stopped, it is not evidence that fewer people are coming into this country, because there are different ways and means of doing it.
From what we have heard today—maybe on Report we will hear something different—I really believe that the case for exceptionality is far from proved. I take the view, therefore, that we will have to come back to these subjects. I urge the Government to meet noble Lords who have spoken in these debates before Report so that we can see whether there is some common ground we can find that will make this a better Bill rather than a battleground in your Lordships’ House. For the time being, I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 6.