House of Commons
Prayers
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Speaker’s Statement
(3 weeks, 3 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
Mr Speaker
Order. Before we begin today’s sitting, I regret to inform the House of the death of a former Member, Lord Field of Birkenhead. Frank navigated a career as a formidable MP, notably as the Minister tasked by Tony Blair with “thinking the unthinkable” on welfare reform. His sharp intellect and independent spirit made him a formidable campaigner against hunger, food poverty and climate change, and for numerous causes related to the Church of England. In recent years, I have been grateful for his championing of Parliament’s commitment to stamp out modern slavery from our supply chains. I am in no doubt that his efforts have saved many lives from this shameful criminal activity. He was one of a kind, and he will be sorely missed. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”]
Oral Answers to Questions
(3 weeks, 3 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lee Anderson (Ashfield) (Reform UK)
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Chris Heaton-Harris)
Before I begin, may I also put on record the Government’s sincere condolences to the family of Frank Field, who sadly passed away last night? The Member for Birkenhead for over 40 years, Frank was a titan of this House. He embodied its best values of decency, honesty and integrity. I got to know him particularly well in those remarkably calm Brexit years, when I was the junior Government Whip detailed to “Just get a few friends on the other side of the Chamber to vote in the appropriate manner.” I know the whole House will join me in wishing his family well at this difficult time.
I would also like to start by welcoming the news that the Post Office (Horizon System) Offences Bill will be amended to include Northern Ireland. I thank the Minister of State, Department for Business and Trade, my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake) for all the productive meetings and discussions he has had with the First Minister, the Deputy First Minister and Justice Ministers in Northern Ireland.
To answer the question asked by the hon. Member for Ashfield (Lee Anderson), the Government will never be neutral when it comes to expressing our support for the Union and Northern Ireland’s place in it. It is clear that the Union is going from strength to strength. We are committed to further strengthening and safeguarding the Union through the implementation of the Windsor framework and our delivery of the “Safeguarding the Union” commitments. Northern Ireland now has the best of both worlds. It has a stable Northern Ireland Executive, backed by the support and strength of the UK Government. Northern Ireland’s peaceful place in the UK is secured by the Belfast/Good Friday agreement and the principle of consent set within it. I regularly speak to my Cabinet colleagues about their and their Departments’ role in safeguarding Northern Ireland’s interests in the Union.
Lee Anderson
I voted for the Windsor framework because the Prime Minister said it removed the Irish sea border, yet £192 million is budgeted to be spent on installing border posts for the non-existent Irish border. Will the Secretary of State please advise the House on the number of checks on people and goods travelling through Great Britain and Northern Ireland? Have those checks increased or decreased since the introduction of the Windsor framework?
Chris Heaton-Harris
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. It really does depend. Even in the Northern Ireland Protocol Bill, there was provision for a red lane for goods going into Northern Ireland that might flow into the Republic of Ireland. The answer does rather depend on whether the numbers he has looked at are for checks in the red lane or the green lane, or for checks under the new internal market scheme. The numbers rise and fall depending on a whole host of factors. When trade increases, as it is doing, so will the number of checks as a whole, but the percentage will go down, because the checks will be mostly on goods going through the red lane. We will soon get to the point promised in the Command Paper of there being no checks when goods move within the United Kingdom internal market system, save those conducted by UK authorities as part of a risk-based or intelligence-led approach to tackling criminality, abuse of the scheme, smuggling or disease risk. That will ensure the smooth flow of goods within the UK internal market.
Sir Robert Buckland (South Swindon) (Con)
A vital part of securing Northern Ireland’s place in the Union is the shared prosperity fund, which is about levelling up and making sure that Northern Ireland has its fair share. Funding is due to end next year, in March 2025. What clarification can the Secretary of State give to community, voluntary and other groups that need to plan ahead, and whose funding faces a cliff edge if they do not have assurances soon?
Chris Heaton-Harris
I thank my right hon. and learned Friend the Chairman of the Select Committee. I am wary of giving too many assurances, because we are talking about a time beyond the next general election, when there will be a new Conservative Government, who will have priorities that they will wish to update. We know about the success that the shared prosperity fund has had in Northern Ireland. I have visited projects that it has funded. I would like to think that it will continue strongly across the next spending review period.
Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP)
On behalf of my colleagues, may I extend our deepest sympathies to the family of Frank Field? He and I shared four years in the House, and I always found him to be a very warm and engaging colleague—someone who had time for young parliamentarians like me, and who believed very much in this place and our country. May I also thank the Secretary of State and the Minister of State, Department for Business and Trade, the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake), for the inclusion of Northern Ireland in the Horizon scandal Bill? That is incredibly important.
As a Unionist, I believe in this country and will work every day to strengthen our place in it. We recognise the “Safeguarding the Union” Command Paper as an important stepping-stone in maintaining and securing our position. The Secretary of State mentioned the Government’s commitment to eliminating all routine checks in the UK internal market system, and we look forward to his faithful delivery of that. However, while we have seen the creation of the East-West Council, we have heard little about the construction of InterTrade UK or the establishment of the independent monitoring panel. May I ask the Secretary of State to update the House on those issues?
Chris Heaton-Harris
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his question, and look forward to working with him in his new role. I can assure him that His Majesty's Government are working apace and will deliver on our Command Paper commitments in full, including our commitments on checks. He asked about a range of bodies and pledges that we have made. Just last month we held the inaugural meeting of the East-West Council, which gave Ministers from the United Kingdom Government and the Northern Ireland Executive an opportunity to come together to discuss the main priorities of the council’s work programme. We are committed to strengthening and safeguarding the Union through our implementation of that programme, and we are committed to safeguarding the UK internal market by establishing new bodies such as InterTrade UK, which will promote and facilitate trade in the United Kingdom. I will respond to the right hon. Gentleman’s other points when time allows.
Gavin Robinson
The Secretary of State will recognise that one of the issues absent from the Windsor framework and subsequent agreements is the conclusion of an arrangement for veterinary medicines. He will know how important agriculture is to the Northern Ireland economy, and he will also know that Northern Ireland produces 10 times as much food as we need, to the benefit of our nearest neighbours. The establishment of the veterinary medicines working group, with the help of the Minister of State and my hon. Friend the Member for North Antrim (Ian Paisley), has been extremely positive, but there is a cliff edge towards the end of next year. We need a successful conclusion to the issue, and I would be grateful if the Secretary of State could inform the House that that will happen.
Chris Heaton-Harris
This matter is very important to the Government and for Northern Ireland. The Government’s priority is to secure a long-term sustainable solution on veterinary medicines, and we wish to pursue such a solution through discussions with the European Union, and to prepare safeguards for all scenarios. As the right hon. Gentleman said, we have set up a veterinary medicines working group to advise the Government on solutions, and we are grateful for the expertise of Members who are joining that group. It has met twice, and aims to report in a timely manner in June. In the meantime, we have put in place a grace period arrangement until the end of 2025, which supports continuity of supply in Northern Ireland. However, the right hon. Gentleman is right to emphasise the importance of this matter, and we are working hard on it.
Andrew Selous (South West Bedfordshire) (Con)
The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr Steve Baker)
The UK Government are committed to the long-term economic growth of Northern Ireland, and are working closely with the Executive and business to demonstrate what a fantastic place it is to live, work and invest in. For instance, we have delivered the Northern Ireland investment summit; we are committed to levelling up Northern Ireland’s economy, with £617 million being spent on four city and growth deals; we are implementing key deliverables in the “Safeguarding the Union” Command Paper; and we continue to promote Northern Ireland’s unique institutional arrangements.
Andrew Selous
With the Executive restored and enjoying a financial package of more than £3 billion, does the Minister agree that Northern Ireland businesses are now in position for an era of transformational success?
Mr Baker
Absolutely, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend for highlighting that, but funding is, of course, only one part of the solution. The transformation of public services is vital, but achieving that will require innovative strategic thinking as well as some revenue raising, and the Government stand ready to assist the Northern Ireland Executive with formal structures to help them achieve those ends.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Minister for his answer. We have a massively skilled workforce in Northern Ireland, as everyone here knows, including the Minister. However, in order to increase investment, we must create more skilled jobs and employ more people in the aerospace sector. What discussions has the Minister had with Cabinet colleagues about securing more jobs in our aerospace community in Northern Ireland? We can do more; we just need a bit more help.
Mr Baker
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his question. I have visited Spirit AeroSystems, as well as other related companies, and there is a terrific pool of talent and skill in Northern Ireland. We work with the Department for Business and Trade to ensure that the same advantages are available to people and businesses in Northern Ireland as across the rest of the UK. I sense that brevity requires that I do not elaborate on DBT’s full offer, but it is certainly there. I will write to him to set out the detail.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr Steve Baker)
The UK Government regularly engage with the recently restored Northern Ireland Executive on a range of issues, and we will continue to work together for the benefit of Northern Ireland. Only yesterday, I met Minister Muir, who is responsible for agriculture, environment and rural affairs, to discuss the implications of the Windsor framework, and to work through how I can help him to succeed across his full spectrum of responsibilities.
Kerry McCarthy
I thank the Minister for his positive response. He will be aware of the ecological disaster at Lough Neagh, which supplies 40% of Northern Ireland’s drinking water. It is partly caused by the run-off of agricultural fertiliser, climate change and the spread of the invasive zebra mussel, but has been exacerbated by sewage dumping. Can he say a bit more about this issue? In the past, I have found that his Department and the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs have not been willing to work with Stormont to address environmental issues in Northern Ireland. What can he do to address them?
Mr Baker
I have stood on the shores of Lough Neagh and been conscious of the condition of that enormous body of water, which is beautiful. The reality is that the responsibility for it is devolved, and we did not have an Executive for a period. We are absolutely delighted that it is back and being carried forward in a constructive spirit. As I say, I will continue to work with Minister Muir. I do not want to tread on his toes, but we will put ourselves at his disposal to offer whatever help we reasonably can. He is a Minister of great dedication and energy, and I look forward to him succeeding on this urgent matter.
Sir Oliver Heald (North East Hertfordshire) (Con)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that Frank Field left an immense legacy in the field of pensions? He started off as chair of the all-party parliamentary group on the Maxwell pensioners problem, and was then an inspired Minister of State. He was subsequently involved in all the great debates we had on pensions. We will miss him.
What impact does the Minister think that nature-based solutions to climate change could have on the sorts of problems in Northern Ireland that we have been discussing?
Mr Baker
I am most grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend for his question, and I agree with him on the pensions point. On nature-based solutions, I would love to have that conversation with him, perhaps in the Tea Room. It is not my specialist area of expertise, and I am confident that Minister Muir would be interested to hear my right hon. and learned Friend’s ideas. If he wishes to share them with me, I will gladly pass them on.
Alexander Stafford (Rother Valley) (Con)
Dr Luke Evans (Bosworth) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Chris Heaton-Harris)
I am sure that my hon. Friends will welcome the fact that, once again, Northern Ireland has local politicians taking decisions in a local Assembly that is accountable to local people. With a funding package worth over £3 billion, the Executive are taking forward the vital work of public service transformation and delivering sustainable finances, and are ensuring better outcomes for the people of Northern Ireland in their daily lives. The impact of all this has been unbelievably positive.
Alexander Stafford
The commitment that this Government and my right hon. Friend have shown in pushing for the restoration of the Northern Ireland Executive is clearly demonstrated in the £3.3 billion for transforming public services, but what help are the Home Office and civil service providing to their colleagues in Northern Ireland to make sure that people there have the modern and efficient public services that they deserve, and how will that benefit all four nations?
Chris Heaton-Harris
I thank my hon. Friend for his question. I agree that there is a fantastic opportunity, which we are trying to take, for the UK Government to collaborate with and support the Northern Ireland Executive in transforming public services. The UK Government have high hopes that Ministers in the Executive will move quickly to deliver on their commitments to set up a transformation board, and we are excited to work with Northern Ireland Ministers to produce plans that will deliver transformation for Northern Ireland. Indeed, I met the First Minister and Deputy First Minister last week; we talked about this work and how we can further it in the very short term.
Dr Evans
Does the Secretary of State agree that the restoration of the Northern Ireland Assembly provides the stability for further private investment in Northern Ireland? This is a massive opportunity; it is the missing piece in the puzzle, and could make a huge difference. How does he intend to capitalise on this?
Chris Heaton-Harris
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The restoration of devolved government not only provides certainty and stability for business but allows us to harness our combined energies and expertise to make Northern Ireland a fantastic place to live, work and invest. My right hon. Friend the Minister of State has reminded the House of the success of the Northern Ireland investment summit last September, which welcomed 180 business investors from around the world, and of our £617 million investment in Northern Ireland’s four city and growth deals. Recently I visited Washington DC with the First Minister and Deputy First Minister, and it is fair to say that the US business community is now well aware of the amazing opportunities in Northern Ireland and is looking at them hungrily.
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
The return of devolution has to be built on, particularly as there are still some issues to be resolved. While some in Northern Ireland concentrate on complaining about the outstanding problems, there are those of us who are committed to resolving them. The Secretary of State is in a better position than most to help to resolve them. Will he recommit today to our seeing further moves in the coming weeks in the direction of resolving all the outstanding issues?
Chris Heaton-Harris
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his recent honour for his many years of elected public service in this place and to his constituents. Yes, he absolutely can have that commitment from me. I am committed to delivering at great pace on all the pledges we made in the Command Paper, and I am absolutely committed to delivering the best outcomes for everyone across Northern Ireland, because that is what Northern Ireland deserves.
Sir George Howarth (Knowsley) (Lab)
Of course the restoration of devolved government in Northern Ireland is very welcome. The Minister will be aware that polling evidence has shown a big growth since the Good Friday agreement in the number of people who identify as Northern Irish, as distinct from Irish or British. What implications does that have for the way that devolved government conducts itself, going forward?
Chris Heaton-Harris
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his question, because there is a genuinely interesting point about the growth in the number of people who live in Northern Ireland who declare themselves to be Northern Irish. I would like to think that it is reflected in the way that the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister go about their business. They are working together in a respectful and positive way, respectful of each other’s communities, and wanting the best for the place they represent. I believe that signifies a healthy development for the future of Northern Ireland politics.
Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)
Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for your eloquent tribute to Frank Field. He was a brave and a generous man.
We look forward to working with the right hon. Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson) in his new position.
The UK’s successful bid to host the 2028 Euros with Ireland is a fantastic opportunity for Northern Ireland, but with just three years left to build the Casement Park stadium, the Executive have yet to invite tenders. In May last year, the Secretary of State was asked who would provide the money, and he replied:
“All partners. I guarantee it.”
Given that the clock is ticking, how and when does the right hon. Gentleman intend, with others, to honour that guarantee, so that the stadium gets built on time?
Chris Heaton-Harris
The right hon. Gentleman knows that he is asking that question of someone who has been a football referee for the last 43 years, and who is rather passionate about the game. I really want to see these Euro games played at Casement Park, and I have made that clear, but the latest costs that I have seen are significantly higher than the ones I saw a year ago, and any taxpayer contribution to the Casement Park project will need to be made on a value-for-money basis. I have also said many times that there is no blank cheque here, especially when there is no contractor appointed yet. We do not want to artificially inflate a price. The Northern Ireland Executive will also need to decide on whether and how they will underwrite any future increases in costs. As I said back then, all partners are working together to try to work out what the number is, and how we can deliver on it.
Hilary Benn
I am grateful to the Secretary of State for that reply.
One other challenge that the institutions face is dealing with the continuing legacy of the troubles. Seven days from now, all civil cases and inquests related to the troubles will come to an end under the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023, which is widely opposed in Northern Ireland. Does the right hon. Gentleman think that confidence in the new independent commission will be helped or hindered by the fact that it has recently brought three separate legal challenges to the disclosure by coroners of information to families about what happened to their loved ones—information that they have been denied for so many years?
Chris Heaton-Harris
The right hon. Gentleman conflates two issues. First, there are the ongoing elements of how we deal with public interest immunity and the “neither confirm nor deny” policy in court cases in Northern Ireland, and indeed across the United Kingdom. Secondly, there is the question about the new commission we are setting up to deal with legacy. I believe that even those with civil cases will be able to use the Independent Commission for Reconciliation and Information Recovery in good faith when it opens its doors on 1 May.
Only this month, the former co-chair of the Consultative Group on the Past, Denis Bradley, said that he thinks the people involved with the ICRIR
“are very good people, I have a lot of regard for them… And if people decide it offers them something, well then, I will be very reluctant to make too many strong judgments around it. Because”—
this is the problem that the UK Government are trying to solve—
“we have created a swamp around legacy, a complete swamp. Anything that helps some people to get out of that swamp, I won’t be too critical.”
Richard Thomson (Gordon) (SNP)
I add my party’s tribute to Frank Field. We send our condolences to his friends and family. He was Birkenhead’s MP for 40 years, and he was a very faithful servant not only to his constituents but to this place.
The return of devolved government to Northern Ireland has been rightly welcomed across this House. Will the Secretary of State reaffirm his Government’s commitment to the principle of consent, not just in Northern Ireland but in Scotland and Wales? The peoples of those places should be able to choose the form of government best suited to their needs, whether that happens to be inside or outside the United Kingdom.
Chris Heaton-Harris
I welcome the hon. Gentleman’s welcoming of the restored institutions. I am also a great respecter of referendum results, and I believe we had one in Scotland. That is probably enough said.
Sarah Jones (Croydon Central) (Lab)
The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr Steve Baker)
The Government remain committed to supporting integrated education in Northern Ireland and have already made funds available to support more schools than ever to convert to integrated status. I and my noble Friend Lord Caine look forward to engaging with the new Education Minister, Paul Givan, to make progress on this important issue.
Sarah Jones
I travelled with colleagues to Northern Ireland two weeks ago, and we visited Forge Integrated Primary School and met lots of very fine children. In 2015, £150 million of Fresh Start funding was earmarked for integrated education in Northern Ireland. What does the Minister say to those schools that were expecting this funding but have found that it is no longer guaranteed?
Mr Baker
The House may not know that only 7% of schoolchildren in Northern Ireland can be said to be attending an integrated school, which we would like to see change. The period over which Fresh Start funding was released would have ended at the end of March 2025, so we have repurposed £150 million of that funding to provide additional flexibility to the Northern Ireland Executive in respect of that funding stream and schools.
We are determined to see more parents given the opportunity to choose integrated education for their children as a vital part of the process of reconciliation. I, for one, am especially committed to it as someone who proudly attends a Baptist church, where for many years I worshipped with a Roman Catholic lady and had no idea. We should help Northern Ireland move to a point where denomination is a small matter and where people move forward together.
Theresa Villiers (Chipping Barnet) (Con)
An important item in the in-tray of the newly re-formed Executive is early years education and childcare. Thanks to the actions of this Government, we now have more generous entitlement to free childcare in England and Northern Ireland. Will he discuss with the Executive how Northern Ireland might be levelled up on childcare, including by using revenue-raising measures?
Mr Baker
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right to raise this issue and I am grateful to her for putting it on the agenda. Certainly we will engage with the Executive on this point. She is right to mention revenue raising. It is a fact that the Executive need to both transform public services and improve revenue raising, so that everything in Northern Ireland can be delivered on a sustainable basis.
Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab)
I also recently visited the Forge Integrated Primary School in Belfast. I saw their much-needed and developed plans to replace their portacabins with buildings, answering their need for extra capacity. The school is disappointed that the plans have been shelved, along with projects at nine other integrated schools. Education is devolved, but money had been earmarked for such projects by the UK Government under the 2015 “Fresh Start” agreement. Does the Secretary of State understand why teachers, pupils and parents are so disappointed that those plans have been shelved? Does he have any plans to restore them?
Mr Baker
I hear the hon. Lady. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I understand people’s concerns and we too have visited schools; I certainly have and I think my right hon. Friend has too.
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Chris Heaton-Harris)
indicated assent.
Mr Baker
I repeat that we have repurposed the money so that it can endure and be available to the Executive to be used for purposes as they decide. If we had not repurposed it, the money would have expired at the end of March next year. I am proud that we have taken the steps necessary, with the Treasury, to enable that money to continue to be available to the Executive. It is for them to decide how to spend it, but we continue to be fully committed to integrated education.
Claire Hanna (Belfast South) (SDLP)
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Chris Heaton-Harris)
I met the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister last week. We had a constructive discussion about the Executive’s priorities.
Claire Hanna
The public’s relief at the restoration of the Assembly has given way to frustration at the lack of pace of delivery by the Executive. After a two-year void, they are saying they do not want to be hurried to deliver for the people of Northern Ireland. Pressed healthcare staff, people waiting for special educational needs services, and those watching Lough Neagh face another summer of algal blooms are very much in a hurry for action. Northern Ireland urgently needs a delivery plan, a programme for Government and a budget. Yes, resources are a part of that, so will the Minister update us on any negotiations on the fiscal framework? Will he impress on the Executive the need for urgent action, not just warm words?
Chris Heaton-Harris
One thing that I picked up from the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister last week is that they too want to act in all the ways the hon. Lady said. Their priorities include developing a programme for government that will enable them to take forward the vital work of public service transformation. They are only 12 weeks in, and I look forward to good results in the short, medium and long term.
Mr Speaker
Before we come to Prime Minister’s questions, I wish to welcome our special guest, who is observing our proceedings today, His Excellency Johari Abdul, Speaker of the House of Representatives of Malaysia. Your Excellency, you are most welcome.
Jonathan Gullis (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Con)
The Deputy Prime Minister (Oliver Dowden)
Mr Speaker, I have been asked to reply. I know that Members across the House will wish to join me in offering condolences to the family and friends of Lord Frank Field. He was an outstanding parliamentarian who worked tirelessly to make society a better place.
My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is in Berlin. He has announced the biggest strengthening of our defence in a generation.
I am sure that Members will want to join me in wishing the Jewish community a happy Passover, a celebration of freedom. Of course, we remember the empty chairs of those hostages still being held captive in Gaza and call for their immediate release.
This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall have further such meetings later today.
Jonathan Gullis
I, too, wish to pass on my thoughts and prayers to Lord Field’s family, friends and colleagues and particularly to students and teachers at the Birches Head Academy in Stoke-on-Trent who are part of the Frank Field Education Trust.
Since being elected in 2019, I have: helped to reopen Tunstall Town Hall with a new library and family hub; secured funding for additional CCTV, new alley gates and better lighting in Tunstall to ensure that our streets are safe; and helped to breathe new life into Tunstall’s old library and baths, thanks to this Government’s levelling-up fund of £56 million to Stoke-on-Trent.
Sadly, Labour-led Stoke-on-Trent City Council seeks to undermine that progress by: introducing a brand new tax on residents to have their garden waste collected; refusing to take planning enforcement against rogue and absent landlords who plague Tunstall High Street; and increasing crime and antisocial behaviour by dumping undesirable people in the centre of Tunstall. Does the Deputy Prime Minister agree that Stoke-on-Trent Labour—[Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. It is normally Mr Gullis who is loud. Please, let me hear him.
Jonathan Gullis
This just goes to show the disdain that the Labour party has for Stoke-on-Trent.
Does the Deputy Prime Minister agree that it is time for Stoke-on-Trent Labour to axe the garden tax, to take the fight to lousy landlords—
Mr Speaker
Order. There is a question to be asked and a time in which we ask it. I suggest that the hon. Member puts in for an Adjournment debate. I am sure that he has the answers.
The Deputy Prime Minister
Mr Speaker, there is not much that I can add to that. [Laughter.] The hon. Member has, as ever, proved what an excellent campaigner he is for his constituents. He highlights the same problems with Labour councils across the country, raising taxes and letting services fall into disrepair. Of course he is totally right to be holding rogue landlords to account.
Angela Rayner (Ashton-under-Lyne) (Lab)
First, may I share the Deputy Prime Minister’s comments regarding our Jewish community and wish them a happy Passover? I wish to acknowledge the loss of David Marquand and Baroness Massey, both of whom made historic contributions in Parliament, politics and wider life. I also send my condolences, following today’s news, to the family of Lord Frank Field, who was a good friend of mine and a colleague. He was a tireless campaigner against poverty and a champion for his constituents.
Mr Speaker, I know that the Conservative party is desperate to talk about my living arrangements, but the public wants to know what this Government will do about theirs. Natalie from Brighton has been served with two no-fault eviction notices in 18 months. She joins nearly a million families at risk of homelessness due to the Deputy Prime Minister’s failure to ban this cruel practice. Instead of obsessing over my house, when will he get a grip and show the same obsession with ending no-fault evictions?
The Deputy Prime Minister
To begin with, it is a pleasure to have another exchange with the right hon. Lady in this House—our fifth in 12 months. Any more of these and she will be claiming it as her principal residence.
On the issue of no-fault evictions, it may have escaped the right hon. Lady’s attention, but we will be voting on exactly that matter later today. This is the Conservative Government taking action.
Angela Rayner
The Deputy Prime Minister clearly thought that he could spend all week obsessing over my living arrangements and did not even bother to read up on his own Government’s Bill this afternoon. The reality is that he caved in to vested interest on his Back Benches and delayed justice for people like Natalie. This week, the Housing Minister said that there is no solid date for banning no-fault evictions. The Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities now says that it will not happen before an election. If the Deputy Prime Minister can give us a date, will he name it now?
The Deputy Prime Minister
I can name the date for the right hon. Lady: today. It is today that the House will vote on it, and I am confident that, in line with our manifesto, we will deliver on that commitment.
Angela Rayner
The Deputy Prime Minister clearly has not been looking up his own Government Bills. Let me turn to another Tory housing failure. Leaseholds are a rip off and a con, but the Government’s proposed ban on new leaseholds applies only to houses. The majority of leaseholds are in flats. What is the point of a ban on new leaseholds if it will not apply to flats?
The Deputy Prime Minister
Again, the right hon. Lady is talking about legislation introduced by this Government that the Labour party totally failed to introduce in its entire time in office. It is no surprise, because it is this Government who have brought social housing waiting lists down by nearly half a million, and delivered more affordable homes in the last 12 years than Labour delivered when it was in office. Of course, all this can only be paid for by ensuring that we have a strong economy. Her policy to repeal every single Conservative trade union law in the first 100 days would open the door to French-style wildcat strikes, sweeping away the reforms that made this country great. We all know, though, the one reform by Margaret Thatcher that the right hon. Lady would not abolish: the right to buy your council house.
Angela Rayner
I was expecting a little bit better from the Deputy Prime Minister. He seems to be a bit worn out. Maybe it is the 3 am calls from the “bad men” that have been keeping him up at night. He talks about strikes and the unions. We have had more strikes under this Government’s watch than at any time before. Once again, he has not read his own Bill. Their ban on leasehold will not apply to the majority of people. It is like banning non-doms but exempting Tory Prime Ministers. He speaks about affordable homes. Families are trapped in temporary accommodation and stuck on waiting lists, and in the west midlands the Conservative Mayor has used his multi-million pound housing budget to build just 46 social homes in eight years. That is almost as many as in the Chancellor’s property portfolio. The British people know that the Conservative party will not build the homes that this country needs, so when will they get a chance to vote for a Government who will?
The Deputy Prime Minister
I am surprised that the right hon. Lady raises the west midlands when Labour-controlled Birmingham has virtually bankrupted the council and is hiking up council tax by 21%, while in the meantime—I am sure that this would please her—continuing to hand out £1.8 million to the trade unions. By contrast, Andy Street, our brilliant Mayor of the wider west midlands, has delivered £6.1 billion of investment to improve transport. There you have it: the contrast between the Conservative party and the Labour party, and the usual political opportunism from her, failing to ask about the issues that really matter. If you want more bin collections, more potholes filled, lower debt and lower council tax, vote Conservative, because whether it is Ben Houchen in the Tees Valley or Andy Street in the west midlands, it is only the Conservative Mayors who deliver more for less.
Angela Rayner
It is pretty revealing that the Deputy Prime Minister thinks that housing is not an issue for the British people; I think it really is. People in glass houses should not throw stones, because in Birmingham and across the whole country, councils are facing black holes because of his Government’s austerity programme. I warn the Deputy Prime Minister that Tory councils have also faced section 114 notices, and Birmingham City Council has had over £1 billion taken from its budget—from some of the poorest people. More than 16,000 families face losing their home after the Tory party’s mini-Budget, and mortgage bills continue to soar. Meanwhile, the former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for South West Norfolk (Elizabeth Truss), parades around the world in a twisted victory lap promoting her new book, saying that the mini-Budget was her proudest moment. Since she will not apologise to those families losing their home, will he?
The Deputy Prime Minister
What the Prime Minister has done since he has taken office, with the Chancellor, is to restore stability to our economy, with inflation halved and more, down to 3%. As a result of that, in an increasingly dangerous world, the Prime Minister was able to announce his plan for the biggest strengthening of defence spending in a generation. But it should come as no surprise that the Labour party refused to say whether it backs that, because this comes from the right hon. Lady who voted to scrap Trident and to install in Downing Street someone who wanted to change the Army into a peace corps. There you have it.
Angela Rayner
The right hon. Gentleman talks about defence. We all want to see 2.5%; the difference is that we have not cut the Army to its smallest size since Napoleon. Never mind some secretive deep state, it is the state of the Tory party that is the problem. The Tories are in a deep state of sewage. After 14 years they have failed renters, they have failed leaseholders and they have failed mortgage holders. I read with interest that the right hon. Gentleman has been urging his neighbour in No. 10 to call an election, because he is worried they might get wiped out. Has he finally realised that when he stabbed Boris Johnson in the back to get his mate into No. 10, he was ditching their biggest election winner for a pint-sized loser?
The Deputy Prime Minister
I think the whole House will have heard, despite all the bluster from the right hon. Lady, not a single word on whether she would actually back our plans to invest in our armed forces. No plans, in a dangerous world. Of course, as ever, the deputy Labour leader is always looking to attack others’ failures, but never one to take responsibility for her own. She once said, “You shouldn’t be waiting for the police to bang on your door. If you did it, then you shouldn’t be doing your job.” The right hon. landlady should forget her tax advice and follow her own advice.
Craig Whittaker (Calder Valley) (Con)
The Deputy Prime Minister
My right hon. Friend is right; it is not just in the Calder Valley, but in communities up and down the country. The Government are investing billions in infrastructure across the United Kingdom, creating jobs and opportunities in every region. I know that he has been a staunch advocate for the Calder Valley, which is a fantastic example of that in action.
Mhairi Black (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (SNP)
I join in wishing the Jewish community a happy Passover and sending my condolences to the family and loved ones of Frank Field.
Two years ago, when mass graves were discovered in Ukraine, this House united in condemnation and rightly treated those graves as evidence of war crimes, which Russia must be made to answer for. Yesterday, Palestinian officials uncovered two mass graves outside the bombed hospitals in Gaza. Those graves also constitute a war crime, do they not?
The Deputy Prime Minister
Of course, we would expect the democratic Government of Israel to investigate any allegations of misconduct. That is exactly what they are doing, and it is exactly what the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister urge them to do. However, I find it quite extraordinary that the hon. Lady seeks to draw parallels between the legitimate war of self-defence of Israel and the conduct of Russia.
Mhairi Black
Three hundred bodies, including of the elderly and the injured, some of which had been stripped naked and mutilated, with their hands tied behind their backs. The UK’s own arms policy states that if there is even a risk that war crimes may be taking place, that is reason enough to halt the sale of arms. Given all that we know, why is the Prime Minister yet to do so?
The Deputy Prime Minister
We continue to urge the Israeli Government to investigate any allegations of misconduct. The difference though is that we can trust the Israeli Government—a democratically elected Government—to properly investigate those things. Of course, we keep the advice under review. The Foreign Secretary has recently made it clear that he has conducted a determination and has not changed his advice regarding export licences, and I think that is the correct decision.
Karl MᶜCartney (Lincoln) (Con)
The Deputy Prime Minister
I am afraid that what my hon. Friend has described is the Grinch in action. That Christmas market, in the home of Magna Carta, was beloved by local residents, but the council has totally ignored their wishes and cancelled it. It should reverse that decision.
Daisy Cooper (St Albans) (LD)
On behalf of the Liberal Democrats, I offer our condolences to the friends and family of the late Lord Frank Field, and wish a happy Passover to all those in the Jewish community.
Unpaid carers have shared heartbreaking stories of how they have been hounded by the Department for Work and Pensions and told to pay huge fines for minor infringements of carer’s allowance earning rules, all because the Government have failed to do anything about a problem that they have known about for years. Yesterday, one of the Prime Minister’s own dementia advisers resigned, saying that the Government’s treatment of those unpaid carers was “beyond the pale.” Will the Deputy Prime Minister apologise to all unpaid carers who have been failed by his Government, and will he commit to a full review of the system?
The Deputy Prime Minister
I pay tribute to all unpaid carers. Indeed, I met some of them over the weekend and know how hard they work. They keep our society functioning through their commitment to us. That is why we have uprated the benefits by £81.90 a week, and have increased the carer’s allowance by almost £1,500 since 2010. In respect of allegations of overpayment, of course appropriate discretion should be shown, but if there have been erroneous overpayments, it is right, on behalf of the taxpayer, to be able to recuperate them. However, we will work with anyone who is struggling with those repayments to negotiate sustainable and affordable repayment plans.
Virginia Crosbie (Ynys Môn) (Con)
The Deputy Prime Minister
I know and understand the frustration across Wales, particularly in my hon. Friend’s constituency, about this state of affairs. The Welsh Government have not prioritised building new roads. They are damaging growth potential in places such as Anglesey, and are spending £100 million on new politicians. We will work with her to ensure that we resolve the matter.
Sarah Jones (Croydon Central) (Lab)
The Deputy Prime Minister
I think the hon. Lady knows that she does not correctly represent the views of the candidate. I find it extraordinary that she has raised the issue of crime, because while Labour’s London Mayor has increased the precept by over 70%, recorded crime in London has increased by 20%. That is the record of the Labour London Mayor—no wonder people will be voting against him.
Mrs Sheryll Murray (South East Cornwall) (Con)
The Deputy Prime Minister
I know how important this matter is to my hon. Friend—I am sure she will be remembering her late husband Neil on that day. It is important that we all recognise the sacrifices made by fishermen and women to bring food to our tables, and I know that my colleague the Minister for Food, Farming and Fisheries, my right hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood (Sir Mark Spencer), will be visiting Grimsby on that day.
Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)
The Deputy Prime Minister
The hon. Gentleman talks about Teesside taxpayers, but Ben Houchen has never imposed a mayoral precept in Tees Valley, full stop. At the same time, he has saved Teesside airport and secured a new freeport for Teesside—no wonder people will be voting for him again.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)
Has my right hon. Friend seen the video that is doing the rounds of the theft in a shop in my constituency, Boots the chemist on Station Road? In the space of eight minutes, two threatening individuals robbed thousands of pounds out of that shop, and they are not alone: it is happening again and again. In fact, one of my team went out and photographed them leaving brazenly, not caring, and even spitting at the police. Will my right hon. Friend please now say to the Home Secretary, and through him to the police, that this is not a petty crime? This is a threat of violence and massive robbery, and it should be a priority for the police. We always talk about more police; surely what we should be asking for is more effective policing that gets those criminals off the streets.
The Deputy Prime Minister
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right to highlight this issue: often, the allegedly lower-level crimes are the ones that have the biggest impact on communities. I know that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has been very clear on that point, and I will make it to him again. That is also why we are rolling out a range of crime prevention measures through the safer streets fund; it is why we are improving CCTV and street lighting; and it is why we introduced the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022 to give the police greater powers to deliver tougher sentences for more serious offenders.
Jeff Smith (Manchester, Withington) (Lab)
The Deputy Prime Minister
Labour Members might want to forget it, but I remember the day the Conservatives came into office in 2010. What was the note left on the desk of the Chief Secretary to the Treasury? “There is no money left.” That is the challenge that we have addressed through the Prime Minister and Chancellor successively.
Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)
Labour’s mayoral candidate in the West Midlands talks about housing, but makes no commitment to protect our precious green belt. He talks about transport, but he fails to commit to reopening Aldridge train station. He committed to saving police stations such as Aldridge; then, when the Labour police and crime commissioner said he would close them, he changed his mind and agreed to that. So we are left wondering in my constituency what he stands for. Does my right hon. Friend agree with me that only Mayor Andy Street has a plan and a track record to be trusted to deliver for the West Midlands?
The Deputy Prime Minister
As ever, my right hon. Friend is absolutely correct to highlight the record of Labour’s police and crime commissioner, and West Midlands police has actually been put in special measures on Simon Foster’s watch. When it comes to the green belt, we have all seen the new wheeze from the Labour party—redesignate green belt “grey belt” and concrete all over it. Well, the Conservatives will not allow that to happen, and people up and down the country will vote Conservative to stop that happening.
Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab)
The Deputy Prime Minister
Labour Members like to pretend the pandemic did not happen, and they like—[Interruption.] That is the cause of the biggest pressure on the NHS. They complain about NHS performance while backing strikes by doctors, who unreasonably want a 35% pay rise. Despite all of those pressures, actually A&E performance has improved in the past month.
Sally-Ann Hart (Hastings and Rye) (Con)
The Labour leader of the almost bankrupt Hastings Borough Council and several other Labour councillors resigned from the Labour party citing that the national Labour party has become overly authoritarian, in a “dereliction of local democracy”, and has “lost its moral compass” and is suffocating local voices because its only objective is power for power’s sake. Would the Deputy Prime Minister agree that voting for Conservative candidates in upcoming elections will ensure local voters are heard, local democracy is upheld and better services are delivered?
The Deputy Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to highlight the really serious concerns about Labour councillors in Hastings. One former Labour councillor said that Labour are no longer providing
“the policies, the support, or the focus on local government”.
I could not have put it better myself.
Mary Glindon (North Tyneside) (Lab)
The Deputy Prime Minister
The Government will engage with any proposals that have been brought forward, as we always do, but it is actually the case that we have already provided over £700 million in energy cost relief to the steel sector in the past 10 years. It is also the case that, even in the past year, the Government spent £97 million more on UK-made steel for major public projects. So we are continuing to work with the steel industry, but we have already provided tremendous support.
Mr John Baron (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)
I very much associate myself with the remarks of my right hon. Friend regarding Lord Frank Field, who was a good man.
I very much welcome the Government’s firm commitment to increase defence spending to 2.5% by 2030. It is something that will send the right message to our allies and potential adversaries alike, and it is something on which the 1922 defence committee has been campaigning for a little while. However, would my right hon. Friend do what he can to ensure that some of that increased money is spent on additional recruitment—including, if necessary, increasing wages sufficiently—to ensure that the Navy can manage ships, the Air Force can maintain its aircraft and the Army can dominate ground?
The Deputy Prime Minister
I know what a staunch advocate my hon. Friend is for the armed forces and for funding the armed forces. All of us can take great pride that we are putting the resources in to meet the challenges that the nation is likely to face over the next five years. We will be working through the allocation of that, but it is already the case that in January we had the largest ever number of applications in recent years to join the armed forces, so we are making progress on that.
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)
The Deputy Prime Minister
It is this Government who have uprated benefits for carers, with almost £1,500 more. I think it is the case that the hon. Lady’s constituents, my constituents and people up and down the country would expect the Government to seek to recover overpaid sums. We need to do that in a compassionate way, and if people are struggling to make repayments, the DWP will engage to ensure that they have a sustainable and affordable way to make those repayments.
Mr Robin Walker (Worcester) (Con)
May I associate myself with the tributes and condolences paid to the late great Frank Field? One of his lasting achievements in the world of education is the holiday activities and food fund, which this Government can take great pride in having funded. May I urge my right hon. Friend to use his good offices across Government to ensure that we secure a multi-year settlement for the continuance of that vital work?
The Deputy Prime Minister
I know what an important piece of work this is, and I know my hon. Friend’s commitment to campaigning for it. We have already provided substantial sums, and I am sure we will continue to do so.
Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)
The Deputy Prime Minister
I join the hon. Gentleman in paying tribute to Lord Frank Field’s campaigning. It is the case that over the past couple of years, we have provided more than £108 billion-worth of support with the cost of living, including extra cost of living payments of £900 last year. The effect of all that is that 1.1 million fewer people are living in absolute poverty than when the Conservatives came to office.
Dr Luke Evans (Bosworth) (Con)
Last week we had the Finance Bill, and in it I noticed a reduction in capital gains tax from 28% to 24% on residential properties to try to turbo-boost the residential market. Will that apply retrospectively, so that hypothetically, if a Labour Front Bencher owed capital gains tax, they would benefit from this Conservative tax cut?
The Deputy Prime Minister
I have always believed in having lower taxes that everyone pays.
Kate Osborne (Jarrow) (Lab)
The Deputy Prime Minister
I would dispute the hon. Lady’s characterisation of the Government’s record in this area: it was this Government who introduced marriage for same-sex couples and passed the Turing law. She raised an important point that I am happy to take up the Health Secretary, but the overall record of this Government is an excellent one.
Defence Spending
(3 weeks, 3 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Defence (Grant Shapps)
With permission, Mr Speaker, I shall make a statement updating the House on the Government’s commitment to increase defence spending to 2.5% this decade.
In my speech at Lancaster House in January, I warned that we were entering a much more dangerous period in the world and I made the case for a national conversation about defence spending. Since then, Putin has stepped up his attacks on Ukraine, China is increasingly assertive, and tensions have escalated in the middle east culminating in Iran’s unprecedented attack on Israel 10 days ago conducted in parallel with the proxies Iran has nourished around Israel’s border in the middle east, including of course the Houthis who continue to hold global trade hostage in the Red sea.
Since January, the world has become even more dangerous, not less, and we continue to ask more of our courageous and professional armed forces. Our sailors have served under constant risk of attack in the Red sea, helping to protect international shipping and our own cost of living. We have bolstered our Royal Air Force presence in the middle east, enabling Typhoon crews to intercept Iranian drones and missiles recently fired towards Israel. And around 20,000 of our personnel from all three of our services, with a huge inventory of naval, air, and land assets, have been active around Europe as part of the largest NATO training exercise since the cold war. In short, we increasingly need our armed forces, and we increasingly are asking more of them.
So yesterday the Prime Minister committed to hit spending 2.5% of GDP for defence by 2030. It means we will invest an additional £75 billion into defence over the next six years, and that will be funded in full without any increases in either borrowing or debt. This represents the biggest strengthening of our national defence in a generation and, as the NATO Secretary-General said yesterday, it will ensure the UK remains by far the largest European defence spender in NATO, and it means we are the second biggest NATO spender overall.
It will provide a very significant boost for UK defence science, innovation and manufacturing. It will make our defence industries more resilient and bigger. And it will mean we are able to restock some of the global supplies required in order to continue to ensure that we are both able to provide our own armed forces and those in Ukraine and be a competitive export sector. We also recognise the important role defence plays in our national resilience by developing a new plan that for the first time brings together the civil and military planning for how we would respond to the most severe risks that our country faces.
Our additional £75 billion on defence is also enabling us to ramp up that support for Ukraine. Members on both sides of the House will share the Government’s concern about the warnings President Zelensky has been issuing, and his most senior generals have confirmed that their the ability to match Russian force is increasingly difficult. So, as NATO partners, we are looking at each other to see that leadership.
The UK Government have stepped forward: we are providing the alliance with the decisive leadership demanded in this knife-edge moment of this existential war. This week we have committed an extra £500 million of military aid to Ukraine for this year, bringing our total package to £3 billion. In fact, our total since Putin’s full-scale invasion is now more than £12.5 billion, £7.5 billion of which is in military aid.
In addition, we have provided NATO partners with leadership by delving even deeper into our own military inventory, to give Ukraine our largest package of equipment and support to date. The support announced this week includes: millions of rounds of ammunition; 1,600 key munitions, including air defence and precision long-range missiles; over 400 armoured, protected and all-terrain vehicles; support with logistics to support and bolster the frontlines; support to get the F-16 pilots who have trained in the UK into the air as soon as possible; and a further 60 boats to help Ukraine strengthen its remarkable grip over the Black sea, including offshore raiding craft and dive boats.
Our £75 billion defence investment will help Ukraine get back on to the front foot. Coupled with the reforms that we have introduced to make procurement faster and more effective, it will put our defence industrial base on a war footing. It will fire up the UK’s defence industry with an additional £10 billion over the next decade for munitions production. That will bring our total spend on munitions to about £25 billion over the same period.
We are delivering for those who serve to guarantee our freedoms as well, with over £4 billion to be invested in upgrading accommodation to build new living quarters for our personnel over the next decade. We are also working seamlessly with key allies to strengthen our collective deterrence and develop new, innovative capabilities. Just last month, I was in Australia with our Australian and US partners to advance our AUKUS programme, which will develop and deliver a range of cutting-edge kit in addition to the next generation of nuclear-powered submarines. At the end of last year, I was in Japan to advance our global combat air programme, which is the development of the sixth-generation fighter jet with Italy and Japan.
Just last week I was in Telford to see the first fully British tank for 22 years coming off the production line. That is just one strand of our Future Soldier programme to make our Army more integrated and much more lethal. Of course, defence already supports hundreds of thousands of jobs, with real quality to them, in the UK, including over 200,000 directly in the industry. Our additional £75 billion will open up many more opportunities in regions up and down the country.
This is a turning point in UK defence. We must spend more because defence of the realm is the first duty of every Government. We on the Government side of the House recognise that fact. But while I want to see peace and international order being restored, I am also absolutely convinced that it is hopeful thinking—even complacency—to imagine that we can do that without ensuring that we are better protected. The best way of keeping a country safe and protecting our way of life is deterrence: being prepared; being clear-eyed about the threats we face; being clear about our capabilities; backing UK defence science, technology and innovation; carrying not just a big stick, but the most advanced and capable stick that we can possibly develop, and yes, using our military muscle alongside our allies.
Our investment in our continuous at-sea nuclear deterrent makes would-be adversaries think twice. We on the Government side of the House have not come to the conclusion that our nation’s nuclear deterrent is there because an election is approaching; we have always believed in our nuclear deterrent.
This is an additional £75 billion boost for our forces. In the build-up to the NATO summit in Washington, I will do all I can to get alliance members to follow our lead and bolster their armed forces, strengthen their industrial base, invest in innovation, maximise their military deterrence and, most importantly of all, maximise their support for Ukraine. In a more dangerous world, where we face an axis of authoritarian states, 2.5% must become the new baseline for the entire alliance. If we are to deter, lead and defend, that is what is required of us. I commend this statement to the House.
John Healey (Wentworth and Dearne) (Lab)
I thank the Secretary of State for the advance copy of his statement. There is much to welcome in it and more widely today, with the US Congress finally passing the Bill for more military aid to Ukraine and the Prime Minister finally making a multi-year commitment to UK military aid beyond this year.
We face a much more dangerous world. British forces are in action, defending international shipping in the Red sea, reinforcing NATO allies on the Russian border and protecting us all 24/7. They are respected worldwide for their total professionalism. They require our support from all sides of this House. We welcome the new commitments on funding for Ukraine and to build up stockpiles, to boost defence exports, to prioritise domestic defence production and to set up new strategic headquarters in the MOD—all plans I have argued for in this post.
The Secretary of State is right to say that the first duty of any Government is to defend the country and keep its citizens safe. Labour will always do what is required and spend what is required on defence. The last time the UK did spent 2.5% of GDP on defence was in 2010, under Labour—never matched in any one of the 14 Tory years since. Two weeks ago, the Labour leader said that we want a fully funded plan for 2.5% of GDP on defence.
We share the same ambition as the Government because we must do more to deal with the growing threats. We want it to be fully costed and fully funded, and set out in the Government’s baseline budgets. This 2030 target is not; it is in a press release. Why was the 2030 plan not in last month’s Budget, or any of the other five Budgets and autumn statements since the Government first promised to spend 2.5% by 2030, two years ago? None hit 2.5%; none reversed the real cuts in day-to-day defence spending; none matched Labour’s record in Government. If this 2030 plan had been in a Budget, it would have been independently checked, openly costed and fully funded. Where is the additional money coming from? How much is coming from which other research and development budgets? How much is coming from cutting how many civil servants, and in which Departments?
The Government have tried this trick before, in the 2015 defence review. Ministers pledged to cut 30% of MOD civil servants in order to make their defence spending plans add up. Civil servant numbers did not go down—instead of going down to 41,000, they went up to 63,000. The Secretary of State mentioned an additional £75 billion five times in his statement. Over the next six years, the Government’s official spending plans are based on 0.5% real annual growth in core defence spending. Why has he invented his own zero-growth baseline to produce this fake figure, claiming an extra £75 billion for defence? The public will judge Ministers by what they do, not what they say. Over 14 years, they have hollowed out our armed forces; they have cut the Army to its smallest size since Napoleon; they have missed their own recruitment targets each and every year; they have allowed morale to fall to record lows; and they have wasted at least £15 billion on mismanaging defence procurement.
Everyone recognises that defence spending must rise to deal with increasing threats. The Opposition have no access to classified threat assessments or military advice, so if we are elected to government we will conduct a strategic defence review within our first year to get to grips with the threats we face, the capabilities we need, the state of the armed forces and the resources available when we get to open the books. That is how Labour will manage the requirements for strong national security and the responsibility for sound public finances.
The Defence Secretary clearly likes Labour’s plans for defence, because so much of them are now Government policy. But there is still no Tory plan to reinforce homeland protections with a new strategic review; to fulfil NATO obligations in full, with a NATO test on our major programmes; to renew the nation’s contract with those who serve with an independent forces commissioner; and to make allies our strategic strength with a new EU, French or German defence agreement. With threats increasing and tensions growing, we must make Britain better defended. With Labour, Britain will be better defended.
Grant Shapps
Let me start on the areas that I agree with. The right hon. Gentleman mentioned how much we welcome the US Congress putting $60 billion into the defence of Ukraine. We warmly welcome that. As Churchill was reputed to have said, America usually gets on and does the right thing when it has exhausted all other alternatives. It took a long time, but we have got to the point where that money will go to Ukraine. That is very welcome across the House.
The right hon. Gentleman says that he welcomes today’s announcement, but then spends all his time explaining—or rather, avoiding explaining—why Labour is not backing 2.5%, which has a schedule, a timescale and figures that have been published and are in the document produced yesterday and laid in the Library. He says, “Judge us by our action, not our words.” We will, because 11 Members of the Opposition Front-Bench team voted against Trident. It is no good for him and the Leader of the Opposition to go up to Barrow and to claim that they are all in favour of the nuclear defence, because they stood on a platform with a leader who wanted to scrap Trident, pull us out of NATO, and turn the army into a peace corps.
The Opposition tell us, “Judge us on our actions.” Where is the shadow Foreign Secretary, who voted against Trident? Where is the shadow Deputy Prime Minister and the shadow Communities Secretary, who voted against Trident? Neither is there on the Front Bench. Presumably neither is in full agreement with the right hon. Gentleman. When it comes to the defence of the realm and defending this country, the Conservative party has always believed in our nuclear deterrent. We are upgrading it and making sure it is fit for purpose. Neither supports the 2.5%, as the House will have noted.
It is fine for the right hon. Gentleman to come to the Dispatch Box and talk about yet another review. If the problem were having defence reviews, there would be no issues at all. The last thing this country and armed forces require is yet another review—delay, disruption and obfuscation.
Sir Jeremy Quin (Horsham) (Con)
My right hon. Friend is right to say that we are continually asking more of our armed forces, as the Defence Committee’s recent report made clear. In that context, I greatly welcome the announcement and the increased investment. We want it to unleash a triple whammy in which our industrial partners also seize the opportunity to invest heavily in capital equipment and R&D, and in which our NATO allies see this as a new benchmark to which those who do not already can aspire and meet. What are we doing to ensure that we not only make the investment but achieve that triple whammy?
Grant Shapps
My right hon. Friend the Chair of the Defence Committee is absolutely right on the investment point. I spoke to my opposite number, US Defence Secretary Lloyd Austin, yesterday evening about how it will help to galvanise NATO in particular to make greater investment. When we go to the NATO summit in Washington for the 75th anniversary, the new baseline will be 2.5%, rather than the 2% one set by the UK in 2014, which 18 or so of NATO’s 32 members have now reached. That investment sends a very important signal to the whole defence industrial base. That is why it is critical to set out the plan and stick to it, and agree to reach 2.5% by 2030.
Martin Docherty-Hughes (West Dunbartonshire) (SNP)
The Secretary of State clearly has a herculean task to find £75 billion, so let us seek clarity on where it may be found. I welcome the investment if it is in capability. I agree with the shadow Secretary of State on why it was not in the Budget. I think we all know why: it does not stand up to scrutiny. Let me also welcome the Secretary of State’s investment in Ukraine, on the back of the US commitment. I have to say to our US colleagues that it was long overdue. Let me ask some specific questions. It is the duty of Opposition to challenge Government, and we will have our differences.
With no increase in borrowing or debt, the implication is that there will be deeper cuts to other public services. If the Government have assumed a baseline with spend frozen in cash terms as of GDP, as I think was alluded to by the shadow Defence Secretary, it comes nowhere near £75 billion. As I come from a services family, I wonder if the Secretary of State will commit to a direct increase in spend on accommodation, training and recruitment as part of this proposal, given that we are at a near Napoleonic decline on the frontline and have pushed members of the armed forces into food banks and near penury?
The Secretary of State and I will, of course, disagree on the nuclear deterrent, but I wonder if he will answer one specific point while he retains it. The nuclear enterprise has been exposed as unaffordable in the latest report by the National Audit Office. What assurances can he give the House that the nuclear deterrent will not continue to cannibalise the Ministry of Defence budget and, specifically, the £75 billion he has proposed today?
Grant Shapps
The first thing I should point out is that page 20 in the annex of the document before the House describes the uplift in the defence budget. We have headlined it as £75 billion. In fact, when we go through and add up the individual amounts year on year, it reaches £77 billion of expenditure. Members can see there exactly how we will get to it.
Secondly, it is fully funded. I know the Labour party does not like the idea, but we will remove 72,000 civil servants from the system, not because we do not think they are good people—fortunately, with low unemployment we know they will be gainfully employed elsewhere—but because we want to get back to the size of the civil service we had before covid, before it expanded greatly. We see no reason to continue to run a civil service with 70,000 additional people each year, when that money could go into the defence of the realm.
The hon. Gentleman asks about our commitment to our armed forces personnel, their families and their accommodation. He may have missed it in my statement, but I mentioned £4 billion that we will now invest in their accommodation and conditions over this period, thanks to this big uplift. He will be aware that last year there were a lot of problems with leaks and boilers not being fixed for considerable periods of time. There have not been those stories this year, because we got on top of that with £400 million and by making sure that contractors are doing their job.
As the hon. Gentleman rightly says, we have our differences on things like nuclear deterrence, but if there is one thing that benefits Scotland in particular, I would suggest it is what goes on at Faslane, with the extraordinary high-quality jobs it produces and the proud part it plays in this nation’s defence.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
The main reason why this welcome uplift has come when it has is Russia’s aggression against Ukraine. Does the Secretary of State agree that if Russia and Putin are seen to fail in Ukraine, the threat to NATO will be put back for at least a generation? Conversely, if they succeed, the threat to NATO will intensify. Will he therefore do everything he can to persuade our allies, especially certain parts of the United States’ new political establishment, that the success of Ukraine is essential for the peace of Europe and, indeed, the peace of the world?
Grant Shapps
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. Although this is £75 billion and although it takes our budget to 2.5% of GDP, that is a fraction—a fraction—of what it would cost if Putin were successful in Ukraine. There is no chance he would stop there—none. Other autocrats elsewhere would look at that and exploit the idea that all they have to do is outwait the west and we will get bored of it—through some form of attention deficit—and give up defending the things we said we would never stop defending. That, in the end, would cost us all a huge amount more.
Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)
May I first of all congratulate the Secretary of State on his stellar used-car salesman act, which we have become used to? On 26 March, he appeared, along with officials, before the Defence Committee. His strategic finance director confirmed that next year, when we take Ukraine funding out of the budget, the defence budget falls. Can he tell the House how he reconciles that fact, which was confirmed by his own officials, with his claim today and the Prime Minister’s yesterday to be putting the country on a war footing?
Grant Shapps
I am really sorry that the right hon. Gentleman cheapens what is a very important discussion about the defence of the realm with such a ridiculous remark. We should all come here in the right spirit to discuss these important issues, given the subject matter. He asks about Ukraine. Ukraine is a part of what our armed forces and this country are having to deal with. We do not ask America to strip out its help to Ukraine, in the same way that we did not ask it to strip out its help to Afghanistan or Iraq, because it is part of the core defence budget. Yesterday—I did not mention this in my statement, and perhaps on this basis the right hon. Gentleman may be forgiven—we also said that our enhanced amount of money for Ukraine is not now just for this year, but we are going to carry on doing it every single year into the future. So, yes, it is part of our core expense.
Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)
I commend the Secretary of State for obtaining this massive £75 billion increase in defence, which theoretically would allow us to buy 20 new Queen Elizabeth class aircraft carriers. At the risk of upsetting our excellent First Sea Lord, we are not likely to do that, but we are putting our defence industry on a war footing. Can we do the concomitant thing and create a war reserve of equipment with older Typhoons, older warships and older armoured vehicles, so that if we had to fight at short notice we would have enough equipment to do it and so that we can tell our adversaries that when we say, “Si vis pacem, para bellum,” we actually mean it?
Grant Shapps
I thank my right hon. Friend not just for his words, but for his constant campaigning on this subject. Those of us who have been subject to him in a Select Committee know that he knows his facts, knows what he is talking about and has done as much as anybody to ensure that this uplift is happening. I can confirm for the House that we will not be using the £75 billion for 20 new aircraft carriers.
My right hon. Friend makes an interesting point about what we could do with older equipment. I have to say to him that right now, I am much more minded to send that equipment to Ukraine. That is why, yesterday, I pulled together the biggest donation package to date, in what is now the third year of the war, of equipment to Ukraine. For the time being, I think we will be sending it in an easterly direction.
Derek Twigg (Halton) (Lab)
Can I ask the Secretary of State what he believes a war footing is?
Grant Shapps
Very simply, Ukraine has taught the world a great deal about this. When it comes to, for instance, producing sufficient munitions to restock the Ukrainians’ supply, it is very difficult—in fact, impossible—to do that instantaneously. When there is global competition for 155s or other missiles, we want to ensure that our own industrial defence estate is able to produce such items by telling those in the industry that they are on a war footing. By putting in £75 billion more and, critically, naming the date by which we will get there, we will put them on that war footing.
Richard Drax (South Dorset) (Con)
I commend my right hon. Friend for his stalwart stubbornness in securing this important increase in defence spending. He and I both know that much more money is needed, but this is a step in the right direction. He is off shortly to meet NATO members, and I fear that he will have a great deal of work to do. For example, only two NATO members are prepared to open fire on the Houthis in the strait of Hormuz, one of the major trade routes for NATO and the west. Does my right hon. Friend feel that there will be a lot of work for him to do when he goes to meet those NATO members and asks them to step up and spend 2.5% on defence, as they should do and as we are going to do?
Grant Shapps
I thank my hon. and gallant Friend for his comments. He is right to point out the need to be prepared to use the abilities that we have. Ours is one of the only countries with both the global reach and the desire and preparedness to use those abilities, which is why we have ended up defending ships in the Red sea from the Houthis. I can report that a specific incident along those lines has taken place today, with our armed forces in action, and we can be very proud of everything they do for us.
Richard Foord (Tiverton and Honiton) (LD)
On behalf of the Liberal Democrats, I welcome the right hon. Gentleman’s statement about increased defence spending, although it relates to a time six years hence rather than being specific about funding in the intervening years. Eighteen of the 32 members of NATO are still not spending even 2% of GDP on defence, including France, Spain and Italy. Encouraging them to spend more is not so much about fairness as about persuading sceptics in the United States that North America should remain engaged in Europe. Leverage at the NATO summit in July will come too late. What additional commitments did the Secretary of State and other Ministers obtain from our allies before announcing the 2030 pledge?
Grant Shapps
First, I assure the hon. Gentleman that it starts this year—the half a billion pounds is in this year’s budget. We have opted to give that money directly to Ukraine, in addition to the money that we are already gifting it, bringing the total to £3 billion.
Secondly, let me gently say that I do not think I have ever heard Liberal Democrats argue for more defence spending, but I strongly welcome the hon. Gentleman to the cause. I agree with him entirely that 2%—which we ourselves set back in 2014—is no longer the baseline that we should be working to, but I gently point out to him that the reason it has taken some time to replace Trident, and in particular the submarines, is that there was a short period under the coalition when we could not get our Liberal Democrat partners to agree to get on with the job.
Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)
May I, in passing, pay tribute to the late Frank Field? He voted for the renewal of Trident, unlike many on the Labour Front Bench, and he would have understood that deepening our defence capability in the conventional forces is a vital part of the deterrence that NATO provides for the security of Europe. I commend my right hon. Friend and the Government for leading the way on this, and setting an example through leadership.
Grant Shapps
I thank my hon. Friend and add my condolences to those already conveyed by others. Frank Field was a great statesman with really innovative ideas about welfare reform, which it took this Government to enact, and he is a great loss to us all.
I entirely agree with my hon. Friend about our leadership in NATO in getting to 2.5%. I was talking about that to the Secretary-General of NATO yesterday. We must ensure that 2.5% is the new level at which people operate. If they did—if everyone joined us at 2.5%—there would be £135 billion per annum more in the collective NATO budget, which would make a huge difference.
Dame Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)
Labour is absolutely committed to reaching 2.5%, and we welcome the additional £500 million for Ukraine, but time is of the essence. What is the Secretary of State doing to speed up the delivery of much-needed military supplies to the frontline in Ukraine?
Grant Shapps
I warmly welcome the hon. Lady’s comments, and I hope very much that those on her Front Bench, who have not attached themselves to the timeline that she urges, have listened closely to what she has said. As for the delivery of items to the frontline, we will be very fast; we will deliver in a matter of days or weeks quite a lot of the items outlined in the very extensive package announced yesterday, although they come in a number of different forms and some, by their physical nature, will take longer to deliver than others.
David Mundell (Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale) (Con)
I welcome the announcement, and indeed the decision that has finally been made in the United States. Can my right hon. Friend confirm that investment will go into not just technology, but the logistic, the warehousing and the background facilities here in the UK—such as those at MOD Longtown, a very important employer for my constituency—to ensure that our frontline forces are supplied with the best kit that they could possibly have?
Grant Shapps
My right hon. Friend can certainly have that reassurance. We know that such support is extraordinarily important to the running of truly lethal and effective armed forces.
Emma Hardy (Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle) (Lab)
In every year since 2010, the Government—along with their Liberal Democrat partners—have missed recruitment targets, and The Times has warned that Army numbers could fall to 70,000 full-time equivalents. What is the Defence Secretary doing to ensure that those who wish to serve and defend our country are not put off by the broken recruitment system?
Grant Shapps
The hon. Lady will be pleased to hear that in January and February we had an eight-year high in the number of applications for the Army, which was reflected in the other services. I agree that we need to be much more effective in getting applications all the way through the system. It takes too long, and the procedures are too disparate. People are having to turn up for an initial interview, go away and then come back for a medical. Why not do all those things at once?
However, other measures are really helping. There has been a pay increase of nearly 10% for the less well-paid members of the armed forces in the last year, which has helped with recruitment, and people seeing our armed forces involved in so much action has also helped. The Minister for Defence People and Families is spending a great deal of time ensuring that the many recommendations—67, I think—in the Haythornthwaite review are implemented as quickly as possible.
Mr Tobias Ellwood (Bournemouth East) (Con)
I join the many voices that have called for some time for an increase in defence spending, and we welcome this announcement. I suspect that, privately, the Defence Secretary was hoping that this day would come as well, and I congratulate him on the work that he has done behind the scenes to ensure that this funding is secured.
State-on-state conflict has returned in Europe, and the world is more dangerous, more contested and more polarised. Will the Defence Secretary therefore expand a little on the consequences to UK security and to the UK economy if Russia wins? Before rushing in to spend these increased funds, will he recognise the need to consider the full spectrum of threats and warfare that we face, so that money is wisely spent?
Grant Shapps
My right hon. and gallant Friend has been a very important part of ensuring that we got to where we are today, but I had not realised that I had been keeping my own desire to reach this point quite so secret. He is correct in saying that the implications of Russia’s winning this war would be horrendous. The cost of what this country had to put up with because of covid, for example, would seem small in comparison with the cost of what could happen if other autocratic states decided to take a chunk of other people’s land; that could have a direct impact on our economy.
This is not, in my view, money that we are spending; it is money that we are investing in our security, to ensure that Russia and other despotic leaders like Putin never think that they can try it on with us. We will be investing it extremely wisely in many programmes with which my right hon. Friend and other Members on both sides of the House are familiar, as well as in innovative new areas such as the DragonFire.
Drew Hendry (Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey) (SNP)
May I thank the Secretary of State for the urgent support for Ukraine, which is much needed just now? However, the Institute for Fiscal Studies pointed out that in the Chancellor’s Budget, there was a conspiracy of silence between the Government and the Labour party on following the fiscal rules when it came to saying where £20 billion-worth of cuts to public services would come from. Today’s announcement adds up to another £9 billion of cuts to public services. Can he explain where those cuts will be made?
Grant Shapps
We have already laid out the fact that this plan is fully costed and funded. As I have mentioned to the House, we have said that we will reduce the size of the civil service by 72,000. That is not a one-off cut; it is money that is not being paid each year, and will help to fund defence. There are also some other things that the Chancellor will no doubt wish to get into. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman has taken a look at page 20 and the annexe, but he will see that this is all set out.
Sir Alec Shelbrooke (Elmet and Rothwell) (Con)
I absolutely welcome this very important investment in defence. As my right hon. Friend says, the world is a changed place, and I am sure that he would agree that defence is indeed a public service. On the extra funding and the projects that he has announced, may I ask him to make sure that he says to the Treasury that the programmes should be fully funded? This should not just be capital investment. The Treasury has a habit of saying, “The capital investment is fine, but let’s not worry about revenue.” The projects will need revenue, so will he make sure to have those conversations with the Treasury?
Grant Shapps
My right hon. Friend makes a very clear point, based on his experience of the Department. We have to make sure not just that we fund the capital, but that we have the resource to run the equipment. He raises a very important matter, and this budget enables us to ensure that this is done properly.
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)
I, too, welcome the increase to 2.5%. The world has definitely become a more dangerous place over the last 14 years. I can only suppose that the announcement was not made in last month’s Budget because it would have come under scrutiny from the Office for Budget Responsibility, but could the Defence Secretary say exactly what proportion of the 2.5% will be spent on cyber-security and armed services personnel?
Grant Shapps
I should point out to the House that we have always said that we would do this when conditions allowed. Inflation fell to 3.2% last week—down from over 11%. Ten days ago, we saw Iran fire hundreds of missiles at a democratic state, and we were partly involved in the collective defence. It is therefore true to say that the world is showing itself to be even more dangerous. We have reached the point where we are seeing growth back in the economy and inflation falling, so now is the right time to do this. The hon. Lady asks about the sums of money that will go into, for example, cyber or space. I do not have those figures on me. I would be very happy to write to her with an overview, because it will take a bit of collation to work that out exactly from the existing budget. Quite a lot of what happens in strategic command, which covers those areas, crosses over into other parts of the armed forces, so it is not a simple question to answer.
Mrs Flick Drummond (Meon Valley) (Con)
This is a very welcome statement, so I thank my right hon. Friend. He mentioned the Haythornthwaite report. When will we get an update, particularly on the plan to spend the £4 million investment in service families accommodation?
Stephen Farry (North Down) (Alliance)
I accept the need for additional defence spending, but may I ask the Defence Secretary for reassurance that the Government’s strategy for UK and global security going forward will have an appropriate balance of hard and soft power? By that I mean ongoing investment in diplomacy, humanitarian assistance, international development—potentially including the restoration of the target of spending 0.7% of gross national income—and, indeed, support for the international rules-based order.
Grant Shapps
I can certainly reassure the hon. Gentleman that that is something that we in the MOD are always looking to do. We have just made our seventh or eighth drop of food aid into Gaza, using the RAF. We are working with the Americans on other solutions, including the pier, and I work very closely with the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office. Indeed, I used to be a Minister in the former Department for International Development, so I am well aware of the issues he raises. The MOD will always look to assist, with our armed forces, wherever we can; we often combine hard and soft power.
James Sunderland (Bracknell) (Con)
This has been a good week for defence, and I commend the Government on their commitment to 2.5%, but the issue is how we spend it. Could the Defence Secretary confirm to the House that, rather than our focusing on exquisite exclusivity or—heaven forbid—indulging single service bad behaviour, the money will be spent on plugging capability gaps, better operating the platforms that we have, and ensuring that our forces have the activity, resilience and sustainment to maintain and enhance their world-leading and persistent global posture?
Grant Shapps
That is an excellent question. The Minister for Defence Procurement has done an outstanding job on a publication that I recommend to everyone in the House: “Integrated Procurement Model”. It is much more exciting than it sounds. That new model has already been responsible for bringing forward the procurement of the DragonFire by five years. Rather than our trying to create exquisite, unbelievably complicated and never-quite-right equipment, the model will bring equipment into the field and allow it to be spiralled and developed further. My hon. Friend is absolutely right: we will use this money much more intelligently to make sure that we get kit into the field, and expand and improve it from there.
Mike Kane (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab)
While I welcome the increase to 2.5%, the modus operandi of this Secretary of State is to come to this House and announce billions of pounds of investment to get people salivating about it, only for it to never happen. Look at Northern Powerhouse Rail and High Speed 2. We know it, the country knows it and the brass knows it. The Times reports that we will fall to below 70,000 full-time equivalent troops. Where will we be with boots on the ground in a year’s time?
Grant Shapps
The way for this not to happen is for the public to vote for the hon. Gentleman’s party, because I have not heard this afternoon that the Labour party is committed to making it happen. If people want 2.5% by 2030, they should vote Conservative, because that is what we will give them. I think I will leave it there.
Sir Simon Clarke (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Con)
I add my tribute to the late Frank Field, who was an extraordinary man and a great parliamentarian.
In welcoming the announcement of an additional £75 billion over the next six years, which is much needed, may I urge the Secretary of State to consider the potential for a fifth successor-class submarine? I note that the patrol times for the Vanguard class are approaching 200 days, which is not sustainable, and it is vital that we give ourselves as much operational capacity as we can with our deterrent.
Grant Shapps
We will always keep a very close eye on how we ensure a constant at-sea nuclear deterrent. I can confirm that it has been at sea every single day for 54 years, and we do not intend to have that stretch broken. Quite what that requires is a matter for defence study. As my right hon. Friend knows, we are committed to delivering four Dreadnoughts, which will be far more modern. Like any modern piece of equipment, they are likely to have greater reliability as well. We will not let this country down when it comes to our nuclear deterrent. As I said in my statement, we are not doing this just because we are approaching an election. We have always believed in our nuclear deterrent, and we always will.
Kenny MacAskill (East Lothian) (Alba)
Even Winston Churchill recognised that modern conflicts are fought by people, not armies. That is why world war two was the genesis of the NHS and the welfare state. However, while military spending is increasing, public services are collapsing. Is it not as important to wage war on poverty at home as it is to prepare for war abroad? If there needs to be an increase in military and defence expenditure, surely it should come from the cancellation of the failed Trident project, which is impoverishing military services, rather than from public services. Why should the people pay for the Government’s wars?
Grant Shapps
I could not disagree with the hon. Gentleman more strongly. Even in my time as Defence Secretary, there are decisions that I have made that, if we had not had the nuclear deterrent, I would have hesitated in making. It protects us every single day in ways that are not always immediately obvious to everyone. The idea that by not investing in our defence we would somehow be safer, and that somehow all that money would be available to invest in all these other public services, is to misunderstand the first principle of every Government: we are here to defend the realm, without which there would be nothing to pay for internally, because we would not be safe externally.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
In the 1930s, a wise Government ensured that RAF airfields were upgraded and improved, and that saved us from extinction in 1940. If we are to be on a war footing, will the Secretary of State remind the Home Office that it is its duty to maintain the best runway in Europe, the 10,000-ft runway at RAF Scampton, instead of letting it rot, as it is at present? If the Home Office is incapable of doing that, will it hand it over to Scampton Holdings as soon as possible—as we have argued for 15 months—so that it can be used, improved and available for a future emergency?
Grant Shapps
My right hon. Friend is speaking to the converted. As a keen pilot, I agree with him entirely. In fact, this usually works the other way around, but I will offer him a meeting so that we can discuss RAF Scampton and its long-term future, rather than the short term, in more detail.
Gen Kitchen (Wellingborough) (Lab)
Coming from a naval family, it is important to me that Labour is also wanting to reach 2.5%. Our ambition is no less than that of the Government. The Defence Secretary has said that this defence spending increase will be funded in part by big cuts in the number of civil servants. How much of this cut will be in the MOD civilian workforce, and will the Royal Fleet Auxiliary be exempt?
Grant Shapps
I welcome the hon. Lady’s support for this package and for the 2.5% and gently suggest that conversations with those on her own Front Bench would be important at this point. It is in the interest of national security that both sides sign up to 2.5% by a deadline, which we note this afternoon has not happened. She asked a specific question about the reduction. In the MOD, it would be a 10,000 reduction by 2028. To be clear, that is a reduction from about 60,000 to 50,000. I personally believe that is exactly the right thing to do if it helps to pay for our brave men and women in the armed forces out in the country. Less bureaucracy and more action—I think that is a good thing.
Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)
I thank the Secretary of State for his recent visit to Shropshire, which he referenced, and also to welcome his statement and the statement of the Prime Minister yesterday. This is record investment into UK defence, which will be very welcome in Shropshire. Would my right hon. Friend like to take this opportunity to put on record his thanks to all those that work in uniform and the civilians at RAF Cosford, at MOD Donnington, at Babcock and at RBSL— Rheinmetall BAE Systems Land—which he recently visited? Can he confirm that the UK’s and Shropshire’s defence is secure with this Government?
Grant Shapps
I warmly join my right hon. Friend in sending exactly that message. As he says, just last week I was looking at the first prototypes of the Challenger 3 coming off the production line in his patch. My only regret was that I was not able to see him at the same time.
Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)
My written questions this week have uncovered another worrying increase in nuclear safety events at nuclear weapons sites in 2023, with the first category A safety breach in 15 years at Faslane and the highest number of category B incidents since 2006. Category A incidents are defined as those that have an actual or high potential for radioactive release to the environment in breach of safety limits. A former chief adviser to a Prime Minister has described our existing nuclear stock as “rotting” and “a dangerous disaster”. Can the Secretary of State tell us how much of this extra spend will go towards ensuring that, at the very least, existing nuclear sites do not deteriorate further, threatening the health and safety of armed forces staff and surrounding populations?
Grant Shapps
I am pleased to report to the hon. Lady that our defence standards, particularly when it comes to our nuclear estate, are extremely high. Whenever an issue is found, it is properly and thoroughly investigated. She is right to say that it is important that we continue to invest in that. This money is good news: every bit helps and we want to ensure that it is spent appropriately. As it happens, we fund the nuclear estate appropriately, but this money will help to ensure that is put well beyond doubt.
James Gray (North Wiltshire) (Con)
This is a very welcome announcement. There are no strings attached, and a guaranteed move to 2.5% of GDP sends a powerful message to two groups of people: our NATO partners and our adversaries around the world. Does the Secretary of State agree, however, that the powerful message is undermined by what I can only describe as the mealy-mouthed response from the Labour, Liberal Democrat and Scot Nat Front Benches? If they will not support what we are doing, what sort of message does that send to Putin and to other enemies? Surely what we want now is cross-party consensus: it must be 2.5% and Labour must side with us on it.
Sarah Jones (Croydon Central) (Lab)
May I take this opportunity to pay tribute to the reservists based in Croydon, who, among many roles, have been in Estonia helping to keep us all safe? Labour wants to reach 2.5%, but my right hon. Friend the shadow Defence Secretary has asked why there is no budget line or fully funded plans for the announcement. This appears to be a bit of a pattern across Government. Only yesterday, I learned that a £1 billion announcement made about carbon capture and storage several years ago still appears nowhere on a Treasury budget line. If the Government play so fast and loose with our public funding, how on earth will the Secretary of State deliver the economic stability on which our defence spending relies?
Grant Shapps
I encourage the hon. Lady, and all Opposition Members, to have a closer look at what we announced yesterday. This is a fully funded announcement. We have explained where the money will come from. We have set out in tables that you can go and read, Madam Deputy Speaker, the funding for the £75 billion. It is true that a choice exists that Labour Front Benchers need to talk not only to their Back Benchers about—because they will not agree with increasing to 2.5% by 2030—but unfortunately to many on their Front Bench as well. They will need to talk to 11 in particular—the ones who have voted against Trident, some of whom wanted to leave our nuclear deterrent behind and possibly even leave NATO as well. Conservative Members are, however, entirely united in the idea of spending 2.5%, setting a date for it now, setting out how that spending will work and making the choices to get there.
Ruth Edwards (Rushcliffe) (Con)
I strongly welcome this investment, which rightly recognises the increasingly unstable world in which we are operating. Many of our military capabilities are powered by advanced semi-conductors, and recent years have shown how fragile these supply chains can be. Will the Secretary of State set out what the Government are doing to develop strong alliances focused on securing our supply of that vital component?
Grant Shapps
My hon. Friend is right. As Business Secretary, I took the decision on Newport Wafer Fab, which highlighted to me the importance of our own supply chain for advanced semiconductors, particularly in the defence realm. That is one reason that, in the plan we published yesterday, we have committed to a new level of 5% of R&D for defence, to ensure that we are not only researching and developing but, through the expansion of the military capability in the industrial base, producing the things that we need for our armed forces.
Ashley Dalton (West Lancashire) (Lab)
Labour wants to reach 2.5%. I do not know how many more Labour Members need to say that before it gets through. If anybody was listening, my right hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey), the shadow Secretary of State, also said that clearly in his contribution. The Secretary of State said repeatedly on the media round this morning, and in the Chamber, that on page 20 we can find the fully costed plan. Bearing in mind that there is no mention on page 20 of how the 2.5% will be reached through the cuts to the civil service that the Secretary of State has described, and that the entire civil service budget is only £16.6 billion, where is the fully funded plan? It is not on page 20.
Grant Shapps
The hon. Lady once again asserts that Labour wants to reach 2.5%. Labour cannot just assert it; it has to will the means to get there. I did not hear that from the Labour Front Bench in response to this statement or yesterday’s announcement. As in all normal cases, and particularly spending reviews, the Treasury will set out all the numbers going forward, but the fact of the matter is that the figures published yesterday show £77 billion more being spent from this year through to the end of the decade, in part paid for by removing 72,000 civil servants from the system so that we get back to where we were before covid. If Labour does not want to follow that approach, it could follow another, but the hon. Lady cannot just assert that Labour agrees without explaining how it will do it.
Philip Dunne (Ludlow) (Con)
I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
I also warmly welcome the increase of defence spending to 2.5% of GDP, and I congratulate my right hon. Friend and the Prime Minister on the leadership role they are providing to NATO. On where this extra money will go, will my right hon. Friend elaborate a little more on the balance between meeting the existing challenges in the equipment plan and introducing innovative new capability through the new procurement model that he commended to the House earlier?
Grant Shapps
We will both ensure that we deliver the things that we have said we will deliver. In a changing world, with the threat of Iran, Russia, a much more assertive China and a nuclear-armed North Korea, we are adjusting our programme to ensure that it does what is required.
New innovations, as my right hon. Friend will have gathered from my comments about spending 5% of GDP on R&D, are very important to us. We can now see how, in an asymmetric war, Russia’s entire Black Sea fleet has been made inoperative by a Ukrainian navy that has no fleet at all—a ghost fleet. We need to consider how we do all that, and this money will be used wisely in that context.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Secretary of State, the Prime Minister and the Government for their clear commitment to 2.5%. I also thank them for committing an extra £500 million of aid for Ukraine, which is important. The Secretary of State and the Government are setting a target for the rest of NATO to follow, and I hope it will.
I very much welcome the news of an increase in defence spending, which my party and I have pushed for, but how much of the increase will be feet on the ground and how much will be enhanced cyber-security?
Grant Shapps
We are sticking with the defence review and refresh, which set out the exact personnel numbers. I think it is 188,000 across all three services. I have explained the extent to which new technology is helping to shape our thinking, but so are the lessons from Ukraine, particularly on the need to have munitions and larger stockpiles available.
There are, of course, many excellent locations, including in Northern Ireland, where more munitions and missiles are being created as we speak, with about an eightfold expansion. I look forward to visiting some of those who will enjoy the additional £10 billion, bringing the total to about £25 billion, over the next few weeks.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
Order. I am anxious to ensure that all colleagues get in, but I urge brief questions so that the Secretary of State can give brief answers.
Mr John Baron (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.
I chair the 1922 defence committee, and the Secretary of State will know from Prime Minister’s questions that the whole Conservative party welcomes this announcement, but may I suggest that the message from the Government would carry so much greater resonance globally if the official Opposition also signed up to it? I am a former member of the armed forces, so I can assure him that the country speaking as a whole—the official Opposition and the Government together—carries much greater weight internationally for the good of the country.
Grant Shapps
My hon. and gallant Friend is absolutely right. We have seen how that has worked with Ukraine, and I am sorry that it is not working today with the timeline to get to 2.5%. I am afraid it proves, once again, that this country’s safety is in the right hands when Conservatives are in power.
Jason McCartney (Colne Valley) (Con)
I echo the words of the Secretary-General of NATO, Jens Stoltenberg, who said after yesterday’s defence spending announcement that
“once again, the UK is leading by example.”
In the light of the £500 million support package for Ukraine—and having seen the awful pictures of missile attacks on Ukrainian cities, including the destruction of the TV tower in Kharkiv in the past 48 hours—can my right hon. Friend confirm that the much-needed ammunition and missile systems will be in Ukraine as soon as possible, to aid its fight against Russian aggression?
Grant Shapps
My hon. Friend is absolutely right, both about what the Secretary-General said about how we are leading NATO in this regard, and about the absolute importance of our being there for Ukraine. We cannot afford for this war to be lost, and it will not be lost. I will make sure that he receives the comprehensive list of the items that we will now be supplying.
Holly Mumby-Croft (Scunthorpe) (Con)
It was widely reported some months ago that my right hon. Friend and the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities had written to the Prime Minister setting out their concerns about the future of Scunthorpe’s blast furnaces. For all the reasons he has stated today, this is more important than ever, so I commend him for his foresight prior to his current role. Will he consider the importance of good-quality, British-made steel to our nation’s defence capabilities?
Grant Shapps
I well remember my hon. Friend’s pretty much constant lobbying. She is a great champion for her steelworks, and her comment about the importance of using British steel in British defence is taken on board.
Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)
We should all be grateful that today’s statement absolutely answers the widespread assessment of the increased risk in the world. Can my right hon. Friend confirm that he, the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister are discussing contributions with our European NATO partners? How important is our commitment to NATO both to the current US Administration and to any future US Administration? Lastly, does he agree that private sector innovation—Roke has recently opened an office in Gloucester—will be an important part of our defence procurement?
Grant Shapps
My hon. Friend is right about ensuring that we use this announcement to persuade other NATO members to do the same thing. I was proactively speaking to and texting my colleagues throughout NATO and beyond on this just yesterday, and I received very encouraging responses. I look forward to hearing more about the company in his constituency.
Andy Carter (Warrington South) (Con)
I congratulate my right hon. Friend and his Ministers on the work they have rightly done to reform defence procurement, given the significant increase in spending announced by the Prime Minister. How will these changes ensure that our military forces receive equipment more quickly and, in particular, how will they benefit British manufacturers by offering global export opportunities?
Grant Shapps
The integrated procurement plan, brilliantly created by my hon. Friend the Minister for Defence Procurement, has ensured that exports and exportability are a key part of the contract. I have mentioned how we have already used this model to speed up the production of DragonFire.
We are also using the integrated procurement model to make sure that we do not over-spec things, so that they do not become like—
Grant Shapps
I was not going to say Ajax, but I will say it now. Ajax was over-specced to the point where it became a very delayed project. Fortunately, it is now back on track.
Siobhan Baillie (Stroud) (Con)
Stroud constituents will welcome the Prime Minister’s boost for defence spending and ongoing focus on the dangers that we all face. The Stroud district is blessed with many strategically important businesses, such as Steller Systems, which I was with on Friday, Retro Track & Air and Impcross, to name but a few. These are innovative, nimble and agile companies doing extraordinary things. On behalf of the small and medium-sized enterprises and the small family businesses that are playing their part in protecting our country and others around the UK, will the Secretary of State confirm that SMEs will get their fair crack at contracts and that the bigger boys will pay them on time, to keep them alive for the benefit of all?
Grant Shapps
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I predict that companies in Stroud will do very well from this if they are producing innovative and useful equipment for our armed forces. I take on board her point about small and medium-sized enterprises. When I was running my printing business and companies paid late, it would put huge pressure on cash flow. One of the great things that this Government have done is speed up the necessity for large organisations, particularly the primes, to pay properly and on time.
Marco Longhi (Dudley North) (Con)
It is great to hear the Secretary of State’s announcement about the £75 billion investment. Does he agree that it sends a clear signal to our brave armed forces that the party in government backs them, to the country that we back defence of the realm, and to companies in our supply chain up and down the country, including those in my constituency, that we back job security? It also exposes the Opposition as having no plan at all for defence.
Grant Shapps
My hon. Friend hits the nail on the head. The Prime Minister made the announcement yesterday in front of British troops, who are out in Poland doing incredible work. The reassurance of the idea that there is a period of time leading up to 2.5%, with the first increase coming immediately, really helps them to do their job, because they know that they are wanted and trusted, and that we honour their work. I agree with the other comments he made. It is a shame that there has not been an entirely cross-party welcome for the announcement.
Jane Stevenson (Wolverhampton North East) (Con)
I warmly welcome the announcement. The Secretary of State was kind enough to call in on me in Wolverhampton North East last week, and I spoke about the importance of aerospace to my local economy, with companies like HS Marston Aerospace, Collins Aerospace and Moog. How can he ensure that those companies benefit from the highly skilled, well paid jobs that this uplift in spending will bring? Does he agree that industry needs the certainty of cross-party agreement in order to make those investments, and that the Labour party needs to step up?
Grant Shapps
I very much enjoyed my visit to my hon. Friend’s constituency. She did indeed tell me about the defence companies that are so vibrant in her area. The future looks incredibly bright for them, given the amount we are investing and the fact that defence is typically an extremely well-paid profession. There is enormous ability for apprentices and graduates to be recruited, so her constituents will be happy about the announcement.
Dr Neil Hudson (Penrith and The Border) (Con)
I congratulate the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State on the welcome announcement that defence spending will be increased to 2.5% of GDP, and on their leadership on funding and support for Ukraine. For the sake of freedom, democracy and global safety, it is so important that Ukraine prevails. The announcement shows that it is our Conservative Government who will protect our nation and stand with our allies in the face of increasing international threats. Will the Secretary of State confirm that this sensible linear increase in funding for defence will help our defence industry to ramp up production in parallel, meaning that our armed forces will be supported, capable and resilient, and be able to keep us and our allies safe?
Grant Shapps
I absolutely can confirm that. One of the features of the way that we have done this is to create a straight line from next year to 2030, to ensure that industrial capacity can ramp up with certainty behind it. I am pleased to confirm that the answer is yes.
Danny Kruger (Devizes) (Con)
The Chief of the Defence Staff from Estonia was in Salisbury plain, in my constituency, last week. He told us that his country has 40,000 men and women in its army reserve, ready to serve at 24 hours’ notice; I call that being on a war footing, given that Estonia has a population 50 times smaller than ours. I am not proposing that we try to replicate that—proportionally, that would mean a 2 million-strong reserve—but will he consider using some of the money to boost our important reserve force?
Grant Shapps
My hon. Friend will know that we are twinned with Estonia through NATO and we provide protection to it. Estonia is very much on the frontline with Russia, in a way that we are fortunate not to be. We currently have 30,000 reserves. Rather than use them, we can use the many other things we bring to NATO and to Estonia’s protection, including the ability to provide personnel and equipment, which we do on regular basis.
Simon Fell (Barrow and Furness) (Con)
I commend my right hon. Friend on the work he has done in setting the new 2.5% baseline. It will reassure our allies, send an important message to our adversaries and strengthen our industrial base. I thank him for the part he played in securing £220 million for Barrow, as a result of the Team Barrow project, securing our future and easing delivery of Dreadnought and SSN-AUKUS. Barrow shipyard is not alone in delivering the submarine enterprise, so will my right hon. Friend confirm that some of the £75 billion will be spent on other key sites, such as Faslane, Devonport and others?
Grant Shapps
I absolutely can confirm to him that it is intended to benefit sites across the country. In the document we published yesterday, a map on page 10 shows how the different areas and regions of the country will benefit, not just in our nuclear estate but throughout the defence estate. There is not a constituency that does not benefit from the £75 billion announced yesterday. My hon. Friend welcomes the announcement and it is time for others to follow that lead.
Robin Millar (Aberconwy) (Con)
I add my own tribute to the late Lord Field. He took the time to talk to me when I was a Conservative councillor about a concern we shared for the weakest and most vulnerable in society, which reaches across the aisles of the House.
There is no doubt that the international threat is developing and the world is a more dangerous place, so I welcome today’s statement. What I hear is an investment in the armed forces that we need, not necessarily the armed forces we have. Does my right hon. Friend share my concern that the statement from the Opposition that they are planning to conduct a review is verging on the careless, in that it gives comfort only to those who seek to do the UK harm?
Grant Shapps
My hon. Friend is right about the armed forces that we need, not the armed forces that we have. We want our armed forces to be lethal, quick, agile and capable, which is why it is so important that we invest this £75 billion. He is also right to point out that to have yet another review is simply to invite chaos and delay at exactly the time our adversaries are looking at us, hoping that we do not get on with the job of delivering an extra 2.5% of GDP in funding, which would play into their hands.
Ian Levy (Blyth Valley) (Con)
I thank the Secretary of State for the announcement of 2.5% in defence spending by 2030. Will my right hon. Friend acknowledge the fantastic effort delivered by our reserve forces, which I had the pleasure to see for myself in Northumberland last Saturday?
Grant Shapps
I welcome my hon. Friend’s comments. There are many members of the reserve forces in the House, including the Minister for Defence People and Families, my right hon. Friend the Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison). We thank all members of the reserve forces for their service and for the time they give, and we thank their employers, who allow them to take the time to be reservists. We are grateful for all they do.
Point of Order
(3 weeks, 3 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The House has been receiving information about the Government’s ongoing arms exports to Israel, about which the Deputy Prime Minister spoke earlier. A High Court hearing on a judicial review into arms exports, which finished yesterday, provided lots of information that—I will say this politely—is far from the impression we have been given by Ministers about arms sales, especially about how we have the most robust arms export licences in the world. One such example is that although the Government last reviewed and approved arms sales to Israel on 8 April, it appears that that did not consider the killing of three British aid workers in Israeli air strikes on Gaza on 1 April. I think we all find that shocking. Madam Deputy Speaker, can you advise how we ensure the Government are providing this House with up-to-date and accurate information, and how we can best hold the Government to account over this pressing and serious matter?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his point of order and for giving me notice of it. I think he will be interested to know that Ministers were giving evidence to the Business and Trade Committee on this subject earlier today. In view of that, I am sure that he will find a way to ask Ministers about any new information that may have come to light since they last answered questions on this subject in the Chamber. I should also say that the Secretary of State for Defence has stayed to listen to his point of order, and I am sure that the Treasury Bench will feed back the points that he has made.
Heritage Public Houses
Wednesday 24th April 2024
(3 weeks, 3 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Heritage Public Houses Bill 2023-24 View all Heritage Public Houses Bill 2023-24 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
Marco Longhi (Dudley North) (Con)
I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to require local authorities to maintain a register of heritage public houses in their area and to make provision in connection with the compilation and maintenance of such registers; to make provision relating to planning applications in respect of public houses on such a register; to place restrictions on the sale of heritage public houses; to make provision relating to the nomination of heritage public houses as assets of community value; to make provision about the listing of heritage public houses; and for connected purposes.
I stand before you today, Madam Deputy Speaker, with a call to action. On 5 August last year, we learned of the devastating loss of a cherished piece of my local community’s history, the Crooked House. This beloved pub with its unique character and rich tapestry of stories was senselessly destroyed in what was seen by most as the ruthless pursuit of profit over preservation. The Crooked House was not just a pub. Over centuries, it was a gathering place, a sanctuary, a piece of our shared heritage. Its walls held countless memories and moments that defined our lives in the Black Country and far beyond.
Built in 1765, the Crooked House saw the birth of the industrial revolution and the trials and tribulations of a people who worked our coalmines and our limestone mines, and who worked in our foundries making nails and all the chains and anchors of the ships that sailed the seven seas. These were a long-suffering people who just got on with the job, while their living and working conditions were truly appalling. Seeing the Crooked House violently reduced to ashes and rubble immediately tore a profound wound that cut deep into the consciousness of a people not just locally, but nationally, and in fact from all corners of the planet.
The destruction of the Crooked House is not just a tragedy, but a wake-up call. It exposes a disturbing trend where short-sighted greed trumps the preservation of our cultural heritage. It vividly exposes the shortcomings of our systems and frameworks that should offer better protection to these treasured assets. Anybody who might push back at this assertion should perhaps explain why it is that, across the country, historic pubs—the hub of many local communities—are under threat from the same forces that claimed the Crooked House. That is why I am here today. I am here to say that enough is enough and that it is time to put people and history before money. It is time that we enshrine the protection of our heritage pubs in law to give them the best chance of surviving the forces of greed, and also the winds of change.
Imagine a future, Madam Deputy Speaker, where every historic pub is safeguarded, where people cannot act with impunity and where our communities can thrive around these cherished institutions. It is a future that we can create, but only if we act soon. We need improved legislation that empowers and compels local councils to better protect our heritage pubs—legislation that makes it financially unviable for those who destroy our history, legislation that enshrines the rights of communities to have a say in the future of the local pubs in a meaningful way and legislation that will give these pubs the best chance to survive as businesses.
In preparing this Bill, it is important that I acknowledge the advice and support that I received from so many: Mr Greg Mulholland, a former Member of this place who leads the campaign for pubs; my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Sir Jeremy Wright) who provided incisive advice; and the many local people who gave their support under the umbrella of the campaign to rebuild the Crooked House, some of whom are in the Public Gallery today.
There are three key elements to the proposed legislation: the first examines the role of local government; the second, how temporary restrictions on the sale of heritage pubs could give them a fighting chance; and the third, how the process for the purchase of assets of community value can be assisted by this legislation. The first step would empower and compel local government to create and maintain a register of heritage pubs. This would trigger assessments for possible listing. It would highlight their local importance and ensure that local planners have immediate visibility of any impending activity on site at point of sale. The Crooked House had no protections whatever, and an immediate application for listing had no chance of succeeding while events unfolded very quickly. The current voluntary schemes are obviously inadequate and cannot keep pace with those who will act out of greed and with impunity.
In Wales, under section 24 of the Historic Environment (Wales) Act 2016, buildings are automatically given statutory protection while Welsh Ministers make listing decisions. These protections apply until Welsh Ministers have made their decision. This is an example of something that could apply in England.
The second element would involve placing temporary restrictions on the sale of a heritage pub. That is not something that I would normally advocate. Meddling with property rights goes against all my instincts, but if an asset with heritage and local community value is to have a chance of surviving against the change in purchasing habits of customers and against the cold, hard decisions made by brewery accountants, I have concluded that restricting the sale of these pubs temporarily for a 12-month period to pub-trade-only buyers and at a price independently agreed by trade specialists seems like a reasonable step to take to give these beleaguered buildings a fighting chance.
At the end of the 12-month period should a sale not be agreed, then the pub will return on to the open free market for sale. This mechanism could give a local landlord with lower operating costs and overheads compared with those of a brewery the opportunity to make a success of the pub at a purchase price that is not competing with residential development buyers.
Finally, I will address the process for assets of community value. This is a good scheme that works well for certain assets, such as a local community hall, but can it work with the speed required when owners and buyers can move very quickly, and can the scheme handle the more complex nature of an asset that could still host a struggling going concern? Well, the Crooked House proved that the ACV scheme could not have coped. ACVs could well have a place if a local community became aware and mobilised during the 12-month restriction period I referred to earlier, and an application were made at the end of this period. Part of the ACV process requires local communities to raise funds and complete transactions within a six-month timeframe. The restriction period would effectively enhance that process by 12 months, making the chances of a subsequent and successful ACV purchase much greater.
The ongoing loss of our heritage pubs can represent a devastating loss to local communities. Heritage pubs can fail for multiple reasons, and these complex problems obviously require more complex solutions. That is what I am attempting to do today, and I ask Members to stand with me, because if we do not act now, we will see pieces of our history eradicated forever. I say stand with the ghosts of the Crooked House, stand with my local communities in Gornal, Sedgley, Dudley and far beyond who want to see the Crooked House rebuilt brick by brick, and stand for the future of our heritage pubs. Let us vow to protect these institutions not just for ourselves, but for the generations to come.
Question put and agreed to.
Ordered,
That Marco Longhi, Lia Nici, Robin Millar, Gareth Johnson, Sir Edward Leigh, Shaun Bailey, Steve Tuckwell, Jane Stevenson, Sir Jeremy Wright, Lee Anderson, Jim Shannon and Mrs Paulette Hamilton present the Bill.
Marco Longhi accordingly presented the Bill.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 21 June, and to be printed (Bill 207).
Renters (Reform) Bill
Wednesday 24th April 2024
(3 weeks, 3 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Renters (Reform) Bill 2022-23 View all Renters (Reform) Bill 2022-23 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Consideration of Bill Amendments as at 24 April 2024 - (24 Apr 2024)
17:26 - The House divided: - Ayes: 283 / Noes: 143 - Question accordingly agreed to.
17:41 - The House divided: - Ayes: 287 / Noes: 144 - Question accordingly agreed to.
18:03 - The House divided: - Ayes: 158 / Noes: 282 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (Jacob Young)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: 8 Housing Act 1988 Section 16D, 16E Duties on landlords and agents as regards information provision and prohibition on reletting 9 Renters (Reform) Act 2024 Sections 48 Landlord redress provisions 10 Renters (Reform) Act 2024 Section 69 Active landlord database entry”. “1, 1A, 1B, 2, 2ZA, 2ZB, 4A, 6, 6A four months beginning with the date of service of the notice 5, 5A, 5B, 5C, 5D, 7, 9 two months beginning with the date of service of the notice”.
Government new clause 30—Assessment of operation of possession process.
Government new clause 13— Sections 1 and 2: effect of superior leases.
Government new clause 14—Powers of Secretary of State in connection with Chapter 1.
Government new clause 16—Power of Welsh Ministers to extend protection to persons of other descriptions.
Government new clause 17—Power of Secretary of State to extend protection to persons of other descriptions: Wales.
Government new clause 18—Prohibition of discrimination relating to children or benefits status: Scotland.
Government new clause 19—Terms in standard securities relating to children or benefits status: Scotland.
Government new clause 20—Terms in insurance contracts relating to children or benefits status: Scotland.
Government new clause 21—Power of the Scottish Ministers to extend protection to persons of other descriptions.
Government new clause 22—Interpretation of Chapter 4A.
Government new clause 23—Power of Scottish Ministers to make consequential provision.
Government new clause 24—Power of Secretary of State to extend protection to persons of other descriptions: Scotland.
Government new clause 25—Landlord redress schemes: no Crown status.
Government new clause 26—Other amendments in connection with landlord redress schemes.
Government new clause 27—Commencement.
Government new clause 28—Application of Chapter 1 of Part 1.
Government new clause 29—Assured agricultural occupancies: opting out etc.
Government new clause 31—Local Commissioners’ investigation of complaints by persons who are not tenants.
Government new clause 32—Unlicensed HMOs and houses: offences.
Government new clause 33—Service of improvement notices on landlords and licensors.
Government new clause 34—Rent repayment orders: liability of directors etc.
Government new clause 35—Report on certain matters relating to tenancy reform.
Government new clause 36—Report on provision of residential tenancies.
New clause 1—Repeal of requirement for selective licensing—
“Part 3 of the Housing Act 2004 (Selective licensing of other residential accommodation) is repealed.”
This new clause would remove the ability of local housing authorities to designate areas as subject to selective licensing.
New clause 2—Expanding the remit of rent repayment orders to company directors—
“In section 249A of the Housing Act 2004, after subsection (1) insert—
‘(1A) If a local housing authority believes that a relevant housing offence has been committed by a body corporate, it may impose a financial penalty on—
(a) a director, manager, secretary or other similar officer of the body corporate, or
(b) a person purporting to act in such a capacity,
if it is satisfied, beyond reasonable doubt, that the offence was committed with the consent or connivance of that person, or that the offence was attributable to any neglect on the part of that person.’”
This new clause would enable local housing authorities to impose financial penalties on certain individuals when it believes a housing offence has been committed by a body corporate.
New clause 3—Evidence to consider when granting possession order for anti-social behaviour—
“In section 9A of the 1988 Act, after subsection (2) insert—
‘(3) In considering evidence of conduct the court may consider evidence provided by way of hearsay and that evidence will be admissible without notice or permission of the court notwithstanding any rule of the court or the common law.’”
This new clause would enable courts to consider hearsay evidence during the course of proceedings for possession on the grounds of anti-social behaviour.
New clause 5—Review of changes to grounds for possession—
“(1) The Secretary of State must, within two years of the date of Royal Assent to this Act, conduct and lay before Parliament a review of the grounds for possession in Schedule 2 of the Housing Act 1988, as amended by this Act.
(2) The review must include—
(a) an assessment of the effectiveness of the new or amended grounds for possession set out in Schedule 1 of this Act in securing evictions from properties;
(b) an assessment of the impact on the security of tenure of tenants as a result of the use of the new or amended grounds for possession set out in Schedule 1 of this Act;
(c) a report on the use of enforcement action in relation to the new or amended grounds for possession set out in Schedule 1 of this Act;
(d) an assessment of the effectiveness of the grounds for possession listed in Schedule 2 of the Housing Act 1988 in securing evictions from properties that remain unamended by Schedule 1 of this Act.
(3) The review under subsection (1) must make such recommendations as, in the opinion of the Secretary of State, are necessary in the light of the findings of the review.”
This new clause would require the Government to publish a review of the impact of the amended grounds for possession within two years of the Act coming into force.
New clause 6—Requirement to state the amount of rent when advertising residential premises—
“(1) A landlord must not advertise or otherwise offer a tenancy of residential premises unless the amount of rent is stated in the advertisement or offer.
(2) A letting agent acting on behalf of a landlord must not advertise or otherwise offer a tenancy of residential premises unless the amount of rent is stated in the advertisement or offer.”
This new clause would require landlords or persons acting on their behalf to state the proposed rent payable in the advertisement for the premises.
New clause 7—Not inviting or encouraging bids for rent—
“(1) A landlord must not invite or encourage a prospective tenant or any other person to offer to pay an amount of rent for residential premises that exceeds the amount of rent stated as part of the advertisement or offer of the premises as required by section [requirement to state the amount of rent when advertising residential premises].
(2) A letting agent acting on behalf of a landlord must not invite or encourage a prospective tenant or any other person to offer to pay an amount of rent for residential premises that exceeds the amount of rent stated as part of the advertisement or offer of the premises as required by section [requirement to state the amount of rent when advertising residential premises].
(3) Subsection (1) does not prohibit a prospective tenant or other person from offering to pay an amount that exceeds the stated amount of rent.”
This new clause would prevent landlords or persons acting on their behalf from inviting or encouraging bids that exceed the amount stated as part of the advertisement or offer of the premises.
New clause 8—Limit on amount of rent that a residential landlord can request in advance—
“In Schedule 1 to the Tenant Fees Act 2019, after paragraph 1(8) insert—
‘(9) Where rent is payable in advance, the maximum that may be charged is equivalent to the amount specified in paragraph 2(3).’”
This new clause would ensure that the maximum amount of rent that could be lawfully requested by a residential landlord in advance of a tenancy commencing would be 5 weeks’ rent for tenancies of less than £50,000 per annum and to 6 weeks’ rent for tenancies over £50,000 per annum.
New clause 10—Extension of Awaab’s law to the private rented sector—
“(1) Section 10A of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 is amended as follows.
(2) Omit subsections (1)(b) and (6).
(3) In subsection (7), omit the definitions of ‘low-cost home ownership accommodation’ and ‘social housing.’”
This new clause would require private landlords to deal with hazards affecting their properties.
New clause 11—Ending blanket bans on renting to families with children or those in receipt of benefits—
“The Secretary of State may, by regulation, specify behaviour which, for the purposes of Part 4, Equality Act 2010, shall be considered unlawful discrimination unless the contrary is shown.”
This new clause would ensure that blanket bans on renting to families with children or those in receipt of benefits are presumed to be unlawful discrimination unless proved otherwise.
New clause 12—Discrimination relating to care-leaver status—
“(1) The provisions of this section apply to individuals who are—
(a) a relevant child as defined by section 23A of the Children’s Act 1989; or
(b) a former relevant child as defined by section 23C of the Children’s Act 1989.
(2) A relevant person must not, in relation to a dwelling that is to be let on a relevant tenancy—
(a) on the basis that the individual meets either of the criteria set out in subsection (1), prevent the person from—
(i) enquiring whether the dwelling is available for let,
(ii) accessing information about the dwelling,
(iii) viewing the dwelling in order to consider whether to seek to rent it,
(iv) entering into a tenancy of the dwelling, or
(b) apply a provision, criterion or practice in order to make care leavers less likely to enter into a tenancy of the dwelling than people who are not care leavers.
(3) Subsection (2) does not apply if the relevant person can show that the prospective landlord of the dwelling, or a person who would be a superior landlord in relation to the dwelling, is insured under a contract of insurance—
(a) to which section 33 does not apply, and
(b) which contains a term which makes provision (however expressed) requiring the insured to prohibit a tenant under a relevant tenancy from being a care-leaver,
and the conduct is a means of preventing the prospective landlord from breaching that term.
(4) Conduct does not breach the prohibition in subsection (2) if it consists only of—
(a) one or more of the following things done by a person who does nothing in relation to the dwelling that is not mentioned in this paragraph—
(i) publishing advertisements or disseminating information;
(ii) providing a means by which a prospective landlord can communicate directly with a prospective tenant;
(iii) providing a means by which a prospective tenant can communicate directly with a prospective landlord, or
(b) things of a description, or things done by a person of a description, specified for the purposes of this section in regulations made by the Secretary of State.”
New clause 37—Extension of rent repayment orders—
“(1) In Section 40(3) of the Housing and Planning Act 2016, at end of table insert—
This new clause would ensure that rent repayment orders can be made to the landlord under the relevant tenancy in any instance where a financial penalty or offence is made relating to clauses 11, 12, 48 or 69 of the Bill.
New clause 38—Continuing ability of tenants to sublet—
“(1) In any lease of residential property which is not by virtue of this Act an assured tenancy—
(a) any provision which restricts subletting to assured shorthold tenancies shall be interpreted to refer to assured tenancies; and
(b) any provision which would make the grant of an assured tenancy a breach of that provision shall be void unless—
(i) that provision is an absolute prohibition against subletting; or
(ii) the lease has less than seven years unexpired.
(2) Any provision which requires the consent of a landlord or other person to the grant of a subtenancy shall be interpreted so that consent may not be refused on the grounds that the subtenancy is an assured tenancy or on the grounds of any statutory provision of that tenancy.”
This new clause seeks to ensure that persons who are tenants under a long lease can continue to sublet residential premises in circumstances where they were previously permitted to do so under the long lease on the basis that the sublease was an assured shorthold tenancy.
New clause 39—Payment of relocation payment to tenant—
“In the Housing Act 1988, after section 11 insert—
‘11A Payment of relocation payment in certain cases
(1) Where a landlord issues a notice of proceedings for possession of a dwelling-house on any of the grounds in Schedule 2 to this Act (except Ground 7A or Ground 14) within two years of the start of the tenancy, the landlord shall pay a relocation payment to the tenant.
(2) A relocation payment shall be an amount equivalent to—
(a) one month’s rent in the case of an order for possession on Ground 1 or Ground 1A;
(b) two months’ rent in the case of an order for possession on any other ground.
(3) The relocation payment shall be made no less than two weeks before the date specified in the notice of proceedings for possession.’”
This new clause would require landlords to pay a “relocation payment” to tenants when evicting them from their property within two years of the start of the tenancy, except on the grounds of crime and antisocial behaviour.
New clause 40—Guarantor to have no further liability following death of tenant—
“(1) Subject to subsection (3), a guarantee agreement relating to a relevant tenancy ceases to have effect upon the death of a relevant tenant.
(2) Upon the death of a relevant tenant the guarantor in respect of a relevant tenancy shall incur no further liability in relation to matters arising under the tenancy.
(3) Nothing in this section shall affect the liability of a guarantor in relation to matters which arose before the date of the death of the relevant tenant.
(4) In assessing any liability under subsection (3), account shall be taken of any tenancy deposit paid in respect of the tenancy.
(5) Where there is more than one relevant tenant, this section shall apply only upon the death of both or all of the tenants.
(6) In this section—
‘guarantor’ means a person who enters into a guarantee agreement in relation to a relevant tenancy;
‘guarantee agreement’ means a contractual promise (whether incorporated in or separate from the tenancy agreement) to indemnify or compensate a relevant person in respect of an obligation under the tenancy if the tenant fails to perform or comply with the obligation;
‘relevant tenancy’ has the same meaning as in section 36, and ‘relevant tenant’ is to be interpreted accordingly;
‘tenancy deposit’ has the same meaning as in section 212(8) of the Housing Act 2004.”
This new clause would mean that guarantors in relation to a tenancy have no liability for future matters arising from the tenancy after the tenant has died.
New clause 41—Prohibition of requirement for rent guarantors—
“(1) A relevant person may not, in relation to a dwelling that is to be let on a relevant tenancy—
(a) require the provision of a rental guarantor or an equivalent upfront payment;
(b) let the relevant tenancy on the basis of being offered a rental guarantor or an equivalent payment by a prospective tenant.
(2) For the purposes of this section, ‘relevant person’ and ‘relevant tenancy’ have the meanings given in section 36 of this Act.”
This new clause would prohibit landlords from requiring prospective tenants to provide rent guarantors or equivalent upfront payments, and prohibit them from prioritising prospective tenants who offer them over those who do not.
Government amendments 200 to 205 and 57.
Amendment 14, in clause 3, page 3, leave out lines 21 to 23 and insert—
Government amendments 56, 58 and 59.
Amendment 15, page 3, line 33, at end insert—
“(4) The Secretary of State must lay before Parliament a review of the changes to grounds for possession made under this Act within two years of the date of Royal Assent.”
Government amendment 206.
Amendment 21, in clause 6, page 7, line 4, at end insert—
“13B Recovery of rent
(1) Any increased rent which is paid otherwise than in accordance with section 13 or section 13A is recoverable from the landlord by the tenant as a debt claim in the courts.
(2) The Secretary of State may, by regulations, provide for such claims to be recoverable by proceedings in the First-Tier Tribunal, rather than the courts.”
This amendment would ensure that in instances where a private landlord increases the rent without issuing a section 13 or section 13A notice the tenant can seek to recover costs through a debt claim in the court. It also provides the government with the power by regulation for such claims to be recoverable by tribunal.
Government amendment 207.
Amendment 261, in clause 7, page 8, line 2, at end insert—
“(c) in paragraph (c), at end insert—
‘and,
(d) that it was financed or part-financed by a means-tested grant’.”
This amendment will prevent rents from being increased by a tribunal as a consequence of improvements to properties that have been financed or part-financed by a means-tested grant.
Amendment 22, page 8, line 9, at end insert—
“(7A) After subsection (8) insert—
‘(8A) Where a notice under section 13(2) has been referred to the appropriate tribunal then, unless the landlord and the tenant otherwise agree, the rent determined by the appropriate tribunal (subject, in a case where subsection (5) above applies, to the addition of the appropriate amount in respect of rates) shall be the same or below the rent specified in the section 13 notice and the rent as determined by the tribunal shall only become payable once the decision of the tribunal has become final.
(8B) A decision becomes final only on the latest of—
(a) the determination of any appeal;
(b) if earlier, on the expiry of the time for bringing a subsequent appeal (if any); or
(c) by its being abandoned or otherwise ceasing to have effect.’”
This amendment would ensure that where a rent assessment is carried out by a tribunal, the rent subsequently determined by that tribunal cannot be higher than that originally requested by a landlord in a section 13 notice.
Amendment 13, page 8, line 20, at end insert—
“(c) no more than the rent proposed by the landlord in the notice served on the tenant under section 13 of the 1988 Act.”
This amendment would mean that the rent payable after a tribunal determination can be no higher than the rent initially proposed by the landlord in the notice served on the tenant.
Amendment 23, page 9, line 5, at end insert
“which must be no earlier than two months following the date of determination”.
This amendment would ensure that in cases of undue hardship tenants would have a minimum of two months from the date of determination before a new rent became payable.
Amendment 24, page 9, line 6, leave out subsection (4) and insert—
“(4A) A date specified under subsection (3)(b) must be no earlier than the date on which the determination becomes final, with a decision only becoming final on the latest of—
(a) the determination of any appeal;
(b) if earlier, on the expiry of the time for bringing a subsequent appeal (if any); or
(c) by its being abandoned or otherwise ceasing to have effect.”
This amendment would remove the requirement for a date determined by a court for rent to become payable in cases of undue hardship to not be later than the date of the determination.
Amendment 31, in clause 9, page 9, line 29, leave out “42nd” and insert “28th”.
This amendment would ensure a landlord gives or refuses consent in writing within 28 days of the request being made.
Amendment 32, page 9, line 30, at and insert—
“(d) the landlord may not review or withdraw consent once given.”
This amendment ensures that a tenant may keep a pet for the duration of their tenancy once consent has been given.
Government amendments 60, 208, 61, 209, 63, 210, 62 and 211.
Amendment 38, in clause 12, page 14, line 18, at end insert—
“(g) unreasonably refuse home adaptations for the purposes of a disabled person's access to or usage of the home.”
Amendment 11, page 14, line 21, after “dwelling-house” insert
“or the short-term let or holiday let”.
This amendment would clarify that a landlord cannot let a property as a short-term or holiday let for at least three months after taking ownership of the property for the purposes of them or their family occupying it.
Government amendment 64.
Amendment 1, page 14, line 26, after “dwelling-house” insert
“or the short-term let or holiday let”.
This amendment would clarify that a landlord cannot let a property as a short-term or holiday let for at least three months after taking ownership of the property for the purposes of them or their family occupying it.
Government amendment 65.
Amendment 2, page 14, line 28, after “dwelling-house” insert
“or the short-term let or holiday let”.
This amendment would clarify that a landlord cannot let a property as a short-term or holiday let for at least three months after taking ownership of the property for the purposes of them or their family occupying it.
Government amendments 66, 67 and 212.
Amendment 3, page 15, line 15, leave out “three” and insert “six”.
This amendment would increase the time which must elapse between a landlord taking ownership of a property for the purposes of them or their family occupying it and making the property available to rent from three months to six months.
Amendment 35, page 15, line 15, leave out “three” and insert “twelve”.
This amendment would extend the restricted period in relation to a tenancy in relation to which Ground 1 or 1A in Schedule 2 is relied on from three to twelve months.
Amendment 36, page 15, line 17, leave out subsection (b).
This amendment would ensure that the restricted period is as specified in (8)(a) in all circumstances.
Government amendments 68 to 75, 213, 214, 195, 215 to 217 and 76.
Amendment 6, in clause 17, page 25, line 18, after “given” insert
“not earlier than four months after a tenant first occupies the premises and”.
This amendment would mean that tenants cannot give notice to quit until they have resided in the property for at least four months.
Government amendments 77 to 80, 218 to 220 and 81 to 85.
Amendment 43, in clause 29, page 32, line 23, leave out “section 27 or 28” and insert
“sections 27, 28 or [Discrimination relating to care-leaver status]”.
Amendment 44, in clause 30, page 34, line 21, at end insert—
“(5) A term of a relevant tenancy or regulated tenancy is of no effect so far as the term makes provision (however expressed) prohibiting the tenant from being—
(a) a relevant child as defined by section 23A of the Children’s Act 1989; or
(b) a former relevant child as defined by section 23C of the Children’s Act 1989.
(6) Subsection (5) does not apply if the landlord or a superior landlord is insured under a contract of insurance—
(a) to which section 33 does not apply, and
(b) which contains a term which makes provision (however expressed) requiring the insured to prohibit the tenant from being a relevant or former relevant child.
and the provision in the tenancy is a means of preventing the insured from breaching that term.”
Amendment 45, in clause 31, page 35, line 12, at end insert—
“(4A) A term of a lease of premises that consist of or include a dwelling is of no effect so far as the term makes provision (however expressed) requiring a tenant under that or any inferior lease to prohibit a sub-tenant under a relevant tenancy or regulated tenancy from prohibiting the tenant from being—
(a) a relevant child as defined by section 23A of the Children’s Act 1989; or
(b) a former relevant child as defined by section 23C of the Children’s Act 1989.
(4B) Subsection (4A) does not apply if the landlord under the lease or a superior landlord is insured under a contract of insurance—
(a) to which section 33 does not apply, and
(b) which contains a term which makes provision (however expressed) requiring the insured to prohibit a sub-tenant from being a relevant or former relevant child.
and the provision in the lease is a means of preventing the insured from breaching that term.”
Amendment 46, in clause 32, page 35, line 30, at end insert—
“(3) A term of a mortgage of premises that consist of or include a dwelling is of no effect so far as the term makes provision (however expressed) requiring a mortgagor to prohibit a tenant under a relevant tenancy or regulated tenancy from being—
(a) a relevant child as defined by section 23A of the Children’s Act 1989; or
(b) a former relevant child as defined by section 23C of the Children’s Act 1989.”
Amendment 47, in clause 33, page 36, line 2, at end insert—
“(2A) A term of a contract of insurance to which this section applies is of no effect so far as the term makes provision (however expressed) requiring the insured to prohibit a tenant under a relevant tenancy or regulated tenancy from being—
(a) a relevant child as defined by section 23A of the Children’s Act 1989; or
(b) a former relevant child as defined by section 23C of the Children’s Act 1989.”
Government amendments 86 to 113, 115 and 116.
Government motion to transfer clause 40.
Government amendment 117 and 118.
Amendment 39, in clause 42, page 54, line 1, after “section 1” insert—
“(a) omit subsection (3);
(b) in subsection (3A) omit ‘the landlord of a residential occupier or an agent of the landlord’ and insert ‘a person’;
(c) after subsection (3B) insert—
‘(3BA) For the purposes of this subsection, services which are reasonably required for the occupation of the premises as a household include, but are not limited to—
(a) water,
(b) gas,
(c) electricity, and
(d) electronic communications networks and services’;
(d) omit subsection (3C);
(e)”.
This amendment would amend the offence of unlawful eviction and harassment of the occupier of a property under the Protection from Eviction Act 1977 so that the offence can be committed by any person (not just the landlord of their agent), and define the services with which interference can constitute an offence.
Amendment 40, page 55, line 2, at end insert—
“(3A) In section 3A, after subsection (9) insert—
‘(10) In any proceedings under any of the relevant statutory provisions in this Act, it shall be for the accused to prove that the tenancy or licence is excluded by virtue of subsections (2) or (3) above.’
(3B) After section 4 insert—
‘4A Rebuttable presumption of landlord
(1) In any action under Part 1 of this Act (including where a Financial Penalty Notice (FPN) is issued) there is a rebuttable presumption that the person to whom the residential occupier pays rent or other payments in respect of occupation of a dwelling is the landlord of the property.’
(3C) After section 7 insert—
‘7A Notification by the police
(1) Where a constable has reasonable cause to believe that an offence under the Protection from Eviction Act 1977 has occurred the constable must within 24 hours notify the authority named in section 6 as responsible for prosecution of offences in the area with the following information—
(a) the address where the alleged offence has happened;
(b) if known, the name of the landlord;
(c) if known, the name of the residential occupier;
(d) any facts known to the constable about the alleged offence.
(2) A police force has the power to assist an authority included in section 6 in the exercise of their functions under this Act.’”
This amendment would amend proceedings for offences under the Protection from Eviction Act 1977, so that it must be proved that a tenancy is an excluded tenancy, that there is a rebuttable presumption that the person to whom a tenant paid their rent is the landlord, and that the police must inform the relevant local authority when they suspect offences under the 1977 Act to have been committed.
Government amendments 119 to 121.
Amendment 4, in clause 45, page 59, line 36, after “landlord” insert
“who is not otherwise a member of an independent redress scheme approved by the Secretary of State.”
This amendment would only require a residential landlord to be a member of the landlord redress scheme introduced by Clause 45 if they are not already a member of another independent redress scheme which has been approved by the Secretary of State.
Government amendments 122 to 134.
Amendment 27, in clause 53, page 67, line 18, at end insert—
“(ba) details, which may include copies, of all notices seeking possession served by the residential landlord in respect of each dwelling of which he is the landlord, and”.
This amendment would require the database to record details of notices of possession served by a landlord in respect of each dwelling of which they are the landlord.
Amendment 42, in clause 55, page 68, line 27, at end insert—
“(ba) require the provision of information about the accessibility of the dwelling,”.
Amendment 12, page 68, line 33, at end insert—
“(2A) Regulations under subsection (1) must require—
(a) the energy performance certificate relating to a registrable dwelling to be provided to the database operator; and
(b) details of the energy performance certificate to be recorded in a dwelling entry in the database.”
This amendment would require Energy Performance Certificates in relation to relevant dwellings to be provided to the database operator and details to be recorded in the database.
Government amendments 135 to 137.
Amendment 37, in clause 76, page 84, line 34, at end insert—
“(e) any accommodation which is provided by the Defence Infrastructure Organisation to service individuals and families.”
This amendment would ensure that accommodation rented from the Defence Infrastructure Organisation by service individuals and families is subject to the Decent Homes Standard.
Amendment 7, page 85, line 26, leave out clause 78.
Amendment 41, in clause 78, page 86, line 4, after “(order),” insert—
“(a) in subsection (1), before ‘The First-tier Tribunal’ insert ‘Apart from offences for which subsection (1A) applies,’;
(b) after subsection (1) insert—
‘(1A) The First-tier Tribunal may make a rent repayment order if satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the landlord has committed an offence under section 1(2), (3) or (3A) of the Protection from Eviction Act 1977 (whether or not the landlord has been convicted).’;
(c) at the end of subsection (3) insert—
‘(d) section 46A (where an order is made against more than one landlord or there has been a previous order)’;
(d)”.
This amendment would lower the level of proof required in proceedings for a Rent Repayment Order in the First-tier Tribunal to the balance of probabilities for offences under the 1977 Act.
Government amendments 196, 138 and 139, 197, 140 to 144, 221, 145 and 146, 222 and 147 to 151.
Amendment 8, in clause 116, page 111, line 19, leave out “subsection (2)” and insert “subsections (1A) and (2)”.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 9.
Amendment 28, page 111, line 19, at end insert
“, save that section 2(b) comes into force on the day on which this Act is passed only to the extent that it repeals section 21 of the Housing Act 1988; such repeal will not affect the validity of any notices served under that provision on or before the day on which this Act is passed and the provisions of that section will continue to apply to any claims issued in respect of such a notice”.
This amendment would ensure that the abolition of section 21 evictions would come into force on Royal Assent, with saving provisions for any notices served before that date.
Amendment 9, page 111, line 19, at end insert—
“(1A) Prior to laying regulations under subsection (1) the Secretary of State must commission and publish a review into the operation of residential possession proceedings in the County Courts used by residential landlords and tenants and the enforcement of possession orders.”
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to publish a review of the operation of residential possession proceedings before determining the commencement date for the provisions of Chapter 1 of Part 1.
Government amendments 152 to 157.
Government new schedule 1—Amendments in connection with landlord redress schemes.
Government amendment 223.
Amendment 48, in schedule 1, page 114, line 10, leave out “6 months” and insert “one year”.
Amendment 255, page 114, line 10, leave out “6 months” and insert “2 years”.
Amendments 255 and 256 would prohibit evictions under grounds 1 and 1A within two years of the beginning of a tenancy.
Government amendment 224.
Amendment 49, page 115, line 8, leave out “6 months” and insert “one year”.
Amendment 256, page 115, line 8, leave out “6 months” and insert “2 years”.
Amendments 255 and 256 would prohibit evictions under grounds 1 and 1A within two years of the beginning of a tenancy.
Government amendment 225.
Amendment 33, page 115, line 32, leave out sub-paragraph (a) and insert—
“(a) the landlord who is seeking possession intends to—
(i) sell a freehold or leasehold interest in the dwelling-house or to grant a lease of the dwelling-house for a term certain of more than 21 years which is not terminable before the end of that term by notice given by or to the landlord;
(ii) re-let the dwelling house to another tenant pursuant to a Rent to Buy Agreement; or
(iii) retain and convert the home to rented housing on either an affordable or market rent basis;”.
This amendment covers the full scope of reasons that private registered providers of social housing may wish to use the new ground for possession 1B for to offer properties to another tenant.
Government amendment 158.
Amendment 34, page 116, line 12, leave out sub-paragraph (b) and insert—
“(b) allows the tenant to rent the dwelling house for a period stated in the agreement, which is not less than 5 years or, for dwelling houses in Greater London, 10 years from the beginning of the tenancy so as to enable the tenant to save for a deposit and, over time, purchase their first home.”
This amendment would ensure the wording for the definition of “Rent to Buy Agreement” at sub-paragraph (b) is an accurate reflection of the Rent to Buy product and is in line with the Capital Funding Guide.
Amendment 29, page 116, line 29, after “tenancy” insert
“(including any tenancy at will or other tenancy arising on expiry of a fixed-term lease)”.
This amendment would extend Ground 2ZA to apply in a situation where a tenancy at will may arise.
Government amendments 159 and 160.
Amendment 30, page 117, line 5, at end insert—
“(c) where the intermediate landlord serves notice under this Ground, the intermediate landlord shall be deemed to continue to hold sufficient interest in the dwelling-house to maintain a continuing right to possession until conclusion of any possession proceedings.”
This amendment would ensure that an intermediate landlord retains possession of the property and remains as the landlord of the occupying tenant until the conclusion of possession proceedings.
Government amendments 161, 163 and 164, and 226.
Amendment 5, page 118, line 4, after “HMO” insert
“or is occupied by one or two students”.
This amendment would mean that the ground for possession for student properties could also be used for properties occupied by just one or two students, which would not otherwise be considered as HMOs.
Government amendments 227 to 229.
Amendment 260, page 118, line 12, at end insert—
“(ca) the tenancy agreement was not signed earlier than March of the year in which the tenancy commenced.”
This amendment would end the pressure for joint tenancies to be signed too early in the academic year, committing students to accommodation before they are ready.
Government amendments 165 to 174, 230, 175 and 231 to 234.
Amendment 52, page 122, line 34, leave out “of an intention” and insert—
“that the landlord may intend”.
Amendment 53, page 122, line 35, at end insert—
“or the Court is of the opinion that it is just and equitable to dispose of the requirement to serve a written statement.”
Amendment 50, page 123, line 3, leave out lines 3 to 9.
Amendment 51, page 125, line 13, at end insert—
“Ground 6AA
A relevant social landlord granted a tenancy of the dwelling house to the tenant as temporary decant accommodation in order to demolish their original home in the context of re-development and the landlord seeking possession requires vacant possession of the dwelling house because—
(a) the landlord has served the tenant with notice that the new home is ready to move into, or
(b) the temporary use of the accommodation has otherwise come to an end.”
Amendment 16, page 125, leave out line 17.
This amendment would retain the existing 12-month period within which the landlord can initiate proceedings on this ground for possession.
Amendment 55, page 125, line 17, at end insert—
“(ab) At the end of the second unnumbered paragraph, insert—
‘This ground applies only where the landlord is a private registered provider of social housing.’”
Amendment 17, page 125, line 18, at end insert—
“(c) at the end of the last unnumbered paragraph insert—
‘This ground applies only where the landlord is a private registered provider of social housing.’”
This amendment would limit the use of Ground 7 of Schedule 2 of the 1988 Act to social rented housing.
Amendment 18, page 125, line 30, leave out paragraph 23.
This amendment would remove the new ground for possession for repeated rent arrears.
Amendment 19, page 125, line 30, leave out “After Ground 8” and insert “Before Ground 9”.
This amendment would move new Ground 8A from the list of mandatory grounds for possession (in Part I of Schedule 2 to the Housing Act 1988) to the list of discretionary grounds for possession (in Part II of Schedule 2 to the Housing Act 1988).
Amendment 257, page 126, line 12, at end insert—
“23A In Ground 12, after ‘performed’ insert ‘provided that failure to carry out this obligation could—
(a) be reasonably expected to have a material adverse effect on the safety, health, or lives of any residents in that property or adjoining property; or
(b) cause material damage to the property not contemplated in any form of property safety deposit scheme relating to the tenancy.’”
This amendment would amend Ground 12 (possession due to failure to carry out an obligation of the tenancy) so that a tenant cannot be evicted if the obligation does not pose serious risk to the wellbeing of the tenants or the property (such as putting a poster in a window or putting washing on display).
Amendment 20, page 126, line 14, leave out paragraph 24.
This amendment would maintain the existing definition of anti-social behaviour as being conduct causing or likely to cause a nuisance or annoyance, rather than being defined as behaviour “capable of causing” nuisance or annoyance.
Government amendments 235 and 236, 176 and 177, 237, 178 to 181, 238, 182 to 184, 245, 258, 246 and 247, 198 and 248 to 253.
Amendment 25, in schedule 2, page 128, line 29, leave out “omit subsection (5)” and insert
“for subsection (5) substitute—
(5) A person is also threatened with homelessness if—
(a) a valid notice has been given to the person under section 8 of the Housing Act 1988 in respect of the only accommodation the person has that is available for the person’s occupation, and
(b) that notice will expire within 56 days.”
This amendment would maintain the homelessness prevention duty owed by local authorities to persons who have received a notice to vacate a property and would extend it to notices for possession issued under section 8 of the Housing Act 1988.
Government amendment 239.
Amendment 26, page 129, line 1, leave out “omit subsection (6)” and insert
“for subsection (6) substitute—
(6) But the authority may not give notice to the applicant under subsection (5) on the basis that the circumstances in subsection (8)(b) apply if a valid notice has been given to the applicant under section 8 of the Housing Act 1988 that—
(a) will expire within 56 days or has expired, and
(b) is in respect of the only accommodation that is available for the applicant’s occupation.”
This amendment would ensure that the homelessness prevention duty owed by a local authority cannot end whilst a valid notice under section 8 of the Housing Act 1988 has been issued in respect of the only accommodation available to that person.
Government amendments 240, 254, 259, 185, 241, 186, 242, 187, 199, 243, 188 to 192, 244 and 194.
Jacob Young
I am delighted to bring the Renters (Reform) Bill back to the House on Report. I express my gratitude to Members across the House for their contributions on Second Reading and in Committee, and for their continued engagement throughout. I thank my predecessors, my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall North (Eddie Hughes), whose Parliamentary Private Secretary I had the privilege of being as he steered the White Paper, and my hon. Friend the Member for Redditch (Rachel Maclean), whose Whip I had the privilege of being as she steered the Bill on Second Reading. I have seen the Bill at every stage of its formation, and I can say to the House that the Bill we are discussing today would not have been possible without their hard work and dedication. I also pay tribute to the hon. Members for Greenwich and Woolwich (Matthew Pennycook) and for North Shropshire (Helen Morgan) for their constructive engagement and commitment to seeing the Bill delivered, so that its benefits can be realised.
The Bill will create a fairer private rented sector for both landlords and tenants, delivering on the Government’s 2019 manifesto commitment. The Bill brings in the most significant reforms for the sector in over 30 years. It will abolish section 21 of the Housing Act 1988 and bring in new decency standards, giving England’s 11 million tenants more certainty of secure and healthy homes. It will mean that tenants will be supported to hold down jobs in their local area, children to stay in the same school, and households to put down roots in their communities. Alongside abolishing section 21, we are strengthening and expanding landlord possession grounds, including stronger protections against antisocial behaviour. Combined with our reforms to ensure a modern court system, that will ensure that landlords retain confidence in getting back their properties when they need to, safeguarding their investment.
The new private rented sector ombudsman will resolve tenants’ disputes and support landlords in handling complaints effectively. That will help to avoid disagreements escalating unnecessarily to the courts, saving both landlords and tenants time and money. Our new property portal will make landlords’ responsibilities clear in one place and support tenants to make more informed choices. We are also providing stronger protections for renters with pets, recognising the joy that pets can bring. However, the Bill must strike a balance between delivering that security for tenants and fairness to landlords.
Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)
This morning, the Secretary of State had the brass neck to suggest that to keep his promise to outlaw no-fault evictions before the next election it is now down to the House of Lords to get on with it. Will the Minister tell us which is more disingenuous: the five years we have been waiting for the Government to keep their promise, or the blatant concessions to the significant numbers of Conservative MPs who are landlords, who have been gifted what amounts to an indefinite delay to the ban on no-fault evictions?
Jacob Young
As I said, we introduced the White Paper in 2022. We published the Bill just last year in 2023, and we are taking it forward today to abolish section 21. She talks about Conservative Members. I can tell her—she will not read this in the newspapers—that I have been lobbied by Members on both sides of this House to ensure that the reforms work effectively. That is what the changes that we are making today on Report will do. They will bring balance to the Bill, delivering security for tenants and, as I said, fairness to landlords. The amendments will ensure that the new tenancy system works effectively.
Feryal Clark (Enfield North) (Lab)
Since the Government promised to outlaw section 21 evictions in 2019, more than 2,000 people in Enfield have been subject to no-fault evictions, costing the council millions of pounds to rehouse them. The Minister talks about fairness to landlords, but does he recognise the cost to renters, and indeed to local authorities through temporary accommodation?
Jacob Young
I absolutely accept that there is a cost. What I would say is that a system that does not work for landlords will not benefit tenants, and a system that does not benefit tenants will not benefit landlords in the long run either. We have to find a balance in the Bill. That is what our amendments will deliver. The amendments we introduced in Committee include expanding the range of factors that a judge must consider when evicting antisocial tenants, providing stronger protections for landlords and neighbourhoods against unacceptable behaviour. We also added a new ground for possession to protect the functioning of the student market and ensure that students’ landlords can continue to evict in line with the academic year.
Turning to housing quality, although the vast majority of landlords provide warm and decent homes, some fall short of that standard. It is unacceptable for any tenant to live in damp, cold or dangerous housing. For that reason, we introduced measures in Committee to apply and enforce a decent homes standard in the private rented sector for the first time. That new standard, which we are designing with landlord and tenant groups, will be set out in secondary legislation. We also introduced measures to outlaw deeply unfair blanket bans on renting to those with children or those in receipt of benefits in England and Wales. Those practices have no place in a fair and modern housing market.
Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)
Will the Minister assure us that proper energy efficiency standards will be contained in the decent homes standard? Otherwise, tenants will still be living in damp and cold homes because they will be unable to afford to heat them.
Jacob Young
I commit to working with the Chair of the Levelling Up, Housing and Communities Committee, and indeed with all Members of the House, to ensure that the decent homes standard provides for decent homes of the kind that he describes.
This is the first time we have applied the decent homes standard to the private rented sector, and we have to get it right. In order to target the minority of unscrupulous landlords, in Committee we also gave stronger powers to local councils, and we strengthened rent repayment orders. That will help to ensure effective and proportionate enforcement of the new system.
Let me turn to the Government amendments that we have tabled on Report. They respond to concerns from Members, constituents, and tenant and landlord groups, ensuring security for tenants while giving confidence to good landlords and supporting the private rented market. Several Members from across the House have played a direct role in helping us to ensure that the Bill works as effectively as possible for all those who live and work in the private rented sector. I of course include in that my hon. Friends the Members for Totnes (Anthony Mangnall) and for Northampton South (Andrew Lewer) for their continued engagement and constructive dialogue on the measures in the Bill.
Ms Karen Buck (Westminster North) (Lab)
I am listening to the Minister carefully. From his contribution, we would not think that there was any controversy at all about the position we have got to with the legislation. If everything is so wonderful, why have all the key housing charities and organisations in the field withdrawn their support for the Government?
Jacob Young
They have not withdrawn their support. I accept their disappointment with some of the amendments tabled on Report, but they have also endorsed some of them, including one that I know is very close to the hon. Lady’s heart in relation to expanding the homelessness prevention duty, which has the support of organisations such as Crisis, the homelessness charity. We will continue to work with everyone across the sector to ensure that the Bill is effective when it goes to the other place.
Turning to the amendments, I will address them thematically, starting with our tenancy reform measures. Government new clause 15 will ensure that a tenant’s notice to quit cannot expire within the first six months of the tenancy unless the landlord has agreed that it can expire sooner, thus increasing the amount of time a tenant must remain in a property at the start of the tenancy from two to six months. The change ensures that landlords are able to recover the costs of replacing tenants and will prevent tenants from using PRS properties as short-term or holiday lets.
Once the six-month initial period of commitment has ended, the tenancy will continue as a normal periodic tenancy, so after the six-month period tenants will need to give only two months’ notice. That ensures that tenants will retain the flexibility to end tenancies when their circumstances change or when a landlord does not fulfil their responsibilities. This measure strikes the right balance between providing landlords with the confidence they need to operate within the PRS and ensuring a fairer, simpler tenancy system.
In addition, the Government are exploring potential exemptions to the rule, such as the death of a tenant, domestic abuse or significant hazards within the property. Today I met the Domestic Abuse Housing Alliance to reaffirm our intention on the exemption and make clear that victims of domestic violence will be better protected by these reforms.
Government amendments 239 and 240, which I have just mentioned to the hon. Member for Westminster North (Ms Buck), will give tenants certainty that the homelessness prevention duty will be owed when a valid section 8 notice is served. I pay particular tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) for his contributions on this topic, ensuring that his landmark Homelessness Reduction Act 2017 continues to be effective. The prevention duty will apply where the date specified in the notice is within 56 days and the duty may not be ended simply because the 56 days has passed. This means that households can continue to receive support while the threat of homelessness remains. Mindful that that will broaden the scope of the prevention duty, we will carry out a new burdens assessment and provide funding for local authorities for any additional costs.
Alongside expanding the homelessness prevention duty, let me take this opportunity to restate our position on another important issue. The statutory homelessness code of guidance, which local authorities must have regard to, states that authorities should not consider it reasonable for a homeless applicant to remain in the property until a court issues a bailiff warrant or writ to enforce a possession order. We have heard anecdotal evidence that some local authorities are encouraging tenants on a blanket basis to remain in a property until the bailiffs are at the door. That is wrong. Doing so creates further delays in possession, penalises landlords, who have a legal right to their property, can be stressful for the tenant and, in the long run, is not beneficial for them at all. The guidance is clear on the importance of early prevention: authorities should contact landlords at an early stage to understand the circumstances of an eviction and establish what steps can be taken to prevent homelessness.
The Government are also working to ensure that families can move out of temporary accommodation and into stable accommodation, as well as reducing the need for temporary accommodation by preventing homelessness before it occurs in the first place. That is why we are investing more than £1.2 billion in the homelessness prevention grant over the next three years, including a £129 million top-up for the homelessness prevention grant for 2024-25, as part of an unprecedented £2.4 billion to tackle homelessness and rough sleeping.
It is expected, furthermore, that the £1.2 billion local housing fund will enable councils in England to obtain better-quality temporary accommodation for those owed a homelessness duty, providing a lasting affordable asset. It is expected to provide around 7,000 homes by 2026, to ease local homelessness pressures, reduce spending on unsuitable bed and breakfast accommodation and provide safe and sustainable housing for local communities.
Government amendments 64 to 75 extend the restrictions on re-letting and marketing a property following the use of the moving in and selling grounds to cover licences to occupy as well as tenancies. This will mean that landlords and people acting on their behalf, such as letting agents, will be prohibited from letting or marketing a property as a short-term or holiday let following the use of those grants. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for North Devon (Selaine Saxby) and the hon. Member for North Shropshire for raising this matter in Committee. The change closes a loophole in the no re-letting period and helps to ensure that the balance between long-term and shorter-term lets remains stable.
I turn now to Government amendments to the possession grant, starting with the student market—I know this is an issue close to the heart of my hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough (Jane Hunt). As I have said, in Committee the Government introduced a new ground for evicting full-time students, to maintain a yearly churn of student housing. Since introducing that ground, we have heard concerns that the ground would not apply when students are living in smaller properties or in houses of multiple occupation on individual contracts.
Government amendments 226 to 228 expand the circumstances in which the student ground can be used. Landlords will be able to ensure that properties rented to students, whether they are living individually, in pairs or in larger shared housing, will be vacated in the summer, as long as all the tenants on the tenancy agreement are students. To protect tenants, we have strengthened the requirement for landlords to provide notice to the tenant at the outset of the tenancy that the ground may be used to evict them. Possession will not be possible using this ground unless written notice has been given by the landlord at the beginning of the tenancy.
Government amendment 158 will extend ground 1B to allow social landlords to re-let their property to a different tenant on rent-to-buy terms, protecting the supply of such properties. The grant will be available only after the sitting tenant’s discounted rent period has ended and they have been offered the chance to purchase the property. I thank the National Housing Federation for raising this issue.
Government amendments 175 and 184 insert a new possession ground 5H into schedule 2 to the Housing Act 1988, which will allow private registered providers of social housing and charities to continue to operate schemes sometimes known as stepping-stone accommodation. We are keen to support those schemes, which help those who have struggled to access the private rented sector, and I am grateful to Centrepoint and the Mayor of the West Midlands, Andy Street, for drawing that point to my attention. I thank Andy Street for all he is doing to support such organisations.
Government amendments 198 and 199 and new clause 29 serve to replicate an existing mechanism that allows landlords of qualifying agricultural workers to provide assured shorthold tenancies rather than more secure assured agricultural occupancies. The amendment was the main ask of the Country Land and Business Association and is vital to maintaining the supply of homes for rural workers by protecting the status quo. It will ensure that opted-out agricultural occupancies under the old system will continue to be opted out when they transition to the new tenancy system.
Leaseholders have raised the issue that many leaseholder agreements restrict sub-letting on assured shorthold and fixed-term tenancies. Amendments including Government amendments 160 to 164 and new clause 13 will address that ask by ensuring that sub-leases made under those agreements can continue unabated under the new tenancy system and that new agreements can be made if they were previously permitted. We have drafted the provisions very carefully to ensure that superior landlords and leaseholders have corresponding rights and responsibilities, as they did under the previous system.
Government new clauses 18 to 24 extend to Scotland the provisions outlawing blanket bans on letting to tenants in receipt of benefits or with children, in consultation with the Scottish Government. They do so in a broadly similar way to those in England and Wales, with adjustments to align with the Scottish enforcement framework, demonstrating a cross-nation commitment to tackling discrimination in the private rented sector.
In part 2 of the Bill we have made technical amendments to our redress clauses, including ensuring that the PRS landlord ombudsman can co-operate with other dispute resolution services. The amendments will ensure that the ombudsman operates effectively. Although no final decision on the ombudsman provider has been made, our amendments would also allow the housing ombudsman service to effectively administer private landlord redress alongside social redress.
A key driver in having a single ombudsman to resolve private landlord-tenant disputes is making the service simple to use. I reiterate to hon. Members that the Government are absolutely committed to minimising costs and streamlining new requirements for landlords. Our ambition is that fees for the PRS landlord ombudsman will be low cost and will represent value for money for landlords, similar to those for the housing ombudsman, where membership costs for social landlords were just £5.75 per unit in 2023-24. I also reaffirm our commitment to aligning the ombudsman and property portal, with the ambition being that landlords will need to input their details only once in order to be compliant with both services.
Let me turn to enforcement of the new system. We introduced measures in Committee to ensure that all landlords involved in criminal rent-to-rent arrangements can be held to account, including superior landlords where they are aware of illegal activity. Government new clause 32 ensures that superior landlords are liable for the Housing Act 2004 offences of failing to hold the correct licence for a property. Government new clause 33 seeks to ensure that landlords and superior landlords can, where appropriate, be served with improvement notices requiring the removal of hazards. Those changes close loopholes, ensuring that local councils can continue to hold the correct landlord to account to ensure that their properties are safe and well managed.
Jeff Smith (Manchester, Withington) (Lab)
If the Government are putting all that money in and doing all this planning, why can the Minister still not give us a date for when it will happen?
Jacob Young
As I have just said, we have always been clear that we will abolish section 21 when we are confident that the county court system is ready. I cannot give the hon. Gentleman a date today because I cannot say until we are confident that the county court system is ready, but as I have said, we are investing £1.2 million for HM Courts and Tribunals Service to deliver the new process. It is important for him to recognise that if the court system is not ready when we make this change—the biggest change in 30 years—it will not benefit tenants. It will not benefit landlords, but it will certainly not benefit tenants.
Sir Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)
I welcome new clause 30, because the reality is that county courts are already under very great pressure indeed. However, carrying out the assessment will itself bring a cost and, of course, Ministry of Justice budgets are already strained. What steps will be taken to support the Ministry of Justice and the Lord Chancellor with the cost of carrying out that important assessment?
Jacob Young
My hon. and learned Friend is absolutely right. We have committed to making the assessment, so we will ensure that the relevant funding is in place. I have said that we have invested £1.2 million for HM Courts and Tribunals Service to deliver a new end-to-end online possession process, but I am pleased also to confirm to him today that we are investing a further £11 million this financial year to deliver a new digital system.
Mr Betts
The Minister has tried to blame the Levelling Up, Housing and Communities Committee for this delay by saying that we noted that there was a problem in the courts, which would need to be ready to deal with the extra work caused by the abolition of section 21. However, the Government have had five years to sort the courts out and get them working properly. Surely that has been planned for right from the last election. On the Select Committee asking for improvements to the courts, I just point out that we asked for a specialist housing court—a bit like a small claims court—that could process things more quickly. We did not ask for that in our report last year; we asked for it in 2018, and the Government rejected it.
Jacob Young
I think I have been quite clear that it is important that we see that the courts are ready for these reforms. The Under-Secretary of State for Justice, my hon. Friend the Member for Finchley and Golders Green (Mike Freer), is here on the Front Bench with me. He and the MOJ are working at pace to ensure that the courts are ready for the reforms we are introducing. The hon. Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts) asks about a specialist housing court. We do not believe that that is the best way to improve the court process for possession—a view shared by the judiciary who responded to our call for evidence.
Neil O’Brien (Harborough) (Con)
The Chair of the Levelling Up, Housing and Communities Committee, the hon. Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts), rightly said that this should have happened five years ago, but I gently say that in those five years we have had the coronavirus pandemic, which is the main thing that has slowed down the process of improving the courts. I strongly encourage the Minister not to rush into doing this prematurely, because it would benefit neither tenants nor landlords if he did.
Jacob Young
I do not think that it will surprise you, Madam Deputy Speaker, to learn that I entirely agree with my hon. Friend, whom I thank for making those points.
Government new clause 30 will enable the Government to assess the effect that our new tenancy system is having on county courts before our reforms are rolled out more widely, giving us confidence that the sector is ready. I am happy to share with colleagues that we are exploring whether serious eviction cases, such as for antisocial behaviour, can be prioritised in court listings. We will consult on options following Royal Assent.
Dominic Raab (Esher and Walton) (Con)
I recently met Rentstart, a homelessness organisation with a great track record of working with landlords and getting the homeless into rented accommodation. It is slightly concerned that the changes might undermine its relationship with landlords, which it uses to facilitate the finding of homes for many vulnerable constituents and other people who have come into the constituency. In relation to the assessment that new clause 30 would bring about, what reassurance can the Minister give such organisations?
Jacob Young
The assessment is there purely to determine the timeliness of possession proceedings. In addition, we must acknowledge that there are other barriers to possession, such as the role of local authorities and bailiffs in the process. I hope that that is what the assessment is able to draw out. On Rentstart in my right hon. Friend’s constituency, I do not believe that our reforms will affect its relationships with landlords, but I am more than happy to meet him and Rentstart to understand its concerns more clearly and see if we can do anything to address them.
Government new clause 35 requires the Government to arrange for a review of the new tenancy system, in particular the impact of removing fixed terms and the operation of grounds for possession. That review will be carried out by an independent person, who will produce a report of their findings. The new clause requires the Government to lay the report before Parliament within 18 months of the earliest date on which the new tenancy system is applied to existing tenancies. We recognise that removing fixed terms is a significant change for the sector, and the review will explicitly consider the impact of the change. It will also consider how comprehensive and fair the reformed grounds for possession are, as well as the extent to which they are operating effectively, so that all parties can have confidence in them.
As I have said, the new tenancy system is a huge change for the sector—the biggest in 30 years—and it is right that we commit in legislation to reviewing its impact and implementation, and that we consider whether changes are needed based on real-world evidence. That will ensure that the system works as well as possible for all parties in the long term.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
I have mentioned several times in debate, and in a useful meeting that I had with the Under-Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, the hon. Member for Kensington (Felicity Buchan), who is here, that there is a need to amend the Protection from Eviction Act 1977 at the same time, because there is a danger that frustrated rogue landlords will refer back to that legislation, which is very badly understood and not well enforced by the police and local authorities. Will the Minister say a few things about that?
Jacob Young
I am more than happy to address those points before the end of the debate, but I think that I have written to the hon. Lady about them. If I have not, I will ensure that I do in order to be clear about the amendments she has tabled.
Government new clause 36 places a duty on the Secretary of State to produce an annual report to Parliament on the stock of residential tenancies in the private rented sector. That report will need to be provided in the five years after the Bill receives Royal Assent. Reports under that duty would cover, but not be limited to, an analysis of the number, location and size of private rented sector properties. The new clause ensures that regular analysis of such information is available for scrutiny and debate.
I am aware that several Members have raised concerns about the interaction between the property portal and the role of selective licensing. The two systems have separate, distinct purposes: the portal will gather data on private rented sector ownership and property standards in England, providing an information source for local authorities to have oversight of the whole private rented sector in their area. It will help landlords to understand their legal obligations and will give tenants the information they need to make informed choices. Meanwhile, selective licensing provides local housing authorities with the powers to license privately rented properties within a designated area to address specific local issues, including poor housing conditions and high levels of antisocial behaviour or crime. While there will be overlap with data gathered through the portal, the information required for licences in these areas will be specific to the issue being tackled and will support more intensive enforcement action in the areas that need it most.
We do not want to see selective licensing abolished, but we do want to ensure that our reforms are streamlined and that burdens are minimised for landlords and local authorities. That is why I am committing to a review of selective licensing and the licensing of houses in multiple occupation to consider how we can reduce burdens and make the system more effective for landlords, tenants and local authorities. I am keen to work closely with Members and the wider sector on this issue, and will provide further details in due course.
I have sat on many Bill Committees in this House, and have now been privileged to lead my first Bill Committee, facing the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich. He has been a great person to work with and has sought at every opportunity to make sure the Bill works and is effective. I said to him in Committee that we would listen to suggestions for how we can improve the Bill, and we are doing so today. For tenants, we are expanding the homelessness prevention grant and closing loopholes in the system; for landlords, we are introducing an initial six-month tenancy and giving them certainty that our reforms will work. The Bill delivers on our manifesto commitments: it gives tenants security and landlords fairness. Our amendments continue to strike that balance, and I commend them to the House.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
Before I call the shadow Minister, I remind colleagues that if they wish to intervene on a speech, it is important that they have been in the Chamber since the beginning of the speech, just in case the important point they wish to raise has already been addressed. It is also important that they stay for the duration of the speech, in case other colleagues then refer to the important point that they have raised. I clarify that because we may have a longer speech from the shadow Minister, and people may wish to intervene, so I thought it would be helpful to remind colleagues of those rules.
Matthew Pennycook (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab)
I rise on behalf of the Opposition to speak to the new clauses and amendments that stand in my name.
It is a pleasure to finally be back in the Chamber to conclude the remaining stages of this important piece of legislation. I say “finally” because as you will know, Madam Deputy Speaker, the Bill left Committee on 28 November last year—almost five months ago. Indeed, such has been the delay in bringing it back to the House that in the intervening 147 days, the Department even managed to complete all the Commons stages of another piece of housing legislation—albeit a distinctly limited and unambitious one—in the form of the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Bill.
The reason for the delay is, of course, an open secret, with the ongoing resistance to the legislation from scores of Government Members—including many with relevant interests, as private renters across the country have certainly noted—and the undignified wrangling between them and Ministers splashed across the papers for months. The damage caused by the discord on the Government Benches has been significant: not only have thousands of additional private renters been put at risk of homelessness as a result of being served a section 21 notice in the months for which the Bill’s remaining stages have been delayed; the sector as a whole has been left in limbo, not knowing whether the Bill will proceed at all and, if it does, what form it will take.
Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)
The hon. Member is making an interesting point about uncertainty. I understand where he is coming from, and many of us on this side would very much like to see section 21 abolition implemented as soon as possible. Does he, however, accept that there is another uncertainty, which is that if the court system is not working adequately, the amount of private housing stock available for many of our constituents who need it badly could easily shrink fast, as indeed I believe has happened in Scotland? That would be a much greater risk than not laying out at this stage the precise date at which section 21 abolition will be fully implemented.
Matthew Pennycook
I would say two things to the hon. Gentleman, who makes a valid point. First, the Government have had five years, since they first made the commitment to abolish section 21, to get the courts fit for purpose, and they have not done so. Indeed, the timescales for both possession and litigation have remained essentially unchanged since 2019, so there has been no progress in those five years. The actual process of possession proceedings is also probably one of the more efficient aspects of the county court system. We heard extensive evidence in Committee about the fact that the system is essentially working fairly well and is recovering well from covid, and that these changes would not be significant enough to delay the implementation. Even if that were not the case, I would say to him that we should have clarity about precisely what are the improvements the Government think are necessary. Let us have metrics and let us have timelines, and then we can have an open and transparent conversation about precisely what “ready” means. At the moment, we are entirely in the dark.
We will remain in the dark even if Government new clause 30 is incorporated into the Bill, because it will merely require the Lord Chancellor to publish an assessment of the operation of the county court possession order process in England and its enforcement before the extended application date can be set for chapter 1 of part 1 of the Bill. There is no timescale in which that required assessment needs to be published, and there is nothing that specifies the metrics against which the Lord Chancellor would judge the readiness of the court system. There are no corresponding obligations imposed on the Secretary of State, so if a future Lord Chancellor assesses that funding or other specific measures are required to make the courts ready for the new system, there is nothing to compel the Government of the day to implement them. Even if a future Lord Chancellor were to assess that the courts were more than ready, it remains for the Secretary of State to determine whether they wish to make the relevant commencement order, even if clause 116 is amended by Government new clauses 27 and 28.
Sir Robert Neill
Like my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham), I understand where the hon. Gentleman is coming from, and I do not have a problem with the abolition of section 21 no-fault evictions. However, as a south-east London MP, he will know that the reality is that the county courts face enormous pressure, particularly in our part of the world. I hope that, before hon. Members perhaps criticise the Government too much, they will talk to their own local county courts, because the data is suggesting that, on average, we could be looking at about 55 weeks from the commencement of a possession claim until the decision is made, and on top of that we have the enforcement period. That is not acceptable, and I want it to be quicker, but we need to accept, therefore, as the Association of His Majesty’s District Judges has pointed out—and I have to say to hon. Members that the data the Justice Committee has is the most accurate—that there has been underfunding of the county courts for many years. Frankly, that has been under Governments of both parties, because I can remember when I was in practice and the hon. Gentleman’s party was in government, and there was underfunding of the county courts then as well. We all have to take our share of responsibility for that, rather than making it a matter of party controversy.
Matthew Pennycook
I thank the hon. and learned Gentleman for that point. We all want the processes to be quicker—I do not think that is in dispute at all—and they certainly could be made quicker. Landlords need robust grounds for possessions in legitimate circumstances, and they need the system to operate quickly when they do. The question for us today is: should we essentially put the abolition of section 21 on hold until we have reassurance about an undefined amount of improvement and if we do not know when that is going to be delivered?
Feryal Clark
All I have heard is about the importance of ensuring that the courts are functioning quickly enough to enable landlords to evict the tenants they want to evict, but currently renters have just over a month before they are evicted. I had a constituent who lost his son in the most horrific of circumstances—it was in the local papers—whose family was served a section 21 notice. The landlord knew the family had lost a child, but said they had to serve it because the family still had a month and they needed to get them to leave. Where is the protection for renters, and does my hon. Friend agree that kicking abolition of section 21 notices into the long grass means the Government do not care about renters at all?
Matthew Pennycook
My hon. Friend is right to highlight the impact on renters, and that is essentially what we are debating. With every month that passes, more private renters are served section 21 notices. Nearly 85,000 of them have been put at risk of homelessness as a result of being served one of those notices, as the Government have delayed the implementation of their commitment. As the Bill is drafted—even with Government new clause 30—Ministers can determine whenever they want to signal to the House that the courts are ready. We have had no assurances on that point, and that is not satisfactory.
In our view, Government new clause 30 is nothing more than a mechanism designed to facilitate the further delay of the complete abolition of section 21 evictions, and we will look to vote against it. With the Government having previously made it clear that there will be a requirement for advance notice of six months before new tenancies are converted, and a minimum of 12 months between that conversion and the transition of existing tenancies—with a proposal that the latter will also be made subject to the assessment required by Government new clause 30—it could be years before renters see section 21 completely abolished, making a complete mockery of the Secretary of State’s recent claim that such notices will be “outlawed” by the next general election.
We know the Government are in no rush to abolish section 21 evictions because they are not laying the groundwork that is necessary for that to happen. Where are the draft prescribed forms for section 8 notices, and where are the proposed amended court forms and civil procedure rules? There is no sign of them, or of any sense of what the regulations required to bring them forward might be. The truth is that Ministers determined long ago, for reasons that are entirely obvious, to essentially kick the can down the road on abolishing section 21 while disingenuously denying it. Although the passage of the Bill will be taken as a signal of abolition before the next general election, private renters outside will know that is not the case, and that implementation has been pushed back, potentially indefinitely.
We believe that hard-pressed renters have waited long enough for the commitment made by the Conservatives over five years ago to be delivered. They require certainty that it will truly be honoured, and section 21 evictions definitively abolished with the passing of this legislation. Our amendment 28 would provide that certainty by ensuring that section 21 of the Housing Act 1988 is repealed on the day that the Bill receives Royal Assent, with saving provisions for any notices served before that date so that they remain valid and of lawful effect. I commend the amendment to the House.
Government new clauses 27, 28 and 30, to which I have made reference, are only three of the 225 Government amendment tabled just before the deadline last week. Before concluding, I will touch briefly on several of the more substantive among them, starting with the small number that will be genuine improvements to the Bill. We are pleased that the Government have responded to our calls to ensure the maintenance of a number of the regulatory obligations that have built up around section 21 notices over the years by tabling Government new clause 14, which gives the Secretary of State the power by regulation to transpose those preconditions and requirements into section 8 eviction notices.
Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con)
There are many amendments on which I could speak—indeed, the book of amendments seems to be almost as long, if not longer than the Bill itself—but I will limit myself to new clause 12, which I have tabled in my name and those of hon. Friends and colleagues, and on which amendments 44 to 47 are contingent. First, I declare my interest in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests as chair of the quality and safeguarding board for a children’s company.
New clause 12 goes to the heart of my interests, as it deals with care-experienced children. Essentially, its purpose is to ensure that landlords do not discriminate against people who have grown up in the care system when making a decision on whom to rent a property to. It would place a specific duty on landlords, preventing them from denying those who have grown up in the care system a tenancy on that basis. Landlords found to be in breach of the new clause could be subject to penalties. That is the thrust of what I am trying to achieve, and it might strike a chord with many colleagues here.
Some may remember a recent case that highlighted the potential problem. The Guinness housing trust, in advertising a property for rent, specifically said that it was not available to care leavers. That was an extraordinary piece of discrimination, redolent of the bad old days when people put up signs saying, “No dogs, no Irish, no blacks”, if we can remember back that far. In that recent case, there was potential discrimination against young people who, through no fault of their own, had been through the care system. Guinness fortunately withdrew that straight away and apologised, but the case reinforced the vulnerabilities of some of the most vulnerable young people in our society when trying to get the most basic of daily requirements: a roof over their head. That is what is behind the new clause.
I thank the coalition of various charities and organisations that have done a lot of the heavy lifting on this issue, led by Barnardo’s and the charity for care-experienced young people, Become, as well as others. Let me say at the outset that new clause 12 is a probing amendment, and I am grateful for the positive engagement I have had from the Minister already. I am wholly optimistic that he will say some helpful and constructive things when he comes to respond. I will flesh out why this is an important amendment to this important Bill, in which I fully admit there are many other priorities.
As you know, Madam Deputy Speaker, I have a long-standing interest in championing care-experienced young people, whether formerly as Children’s Minister or now as the chair of the all-party parliamentary group for children and vice-chair of the all-party parliamentary group for care-experienced children and young people. Why do we need to do more to support care leavers when accessing accommodation in the private rented sector? It is imperative first for us to consider the bigger picture with the issues that our young people leaving care face. More than 85,000 children and young people are in the care system in England, which is a recent high. Every year, more than 12,000 of them leave that care system. We all know that unfortunately, despite all the best efforts and endeavours of successive Governments and Ministers, care leavers still have much poorer outcomes than their peers. They are less likely to gain good qualifications in the education system. Nearly half of the children in the care system have a mental health problem, and it is estimated that a quarter of homeless people have been in care at some point in their lives. They are also disproportionately represented in the justice system and make up over a quarter of serving prisoners.
From the age of 18, care-experienced young people are often expected to be financially independent and manage their own household bills, but research over many decades has shown that care leavers are much more financially vulnerable than their peers. A significant number live on or near the poverty line and struggle to make ends meet. [Interruption.] I am being echoed; as if Members cannot get enough of me once, they are now getting it in stereo with a time delay.
While inflation is beginning to come down, certain sectors continue to see large price increases, including the private rented sector. Private rental prices paid by tenants in the UK rose by some 6.2% in the 12 months to January this year, unchanged for the second consecutive month, and that puts huge pressure on all tenants. Young care leavers living independently at the age of just 18 have no support from the bank of mum and dad, and for them things can be especially tough.
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)
The Member is making a very important and excellent point about care leavers. Does he agree that one of the problems is that on reaching the age of 18 they are deemed to be able to be independent but they have no support network in the way other young people of 18 often do, and therefore while they are getting housing support they might not be getting the necessary emotional and advice support that all other 18-year-olds get and benefit from? There is therefore a need for some sort of arrangement to ensure there is a continued level of support well after the age of 18, if the individual young person actually wants that.
Tim Loughton
I agree with the right hon. Gentleman up to a point, and of course young people do not magically become much more self-sustainable and resilient the day after their 18th birthday, but there have been many improvements over the years. There is extended support for care leavers up to the age of 25, and there are arrangements whereby they can still have a relationship, including a financial relationship, for example with foster carers, through the “staying put” scheme the Government have come up with, and many charities and organisations do very good work in providing support, but the point the right hon. Gentleman makes is right. Most of us are lucky enough to be able to go running back home to birth families for help and support in difficult times, but that is not always available to young people in the care system, although many do have the continual support of good quality foster carers and other carers they relied on when they were under the age of 18. However, they are vulnerable, and ensuring these young people have a safe and stable home to start their adult lives is really crucial.
Housing can act as a vehicle for stability, and without access to good quality accommodation young people will face challenges in getting a job, staying in education and ongoing training, accessing health services and everything else. However, despite the key role housing can play in helping a young person transitioning to independent living, many care leavers are struggling to find suitable accommodation in those early years after leaving care. It is estimated that one in three care leavers become homeless in the first two years immediately after they leave care, and one in four homeless people have been in care at some point in their lives, as I mentioned earlier.
Young care leavers face many barriers in accessing appropriate accommodation, and many will not be able to be addressed in this Bill. However, it does offer an opportunity to address one of those barriers: that landlords sometimes feel reluctant to rent to young people who have grown up in the care system. Young people in care tell charitable organisations in the youth sector that they come across landlords who are reluctant to rent to them because of their circumstances, and evidence from a survey of care leavers carried out by the charity Centrepoint found that over one in 10—some 13%—said they had been unable to access accommodation because the landlord was unwilling to accommodate them because of their status. That is not fair.
The problem is also likely to get worse given the growing evidence of a reduction in the number of private rental properties available across England. An investigation by the BBC found the number of properties available to rent across the whole of the UK had fallen by a third in the 18 months up to March 2023, and increased competition for the properties that are available has enabled more landlords to pick and choose which tenants they like, often going for the highest bidder, which of course makes it especially challenging for vulnerable groups such as care leavers.
In the last few years Barnardo’s has been running a campaign to try and improve access to suitable accommodation for care leavers. I certainly support the campaign, which calls on all local authorities to offer rent guarantor and deposit schemes for care leavers seeking to rent in the private rented sector. The MacAlister report on children in social care, which the Government commissioned and which was published last year, made a recommendation that being a care-experienced child should be a protected characteristic. So far in excess of 60 local authorities, including my own in West Sussex, have voluntarily acknowledged that, although the Government have not made it a statutory addition at this stage. So some local authorities are already providing help to care leavers, with deposits or a scheme where they can act as a corporate guarantor.
Such schemes greatly help make care-experienced young people more attractive tenants, and a number of local authorities report that such schemes have had significant successes. The scheme operated by Kent County Council has had no rent defaults from when it started in 2018 until 2021; however, such schemes are not offered by most local authorities. A freedom of information request by the Care Leaver Local Offer website to the 151 local authorities in England with a children’s social care department showed that 60% will not act as a guarantor for care leavers.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
Order. Before I call the next speaker, I inform the House that I will be giving priority to those Members who have amendments down, so that they can speak to them before we hear from others. I call Chair of the Levelling Up, Housing and Communities Committee, Clive Betts.
Mr Betts
It is disappointing that we are having to focus primarily on the Government back-pedalling on the timetable for the abolition of section 21. The Levelling Up, Housing and Communities Committee looked at this a year ago and concluded unanimously that the principle of the Government’s intention was right. We had some reservations and caveats, and we raised concerns and suggested detail changes, but nevertheless we agreed on the principle. Generally speaking, there is agreement across the House that it is the right thing to do.
In the meantime, people are living in uncertainty in private rented housing. That is why we thought it was the right thing to do. That is what the measure is for: to give people greater certainty about where they will be living in a year’s time. It is not merely that; it is also so that they know, if they do not have a car, that they can get on the bus to their place of work in the morning—if the landlord evicts them and they have to move home, will they be able to get to that job in the future? It is also about children at school: will those children be able to get to the same school if they are evicted from their home and have to find a new property? That is the sort of family certainty that the abolition of section 21 will introduce. So many families are living in uncertainty—not just housing uncertainty but other uncertainty—while we await that abolition. The Minister needs to get on with it and give us some clear time commitments on when it will happen.
We have just discussed the problem of the courts. Of course, covid has affected lots of public services, but I say to the Minister that it is not a surprise. If we look at how long it was taking local authorities to get court hearings to deal with antisocial behaviour cases before covid, we see even then that those ran into months. It has been a problem in the courts for many years. That is why the Committee has suggested—it has been suggested before—a housing court system. I know that Ministers do not want it and that the Ministry of Justice does not want it, but it seemed to us a way of resolving what are often simple or quick problems. A small claims court format could do it in many cases without the need for lawyers to be introduced. I am sorry, but I have no conviction that, with several months of looking at this, several years of contemplation and plans for action, the courts will be any quicker in two or three years than they are now. The court system has delays, and they are likely to remain, so we need to look a bit beyond the existing system to resolve these problems. Obviously, Ministers have set their minds against that.
I turn to the other main problem that we highlighted on implementation: local authorities and their staff. We know that local authorities are desperately short of staff for enforcement in the private rented sector. Once section 21 goes, tenants who are currently frightened—even those living in appalling damp properties—to make complaints against their landlords, because they are concerned they would be evicted as soon as a complaint is made, will feel emboldened to make that complaint, and if their complaint is not listened to, they will be emboldened to go to their local authority and ask for help. Local authorities will get more requests for help, and they have not got the people to deal with that.
Will the Minister assure us that he is starting to talk to the Local Government Association about the new burdens that will be placed on local authorities—this is a new burden that we are imposing on them, albeit a good one—and that there is some agreement on the resource that will be needed? Resources do not produce extra staff overnight, so local authorities will need advance warning so that we have the staff in place to respond quickly.
Anthony Mangnall (Totnes) (Con)
I apologise for interrupting the hon. Gentleman. Given the important point he is making about redress for tenants and who they might go to, would he add any comment on consumer protection for unfair trading, which is one of the remedies for those who have difficulties with either the standard and quality of their property or the landlord, as well as those who have been mis-sold for a rental period?
Mr Betts
I think the reality is that local authorities are generally short of resources right through, as the Committee’s recent report on local authority funding—again, it was unanimously agreed—showed. Because of the demands of social care on local authority budgets, other services are often cut even more than the mainstream. We have previously looked at trading standards and consumer protection, which are an important element—the hon. Member is absolutely right—and I hope that they will be factored in when we have the new burdens discussions.
There are some things that the Minister could resolve fairly quickly. He referred to the important role that the ombudsman can play in resolving disputes. There is sometimes a bit of a conflict between whether someone goes to the ombudsman or to the courts—sometimes, the ombudsman will not deal with a case if it is in the courts. It would be helpful to clarify those issues. But why does he not just decide that the housing ombudsman, who currently deals with social housing issues, will also deal with private sector housing? He should make that decision. Again, if the ombudsman is to have that responsibility, it needs to gear up by starting to recruit more staff and getting in resources to be able to do it. It is a simple decision. He has not ruled it out, but he has not ruled it in. Can we not just do it? It seems obvious. Why set up another body, which would have to start from scratch, when the ombudsman has the skills to do it? Those skills are slightly different in some cases, but why not let it get on with that, and tell it now that it will have that job to do?
I have a couple of other points. The property portal is a really welcome development. We know that when someone is trying to track down a landlord—it is often a local authority, which wants to serve a notice on them—suddenly, the ownership of the property moves, and a different member of the family becomes an owner, or a different company is set up. To know who owns the property, information will have to be given to the property portal, along with all other information about the property. That is a really important step forward, as well as making sure that the portals are digitised so that the information can be kept up to date simply.
I welcome the Minister saying that selective licensing and the property portal are not the same thing, with the property portal to be there for all properties. Selective licensing—it is in the name—will be there for some properties. When there is a review of selective licensing and the relationship with the property portal, will the proposals come back to the House for consideration at some point? I want reassurance on that. Many of us support selective licensing, which we see operating against the worst landlords and the worst properties, and we hope that there will not be a diminution of those powers and responsibilities that would weaken what it can achieve.
Jacob Young
I can certainly commit to working with the hon. Member and his Committee when we are at the point of making a decision on where we go after such a review. I completely agree that selective licensing has its role—it is not overtaken by the property portal—but we must ensure that the two work together.
Mr Betts
That is a helpful assurance, which I accept, and I think he has already given assurance of similar collaboration on the decent homes standard, which is appreciated.
Finally, I come specifically to some complicated amendments that I have tabled—I admit that they even confuse me on occasions—which are about the powers that social landlords have when they come to regenerate areas. The Committee has heard some pretty awful examples of poor properties in the social housing sector, and we have been critical. However, often it is not an individual property that is the problem, but properties in deck-access blocks built in the ’60s, ’70s or ’80s. The property has reached the end of its life and people do not like living there: it might have damp or other problems, such as antisocial behaviour. The management costs are high and the cost of regeneration, making it fit for purpose and bringing it up to decent homes standards, is so great that it is not worth spending the money. In some cases demolition and rebuild is needed, and in others substantial regeneration and improvement is needed, and that means the tenants have to move out.
In those cases, social landlords need to be certain that they have the power to require tenants to move, because in a block of properties of 100 residents, 95 of them will probably be terribly enthusiastic about moving out, particularly if they are going to get a new or refurbished home, but the other five might dig their heels in and try to stick it out, holding up the whole scheme. The Minister believes that social landlords have the power to do that under existing legislation. I have tabled amendment 52 and the related amendments because the National Housing Federation is concerned that social landlords think they have powers, but they do not exist where the initial tenancy with their secure tenant was set up by a nomination from a local authority. It is a complicated legal issue, but an important one.
Jacob Young
The hon. Gentleman makes legitimate points, and I am more than happy to meet him and the National Housing Federation.
Mrs Natalie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)
I am very pleased to follow the Chair of the Levelling Up, Housing and Communities Committee, on which I sit. He expressed very well the importance of the section 21 reforms, in particular to families and to renters who are so reliant on them.
My view is that the Bill does not go far enough in dealing with the fundamental challenges of the private rented sector, which is no longer a flex or transitionary tenure but the main tenure for millions of people for much, if not all, of their lives. There has been a long-term structural shift away from social renting and home ownership into an expanded private rented sector. That shift needs to be addressed by building more homes—affordable homes and for first-time buyers—and by finding a new balance that reflects the new reality for millions of people in our country.
Sadly, the original principle of the Bill, which was to create a fair and responsible new rented sector, has been undermined by the Government’s amendments. That change of position undermines not just the Bill but the very manifesto commitment on which the Conservative Government were elected in 2019.
Turning to the amendments and new clauses that stand in my name, new clause 39 would require a landlord to make a relocation payment to the tenant if the tenant is evicted within two years of the start of the tenancy, other than on exempted grounds such as antisocial or criminal behaviour. Evidence from Shelter and Generation Rent shows that unrecoverable costs—the wasted cost to the renter of an unwanted move—can be between £700 and £1,700. My new clause proposes that a payment would be made by the landlord in recognition of those unrecoverable costs to the tenant. Being evicted places a great emotional strain on tenants, who find themselves in insecure housing. It should not place them under a financial strain as well.
Amendment 257 would amend ground 12—possession due to a failure to carry out an obligation of the tenancy—in schedule 2 to the Housing Act 1988, setting out the grounds for possession. That provision will gain much greater importance following these changes, for it is the catch-all provision for evictions. The amendment is intended to address the risk of being served a notice for eviction for trivial matters, such as hanging up washing outside, displaying a poster on a wall, or a teenager putting up a poster with Blu Tack. Those are real examples written into existing tenancy agreements by letting agencies that are members of their relevant professional bodies. Amendment 257 would provide that ground 12 could be used only for material breaches, not for Blu Tack.
The Minister has written to me to say that there were landlords who wanted to make the ground 12 position mandatory. These are landlords who want to be able to serve notice and evict tenants for using Blu Tack. In my book, if you are to lose your home it should be for a serious reason, not for Blu Tack or hanging the washing outside or any other trivial thing. All the more so, because we know that the majority of evictions take place when notices are given to the tenant without court applications, let alone court repossession orders.
The Law Society has raised the issue of the scarcity of legal advice available to tenants across the country. We have heard already today that the Government have not yet produced even working drafts of what the new forms might be for the new eviction grounds. That also matters, because at the moment the court forms require the ground to be set out in the document. They do not require, for example, for that to specify whether it is in fact a discretionary or other ground for the courts. So this does impact directly on tenants’ understanding and ability to challenge their potential eviction. As such, the Government’s position, which is to allow ground 12—the Blu Tack ground—unamended, is to invite every landlord to invoke spurious and unfair reasons for evictions. This is apparently not the intent of the Bill. I am grateful to the Minister for his engagement with me on that ground. I ask him to reconsider that position and see what more can be done to ensure that ground 12 applies only in relation to serious matters. That seems much more reasonable, and fair to landlords and tenants alike.
On Government new clause 30, when I spoke to major landlords recently, they confirmed that they are not yet ready to digitise. They are not yet ready to put in place and work with the very provisions for which they have so strongly advocated. I understand that it might take some more than two years to put their own systems in place to engage with the new measures they have asked for. Meanwhile, and after all this time—nearly five years—the Government have no detailed plans about what these court changes might be. In November, in Committee, the Minister denied that this was a delaying tactic. However, since then the Ministry of Justice has published its digitisation and reform programme all the way through to 2025. There is absolutely no reference—not even an indicative reference—to this reform programme relating to repossessions. I asked the House of Commons Library for assistance, but it too has been unable to find any specific reference to the changes that may come up in the court process. So I am afraid that the truth is that new clause 30 is a delaying tactic to benefit landlords.
As has been mentioned, the Levelling Up, Housing and Communities Committee has written to the Minister on the implementation of these measures. It has been noted by the Committee that court guidance is already in place to deal with repossession claims in a timely manner. They are contained already in civil procedure rules 55.5. Of course, the courts can always be improved—indeed, it is most welcome that there is a commitment that they should be so—but it should be noted that the Ministry of Justice’s data shows that last year the target set out for repossession has, in fact, been met. The courts’ performance in landlord repossession cases stands in marked contrast, in the recovery since covid, to many other court backlogs.
That was confirmed in written evidence to the Justice Committee. I am grateful to the Chair of the Justice Committee, my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill)—he is not currently in his place—for whom I have the greatest respect. I note that in the written evidence to that Committee, the MOJ confirmed, just in September, that 95% of courts were meeting that target. I understand that the much larger number of weeks to which my hon. and learned Friend referred may relate to personal injury and other matters that were brought before the Committee, but I will discuss that with him later, given that he is not currently in the Chamber.
These are important reforms and it is important for the court processes to work in the right way, but they are working within their current targets, in marked contrast to other court backlogs. That is why new clause 30 is not necessary, and is properly considered to be a delaying tactic.
This is a Bill that the 2019 Conservative manifesto promised would benefit tenants, but it has become a Bill in which the balance too often favours the landlords, particularly if it includes new clause 30, which could indefinitely delay the abolition of section 21 no-fault evictions. That would be nothing short of a betrayal of the promise that was made in 2019, and for that reason I am unable to support the new clause.
Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)
I am delighted to speak about this important Bill on behalf of my hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire (Helen Morgan), who unfortunately could not be here today but who has done a huge amount of work on it, including her work in Committee. I thank the Minister for his comments about her, and for the constructive way in which he has worked with her throughout the Bill’s passage so far on specific amendments, some of which I will discuss in due course.
The Liberal Democrats support the Bill in principle because we want to ensure that the private rental market is fair for all, and we have long called for section 21 no-fault evictions to be scrapped. Barely a week goes by when I, a London MP, do not hear from yet another family who are being turfed out of their home for spurious reasons under section 21. I am sorry to say that, as many others have pointed out, the Government have been far too slow in introducing these measures. They have been dragged into it kicking and screaming at every turn, and having made the commitment five years ago and having had plenty of legislative time available in the last and current Sessions, they have delayed and delayed. Meanwhile, a cost of living crisis has meant even more people becoming homeless, and rising pressures on councils that are having to pay for emergency accommodation.
Amendment 3, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire, would increase the time that must elapse between a landlord’s taking ownership of a property and making the property available for rent to six months, from the currently proposed three. This six-month period is designed to act as a more effective deterrent for landlords wishing to evict tenants in order to remarket a property quickly, or “flip” it into a holiday let. I note that a similar amendment tabled by the Opposition would extend the time to 12 months. The Liberal Democrats believe that would risk driving landlords from the market, and that six months strikes the right balance between protecting tenants from sharp practice and not driving reputable landlords away.
“Flipping”, or quickly remarketing property for holiday letting, has caused serious injustice in some of the most beautiful places in the country, such as Cumbria. Local people living in tourist hotspots often struggle to afford a home in their area because of the rapid increase in the number of properties taken out of residential let and used solely as short-term holiday lets. That has a knock-on impact in terms of workforce pressures, especially in the hospitality and care sectors. Of course there needs to be some holiday accommodation in beautiful areas that benefit economically from attracting tourism, but we must find a balance between holiday and private rented sector accommodation.
I am grateful to the Government for accepting that point and working constructively with the Liberal Democrats by tabling amendment 66. Although their amendment does not go quite as far as we would have liked and include a six-month restricted period, it will ensure that landlords cannot remarket a property as a short-term or holiday let within three months of purchase. That is a much-needed step towards levelling the playing field in the housing market for local people in tourist hotspots and helping local economies and communities to thrive.
Amendment 37, which was tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire, would ensure that accommodation rented from the Defence Infrastructure Organisation by service individuals and their families is subject to the decent homes standard. Servicemen and women are housed in accommodation rented from the DIO, which is currently not subject to a minimum standard. This means that individuals who have put their lives on the line for our country are not necessarily guaranteed a warm and safe place to live in return. Across the country, and specifically at RAF Shawbury and Tern Hill barracks in north Shropshire, there have been reports of service family accommodation being plagued by black mould, rat infestations and chronic overcrowding. That is no way to treat people who have put their lives on the line to serve this country. Frankly, they deserve better.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Order. Before I call the next hon. Member speaks, I have now to announce the result of today’s deferred Division on the draft Economic Growth (Regulatory Functions) (Amendment) Order 2024. The Ayes were 395 and the Noes were 50, so the Ayes have it.
[The Division list is published at the end of today’s debates.]
Anthony Mangnall
I rise to speak to the amendments that stand in my name, as well as on a number of Government amendments. I feel that I should start by thanking both the Minister and the shadow Minister for their conversations over the last five months on this topic.
I should be clear about my position in leading a number of amendments to the Bill. At no point have we ever sought to stop section 21 coming in, and I hope that I will be able to make that clear in the course of my remarks. What we have sought to do is to stop the ending of fixed-term tenancies—something I believe would have a dramatic impact on the supply of properties, including long-term rental properties. That, to me, is the concern. I believe that it will cause far greater upset in the short and long term in respect of whether people can have the houses that they need.
Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (The Cotswolds) (Con)
In rural areas such as mine where housing is already very expensive, more and more landlords are already deciding that letting their properties out is not worth the candle. They will therefore sell them, and the effect will be that there are fewer and fewer properties to rent. Those that are available will therefore go up and up in price and our youngsters will struggle to get on to the rental ladder.
Anthony Mangnall
I thank my hon. Friend for making that point. It is one that I will come on to, in terms of both the impact that the Bill will have on the attractiveness of short-term lets and the bureaucracy and hassle that will arise from this legislation.
From the outset of the Bill’s arrival in Parliament, I have worked to ensure that it strikes the right balance between tenant and landlord—a balance that ensures that the rights of tenants are respected and enshrined in legislation while the rights of landlords, property ownership and contract law are maintained and safeguarded. I believe that a failure to strike that balance would have a disastrous impact on the private rental market in the United Kingdom. Complicating the rental market with onerous requests, bureaucratic measures, additional costs and an inability for people to operate their personal property as they wish would only result in large swathes of the private rented sector throwing up their hands and selling their properties, just as a failure to support tenants would only embolden rogue landlords, diminish standards and increase unfair treatment.
From the start, it has been my mission to find a level playing field that ensures that tenants and landlords can co-operate together in a fair market that has a healthy supply of rental properties, with rights and standards enshrined, costs low and bureaucracy minimal, in a system that respects the rule of law and, perhaps most importantly, has a structure and a court system that is effective and that delivers. All of this has been done because we are in the midst of a supply crisis in the private rented sector, on which we have yet to touch.
On average, 25 prospective tenants inquire about every available rental property, up from eight in 2019, according to Rightmove. Hamptons estimates that between 2016 and the end of 2023, individual landlords sold almost 300,000 more homes than they bought. Last year, the Bank of England warned that demand for rental properties continued to outstrip supply as the number of landlords choosing to exit the market increased. It is therefore vital that responsible landlords have confidence that pragmatic changes are being made to the Bill. Failure to do so would only deepen the crisis.
I have said previously that the failure to have a sensible rental period at the start of a tenancy would likely result in the flourishing of long-term rental properties being used as short-term lets. Given the substantial price difference between short-term lets and long-term lets in constituencies like mine and the constituencies of the hon. Members for North Shropshire (Helen Morgan) and for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron), there would be a very real likelihood of people exploiting that loophole.
Landlords incur costs and expenses when entering into a tenancy, and they need the certainty of a minimum period. Many buy-to-let mortgage lenders also require a minimum six-month tenancy agreement when lending to residential landlords. As a result, I tabled amendment 6 with the support of 58 colleagues to ensure that tenants cannot give two months’ notice to leave a property until they have resided in it for four months. I believe that this is in line with the recommendations of the Levelling Up, Housing and Communities Committee. I therefore welcome that the Government have accepted this argument and tabled new clause 15, which mirrors amendment 6. I will therefore not press my amendment.
Matthew Pennycook
I wonder whether I can tease out the hon. Gentleman’s reasoning in thinking that the possibility of rental properties being used as short-term lets is so serious. It is an entirely hypothetical problem. Renters who take out a tenancy agreement will have to provide a five-week deposit—they will probably be charged the maximum—and they have to go through a lengthy process to try to get that deposit back. What evidence does he have to suggest that, en masse, tenants will try to game the system in the way he expects?
Anthony Mangnall
With the greatest of respect, I am saying that that is one of the reasons why I fear not having a minimum notice period. My constituency has the highest number of second homes and short-term lets of almost anywhere in the country. There is a significant price differential, and a significant amount of hassle is being heaped on landlords by this Bill, which might push them in that direction. This may be one of the foreseeable consequences. I have raised it on Second Reading and in private conversations with the hon. Gentleman.
New clause 2, on rent repayment orders, would enable local housing authorities to impose financial penalties on certain individuals where they believe that a housing offence has been committed by a body corporate. Last year, the Supreme Court delivered a landmark ruling in which it said that, where a rent-to-rent company takes over the running of a property, it cannot pass its legal liabilities on to the property’s landlord. The Government have amended the Bill to reverse that decision, which will mean that landlords can be fined even in cases where a rent-to-rent company or similar has, without the landlord’s knowledge, been asked by a tenant to illegally sub-let a property. According to data from Direct Line, one in 10 renters admits to sub-letting part of the home in which they live, of whom 48% did not disclose it to their landlord and three quarters did not review their existing lease agreement to determine whether sub-letting was permitted. The amendment would deal with the main concern associated with the use of rent-to-rent companies. It would address the problem of landlords and others who willingly hide behind such companies to let properties while avoiding liability for rent repayment orders, without penalising those who are innocent victims of such companies. I welcome and recognise the fact that the Government have seen sense and tabled their own amendment, mirroring my proposed new clause 2, in the form of proposed Government new clause 34. I therefore withdraw proposed new clause 2.
Jacob Young
As I said in my opening speech, we are exploring expediting possession for serious antisocial behaviour claims. I am happy to work with my hon. Friend on how we go about that and ensure that it happens before these reforms are fully implemented.
Anthony Mangnall
The Minister will find in this part of my speech we will be agreeing vehemently, although the latter part of my speech might not be so agreeable. I am grateful to him for his intervention; I always welcome the opportunity to work with him.
Likewise, in the case of rent arrears, it cannot be acceptable to have a system that allows rent arrears to continue to build for seven months. The amendment would make good on the Government’s commitment that the justice system is fully prepared for the impact of the end of section 21. Again, I am grateful that the Government have decided to accept the point in principle and introduce proposed Government new clause 30, which mirrors my amendment 9, which was supported by so many colleagues. I therefore withdraw amendment 9.
Proposed new clause 1, the repeal of requirement for selective licensing, under my name, would remove the ability of local housing authorities to designate areas as subject to selective licensing. The Bill provides the Secretary of State with the power to develop a new property portal that all landlords would have to join to demonstrate to prospective tenants that the properties they rent meet all required standards. It would be effectively a national licensing scheme. As selective licensing deals only with management quality and not property standards, the changes in the Bill are likely to do more than selective licensing to improve properties.
Since councils will be able to use the portal to access information on all private rented properties and landlords operating in their area, and in view of plans for a decent homes standard for the sector, local selective licensing schemes will be made redundant. In Wales, the introduction of landlord registration led to the end of almost all selective licensing, so it is unlikely that local authorities would pursue costly and complex schemes in future. I take on board the Minister’s comments in his opening remarks.
Selective licensing is an additional cost to landlords, in addition to the property portal and redress scheme. Landlords should not have to be regulated twice and pay twice for much the same thing. Proposed new clause 1 would scrap selective licensing schemes for private rented housing when the property portal goes live. Having both would not enhance protections for tenants, but merely be a duplication. Scrapping them would remove an unnecessary layer of bureaucracy and cost for landlords. I am grateful for the Minister’s opening remarks. I will take the Government at their word that the Dispatch Box commitment to conduct a review of selective licensing will take place at the earliest opportunity.
My new clause 3 would enable courts to consider hearsay evidence during the course of proceedings for possession on the grounds of antisocial behaviour. It is vital that, when section 21 ends, swift and effective action can be taken against tenants committing antisocial behaviour who cause misery for so many neighbours and fellow tenants. To support this, the Government have changed the wording of the discretionary ground to repossess a property due to tenant antisocial behaviour—ground 14. They clarify that any behaviour “capable” of causing “nuisance or annoyance” can lead to eviction. Previously, it was behaviour “likely” to cause a problem.
However, that is not the true problem. The current problem, which is not dealt with by the Bill, is that the main evidence of nuisance is provided by neighbours, as they are closest to the person involved. The changes to the definition of nuisance do not alter the fact that evidence of behaviour needs to be provided, and that will still come from neighbours. However, in so many instances, neighbours are reluctant to attend court and give evidence, in part because the slow speed of the court system means that they will be forced to live near the person that they have reported or helped to evict for several months afterwards.
A better solution would be to allow landlords to use evidence of problematic behaviour that is provided by neighbours complaining by text or email to the landlord or the letting agency. This evidence is not currently admissible, and the courts cannot give sufficient weight to it when deciding whether the tenant is committing antisocial behaviour. This amendment would allow for such evidence to be used by the courts.
In the negotiations and discussions that we had in the run-up to this debate, the Minister’s Department and his civil service team were extremely helpful in highlighting Civil Procedure Rule part 33.3 in relation to
“circumstances in which notice of intention to rely on hearsay evidence is not required.”
Again, the comments made by the Minister are welcome, although I hope his Department will follow this up with the Ministry of Justice. I therefore withdraw new clause 3.
Amendment 5 covers houses of multiple occupancy relating specifically to students. This would mean that the ground for possession for student properties could also be used for properties occupied by one or two students, which would not otherwise have been considered as HMOs.
Ending fixed-term tenancies will be problematic for the student housing market—it would be problematic for the whole Bill—which operates on a yearly cycle, from one academic year to another. Although the Government have recognised that by allowing fixed-term agreements to continue in purpose-built student accommodation, it will not apply, as I understand it, to traditional off-street private-rented housing, often rented to those in their second or third year of studies. This is a concern shared by many in the industry and, indeed, by the Levelling Up, Housing and Communities Committee, which has noted:
“Currently, the proposal is to include this part of the PRS in the tenancy reform, but we conclude that abolishing fixed-term contracts could make lettings to students considerably less attractive to private landlords, as the student market mirrors the academic year and benefits greatly from 12-month fixed tenancies.”
I hope that I have quoted the Select Committee report accurately.
A Government amendment to the Bill made at Committee stage established a new ground for possession—ground 4A—to protect the student housing market. This is to be welcomed. It will ensure that landlords can guarantee that most student properties will be available for each academic year, but it will not protect all student housing. The new ground will cover only houses of multiple occupation; it will not apply to those properties occupied by one or two students. This oversight would be rectified by my proposed amendment. Again, I thank the Government for recognising this and introducing their own amendments 226 and 228, which have addressed that problem.
As I come to my concluding remarks—at last—I wish to make some comment on amendment 10, which has not been selected.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Order. I have been listening carefully to what the hon. Gentleman has been saying. He has a range of amendments and it is perfectly in order for him to speak to those, but it is not in order for him to speak to amendment 10, because it has not been selected. Not only has it not been selected for a Division, but it has not been selected for debate. There might be a general point to which he could make reference, but he may not speak to amendment 10.
Anthony Mangnall
I thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for being so generous in your explanation on that.
The problem that I see with this Bill is that, while the intent to remove section 21 is a good and necessary one—yes, it has taken time to get to this point—it is not one that those who have signed my amendment have ever objected to. The principle that explains why the amendments have been so widely supported is that there must be some leeway around ensuring that fixed-term tenancies can remain. Indeed, they still remain in certain instances within the student market.
Mr Marcus Fysh (Yeovil) (Con)
My hon. Friend is making a powerful speech. Does he agree that it is in renters’ interests, more than anything else, to be able to agree tenancies longer than six months, in order to have security of tenure? If they have a young family, they will not want grounds such as sale to get in the way.
Anthony Mangnall
My hon. Friend is right to make that point. In essence, the Bill forbids a contract being agreed with a date on which the tenant would have to leave the property. The noble Lord Hannan of Kingsclere pointed out in February in the other place that
“language matters in politics and tendentious phraseology has consequences. How have we reached the point where the expiry of a contract, freely entered into by two parties, at the end of its term is now widely referred to as an eviction, let alone a no-fault eviction?”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 20 February 2024; Vol. 836, c. 519.]
To be clear, the Bill will make it illegal to sign a fixed-term tenancy. The lack of clarity when describing the end of a contract has meant that we are now terming simple cessations of contracts as no-fault evictions. Who is at fault when a previously agreed contract comes to an end at a future date? No one. I believe that there are ways to retain fixed-term tenancies and scrap section 21.
Caroline Lucas
Will the hon. Gentleman concede that, although in principle it is perfectly possible to imagine a scenario where the tenant and landlord mutually agree to a set length of tenancy, the reality is that, because so many tenants are rushing for so few properties, the amount of free will that the tenant has in signing up to that contract is not very great? The idea of its being mutually agreeable is rather more suspect than the hon. Gentleman suggests.
Anthony Mangnall
I come at it from a different angle: we are heaping so many rules and regulations on people, and making things so difficult, they are leaving the market as a result. This was one of the pioneering policies of Thatcher, bringing in the idea of the free market in property, and ensuring that millions of people across the country could realise the social value of having a buy-to-let property on a long-term basis. The hon. Lady will not agree with me; I do not think that we agree on very much. That is okay; it is good to be able to debate the issue, especially in this Chamber.
We must be honest about this: removing fixed-term tenancies is essentially the state telling individuals what they can and cannot do with their own private properties. It is conceivable to remove section 21 while retaining fixed-term tenancies. I have said that the Conservatives have long prided ourselves on being the party of free markets, and we should keep that in mind when we vote later. We are sending completely the wrong message, with dire consequences for future levels of housing supply. We are making an enormous mistake, which will reduce long-term lets in favour of short-term lets and result in many properties being taken off the rental market. I would hate to be back here, having to repeat the figures that I gave at the start of my remarks—in 2019, there were eight people for every one property; now there are 25—and say that the number is going up and up. I fear that, as a consequence of the Bill, that will happen.
Mr Betts
The hon. Gentleman seems to be in favour of abolishing section 21, but then giving landlords the right to bring in fixed-term tenancies, which end with a section 21 notice. If the landlord chose, therefore, section 21 would not be abolished, would it? It would be a figment of our imagination here, because in practice it would never be delivered with his proposal.
Anthony Mangnall
The hon. Gentleman is right to make that point, and he has far greater expertise in this area than I, but I am saying that we can retain fixed-term tenancies, scrap section 21 and amend other parts of the Bill. There is breach of contract. Indeed, we could make notice periods longer. I know that the Department discussed that idea when this was mooted after the 2019 election: we could scrap section 21 but increase the notice period for an eviction. Those are ways we could do it, but to throw the baby out with the bathwater and to become so restrictive on someone’s private property is a problem. People go into the buy-to-let market to let their property out, but unfortunately I think this Bill will have the opposite impact, pushing people out of the market who will no longer want to deal with the hassle.
Simon Jupp (East Devon) (Con)
My hon. Friend is making a fantastic speech and I commend him for all of his efforts on the Bill. One of the challenges is that sometimes our thinking about this issue is constrained to, for example, a metropolitan area. He and I both represent rural constituencies that are really affected by short-term holiday lets, and the unintended consequence of this Bill is that landlords will be pushed towards using those, because the rules and regulations will become so tight and constraining on long-term landlords. Does he agree?
Anthony Mangnall
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to raise that point, and it comes back to the question of trying to incentivise long-term lets over short- term lets. In rural constituencies in the south-west, we face a rising tide of short-term lets. However, we are not legislating on the basis of our own respective constituencies, but on a nationwide approach. We should look very carefully at other countries and other examples of where things have gone so badly wrong through, sometimes, the simplest tinkering of housing legislation: Scotland on rent controls might be one, and Finland or Berlin might be another. They are examples of things having been got horribly wrong.
Steve Brine (Winchester) (Con)
I have been listening very carefully to an excellent contribution, as always, from my hon. Friend—they are lucky to have him in Totnes. Further to the intervention from our hon. Friend the Member for The Cotswolds (Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown), is my hon. Friend saying that the irony of this debate is that we are effectively legislating to no-fault evict tenants because we are pushing landlords out of the market through this legislation? Can he back that up with any more evidence that he has heard in his deliberations while creating this excellent speech?
Anthony Mangnall
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I will use my constituency as an example: I have seen a significant decline in the number of long-term lets over the last four-year period. They are going straight into short-term lets at a far greater cost, making renting totally unaffordable and leaving us to come up with innovative ways to supply the correct amount of rental properties for people who live and work in south Devon. I think that is also reflected in east Devon, in Yeovil in Somerset and, I am sure, in the Cotswolds.
I will finish by saying that I am grateful for the work Parliament has done on this. At no time do I think the Government have dragged their feet; at no time do I think they have tried to block me. By virtue of tabling quite so many amendments, I am probably responsible for some of that hold-up, and for that I apologise. Ultimately, however, it comes down to a belief in whether we are overreaching. I feel that this Bill is overreaching. There are ways we can help to ensure that the rights of tenants and landlords are enshrined and balanced, but removing fixed-term tenancies is a step too far for me—it will be significantly negative for the future rental market, and I will unfortunately have to vote against Third Reading.
Alex Sobel (Leeds North West) (Lab/Co-op)
The Renters (Reform) Bill had the potential to bring much-needed security and safety to renters, yet amendments to water it down, brought forward in Committee and even on Report, are a backward step that will significantly undermine the Bill’s intent. As an MP with one of the largest student populations in the country, I am all too aware that students are experiencing a housing crisis on top of a cost of living crisis. We have seen landlords asking students renters for guarantors, as well as for deposits of up to 100% of their annual rent, the criterion for which is that the guarantor must own a UK property.
That requirement has an impact on the accessibility to working-class students of private rented sector accommodation at their university. It also has an impact on the ability of care leavers and those estranged from their families to access higher education altogether, as well as that of international students who do not have family members with property in the UK. To mitigate that, I have tabled new clause 41, which seeks to end one of the most illogical parts of the rental process: guarantor schemes. The expectation that, despite entering into a legal contract that outlines the responsibility of the landlord and the tenant, a nominated individual takes responsibility for fulfilling the contract seems to undermine the purpose of the contract itself. My new clause seeks to tackle financial pressure on students, supporting the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield) to stop landlords from signing up tenants months before an academic year, which creates an arms race for student lets.
We must also consider those who have come through the care system or have become estranged from their parents, for whom living at home has never been an option. If students do not know a guarantor who owns a house in the UK, they may be stuck paying extra to a private company, paying six months’ rent or more up front, or being unable to rent at all. Guarantors are not expected for most people of the same age who are not students, so why is there this discrepancy for students?
An international postgraduate student at Leeds University told me:
“My only viable option was using the Guarantor service ‘Housing Hand’ which costs me an additional 50 pounds a month on top of rent and bills. I am a PhD student receiving the UKRI minimum stipend which is paid monthly.
The cost of living for food and rent alone is already difficult on this stipend and during final week before the stipend is paid each month I often struggle to maintain a healthy and balanced diet due to financial strain.
This is not only demoralising but effects my academic progress on a physical level as I am often hungry and unable to afford fresh fruit and vegetables which are a staple of my diet. It may not sound like much, but not having to pay for this guarantor service could make a considerable difference to my overall wellbeing on a monthly basis as this money could instead be used on fresh food.”
Research conducted by students from the Centre for Homelessness Impact found that just 36% of universities provide help on rent guarantors, that even fewer provide a rent guarantor service for students, and that, as universities themselves face financial issues, such a service will become more unlikely. Renting as a student is already an uphill struggle. We know, for example, that student accommodation prices have increased by 61% since 2012, and information from the National Union of Students UK shows us that two in five students have considered dropping out because of the cost of rent and bills. When we are trying to encourage people to attend our world-leading institutions, which strengthen the skills potential of our country’s workforce, why do we put up so many barriers?
Our universities are the UK’s strongest soft power. International students in particular are left with nothing but bad choices—they must either find a UK guarantor or pay six months’ rent or more up front to their landlord. As one student recently relayed to the all-party parliamentary group on students:
“International students often face more challenges than home students. We have heard stories of students paying months of rent upfront, only to find out they have been scammed and the place they thought they'd secured doesn’t even exist. We had one case where international students paid a whole year’s rent in advance, only to find out their landlord went bankrupt. While they eventually got their money back, the stress and uncertainty they went through was unbearable.”
The Bill was a welcome opportunity to rectify so many of the scandals in the private rented sector, yet there has clearly been a continued and concerted campaign to force the Government to create an unprecedented two-tier rental market in which students would be at the mercy of section 21 evictions that other tenants would be protected from.
Sir Robert Neill
I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, as I am the owner of a single residential flat that is let out. I simply want to say that, in housing policy, we must always try to strike a balance between the legitimate interests and rights of tenants, and those of landlords, not all of whom are large corporations by any manner of means, and not of all whom make any great profit from those premises—they often operate at quite small margins—but who are a necessary part of the whole eco-structure. Equally, having served in local government for many years, I am conscious of the pressure that unwarranted evictions can place upon families and then upon local authorities, which have to pick up their housing duty towards those families. I believe that the Government are doing their level best in the Bill to get the right balance as far as that overall picture is concerned.
I want to speak in particular to Government new clause 30. We have already heard some rehearsal of the logic behind the new clause and the concerns about whether it will cause a delay to the abolition of section 21 evictions, as well as concern about the pressures on the county court. It is in that context, and wearing my hat as Chair of the Justice Committee, that I want to flag up to the House the inquiry that the Justice Committee is currently undertaking, and receiving evidence on, in relation to the work of the county court. I particularly welcomed the Minister’s commitment of £11 million to be transferred to the Ministry of Justice to carry out the assessment, because, of course, like local government and housing, the Ministry of Justice is an unprotected Department. It is also a downstream Department: either through the courts service or other parts of its work, it picks up many things that have gone wrong, whether elsewhere in our public services or in society as a whole. The courts system, including the civil courts and the county court in particular, is very much part of that: a great deal of social problems go through the county courts, and we know from all the evidence we are receiving that those county courts are under very great pressure.
As such, I support the new clause—but not because I want to delay the introduction of the reforms to the housing procedure that are envisaged, or the abolition of section 21 evictions as they currently exist, although as my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Anthony Mangnall) said, there may be other ways of striking the right balance that we could look at. I do not want to delay that reform, but we have to be frank and open about the pressure it will potentially put on what is already a strained county court system. If we are going to make those reforms—this applies to both parties—we need to will the means to make sure the county courts work as efficiently as they should do for all parties, whether landlords or tenants. That is the topic that I wanted to refer to some of the evidence on.
The overall picture, based on some 43 submissions that have been published on the Justice Committee’s website, is that of a very troubled situation as far as delays in the county court are concerned. There are delays in two areas that are germane to this debate: the first is the time it takes to see a possession action through the courts, and the second is enforcement, and particularly delays in getting bailiff appointments where necessary and then getting the enforcement carried out. There are real difficulties with both; it is fair to say that those difficulties vary across the country, but especially in many urban areas, there is considerable pressure. That is particularly acute in London and the south-east, where my constituency is.
Although the majority of those submissions came from landlords, they are based on data that I think is accepted and verified, whichever way one looks at this issue. The Large Agents Representation Group represents the largest letting and estate agents in London and the south-east. It has collected a deal of data, and it says in its submission that
“on average, the county court is taking approximately 276 working days to process a repossession claim from initial enquiry to a decision being given.”
Some of the other data that we get does not cover the whole of that process, which is why it is important to have the overall picture. That comes to an average of about 55 weeks, which does not include the enforcement time afterwards. That is unacceptable on both sides of the equation, so we need the resources to put that right.
Midland Heart, a housing association based in Birmingham—a well-established register of social landlords—says that
“typically, possession claims may take a minimum of 8 months, and sometimes up to 18 months, to conclude”.
The Hyde Group, another major social housing provider, said that
“the current level of delays is extreme and unacceptable”.
A number of those submissions also highlighted the serious delays in bailiffs executing warrants of possession when they are obtained under the current process. Of course, that is not unique to possession hearings: as has been observed, in some cases possession hearings proceed with more speed than other parts of the county court process, but they are still painfully slow in many areas. For example, we have had pretty clear evidence that there has been an increase in possession actions of roughly 16% from the equivalent quarter in 2019, before the pandemic. There was obviously a drop-off during the pandemic itself for a number of reasons, and as has been observed, the county court has done well to pick up the backlog that was created during the pandemic.
We ought to pay tribute to everybody in the county court: not just the judges, but the office staff who have worked phenomenally hard to try to turn that situation around. I hope all Members of this House will try to find the time to visit their local county court and see the work that is done by people on the admin side, who are often not the best-paid people in the public sector by any means. Indeed, recruitment and retention of staff in the county courts is itself a real challenge, which means that we must have continuing investment in those courts. I hope the assessment that the Lord Chancellor carries out under the terms of new clause 30 will help us to trigger greater investment and make the case for funding the county courts much better than it has been for many years under Governments, dare I say, of all political complexions.
Caroline Lucas
It is four months since the Bill concluded in Committee and five years since the Government promised to legislate for renters’ rights, so I start by saying that it is totally unacceptable that it has taken so long for the Renters (Reform) Bill to be on Report. It is deplorable for nearly a million renters to have been issued with section 21 eviction notices in England since the Government promised to abolish them, according to recent YouGov data. Renters have been badly let down by this delay, and aspects of the legislation before us continue to let them down.
My amendment 12 would require energy performance certificates for properties to be provided to the database operator and for the details to be recorded in the portal. This simple amendment would make a big difference. It would recognise that information is power and allow tenants to know whether the home they are about to rent will be damp and leaky or warm and efficient.
Amendment 12 also builds on the existing rules that require EPCs to be commissioned before properties are put on the market and for them to be clearly displayed in adverts in commercial media. Fairness and logic demand that renters should be able easily to compare energy efficiency information when considering properties to rent. A cold and damp home can end up costing renters dearly, both in high energy bills and health and wellbeing impacts.
Renters in cold and damp homes run an increased risk of problems associated with mould and of health conditions such as asthma and heart disease, as well as of poor mental health. We all know that the UK has some of the leakiest homes in Europe and that tenants are particularly exposed to high global gas prices, because the private rented sector is the least energy efficient of any tenure. A staggering quarter of renting households are living in fuel poverty today, so urgent action is essential to improve standards across the sector and to ensure that all renters have a warm and decent home in which to live.
It therefore beggars belief that the Prime Minister announced last September that he was scrapping the requirement to upgrade energy efficiency standards in private rented properties to EPC grade C. That was despite it being essential to deliver on our climate and fuel poverty targets. That upgrade would save tenants more than £250 a year, even at so-called normal prices, according to the Climate Change Committee. As well as harming renters, that regressive move was also contrary to the wishes of landlords, 80% of whom are in favour of stricter energy efficiency regulations.
My amendment 13 seeks to tackle the crippling private rents that so many people are paying. In Brighton and Hove, in which my constituency rests, a new study of more than 50,000 renters found that tenants in the city were spending a scandalous 56.9% of their pay on rent, making it the most expensive city in England in which to rent. As the Bill stands, the measures on rent increases are wholly inadequate. They rely on a resource-intensive and time-consuming appeals process that could even see tenants worse off at the end of it, because the tribunal would have the power to impose a higher rent than the one the tenant is appealing. That is frankly outrageous and goes directly against the promise made in the Secretary of State’s White Paper, which said:
“We will prevent the Tribunal increasing rent beyond the amount landlords initially asked for when they proposed a rent increase.”
Amendment 13 would simply make good that broken promise by ensuring that the rent payable after a tribunal determination can be no higher than the rent initially imposed by the landlord in the notice served on the tenant. One would have thought that that would be pretty straightforward. Given that the landlord is proposing that rent level in the first place, that must surely be the upper limit of what the tribunal can determine. The Secretary of State obviously understands that principle, since he put in in his own White Paper.
The removal of this commitment in the Bill shows the Government are determined to bend over backwards to tip the balance of power even further in favour of landlords. In short, amendment 13 would get rid of what seems to be a deliberate disincentive to discourage tenants from using the process that is supposed to protect them from unfair rent hikes. In the absence of a national system for rent controls with local flexibility, which is what we really need, amendment 13 is a modest rebalancing of the rent tribunal process, and I would welcome the Minister’s consideration and response in summing up the debate.
There is limited time in the debate, but I very much support the amendments seeking to prohibit evictions within two years of the beginning of a tenancy where the landlord wants to sell or move family in. As the Bill stands, tenants can be served two months’ notice just four months after a tenant has moved in, making a mockery of ministerial claims to improve security of tenure. I also sincerely hope that Ministers will accept amendment 14, which addresses the deeply concerning fact that the notice period for eviction under the new landlord grounds is just two months. This amendment extends it to four months in recognition of the huge difficulty many people face in finding somewhere suitable and affordable to rent when they are evicted, which, as we know, is a major cause of homelessness.
Neil O’Brien
I have never been a landlord, but I have been a private renter and I greatly welcome some of the measures in the Bill as they would have helped me and other private renters a lot. I was offered some extraordinary properties when I was a private renter. I remember that one had dog mess all over the floor, while another in Elephant and Castle had bare wires hanging out of the wall and a gas cooker hanging off the wall. I welcome the extension of the decent homes standard to the private rented sector through this legislation, and it is striking how little controversy there has been about that given how big a deal it is. The proportion of private rented homes that have a major category 1 hazard in them has already come right down, from 24% when we came into office in 2010 to just 12% now, but that is still too high, and it is three times higher than in the social rented sector. So it is great that today we are pressing on with fixing this.
The Government amendments we are debating today are welcome. They strike a good balance between the interests of tenants and of landlords. For example, new clause 30, which makes the commencement of the end of no-fault evictions dependent on county courts being ready, is sensible. The slow recovery of the courts from the covid backlog has been frustrating, and there is a much wider question about how we can get rid of old-fashioned court practices that slow things down. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill), Chair of the Justice Committee, made important points about the paper-based nature still of a lot of what goes on there.
However, a lot of good ideas can be wrecked if we do not get the implementation just right and my hon. and learned Friend also mentioned that it currently takes about 55 weeks from commencement to possession, which is much too long. Although I agree with what we are doing here in terms of no-fault evictions, it is a big deal and it is right and reasonable that those who let out properties do at least know that they can rely on a slick and well-functioning court process before we bring this measure in. Even those on the Opposition Front Bench said the courts were recovering from the pandemic, rather than being fully recovered, so I think they recognise that up to a point as well.
The Government have made a range of other sensible reforms in the new clauses before us to ensure that there is fairness for landlords as well as tenants, including new clause 15 which gives those who let out properties some confidence in the first six months. There are the new student grounds as well, and I note that even landlord groups such as the National Residential Landlords Association are now saying we should get on with this legislation, so I think this is about right.
A large number of Government amendments are before us today, but the overall effect is to get a good balance in the legislation. I know some have concerns about the end of section 21, but many countries have a similar system and the sky has not fallen in. Germany, Austria, Denmark, Switzerland and the Netherlands all banned no-fault evictions, and they have a higher share of private renting than us, and in the US and Canada states including California and Quebec do the same and the sky has not fallen in there either. Even Scotland has had this since 2017 and, again, although it has done some other things that are pretty unwise in terms of rent control, the sky has not fallen in.
Landlords will still be able to cite a lot of reasons to ensure that they can get their property back. Indeed, my hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Mrs Elphicke), who is not in her place, suggested that perhaps there were still too many, but I think it is essential that people can get their property back. The end of section 21 changes the balance a bit, recognising that it is no small thing to ask people to move homes.
There are more people living in the private rented sector with children these days, and it is hugely disruptive to have to move. I remember how, in a place that I was renting, we were all moved out because the landlord was supposedly going to do massive works, but he ended up installing about 1 square metre of linoleum and let the place out again for the same rent. It was just a huge amount of disruption to no particular end. For those in a more vulnerable position than I was, it is not a small thing to be asked to move home, so by ending section 21 but still enabling landlords to get control of their property when they need it, we are striking the right balance.
Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)
While I respect the views of the hon. and learned Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill), who raised some valid points about the county court system and the pressures on it, as someone representing a large number of private renters, I must nevertheless express my concerns and share those raised by the shadow Minister and others about the Government’s failure to deliver on their promise on no-fault evictions. I rise, as chair of the all-party parliamentary group for students, to comment specifically on the proposals in relation to students, to support new clause 41, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds North West (Alex Sobel), and to speak to amendment 260, which stands in my name.
Students form a substantial part of the private rented sector. Back in July, the all-party parliamentary group organised a meeting to ensure that their views were heard. We brought together people from different nations of the UK and from all parts of the country. The Minister—sadly, he is not currently in his place—would have found it useful, because it highlighted a number of issues in the Bill that have not been properly thought through. I have discussed with the Minister the issues that came out of our meeting, and I am grateful to him for having found that time, but I want to share some reflections at this point in the Bill’s progress.
First, on the decision to extend grounds for eviction from purpose-built student accommodation to houses in multiple occupation and potentially to other student renters, there are mixed views across the country. Some are worried that exempting students makes them more attractive to less scrupulous landlords as potentially second-class, less protected tenants. Others, though, were concerned that giving students the same protection as other renters would force landlords to leave the student market, with that point made by landlords in areas where there was significant pressure on the housing market. Overall, we reached the same view as the Select Committee: on balance, the exemption is probably right, but it needs to be kept under review.
There is, however, a wider problem with the whole approach to students in the Bill. It seems that the Government have approached students with a one-size-fits-all model: they are undergraduates aged 18 to 21, living away from the parental home from the first time, and living there during term time only. However, students at our meeting were at pains to point out that they are not a homogeneous group. There are mature students who are renting in their home city and need to be there all the time, and students with families. Many courses do not start in September and are not on the cycle on which the Government’s amendments are premised. There are postgraduate taught programmes on a different, longer cycle. There are postgraduate research students on full-time programmes over several years, who are like any young professional. There are mixed households of students and non-students, particularly where groups of friends form and perhaps one member graduates.
I discussed all those variations with the Minister— I am glad to see him back in the Chamber—and his view was that any atypical student would simply not be subject to the exemption, partly because these issues have not been thought through properly. That might be in their favour because they will have greater protection, or it might leave them out in the cold because landlords will find them less attractive within the student market. Again, that emphasises the need to keep the impact of the student proposals under close review.
As the Minister resumes his seat I will move to my amendment 260, which raises a further issue that he referred to: the cycle of student tenancies, which I have discussed with him and on which he was sympathetic. When some of us were students, undergraduates would start university in September, settle in and make friendship groups, and towards the end of the academic year, after Easter, they would start looking for accommodation for the subsequent year. We have seen a landlord-driven arms race, as my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds North West referred to it, in which they have pressured students ever earlier in the year to enter into contracts for the subsequent academic year.
It is now the norm in many parts of the country that students starting a course in September are put under pressure by landlords the following month to enter into a contract for the following year. That forces them to pay a substantial deposit at a point in their life when they already have significant additional costs. It also forces them into joint tenancies with groups of people who they might discover later in the year are probably not who they want to live with in the subsequent year. Appeals to landlords to step out of the contract into which they entered are invariably rejected.
As the Government’s proposals are to regulate on the basis of that tenancy cycle, my proposition is that we try to make that cycle work better by saying that designated student contracts should not start sooner than March of the year in which students will take occupation in September. That would be in the interests of tenants, for the reasons that all of us who represent students will know. Setting a defined starting point will also end the arms race, in the interests of landlords.
Wera Hobhouse
The tendency that the hon. Gentleman refers to is not new. My daughter, who graduated in 2011 and therefore started in 2008, was already under that pressure. He is right that for a lot of young people it is incredibly difficult to find a group of people they want to live with the following year within a month of arriving at university. His proposals are commendable and I hope the Government are listening.
Paul Blomfield
I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention. It does vary in different parts of the country, but the way in which it has come earlier and earlier each year, to the ludicrous position where students are being forced into contracts for the subsequent year almost at the moment they start their first year, clearly needs to be addressed. As I said, I have discussed this issue with the Minister. When we talked about it he seemed sympathetic, so I hope it is an issue we can address as the Bill progresses.
Wera Hobhouse
Before I start my remarks, I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
My amendments—amendments 39 to 41—all refer to the Protection from Eviction Act 1977. I have raised this issue with the Government for the past two years, after one of my constituents, who is a lecturer in law at Bristol University, came to me with his concerns. To be fair to the Government, the Under-Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, the hon. Member for Kensington (Felicity Buchan), had a meeting with that group of academics, but then I heard nothing, which was a little bit disappointing. I have, just this afternoon, received a reply from the Minister. I thank him for that, but it was dated yesterday and only sent to me today. I will look at it very carefully, but it is still important that I raise here what I have to say.
There are two parts to amendment 39, which relates to the law on harassment of a residential occupier. At the moment, the law is complex and confusing, particularly for lay people, and difficult to enforce. I have glanced over the response from the Minister. The Government believe that there is currently enough power of enforcement. As I understand it, the 1977 Act is quite unknown. Local authorities and the police do not know enough about it. I wonder how we can work in that space to ensure that any unintended consequences brought in by the new legislation will not allow rogue landlords, or those who do not want to do the right thing, and refer them to other pieces of legislation.
First, the amendment would change the law so that everyone who is harassing a residential occupier to try to get them to move out of the property is subject to the same law. Currently, if a criminal landlord is harassing the tenant, the law is fairly clear. However, it might be another individual who is harassing the tenant to get them to move out. In this case, the local authority has to try to find out whether the person doing the harassing is an agent acting for the rogue landlord.
There is also often deliberate obscurity about the identity of the landlord. Investigating the relationship between individuals to establish their precise legal relationship is time consuming and unnecessary, where the aim of the legislation is to protect residential occupiers from harassment. The amendment changes the law to make enforcement easier for local authorities. The change will not affect the position of landlords. They will continue to be subject to the same law. It is only the local authority that can prosecute this offence, and it would still need to prove that a rogue landlord, their agent or any other person knew, or had reasonable cause to believe, that their actions would have the result of causing the occupier to leave.
The other thing that the amendment would do is clarify the law. Currently, if a rogue landlord interferes with services that are reasonably required for the occupation of the premises as a household, that can constitute harassment. However, it is not clearly stated what those services are—I can think of essential services, such as electricity, cutting the water off or even changing the locks—so it is important that we take that into consideration. We are not talking about decent landlords, as I have always made very clear. It is about getting to those landlords who are clearly not doing the right thing.
As I said, it is not clearly stated what the services are. Amendment 39 sets out a list of such services, including water, gas and electricity, as well as access to “electronic communications networks and services” as defined in section 32 of the Communications Act 2003.
Amendment 40 deals with three issues. First, the law on whether certain occupiers are protected by the legislation on illegal eviction is very complex, and it can be very difficult to establish. That is because some occupiers—for example, those who live with the landlord—are excluded from the protections in the law and can therefore be evicted without a notice or court order. That creates an incentive for sham arrangements whereby a rogue landlord might pretend to live with a tenant to circumvent the protections in the Protection from Eviction Act 1977. The amendment reverses the burden of proof, placing it on the landlord, who must establish that an occupier is not protected by the law. It is based on the idea that everyone has the basic protection of the law unless they are in an exclusionary category for a good reason. The presumption should be that they are protected.
Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)
I rise to speak in support of new clause 40, which stands in my name, but before I do so I will say a little about the Bill more generally.
Legislative reform of private renting is urgently needed. My constituency is in the eye of the storm of the housing crisis, and every year since 2010 the situation has worsened. The waiting list for a genuinely affordable social home has become longer, the number of people living in temporary accommodation has become higher, and private sector rents have continued to spiral. Despite many promises, the Government have delayed action for far too long. Private renters, housing campaigners, charities and Members from across this House are united in their support for bold reform of private renting. But now, after years of delay, we see a Government unable to deliver the effective and urgently needed reforms that were promised, because they are too weak to face down their own Back Benchers.
At the heart of the matter is the urgent need for an end to section 21 evictions, which I have been calling for since the debates on the Housing and Planning Act 2016. Section 21 is the basis of insecurity in private renting, because it gives landlords the ability to evict tenants for no reason at all. Time and again, I have seen in my constituency how section 21 is used egregiously to ratchet up rents and to stop tenants complaining about basic repairs or safety issues, such as damp and mould. Because a section 21 eviction does not need to be justified with a reason, all the power is in the hands of the landlord. Tenants live with the daily threat that they will be told to leave their home, with all that that entails, such as having to find a new home as rent costs continue to rise.
In a housing crisis characterised by an acute shortage of genuinely affordable social housing, private renting is a form of tenure on which millions of people rely. They must have a degree of security so that they can put down roots, know that their children will be able to remain at the local school, and live without insecurity and the constant fear that they may have to move. Section 21 is destabilising for families and communities. It is therefore beyond disappointing that the Bill will not result in an immediate end to section 21, and that the Secretary of State cannot give a date for when it will end.
The reason for the delay is the shocking mess that the Government have made of the court system. My constituents, who used to be able to attend Lambeth county court, now have to travel to Shoreditch, because the court was closed in 2017. When we challenged the closure of Lambeth county court on the grounds that it would involve a much more complicated and costly journey for constituents facing eviction who wished to attend court, we were promised digital reforms of the court service. We were promised investment in infrastructure to make hearings accessible to anybody who had to attend court, and to ease the complexity of the distance and journey time being increased, but no such investment has been forthcoming. Legal aid lawyers in my constituency who work in the courts speak of the chaos, the crumbling infrastructure and the overburdening workload falling on staff, yet this is the excuse today for why section 21 evictions cannot be brought to an end.
New clause 40, which I tabled, arises from a tragedy that happened to a family in my constituency. Their son, a first-year university student, had signed a tenancy agreement on a house for his second year. In common with parents of university students across the country, his parents were the guarantors for his tenancy, but before their son had finished his first year at university and the tenancy had even started, he tragically died by suicide. Faced with one of the most terrible tragedies that any of us can imagine, these bereaved parents were then pursued by their late son’s letting agent for the rent he would have owed on a tenancy that he would never take up. I wrote to the letting agency several times on behalf of my constituents, but it refused to budge. It maintained that a contract was a contract and that my constituents were liable as the guarantors, so they would just have to pay. Surely we in this House can agree that a contractual provision that financially penalises bereaved parents for the suicide of their child is straightforwardly wrong.
After I raised that case during Prime Minister’s questions, I was contacted by a number of families who had signed guarantor agreements on similar contracts, but also by a number of landlords and letting agents who said that they did not use such clauses in their tenancy and guarantor agreements. This demonstrates that such clauses are simply not necessary. Loss of rental income due to the death of a tenant is an insurable risk for landlords, and it should be a matter for insurance, not for bereaved guarantors.
I am grateful to the Minister for meeting me to discuss new clause 40, but I am baffled by the Government’s response, which is to suggest limiting the obligations of a bereaved guarantor to two months, including during the proposed six-month minimum commitment at the start of a new tenancy. While two months’ rent is clearly preferable to six months or a year’s worth of rent, it is still quite literally a financial penalty for the death of a loved one. Bereavement is one of the hardest things anyone can experience, and the Government should use the powers at their disposal to provide comfort, security and peace of mind to the bereaved so that they can focus on grieving the loss of their loved one. It is simply not fair for bereaved guarantors to be charged for the rent that their loved one is no longer alive to pay, and it is not necessary because the loss of rental income due to the death of a tenant is an insurable risk.
New clause 40 would bring this practice to an end and give peace of mind to guarantors that, should the unthinkable happen, they will not have to find hundreds or even thousands of pounds as they grieve. The Minister has said that he will continue to reflect on this issue. I urge him to do the right thing and to accept new clause 40 into the Bill. It is a simple measure that would prevent anyone else from experiencing the additional distress that my constituents suffered when their son passed away. This new clause has not been selected for a separate decision today, but I will continue to pursue this reform. It is the right thing to do. I urge the Government to look again at this issue. It is a reform that would cost the Government nothing, but it would give peace of mind to anybody facing bereavement, as my constituents have had to do, that egregious landlords and letting agencies will not come after them for a cost that they may not be able to afford at a time when they need help, support and comfort, not additional financial penalties.
Jacob Young
I thank right hon. and hon. Members for their contributions to the debate and for their ongoing engagement throughout the Bill’s passage. I will respond to some of the issues raised during the debate, but I might not be able to respond to all of them in the time remaining.
I will start by addressing the points made by the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Matthew Pennycook) and the amendments tabled by the Opposition. As I said in my opening speech, I thank him and others on the Labour Front Bench for their continued engagement and their support for the Bill. I believe that we share the ambition to see the Bill on the statute book as soon as possible.
New clause 10 would extend Awaab’s law to the private rented sector. The tragic and avoidable death of two-year-old Awaab Ishak is the most shocking reminder of the danger of damp and mould. I am clear that no tenant should have to live in dangerous housing conditions, but our approach to tackling this issue must reflect the differences between the social and private rented sectors. Awaab’s law was designed for social housing. Most social landlords manage large portfolios and have dedicated repair and maintenance teams, enabling them to tackle issues to specific timeframes. In contrast, the vast majority of private landlords own a small number of properties, with 82% of landlords having fewer than five properties and 43% owning just one.
The Bill takes a different and, I believe, more suitable approach to ensuring that private tenants have safe homes. It gives councils powers to immediately fine private landlords up to £5,000 if their properties are dangerously unsafe. It also introduces a decent homes standard for the first time and a new means of redress through the ombudsman. We will publish statutory guidance for councils on enforcement, and we will explore how this guidance can strengthen the onus on private landlords to deal promptly with tenant complaints about hazards, including for larger institutional private landlords that may have resources similar to those of social landlords. Amendment 28, which the hon. Gentleman spoke to, would remove section 21 immediately upon Royal Assent. This would mean there is no transition period, as is currently planned, leaving no time at all for landlords, letting agents, tenant groups and local authorities to adjust to the new system. There would be no time to conclude the necessary secondary legislation, leaving the statute book a confusing mess.
Importantly, without having the new possession grounds in place, amendment 28 would prevent landlords from regaining possession of their property even where they have a legitimate reason to do so, which the new grounds reflect. Landlords could not repossess to sell their property or to deal effectively with antisocial behaviour or repeat rent arrears. Most concerningly of all, temporary and supported accommodation would not have access to the critical new grounds, which would have an immediate impact by clogging up those sectors.
Although it might seem appealing and sound good to say, “Let’s just abolish it on Royal Assent,” amendment 28 would create chaos in the sector. It is far better for tenants and landlords alike if we ensure that the change happens in an orderly way. For those reasons, I ask the hon. Gentleman not to press his amendment.
Amendment 37, tabled by the hon. Member for North Shropshire (Helen Morgan) and given voice today by the hon. Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson), seeks to bring accommodation provided by the Defence Infrastructure Organisation into scope of the decent homes standard. I make it clear that everyone deserves a safe and decent home, none more so than the heroes who serve in our armed forces. Although 96% of service family accommodation already meets the decent homes standard, bringing such accommodation within scope could provide a further safeguard to ensure that all service personnel and their families have a home of the quality they deserve. We therefore strongly agree with the intent of the amendment.
Service family accommodation has unique features, however, including a significant portion being located on secure military sites where there will be issues around security and access for inspections. This would create a challenge in applying and enforcing the decent homes standard. The Government intend to ensure that service accommodation meets the decent homes standard, while recognising that work is needed to determine the appropriate monitoring and reporting arrangements given the unique nature of this accommodation. My Department will therefore work closely with the Ministry of Defence to explore these challenges and how we can best ensure that there are strong safeguards for service personnel and their families that work effectively in practice.
I assure the hon. Members for Twickenham and for North Shropshire that we are seriously considering this issue, and that the Minister for Defence Procurement and I intend to meet the hon. Member for North Shropshire in the coming weeks to discuss these issues in more detail before the Bill is in Committee in the Lords. I therefore ask her not to press her amendment.
New clause 12 and amendments 43 to 47, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton), seek to extend the core blanket ban provision in chapter 3 to care leavers. I am grateful to him for raising the important issue of care-experienced young people’s ability to rent a home in the private rented sector. The Government have already reserved a power in the Bill to extend blanket ban provisions to additional cohorts in future, should we find evidence that it is needed. This power could be used to extend the provisions to care-experienced people if evidence suggests that it would be effective.
Helping care leavers to make a successful transition from care to independence is a priority for this Government, and we recognise that care leavers can face significant barriers to securing and maintaining affordable housing, including providing a guarantor or rent in advance. We are already seeking to improve care leavers’ access to housing, as set out in the “stable homes, built on love” strategy, which sits alongside existing duties owed to care leavers by local councils as corporate parents.
Furthermore, we understand that at least 78 councils have passed motions granting care leavers the same protected characteristic status as other cohorts under the Equality Act 2010 in their local area. I am happy to continue working with my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham to hear the challenges that care-experienced people face and how we can make private rented accommodation more accessible to them.
I can confirm to my hon. Friend that the measures to prohibit blanket bans on the basis that a child will live with or visit a person at a property include foster children and, in response to the hon. Member for Twickenham, kinship carers. Landlords and letting agents will not be able to discriminate against potential tenants on the basis that they foster children. No further legal provisions are needed to do this. More broadly, during this spending review we are investing over £36 million in a foster carer programme and a foster carer recruitment and retention programme. That is the largest ever investment in fostering in England. For that reason, I ask my hon. Friend to withdraw his amendment.
New clause 39, proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Mrs Elphicke), effectively requires landlords to compensate tenants when using any possession grounds found in schedule 2 of the Housing Act 1988 within two years, other than ground 7A or ground 14. While I appreciate the intent behind my hon. Friend’s amendment, I do not agree that landlords should be made to pay compensation to tenants when they have a legitimate reason to evict. Landlords looking to move into or sell their property, or dealing with tenants in rent arrears, may find themselves to be in financial difficulty too, and the change proposed by the amendment could exacerbate that.
Amendment 257 seeks to tighten the breach of tenancy grounds, so that a tenant can be evicted if the tenancy breach impacts the wellbeing of other tenants or neighbours, or could cause material damage to the property beyond what would be covered by a tenancy deposit. As I have indicated to my hon. Friend the Member for Dover previously, I am sympathetic to the intention behind her amendment but it could have adverse consequences. For example, significant breaches of a tenancy agreement, such as subletting, may not lead to an eviction if they were proven to not have a material impact on other housemates or immediate neighbours.
I am also concerned about the impact on existing contracts, signed between landlord and tenant on the basis that this ground would be available. I assure my hon. Friend that ground 12 is discretionary, meaning that a judge will consider whether the ground has been met and whether the possession is reasonable in each case. We therefore think it is unlikely that a tenant would be evicted for minor breaches. I will seek to clarify in guidance when this ground ought to be used. I am happy to explore what more could be done in legislation to ensure tenants are not unfairly evicted for minor and unfair breaches to their tenancy agreement. For those reasons, I ask my hon. Friend to withdraw her amendment.
Turning to proposed new clause 40, the hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes) set out a deeply moving and tragic case in her consistency. I am grateful to her for meeting me yesterday to discuss the case. New clause 40 would prevent guarantors being held liable for rent after a tenant’s death. The hon. Lady has campaigned on the issue for some time and I appreciate her work on it. By moving to a system of periodic tenancy, tenants and their estates will no longer be locked in after the first six months. In the event of a bereavement, the tenant’s representative would be able to serve two months’ notice to end the tenancy and end the guarantor’s liability. Attempts to hold a guarantor liable for rent past the end of the tenancy would be in breach of the Tenant Fees Act 2019 and a landlord could be fined for doing so. I am aware that our new six-month term may mean guarantors being held liable for longer. That is why we have committed to looking at an exemption where a tenant tragically dies, as I discussed with hon. Lady yesterday, so that a notice can be served in the usual way. For that reason, I ask the hon. Lady to withdraw her amendment.
Turning to the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Anthony Mangnall), in his speech he acknowledged that the Government have accepted not one but almost all his amendments. I regret that he still feels opposed to the Bill overall, but I hope he will reconsider his position having listened to the debate and heard the significant changes we have made. He mentioned Margaret Thatcher’s reforms of the 1980s. Her reforms sought to smash a disastrous system of sitting tenants, where landlords were blocked from moving into or selling their homes, or were forced to let their properties below market rents. Our reforms build on her reforms. Landlords will still have a mandatory right to move into or sell their homes. Nothing in our Bill introduces rent caps, despite calls from Opposition parties and the Mayor of London.
Five years ago, the late James Brokenshire, as Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, promised that we would abolish section 21 evictions. Eight months later, every English Member of this House stood on manifestos to abolish section 21. In 2022, we published the White Paper into how we would reform the tenancy system. In 2023, we brought forward this Bill, which gave the White Paper legislative form. And today, we have the opportunity to move forward a Bill that strikes the right balance between security for tenants and fairness for landlords.
For tenants, this Bill abolishes section 21 evictions and moves to a more flexible system of periodic tenancies for all. It applies a new decent homes standard to the private rented sector for the first time and outlaws blanket bans on tenants with children, or those on benefits. It gives renters a legal right to request a pet. It also expands the homelessness prevention duty to protect vulnerable tenants. Together, these changes will give tenants the opportunity to put down roots in their communities, their children in local schools and to live in a secure home.
For landlords, the Bill strengthens possession grounds, giving landlords certainty that they can get their property back. It provides stronger protections in cases of antisocial behaviour and repeated non-payment of rent, and protections for the student market and rural communities. Tenants will have to give two months’ notice to leave a tenancy instead of one, and we are making improvements to the court system to ensure that they can properly support the new system.
The new private rented sector ombudsman will also help prevent issues escalating to the courts, offering quicker and cheaper resolution to disputes. And the new property portal will provide a one-stop shop for landlords to understand requirements and to demonstrate compliance.
Above all, the Bill delivers for landlords and tenants, because it drives out the bad actors in the system. That is what we aim to do—to build a sector that gives tenants security and protections, and landlords fairness, not pitting one against the other, but working with both to drive out the bad actors.
This Bill is the culmination of years of work in a sector that has not seen meaningful change in three decades. I ask all Members to join me and back the Bill tonight.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
Jacob Young
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
This Bill is an opportunity for us to improve the life chances of millions of private renters across the country, and I hope that we have also given reassurance to the millions of good landlords who endeavour to provide homes for those who rely on the private rented sector. When the Government set out their levelling-up missions in 2022—as the Levelling Up Minister, I feel this keenly—we made a clear commitment to halve the number of poor-quality homes by 2030 to
“Restore a sense of community, local pride and belonging especially in those places where it has been lost.”
When housing is secure and safe, it is the launch pad for rich and fulfilled lives and gives people
“a place they’re truly proud to call home”.
This Bill marks the biggest change to the sector in more than 30 years. Rightly, Members have pressed the Government to ensure that it strikes the right balance, improving the sector for all while ensuring that no party is unduly burdened either by cost or by process. I believe that the Bill now strikes that balance, and I am proud to have taken it through the House as my first Bill as a Minister. I should add that taking it over 24 hours before the beginning of the Committee stage was an added excitement that I shall not forget. Let me again pay tribute to my predecessors, my hon. Friends the Members for Walsall North (Eddie Hughes) and for Redditch (Rachel Maclean).
At this point, I invite the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) to intervene, if she wishes to do so.
Caroline Lucas
I am grateful to the Minister. As he knows, I tried to intervene earlier during his summing-up speech. I merely wanted to pursue the point about rent tribunals that I made in my initial intervention. In the White Paper, the Government said that they were going to prevent tribunals from increasing rents beyond the amount that landlords initially asked for when they proposed a rent increase. Why have the Government gone back on that? Why do they now envisage a scenario in which someone could go to a tribunal and end up with a higher rent than the one against which they are appealing? That is surely a massive disincentive.
Jacob Young
Large rent increases should not be used as a back-door method of eviction, but it is crucial that landlords are able to increase rents in line with market levels to maintain investor confidence. We have listened to concerns, and we think it fair that the tribunal is not limited when determining that market rent. This means that, as the hon. Lady said, the tribunal has the freedom to make full and fair decisions, and can continue to determine the market rent of a property. I understand the hon. Lady’s concerns, but it is important that all our measures are proportionate and that we do not allow the tribunal to become overburdened by too many complaints. I therefore think that this is a necessary safeguard.
Caroline Lucas
The Minister is being very generous in giving way. I am not the only person to have said that it should not be possible for rents to rise in these circumstances; the Government’s own White Paper said it only a short time ago. I wish that the Minister would address the point about the disincentive. If a tenant knows that by going to a tribunal they could end up with a higher rent than the one against which they are appealing, surely that will be a massive disincentive.
Jacob Young
Obviously, in a number of areas we have listened to the sector and moved on from the White Paper. The hon. Lady’s point is legitimate, but the reason the tribunal is able to set a rent that is above the landlord’s initial request, and to set a market rent, is that we want to ensure that it is not overburdened with repeat requests that challenge rent increases that are perfectly reasonable.
Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown
Surely the whole point of a tribunal is for the tribunal judge to set what he thinks is a fair market price. It might go up, it might go down or it might stay the same, but that is the whole point of a tribunal.
Jacob Young
I entirely agree with my hon. Friend, and that is why we have acted in this way.
We have heard from Members in all parts of the House, and I thank them all for their contributions during the Bill’s passage. They have worked collaboratively and diligently to ensure that this important legislation becomes law. I want to record my thanks to all my officials—I cannot name them all, but a few of them are Leah, Guy, Steph and Ross—as well as those in my private office team and the Clerks. I thank Members on both sides of the House, notably my hon. Friends the Members for Northampton South (Andrew Lewer) and for Totnes (Anthony Mangnall), for all their work, and of course I thank those in the Government Whips Office. Above all, I thank all the groups that I have had the pleasure of meeting as they represent the interests of both tenants and landlords across the wider sector.
I hope that our colleagues in the other place will take the collaborative approach that has been taken in this House, and will pass the Bill with the speed that it now deserves to give certainty and security to landlords and tenants throughout the country.
Matthew Pennycook
Let me start by thanking the Clerks, the House staff and the Library specialists for facilitating our debates on the Bill, along with all the experts and external organisations that have engaged extensively with us on it. I also put on record my thanks to all hon. Members who have contributed to our proceedings at all stages, particularly those who served on the Public Bill Committee. I especially thank my hon. Friends the Members for Weaver Vale (Mike Amesbury), for Westminster North (Ms Buck), for North Tyneside (Mary Glindon), for Mitcham and Morden (Dame Siobhain McDonagh) and for Brighton, Kemptown (Lloyd Russell-Moyle) for their forensic scrutiny of the Bill’s provisions, and the considerable efforts that they have made to strengthen it as a whole.
I offer my sincere thanks to the Minister for the manner in which he has approached our exchanges on this important piece of legislation. In being handed this as his first Bill to take through the House, he has been given an unenviable task, to put it mildly, but he has borne his troubles with good grace. I have very much appreciated the civil way in which he has engaged with me throughout and his efforts, within the severe constraints under which he is no doubt operating, to make a number of small but sensible improvements to the Bill.
Once again, I put on the record the thanks of Labour Members to all those who have campaigned tirelessly—in many cases, over decades—for a reformed private rented sector. I particularly thank all the organisations that have joined Labour over recent months in urging the Government to amend the Bill so that it levels decisively the playing field between landlord and tenant, especially the 20 that make up the Renters Reform Coalition.
Labour has consistently argued that the case for fundamentally reforming the private rented sector is as watertight as they come. A state of affairs in which more than 11 million people in England—not just the young and mobile, but many older people and families with children—live day in, day out with the knowledge that they could be uprooted from their home with little notice and minimal justification, and where a significant minority of them are forced to live in substandard properties for fear that a complaint would lead to an instant retaliatory eviction, is intolerable. The sector should have been transformed a long time ago.
The Bill as introduced was a good starting point for the reform that is necessary, but Ministers could and should have strengthened this legislation, rather than progressively watering it down in a forlorn attempt to appease a minority of malcontents on the Government Benches. As a result of the Government’s unwillingness to face down that minority, the Bill that we send to the other place today is not only far weaker than it need be, but in danger of being fatally compromised.
We will not oppose the passage of the Bill tonight, because it is essential that it progresses, but we hope that the noble Lords address that danger and that over the coming months we can convince the Government to think again and ensure that this long-overdue piece of legislation truly delivers for renters.
Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)
It is a great tribute to my hon. Friend the Minister that he has got the Bill into a form that is far better than it was on Second Reading, and that it is so much improved that there will not be a Division on Third Reading. That does not mean that everybody on the Conservative Benches is satisfied with all of the content of the Bill, although it is significantly improved.
I recall the enthusiasm with which those on the Conservative Benches greeted the Third Reading of the Housing Act 1988, which is being substantially amended by tonight’s proceedings. That Act introduced a fundamental supply-side reform and was at the heart of the Thatcher revolution, which transformed the private rented sector from one in which nobody wanted to engage. The sector was shrinking, and young barristers like me were making a living by trying to defend the interests of landlords who had haplessly found themselves on the wrong end of the legislation.
We have moved a long way since then, and one of the essential elements of the 1988 Act was the shorthold, which was a privately arranged agreement between a landlord and a tenant. For a period, the tenant would be able to have exclusive possession of a property that was rented by the landlord. During that period, neither the landlord nor the tenant would be able to renege on the agreement. The rent would remain the same, and the landlord would not be able to say that they needed to get repossession of the property for any reason at all.
It seems to me that the shorthold principle is still missing from the Bill. There was an amendment that would have brought back something like a shorthold provision to provide privity of contract between a landlord and a tenant who wish to enter into an agreement on a property, in the same way that one can agree to rent somebody’s car or caravan. The principle of privity of contract, which is fundamental to conservative beliefs, was enshrined in an amendment that was deemed to be a wrecking amendment. I hope that that amendment, which was signed by more than 50 colleagues, will be resurrected in the other place, where the rules are different, that the principles enunciated in it will be taken forward and that the Bill will be further improved in the other place.
We need to ensure that we support conservative legislation that is designed to increase the size of the rented sector rather than shrink it. I fear that the inevitable consequence of this—we have already seen a bit of this in Scotland—will be that, because the Bill will reduce the supply of private rented accommodation, the cost of that accommodation will go up faster than the rate of inflation. The sort of people who have been campaigning in the alliance to which the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Matthew Pennycook) was referring, will then say, “Stop there! We must have rent controls and price controls over rents”, because one set of regulations creates another set of regulations. Then we will be back to where we were in 1977.
That consequence is likely to flow from what we are approving tonight, and I just hope that it will be amended in their lordships’ House so that the supply-side reforms, which are so fundamental to the 1988 legislation, can be carried forward and we can give fresh confidence to people who are thinking about entering the private rented market, and fresh confidence to those already in it so that they do not withdraw from it as they are doing at the moment in increasing numbers. It does not help constituents who are trying to get rented accommodation if that accommodation continues to escalate in price.
I hope that, if there is to be a response to this short debate, we will be able to have a guarantee that under no Conservative Government will we ever have any system of rent controls. I hope that the Government will be able to assure us that, as a consequence of this legislation, we will be able to increase the size of the private rented sector rather than diminish it further.
I want to conclude by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Anthony Mangnall) on having waged his campaign, although it was not a one-man campaign because a large cohort of people behind the scenes supported of his amendments. As a result of those amendments, the Bill has been improved significantly. One of his amendments was not selected, and that is still, in my view, unfinished business, but we should not shirk from congratulating him on having carried this campaign forward so effectively and successfully.
When the Bill comes back from the other place—maybe in another year and a half since it was first presented—we might be on the other side of a general election. Some of us might think it would be better if we did not have the Bill on the statute book by the time of the general election, but that is another story. I will not go into that now. Whenever the Bill comes back, I hope that it will be in an improved form and that even more of my hon. Friend’s amendments, which are well supported on the Government Benches, will be included in the text of the legislation.
Jacob Young
With the leave of the House, I would just like to confirm to my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope) that we do not intend to introduce any sort of rent controls.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.
Prevention and Suppression of Terrorism
(3 weeks, 3 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
We now come to motion 3. The Order Paper notes that the draft order has not yet been considered by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments. I have now been informed that the Committee has considered these instruments and has not drawn them to the attention of the House.
The Minister for Security (Tom Tugendhat)
I beg to move,
That the draft Terrorism Act 2000 (Proscribed Organisations) (Amendment) (No. 2) Order 2024, which was laid before this House on 22 April, be approved.
I am grateful to the House for its consideration of this draft order, which will see the Terrorgram collective proscribed. The Government assess that the Terrorgram collective operates as an organisation, in accordance with the guidance on the meaning of that term found in section 121 of the Terrorism Act 2000.
The Terrorgram collective is the sixth extreme right-wing group to be proscribed, along with 75 groups proscribed for extreme Islamist or other ideologies. This is based on the level of direction provided by its leadership for the preparation of propaganda campaigns and the co-ordination between the network to advance its neo-fascist, accelerationist ideology.
Article 2 of this order adds the Terrorgram collective to the list in schedule 2 to the 2000 Act as a new entry. Having carefully considered all the evidence, the Government have concluded that the Terrorgram collective should be proscribed. While I am unable to comment on specific intelligence, I can provide the House with a summary of the group’s activities.
The Terrorgram collective is a transnational online network of neo-fascist terrorists who produce and disseminate violent propaganda, with the aim of radicalising readers and encouraging individuals to commit acts of terrorism. The message of hatred it preaches is one of extreme white supremacism. It calls not just for death and violence but for the collapse of western democracy itself, so that the collective might build a whites-only world in its place.
The Terrorgram collective has published three long-form, magazine-style publications, as well as a 24-minute documentary video. This propaganda is designed to incite violence towards perceived representatives of the establishment, ethnic minorities and other minority or religious communities. It not only celebrates the abhorrent cycle of violence and death that it means to inspire; it worships it, glorifying the collective’s genocidal peers as so-called “saints” and encouraging readers to commit similar acts. The Terrorgram collective specifically celebrated Anders Breivik, who killed eight people with a car bomb before shooting dead 69 people at a youth camp in Norway in 2011, as a so-called “saint.”
The Government have determined that the Terrorgram collective is an organisation concerned in terrorism. For example, in February 2023, a key contributor to the Terrorgram collective was arrested for allegedly plotting attacks against the Baltimore power grid. The Terrorgram collective is involved in preparing for terrorism through the dissemination of instructional material in its propaganda. It promotes and encourages terrorism through its publications, which contain violent narratives and material that glorifies previous extreme right-wing attackers and encourages those who consume the content to commit similar actions.
In October 2022, an extreme right-wing terrorist attacked a gay bar in Slovakia, resulting in the murder of two people. In his attack manifesto, the perpetrator credited Terrorgram’s publications. Since the attack, Terrorgram now glorifies him as an example to follow. The decision to proscribe Terrorgram demonstrates this Government’s commitment to defending the security of the LGBT community.
Terrorgram holds vile antisemitic views. It has published propaganda material aimed at inciting violence against Jewish communities and the state of Israel and, most recently, celebrated Hamas’s attacks on Israel, including endorsing the use of terrorism to target Israel and Jewish communities. Reporting indicates that Terrorgram has advocated for attacks on Israel’s critical national infrastructure. This proscription further demonstrates our unwavering commitment to fighting antisemitism and our unfaltering support for the Jewish community.
The safety and security of the public is paramount. It is, and always will be, this Government’s No. 1 priority. The ongoing fight to counter and contain terrorism in all its guises is an essential part of that mission, as is standing up for the values we cherish. When our collective security and values are threatened by groups such as the Terrorgram collective, we will not hesitate to act. I therefore urge Members to support this proscription.
I commend the draft order to the House.
Dan Jarvis (Barnsley Central) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for his statement and I thank civil servants at the Home Office for briefing me in advance of the debate.
Today’s proscription order for the Terrorgram collective, also known as just Terrorgram, is brought about by the exceptional men and women who serve in our intelligence and security services, in government and in our police. They perform a vital public service, and I thank them for it. We on the Opposition Benches will always work with the Government on these crucial matters of national security in order to stop the malign forces that seek to harm us, divide us or undermine our way of life.
Let me say at the outset that the Opposition support the proscription of Terrorgram as a terrorist organisation. Terrorgram takes the form of an online network of neo-fascist terrorists, who produce and share violent material that incites violent, extreme right-wing activity here in the UK and abroad. Even after our nation’s existential fight and victory over fascists almost 80 years ago, their threat to our security and our way of life has never completely gone away. We must always defeat fascism wherever we find it. That is why it is important that the order before us will amend schedule 2 to the Terrorism Act 2000 to add Terrorgram to the list of proscribed organisations. Doing so will make it a criminal offence to engage with the Terrorgram group, to promote support for it or to display its logo.
Terrorgram’s name derives from it being a group on the encrypted messaging platform Telegram, so we very much welcome the innovative approach to proscription outlined by the Minister. Even though Terrorgram is without a physical presence in the UK, its online presence, which glorifies terrorist acts and shares bomb-making materials, is a threat to our national security. The Minister cited a number of examples. I will refer to the attack in Slovakia in 2022, where the threat posed by Terrorgram became a deadly and tragic reality, when a 19-year-old assailant killed two people in an LGBT nightclub. He later took his own life but left a manifesto that thanked Terrorgram for
“building the future of the white revolution one publication at a time”.
We approve of the Government’s innovative action that will lead to the rightful proscription of Terrorgram. Within legal frameworks, there must be an approach that is relentless, agile and cunning to defeat all terrorist groups. Regardless of whatever warped ideology they peddle, violent extremists across the spectrum continue to use online platforms to radicalise their support base and organise their activities. We must prepare to proscribe more online groups, if that is necessary.
These online groups—online cesspits—regularly feature violent misogyny, an abhorrent trait that is a common feature in all terrorist ideologies, including extreme right-wing terrorism. As the Minister will know very well, the Prevent programme currently does not recognise violent misogyny and incel ideology as extremist ideologies. Will the Minister provide an assurance that the appropriate frameworks are in place to bridge the gap between violent misogyny and recognised extremist ideologies?
Today’s proscription of Terrorgram comes after the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities published the Government’s definition of extremism in March. Although long overdue, we believe this definition of extremism is welcome and will lead us towards better countering some of the causes of terrorist threats to our country. As the Minister would acknowledge, the new definition was always intended to be the beginning of a process to better counter extremism, not the process in its entirety. What progress has been made between the Home Office and the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities on publishing a list of organisations designated as extremist?
Terrorgram’s corrosive influence must also be viewed in the wider context of rising hate crime across the UK.
Since 2018, police forces in England and Wales have recorded increases in reports in four out of the five hate crime strands—race, sexual orientation, disability and transgender. Furthermore, since 7 October, the Community Security Trust has recorded a 147% increase in antisemitic incidents compared with 2022, and Tell MAMA has recorded a 335% increase in anti-Muslim hate cases in the past four months alone.
The Minister will know that the last hate crime action plan was published eight years ago. He knows more than others that proscription is an incredibly important means to counter extremist activity, but it is not the only means. A new hate crime action plan could be part of the arsenal to disrupt and defeat violent extremism. Can the Minister say what plans the Home Office has to publish an updated one?
To conclude, proscribing Terrorgram is the right thing to do for our national security. It was no longer tolerable or safe for the poison of Terrorgram’s violent ideology and terrorist material to be in reach of malign actors in our country. It had to be treated with the strongest and most robust antidote: proscription. We welcome that the UK is the first country to do so. No Government can ever relent in their determination to ensure that, as a country, we are always one step ahead of those who seek to harm us, to divide us or to undermine our way of life. This House must always stand united in protecting the public whom we strive to serve and protect. That is why we strongly support this proscription order.
Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)
The SNP firmly supports this order as well, and believes that no organisation should be free to spread extremist hate and encourage violence in the UK, so it is absolutely right that the Terrorgram collective is proscribed as a terrorist organisation. I heard the Minister mention that Terrorgram is the sixth extreme right group to be proscribed and, as I understand it, it is the first online network to be proscribed in this way, and I welcome that he has taken that step.
Tech Against Terrorism, which also welcomed this proscription, has been tracking and reporting on Terrorgram’s content for some time and has stated that it sent alerts on this content to seven different platforms, only four of which have removed it. I understand from the explanatory notes that this order now gives the Government the power to compel platforms to take down such content. Has the Minister had any communication with Tech Against Terrorism, or has he instructed these platforms to take down this content, because it has no place on them, especially given this proscription order from today?
I understand that the Huffington Post has named a woman in the US, Dallas Humber, as Terrorgram’s propagandist and a narrator of some of its content. As this is, to some extent, an issue of human rights abuses, is it possible that we can look at proscribing an individual under our existing Magnitsky legislation? Could the Government put restrictions on this woman, who has been named as perpetuating hate online, or any other individuals who are involved in setting up this site? These people should not be allowed to travel around the world. If this women were to travel to the UK, for example, she could speak to people in the real world as opposed to just online. Will the Minister take that away and consider whether something of that kind is indeed possible?
Can the Minister give us an up-to-date assessment of far right groups, as the Government and the various intelligence agencies are picking up on this and giving it such a high priority, especially given the scenes that we saw on the streets of London earlier this week? Extremism does not begin with organisations such as Terrorgram or with the atrocities that people inspired by Terrorgram have committed. It starts at a much lower level, and people, via the algorithms that these sites use, get exposed to more and more extremist content. Has any work gone into tracing how some of these people got to very extreme content, and what steps could have been taken to remove content at a less extreme level before they got exposed to something that radicalised them to the point of carrying out atrocities?
There is prevention work to be done here. I have seen various cases where somebody came in with a concern about lockdown and is now a serious anti-vaxxer because they saw more and more extreme content, and then got exposed to more far-right content and more dangerous content as a result. There is a job of work to be done to deradicalise people who have been exposed to such material. What are the Government doing, and what thoughts do they have on how they might go about deradicalising those who have been exposed to far-right content? It is a very serious threat to our democracy and the safety of people, particularly minorities, in the UK. I do not think that it is quite being taken seriously enough.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
On behalf of the Democratic Unionist party, I add my support to the Minister for his proscription of Terrorgram. He clearly outlined the issues that are pertinent to the announcement. I express concern over the radicalism that seems to persist throughout society. It seems to happen in ways that I, perhaps from a non-technical point of view, cannot really understand, but I understand that the name of the organisation—Terrorgram—tells us all about this group. Its very intention is evil and wicked. Its intention is to kill and to maim. The Minister’s announcement today encourages us, as he often does when it comes to these matters.
The Minister’s announcement that the UK is the first country in the world to proscribe the Terrorgram collective is positive, and proactive by him and the Government. This group spreads vile propaganda, with evil—indeed, murderous—intent, and there is absolutely no place for it in modern society. The Minister rightly reminded the House, and myself in particular, that the group is anti-Israel and anti-Jewish. Terrorgram’s hatred of Israel and the Jewish people is to be condemned unreservedly. I commend the Minister on the Government’s response and their support of Israel within the law, which they have given the whole way through. On this issue, the response is critical. I was a friend of Israel when I was in the Northern Ireland Assembly some 14 years ago—I was there for 12 years—and I have been a friend of Israel here. I am therefore encouraged by the Minister’s comments in relation to the support that he has given the Israeli people and the Jewish people in the face of downright hatred. The Terrorgram collective must be proscribed, and it must be made criminally impossible for them to operate in any fashion, so today’s announcement is good news.
Does the Minister agree that social media plays a massive role in the distribution of horrific comments and opinions? While it may not entirely be the issue today, does he agree that much more needs to be done legislatively for platforms such as Telegram, and indeed others that are used by people to spew hatred, whether that be TikTok, Twitter or any other? I unashamedly say that I do not have the ability to do technical things, but I am pleased that others do. Technical change can happen at breakneck speed. Does the Minister intend to ensure that when anything comes on the radar of our Government, Parliament will respond immediately to proscribe it? Perhaps he can give us some idea of the timescale when something comes to the attention of the House, the security forces or others. Will he respond in an urgent manner?
Again, I thank the Minister and our Government for the proactive way that they respond. It encourages me as a citizen, and on behalf of the people of Strangford, the people of Northern Ireland, and indeed all the people of this great nation that we love.
Tom Tugendhat
I welcome all the comments made, particularly by my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley Central (Dan Jarvis). He has been a friend for many years and we have worked together on many different operations in many different parts of the world—although very few were quite as vile as this one, I am afraid; Terrorgram is a genuinely horrific organisation. He raised some interesting points about the protection of the Jewish community, and he is absolutely right. The Community Safety Trust, which he and I both support, will receive an additional £54 million in funding to continue to provide measures until 2028. As he knows, that commitment was made only a few weeks ago by the Prime Minister.
My hon. Friend also quite rightly raised the incidents of anti-Muslim hatred that Tell MAMA has recorded. He is completely correct that we have sadly seen an increase in that area as well as in antisemitism, and he will know that we have also been very clear that those organisations, mosques and schools that require extra support and protection can get it from the Home Office—indeed, many have been applying, and I have had the privilege of ensuring that they are able to get the funding they need for their own security, to prevent harm to anybody in the Muslim community as well.
I want to touch briefly on some of the areas raised by the hon. Member for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss), who made some interesting points about an individual. If she will forgive me, I will not speak about that individual in particular, but I will say that proscription works against organisations and is not an individual power. However, she is also aware that sanctions do work against individuals and, where we are aware that individuals are connected to such hateful organisations—certainly if they are connected to proscribed organisations, as I am confident Terrorgram will be very shortly after this debate—there is no way that somebody like that would be, in the legal term, conducive to the public good, and there is no way that they should be allowed access to the United Kingdom.
The hon. Lady also raised an interesting point about St George’s day. I must say that I have been to many St George’s day lunches, at the very generous invitation of individuals who, when I was still in uniform, used to be very kind. I can see my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley Central remembers them too. We used to get invited to lunches in various parts of the country—my latest was in West Malling—and I may say that while we sat down for lunch at midday, I do not remember when we stood up from lunch. That was a great day of celebration and a fantastic moment for all of us. What we saw yesterday was no celebration of St George’s day or English national patriotism; it was simply thuggish violence and it has no place on our streets.
On tech, the hon. Lady is absolutely right that, sadly, it is very easy to go down a rabbit hole or a tech black hole that leads to an amazing warren of hate-filled conspiracy theories. This is an area where tech companies themselves have a responsibility to play their part. I have engaged with them in many different areas, including child sexual abuse online, which she knows I have devoted a lot of time to combating. However, this is another area where she is quite right that there is more work to be done and more responsibility on those who are profiting from the attention of individuals across the world.
The last point I want to make is on the definition of extremism. My hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley Central knows very well that this is an important piece of work. There is more work to be done on the actual list, as he rightly says, but I will bring it forward as soon as we ready to do so. He will understand that we want to make sure it is as robust and complete as it possibly can be, but he will be among the first to know as soon as it is ready.
I have seen some truly harrowing material in this job, but the scenes from the attack on the gay bar in Slovakia, where innocent people were gunned down in cold blood, ranks among the absolute worst. The manifesto written by the perpetrator advocated the murder of gay people, Jewish people and black people—not for anything they have done, but for who they are. Make no mistake: this was not just an attack on the LGBT community, and the Terrorgram collective is not just a threat to our national security. This was an attack on the values and principles that define who we are, and who we are as a nation. The Terrorgram collective is a threat to our society. There is no place whatsoever for the vile ideology espoused by the Terrorgram collective. We will not tolerate it. Proscribing it is a proportionate and necessary step in our ongoing effort to tackle terrorism, protect the public and defend our values. We will never relent in showing terrorism for what it is: a poisonous, corrosive force—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Order. Before the Minister sits down, I have to put the Question on the deferred divisions motion.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 41A(3)),
That, at this day’s sitting, Standing Order No. 41A (Deferred divisions) shall not apply to the Motion in the name of Secretary James Cleverly relating to Prevention and Suppression of Terrorism.—(Aaron Bell.)
Question agreed to.
Debate resumed.
Main Question again proposed.
Tom Tugendhat
And with that, Mr Deputy Speaker, I commend the order to the House.
Mr Deputy Speaker
I was rather hopeful that you would just get in under the wire, but thank you none the less.
Question put and agreed to.
Business without Debate
Petitions
Rob Butler (Aylesbury) (Con)
I rise to present a petition, on behalf of my constituents, about water booster proposals in Buckland.
Thames Water currently plans to site a new booster station right next to traditional rural cottages, creating an eyesore and potential safety risks on the small country road that provides access. Hundreds of residents are strongly opposed to this proposal and the parish council has proposed an alternative site. The petition states:
“The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to ensure that Thames Water locates this new water booster station well away from residential properties.
And the petitioners remain, etc.”
Following is the full text of the petition:
[The petition of residents of the constituency of Aylesbury,
Declares that Thames Water should be required to make residential amenity the top priority when considering the location of a new large water booster station in Buckland which will have a severe negative impact on the lives of those living in neighbouring properties.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to ensure that Thames Water locates this new water booster station well away from residential properties.
And the petitioners remain, etc.]
[P002961]
Mrs Emma Lewell-Buck (South Shields) (Lab)
I rise to present a petition on behalf of my constituents regarding the recommendations of the infected blood inquiry. The lives of those infected and their families have been changed forever by that tragedy. I commend all campaigners for their tireless fight for justice and accountability, including my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Dame Diana Johnson). With two victims of the scandal dying every week, the Government must get on and deliver this long overdue justice.
The petition states:
The petition of residents of the constituency of South Shields,
Declares that people who received infected blood and who have suffered as a consequence have, along with their families, waited far too long for redress.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to implement the recommendations in the Second Interim Report of the Infected Blood Inquiry without delay.
And the petitioners remain, etc.
[P002963]
Access to Banking: Devon
(3 weeks, 3 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Simon Jupp (East Devon) (Con)
I am delighted to have secured this important Adjournment debate on access to banking services and banking hubs in Devon. I welcome the Minister and colleagues to the debate.
Take a quick stroll down your nearest high street, Mr Deputy Speaker, and you will notice that there are fewer bank branches than there were in years gone by—far fewer. In 1992 there were 19,000 bank and building society branches in the UK. In 2022 the number of bank and building society branches had fallen from 19,000 to 8,000. That decline has not happened more quickly on any particular Government’s watch: the fall has been consistent and steady over the past 30 years. However, we have reached a tipping point; bank branches are getting scarce.
We notice when bank branches are gone altogether from our high streets. People cannot deposit cash or pay in cheques; businesses and charities cannot pop to the branch to refill their tills or bank their takings at the end of the day; and we no longer have friendly faces to talk to for financial advice. When bank branches are gone, people have to travel miles to apply for a loan or to arrange third-party access to start bereavement proceedings, for example. People tell me that when those branches are gone, managing their money becomes more difficult, if not impossible. People in my constituency travel to cities and towns such as Exeter or Honiton for their nearest branch. Every time a bank decides to shut its high street branch, my postbag fills up. I share those people’s frustration—I get it.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I commend the hon. Member for securing the debate on this massive issue. Does he agree that banks’ abdication of their responsibilities to rural communities, which often have the worst transport, infrastructure and broadband connections, cannot be paved over with a users’ guide to online banking? At the very least, a hub that is accessible throughout the day and in the evening must be the minimum standard of service that any national bank must be required to provide for its customers.
Simon Jupp
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. I personally would benefit from a “how to bank online” guide, because it can be quite confusing, even for someone who is relatively technical. I thank him for his point.
It is not enough to say that bank branch closures are commercial decisions. Yes, the Government cannot intervene, and nor can I as an MP stop bank branches from closing, as much as I try. But we have reached a tipping point where enough is enough. Banks must provide core services to loyal customers on our high streets and stop washing their hands of their customers’ needs.
The banks claim that their branches on our high streets are increasingly outdated: they say that more customers are moving online and going cashless. That is broadly true, but it is not an excuse simply to pull up sticks and disappear. In fact, I believe that bank branch closures across the UK are forcing people to change their habits, but people still need access to cash and face-to-face banking services—the demand is definitely still there. To give a couple of statistics, 27% of over-65s and 58% of over-85s rely on face-to-face banking. Some among the older generation are not technophobes. In fact, they may have valid reasons for not wanting to do online banking. According to research by Age UK, fear of being defrauded and a lack of IT skills are common reasons why many people prefer face-to-face banking.
If the need for face-to-face banking is still there, what is the solution? That brings me to the second part of my speech.
Mrs Pauline Latham (Mid Derbyshire) (Con)
My constituency has a banking hub in Belper, which has become a lifeline for businesses on the high street, particularly small businesses, because they can access cash and pay cash in. I encourage my hon. Friend to keep campaigning for a banking hub, because they help every section of society: older people, younger people and businesses. That banking hub has rejuvenated the high street in Belper.
Simon Jupp
I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention. It is almost as if she knew what I was about to say, because I was about to move on to the topic of banking hubs, which are a relatively new concept. I think of them as shared banking spaces: they look a bit like a traditional bank branch, but unlike a traditional branch, those hubs are available to everyone. They offer counter services: customers from any bank can withdraw and deposit cash, collect change, deposit cheques, pay bills and make balance inquiries. They also offer private spaces for specific banks, where customers can speak to someone from their own bank or building society about more complex issues such as mortgages, loans and pensions. That is not really something that people want to do online.
Banking hubs are an industry-led solution to the demise of physical branches, but the Government have been clear that the delivery of hubs must speed up. They have done important work to legislate to protect access to cash, not least through the Financial Services and Markets Act 2023. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s remarks in this debate and hope to hear about the progress being made in rolling out more banking hubs across the country. I know that he has had discussions with UK high street banks, and has also held roundtables with industry and MPs about banking hubs.
As East Devon’s MP, I have been holding meetings locally to see how we can set up banking hubs in the constituency. Last year I launched a local campaign. Lloyds in Sidmouth, the last bank in town, was going to shut its doors. That is where I live, and local residents and I wanted to send a clear message to the banks that they should staff a banking hub in Sidmouth. Hundreds of people got in touch through my survey and the results were quite startling: 81% of residents who responded said they had visited a bank branch in the past six months, and 96% said they wanted staff from their own bank in the hub. On the question in my survey:
“What is the most common way that you access banking services”,
46% said:
“In branch or in person”,
while 52% said “Online” and only 2% said “Telephone”. My survey showed a clear demand for face-to-face banking, and the need for a banking hub in Sidmouth.
Here is what some local residents told me when Lloyds announced it was closing its branch in Sidmouth. Mary said:
“We wonder why it is Sidmouth, with all the holiday crowds, folk festivals, regatta and jazz festivals that the last bank is set to close. There seems to be no logic. Do these decision makers have a rusty old pin they use to decide which banks stay and which goes?”
Susan told me:
“I am very upset to discover Lloyds bank is closing. I wonder what customers are supposed to do when they need paperwork either for power of attorney or closure of accounts after a death?”
Pauline told me:
“I very nearly got scammed. I am not technology minded and do not bank online. I received a very convincing text message which resulted in my going to my bank to make a payment. If it wasn’t for the lady I spoke to in the bank I would have had my account wiped clean. She was very much on the ball, so I was saved. This shows the importance of having a bank in Sidmouth.”
Local residents such as Mary, Susan and Pauline were delighted when Sidmouth’s banking hub opened its doors last month. It has been very popular, but is it perfect? No—although I would like to pay tribute to the staff, who are fantastic—because it is not yet quite what the town needs, because it needs a cashpoint. It needs to have a 24/7 ATM available outside, with a printer so that residents can get mini-statements, as well as a trial of Saturday opening hours if at all possible. However, I want to thank the team at Cash Access UK and the building contractors for getting the hub up and running so successfully before Lloyds closed its doors. I was also pleased to visit Axminster’s banking hub when it opened. I heard feedback from local residents and businesses about how important it is for that town. More banking hubs such as the ones in Sidmouth and Axminster are needed in Devon, and I want to put that firmly on the record in today’s debate.
I am currently working with local communities to try to get banking hubs in towns such as Exmouth, Budleigh Salterton and Ottery St Mary. Exmouth, the largest town in Devon, will need a banking hub sooner rather than later, and I have already made the case for one. Halifax’s branch in the town will close this summer, which will leave just three banks remaining in Exmouth.
The case for a banking hub in Budleigh Salterton is also strong. It has been without a high street bank due to closures in recent years. The last bank in town, Lloyds, closed in January 2019. The town’s population is significantly older than the national average. Local residents and businesses have only the post office and the Co-op to access over-the-counter banking services. I have seen the queues, and it is not great, although it is a small shop and the staff work incredibly hard. That is why I have made a formal request for a banking hub, alongside a local councillor, Henry Riddell.
I know the Government want the delivery of banking hubs to be sped up, and I hope that Exmouth, Budleigh Salterton and Ottery St Mary will be in line for banking hubs too. I would cite these examples as to where a problem lies. I believe the criteria for whether an area should get a banking hub must be relaxed, because the bar is far too high at the moment. Generally, in order to get a banking hub a town needs 7,000 people within 1 km of the centre and at least 70 retailers. It also needs there to be no banks at all—in other words, the last bank in town must be closing or already have closed. Too often it takes the last bank in town to shut before the industry gets its act together and opens a banking hub.
On this point, Exmouth will not get a banking hub under the current criteria until 2028. Nationwide told me when I visited last week that it will keep its Rolle Street branch open until at least 2028. I of course welcome that commitment by Nationwide, which is playing fair by the high streets, but that commitment in effect means that a banking hub will not open in Exmouth while the branch remains, which makes no sense to me. We have to consider the size of Exmouth, and we also have to consider the number of banks the town used to have. We do need to look again at the criteria and to lower the bar.
I recently co-signed a letter from my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford (Julie Marson) to the Financial Conduct Authority to unlock more banking hubs. The FCA will decide on new rules in the third quarter of this year, and I will be watching that like a hawk. This could be an important turning point, so that even more banking hubs can open. As I have said, more banking hubs such as those in Sidmouth and Axminster are badly needed in my part of Devon. People should be able to access banking services on our high streets.
I am delighted to have secured today’s debate and look forward to hearing the Minister’s remarks.
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Bim Afolami)
It is an absolute pleasure to respond to this debate, and I thank my hon. Friend the Member for East Devon (Simon Jupp) for securing it.
We know that our colleagues in this place all work hard for their constituents, but some go the extra mile. I would say that on this subject, like so many others, my hon. Friend is an exemplar of what can be seen in British politics and in this Parliament. His work on securing access to banking services in his constituency is second to none. I appreciate the strength of feeling across the Chamber on this topic. I share the concerns of many Members in light of the more than 600 closure announcements we have seen in the past year. Banks and building societies are essential in people being able to manage their money on a day-to-day basis, and they hold a privileged and important place in our society. As such, firms must ensure that all customers, wherever they live, have appropriate access to banking and cash services.
We need to be grown up about this issue. We all recognise, as my hon. Friend made clear in his remarks, that the world of banking has changed greatly in recent years. Reflecting that shift, customers have increasingly moved towards online and mobile access. That shift is apparent across many areas of the economy and society, not just in banking. Recent Financial Conduct Authority data shows that only 21% of British adults still regularly use a bank branch. In contrast, almost nine in 10 adults banked online or used a mobile app.
It is right that firms continue to innovate in response to changing customer habits and ensure that customers across the UK benefit from the latest developments in technology, but those changes in technology—this is a fundamental point, and I believe my hon. Friend will share my view—do not mean that access to in-person banking and cash services are no longer required. They remain vitally important to many people up and down the country in our constituencies. In times of need, or when more personalised support and services are required, such as in the examples that my hon. Friend mentioned, speaking to a real person face to face can be essential. More broadly, the wider societal benefits to our constituencies, our high streets and our market towns of bank branches are critically important.
In the light of those things, the Government have taken decisive action over recent years to ensure that access to cash is protected through the Financial Services and Markets Act 2023. It places a responsibility on the FCA to seek to ensure reasonable provision of cash withdrawal and deposit facilities, including free services for personal current accounts. Following the passage of that Act, the Government published a policy statement setting out our policies on access to cash. The FCA must have regard to that policy statement as part of its regulatory approach. The statement set out that people and businesses should be no further than 3 miles from a free cash access point.
As my hon. Friend mentioned, the FCA has recently held a consultation on its proposed regulatory regime in this area. Under the proposals, banks and building societies that are designated by the Government will be required to assess and fill gaps or potential gaps in cash access provision that significantly impact consumers and businesses.
As well as access to cash, the FCA has guidance on bank branch closures. While decisions on individual closures are rightly a commercial issue for firms—we do not want Government Ministers deciding where bank branches go, tempted and fascinated as I would be by that process—we expect firms to adhere to the FCA guidance. That guidance is clear that banks and building societies must ensure that they carefully consider the impact of planned closures on their customers.
Where firms fall short of those expectations, the FCA has the power to ask for closures to be paused or for other options to be put in place, and it will do so. It is important to make the point that the industry has made great strides to provide a range of initiatives through alternatives such as agreements with the post office or community outreach programmes in locations such as community centres, libraries and village halls. Shared banking hubs are, as we have heard, another exciting and popular innovation. Banking hubs are a clear example of pioneering, industry-led innovation to protect access in a changing landscape.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Derbyshire (Mrs Latham) made clear, banking hubs can be a lifeline to communities. I am pleased that the Sidmouth hub has been opened, where my hon. Friend the Member for East Devon had the privilege of cutting the ribbon—or whatever they had him cut—but it is important that the House, and indeed everybody, knows that banking hubs can be a modern 21st century way to ensure access to cash and banking services. The Government strongly support this innovation.
These hubs help people and businesses withdraw and deposit cash, pay in cheques, and check their balance over the post office counter, and also provide a community banker who can help people with wider banking services, from making a transfer to providing support for fraud and scam victims. My hon. Friend mentioned victims in his constituency who he has been working with.
Hubs are deployed by Cash Access UK in response to a Link assessment of the community’s cash needs. To ensure there is no gap in the provision of services, the industry has committed that if a hub is recommended, the branch it replaces will not be closed for up to 12 months until that hub is open, and if there is a delay beyond that, a temporary hub will be put in place. To date, over 120 hubs have been announced across the country and 47 are open. This is a welcome programme, and it is a priority to me that the industry continues to deliver on this but speeds it up.
UK Finance, the trade body representing the industry, has recently committed to a total of 225 hubs to be opened in the next 18 months. Like my hon. Friend and many in the House, I will be watching and holding it to account, and making sure that those hubs open as quickly as possible.
Miss Sarah Dines (Derbyshire Dales) (Con)
As the Minister knows, I represent Derbyshire Dales, where we recently had the closure of the last bank, the National Westminster bank, in Bakewell. That was the last bank in the Peak district. My concern is that the criteria for hubs exclude us, because Bakewell is too small: it has only 3,000 to 4,000 people and under the present criteria there have to be 7,000. What might work in Belper or another part of a district or county like Derbyshire, or indeed Devon, might not work elsewhere, meaning that people will be left behind. Will the Government look with the FCA at whether the criteria should be changed to take into account areas that surround a smaller town, where that smaller town might still be vibrant but not big enough on its own to qualify for a hub? What is the future in this area?
Bim Afolami
I thank my hon. Friend for her point and I should not have left her out when talking about the committed Members of Parliament who work on this area. I pay tribute to her for the number of times she has questioned me, badgered me and advocated for her community and constituents on this subject, and today is another good example. If she waits a few minutes, I will address her specific points directly.
It is important that hubs provide a good service to customers and the industry evolves its offer as it learns from the roll-out of the 47 hubs that are already open. Following recent discussions I have held with the UK high street banks and my roundtable with industry representatives and MPs last month, I am pleased that the industry has agreed to improve the services in hubs to ensure they are a genuine alternative to bank branches. My hon. Friend the Member for East Devon referred to some improvements he would like to see in his constituency.
Participating high street banks have committed to a range of improvements to the banking services provided in hubs, such as: first, having an agreed consistent and improved level of service provided by all firms; secondly, ensuring that personal customers do not need to bring their own devices to access services; and, thirdly, trialling various new services such as a customer liaison service and Saturday openings. Those improvements will make a big difference to participation and, indeed, to how welcome banking hubs are. I am grateful for the constructive and positive approach that I have seen from industry in its engagement with His Majesty’s Treasury, recognising the needs of its customers. I have written to all MPs and to the Chair of the Treasury Committee on the package.
I turn to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire Dales (Miss Dines). Firms have provided me with reassurance that they will continue to revisit the criteria for locations to be eligible for a hub to ensure that they reflect customer needs, and that they will do so in particular following the publication of the FCA’s response to its recent access to cash consultation. That is important, because rural areas and smaller places such as Bakewell sometimes lose out.
I know that the industry will be watching the debate and will take what I am saying seriously. Let us revisit the criteria in a sensible way to ensure that they take account of areas that need banking hub services but are not currently accommodated. That is very important, and I will work with the industry to see what it can do to deliver on what I have just said from the Dispatch Box. I believe that the measures set out in the package mark a significant step forward from industry in ensuring that customer needs are being met, but I reassure the House that I will continue to monitor the roll-out of banking hubs closely.
I am grateful that we have had another chance to discuss this important topic. While branch closures are a commercial decision—and it is right that they are—I strongly believe that all customers, wherever they live and whatever their age, should have access that is appropriate for them to banking and cash services. I am grateful for the engagement I have had from the sector and the FCA on this important issue. I thank again my hon. Friend the Member for East Devon for bringing the debate to the Chamber, and I thank my hon. Friends the Members for Mid Derbyshire and for Derbyshire Dales—Derbyshire is the theme there—for their contributions.
Question put and agreed to.
Deferred Divisions
Draft Sea Fisheries (International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas) (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2024
(3 weeks, 3 days ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Rebecca Pow)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Sea Fisheries (International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas) (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2024.
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair this morning, Dr Huq. The regulations were laid in draft on 14 March 2024.
Atlantic bluefin tuna are present again in UK waters, increasingly in abundance after many years. That stocks have recovered is indeed good news. In 2021, the International Union for Conservation of Nature changed its assessment of bluefin tuna from endangered to least concern, which reflects the improving state of the stock. There is significant demand for recreational fishing access to bluefin tuna, which will boost tourism in coastal communities and deliver social and economic benefits. I am especially aware of that being a south-west MP, and it is particularly pertinent to areas off the coast in the south-west.
Following European Union exit, the UK joined the international convention for the conservation of Atlantic tunas. That is referred to as ICCAT, as is the international organisation that manages Atlantic bluefin tuna, the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas. Joining ICCAT enabled the UK to secure a bluefin tuna quota for the first time.
In line with ICCAT rules, this draft statutory instrument will enable UK fisheries Administrations to open catch and release recreational bluefin tuna fisheries. It will permit authorised recreational fishing vessels to target bluefin tuna by rod and line only, and on a catch and release basis. Without the legislation, the UK would be able to run only commercial and scientific bluefin tuna fisheries, preventing us from unlocking the social and economic benefits associated with the recreational fishing of this valuable species.
So far, UK fisheries Administrations have taken a cautious and measured approach to managing the bluefin tuna quota by running scientific catch and release tagging or CHART programmes over the past three years. Under the CHART programme, bluefin tuna were caught and released with a low incidental mortality rate. The programme provided valuable data on the social and economic benefits associated with recreational access to bluefin tuna. A trial commercial fishery for bluefin tuna ran in 2023 in UK waters. For 2024, the UK has been allocated 16 tonnes of bluefin tuna quota for recreational fishing, which amounts to about 100 tunas —obviously that depends on size. Fish will be caught and released, but the quota is needed to cover any incidental mortality.
The Marine Management Organisation expects to open a recreational fishery in English waters in 2024—this year. The Welsh Government are also considering opening a recreational fishery in Welsh waters. Those fisheries will run alongside further CHART programmes elsewhere in the UK, as well as the continued commercial bluefin tuna trial, which will run for its second year.
ICCAT requires any recreational targeting of bluefin tuna to be authorised. The UK fisheries Administrations currently do not have the appropriate powers to authorise recreational fishing of bluefin tuna. Therefore, the Government wish to proceed with the draft legislation to bring recreational bluefin tuna fishing into line with the ICCAT regulations.
This draft instrument updates and amends assimilated law, namely EU regulation 2016/1627, to provide a legal framework for the UK fisheries Administrations to authorise permitting regimes in their waters should they choose to do so, and to prohibit explicitly the unauthorised recreational targeting of bluefin tuna. The amendments are distinct from licensing requirements under section 14 of the Fisheries Act 2020, which apply only to commercial vessels.
The instrument will support the delivery of the sustainability and scientific evidence objectives of the 2020 Act. It also amends the Sea Fishing (Enforcement) Regulations 2018 to confer enforcement powers on the Marine Management Organisation and the inshore fisheries and conservation authorities. With an annual allocation of 16 tonnes of quota, bluefin tuna recreational fisheries are expected to generate about £25 million in charter fees and significant additional spend over the next 10 years in deprived, rural and coastal communities. That spend will increase if quota allocations increase, so this is obviously very important for many of our coastal areas. Fisheries will also contribute to our knowledge of the abundance of bluefin tuna in UK waters.
The devolved Administrations are supportive of the amendments made by the instrument. If it is not passed, there will not be enough time to open the bluefin tuna fisheries for the full 2024 season—the aim is to open them in early August—charter businesses will lose revenue, and there will be an increased risk of illegal fishing.
I hope I have reassured Members about the purpose and aims of the instrument, which will deliver socioeconomic opportunities to coastal communities. For the reasons I set out, I commend it to the Committee.
Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)
It is a particular pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Dr Huq, and it is always a pleasure to see the Minister in her place. I have to say that I was rather expecting to see the fisheries Minister this morning, and I suspect that yesterday afternoon he was expecting to be here. I hope he is in good health.
I should say at the outset that the Whips need not worry: we will not oppose the instrument, as we welcome it. Only a few weeks ago, we discussed the Sea Fisheries (International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas) (Amendment) Regulations 2024, and I was going to ask the fisheries Minister why the two instruments could not have been considered together. Perhaps the Minister can give us some insight into what is going on at the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs at the moment, because it is a puzzle to some of us.
The Minister’s introduction was, as ever, thorough. We absolutely agree that the return of the magnificent bluefin tuna to British waters in recent years after a long period of absence is welcome. It is not entirely clear why stocks have been replenished so significantly. A range of environmental factors has been cited, such as the warming of waters around the UK, which has perhaps led to an increase in the supply of the fish that the tuna feed upon. Credit should also go to the international interventions, through the international convention for the conservation of Atlantic tunas, which the Minister mentioned, to ensure careful management of the number of bluefin tuna. That is particularly impressive, given that they are highly migratory and mobile.
We must learn the lesson from the absence of those important fish from our waters for so long, and take every appropriate measure to prevent a reversal of the successful interventions, perhaps through overfishing, and facilitate a continuing revival of the stock. Given the interest in fisheries management of pressured stocks in the south-west—particularly pollack—this should give us confidence that, when fisheries management is done well, it can be successful.
We recognise that it is very important for the UK to comply with rules and obligations relating to our membership of the international convention for the conservation of Atlantic tunas. We support the primary purpose of this SI, which is to ensure that the UK has in place a proper legislative framework and enforcement powers with regard to recreational fishing. As I say, we discussed commercial fishing a few weeks ago.
The UK Administrations apparently do not currently have the power to comply with the ICCAT requirement to prohibit any recreational targeting of bluefin tuna unless specially authorised. We agree that this legislative deficit should be rectified for several reasons, including safeguarding the return of bluefin tuna and ensuring that the fishing stock is sustainable. Stocks need to be carefully monitored.
The SI also allows recreational fisheries to open —the Minister referred to their social and economic benefits. I recognise that the fisheries are welcomed by many fishers. I appreciate the economic benefits that they bring, particularly to coastal areas that have been struggling, and also the valuable data collection that they facilitate, but I have some questions.
Will the Minister explain how the Department has arrived at the number of permits it has decided to grant? Can she reveal any future plans to modify the number of permits and the rationale for doing so? It is important that a robust structure is in place for managing the fisheries, enforcing the rules and preventing illegal fishing. Will she provide assurances that a robust management regime will be in place before the fisheries are opened?
Similarly, what plans does the Department have for a smooth transition from the CHART programme to the full catch and release recreational fishery, ensuring that the transition does not impact fish welfare and mortality rates? As several stakeholders have stated, targeting bluefin tuna needs preparation, the right gear, and a high level of skill in handling a large pelagic fish. It is not a simple matter.
Numerous responses to the consultation exercise expressed a desire for more guidance and training in catch and release techniques, which is not surprising as tuna can be a very big fish and it is sometimes extremely challenging to perform a catch and release operation properly. It is important that we do not damage the fish in the process of releasing them. I fear that without clear instructions and possibly training, that could happen. Does the Minister have statistics on survival rates in catch and release? Are there plans to issue clearer guidance and/or training on the catch and release of bluefin tuna?
I note that the introduction of charges for permits has been postponed. Can the Minister provide an explanation for the postponement and an update on any work that has been undertaken to determine the scope and scale of future charges, as well as how any charging income would be used? Perhaps she could shed some light on the overarching issue of how she and her colleagues arrived at the distribution of the UK’s quota between commercial and recreational fishing. I appreciate that she might not be in a position to answer everything today, so I will be happy if she writes to me later.
We greatly welcome the fact that now the stocks of bluefin tuna are sufficiently replenished we are permitted a quota and we are in a position to open the fisheries. We will not oppose the legislation and will look for it to be successful in ensuring that the numbers of bluefin tuna continue to rise and that the new fisheries thrive.
Rebecca Pow
I welcome the shadow Minister’s support. I hoped he would support the regulations given his interest and background in coastal issues, so that is positive. He and I agree that this legislation been much called for, is extremely welcome and will make a big difference to our coastal communities, which face many challenges. Anything we can do to help them is welcome.
I will make my best effort to answer the shadow Minister’s questions. I am standing in for the Minister for Food, Farming and Fisheries, so if I fail to answer any of the questions, my team will make a note of them and we will get back to the hon. Gentleman, but I shall do my best.
The shadow Minister asked why this instrument was not combined with the Sea Fisheries (International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas) (Amendment) Regulations 2024. This instrument needed its own time. It is very important, and to include it with another instrument was not appropriate. We wanted this instrument to be fully dealt with because so much research, as the hon. Gentleman knows, has gone into it. We have had trials and a lot of people have fed into this, so it is important to give it its own time. The other regulations dealt with an administrative amendment, as he knows, to bring bluefin tuna management into line with ICCAT requirements. It was not appropriate to combine the two instruments.
The shadow Minister asked about the number of permits. Those are based on a fisheries model used to forecast tuna mortality for a given length of season and number of permits. The whole model has been developed with the industry and a lot of discussion has taken place with the MMO, Cefas—the Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science—the Angling Trust and fishermen themselves, so I hope that that answer satisfies him.
The hon. Gentleman and I agree that it is really good news that the stocks have recovered. That demonstrates —this relates to matters that I particularly dealt with as the previous marine Minister—that if the right science is involved, so that we know what our fish stocks are, and then the right management is put in place, it is possible for our seas to recover. We know that from our marine protected areas—that is why they are so important —and our highly protected marine areas. This situation is a good demonstration of it, because taking the right action has allowed the stocks to recover, although there will be an impact, which we do not quite know yet, in relation to climate change and warming seas. Much of the food for the tunas—the herring and mackerel that they eat—has moved, which probably has some link to climate change or change in currents. That is why it is so important to monitor our stocks and keep an eye on what is happening.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned welfare. Obviously, that issue has been carefully considered. Natural England has been involved in the code of conduct on welfare, and a lot of consultation has occurred to ensure that we have the right measures in place, in relation to the fishing, to reduce any mortality. The evidence from the trials shows that having the right training and advice for the skippers and those who will be taking part in the recreational fishing can really reduce the mortality rates. That is why the training programmes are so important and everyone is being encouraged to go on them. It is so that when they apply for and get their permit, we know that the whole industry will be conducted responsibly, with the best welfare in mind.
Consideration has included the type of hooks used. The advice is to use circular hooks, which do not go as far down the fish’s throat and cause less damage. All that was researched very closely. Interestingly—I asked this question about the tuna—the fishermen do not even pull them right out of the water; they have to remain alongside the boat. All those matters were taken into account in the debates and discussions about welfare, so I hope that I have reassured the hon. Gentleman about that. There is a very clear code of conduct and guidance, but all of it will still be up for review. There will be further trials, and the system can be tweaked and changed, if necessary, as the scheme goes along.
I hope that my comments give the hon. Gentleman assurances about many of the questions that he asked. I reiterate the need for this instrument in order to enable the UK fisheries Administrations to establish recreational bluefin tuna fisheries in their waters. I stress that the regulations will bring social and economic benefits to the fishing industry and our coastal communities, which need that so much. They have also been devised with the codes of conduct and so on, so that the whole industry will be sustainable. This is sustainable management of bluefin tuna. Again, I commend the instrument to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft National Crime Agency (Directed Tasking) Order 2023
(3 weeks, 3 days ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Security (Tom Tugendhat)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft National Crime Agency (Directed Tasking) Order 2023.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg. I will start with the context in which we are introducing the order. Hon. Members will no doubt know that the impact of serious and organised crime on the United Kingdom is significant and growing. Put simply, it poses a threat to our national security and prosperity.
In partnership with law enforcement and industry, the Government have taken concerted action to tackle economic crime, fraud, bribery and corruption, all of which severely harm the economy and cause significant suffering. If we are to keep pace with those threats properly and effectively, only a system-wide response will do.
To that end, the Government announced, as part of the 2023 serious and organised crime strategy, their intention to amend section 5(5) of the Crime and Courts Act 2013 to allow the director general of the National Crime Agency to direct the director of the Serious Fraud Office on matters relating to the investigation of suspected incidents of serious or complex fraud, bribery and corruption. This change will support strong, ongoing collaboration between the NCA and the SFO by enabling the director general of the NCA to direct the director of the SFO when the NCA requires the assistance, skills and expertise of the SFO, and satisfactory arrangements cannot be made under the existing voluntary tasking of the arrangement.
Edward Timpson
It may be that my right hon. Friend will come on to this point, so I apologise in advance if he was going to, but I am just interested to know about the process for the NCA, given the workload that already exists for the SFO, its budget, its capacity, and also the prospects of a potential successful prosecution, when deciding whether to make a direction, so as not to overload the SFO and perhaps end up with less success as a consequence.
Tom Tugendhat
My hon. and learned Friend raises some good points. I will come on to them in a moment, if I may, and I will just continue for now.
With the addition of the director of the Serious Fraud Office to the list of agencies that can be subject to directed tasking, the measure will strengthen the National Crime Agency’s ability to co-ordinate a national effort against serious and organised crime. It will also place the NCA’s relationship with the SFO on the same footing as its relationship with police forces in England and Wales and the British Transport police.
This change does not impact the existing working practices and arrangements in relation to Scotland and Northern Ireland. The National Crime Agency ensures that its activity within both jurisdictions takes full account of their specific and differing legislative, operational and political requirements while respecting the primacy of the respective police forces and prosecution authorities.
The Government’s aim, as set out in the recently published serious and organised crime strategy, is to reduce serious and organised crime in the UK. We will do that by disrupting and dismantling organised crime groups operating in and against the United Kingdom.
There is no doubt that the social and economic cost of serious and organised crime to the UK is eye-watering, running to at least £47 billion a year, but, extraordinary as that figure is, it does not begin to tell the whole story—a story of lives disrupted and of unimaginable suffering caused by heinous criminality such as sexual exploitation, drug abuse and human trafficking. Beyond the enormous financial and human costs, serious and organised crime threatens the legitimacy of the state. It damages our national security and prosperity. Our mission is to reduce the impact of serious and organised crime, including fraud.
The threat from fraud has increased in volume over recent years. The Government are implementing the fraud strategy, which includes launching a national fraud squad, blocking frauds at source and empowering the public to respond. That includes committing £100 million, as part of a wider £400 million package, to tackle economic crime and improve the law enforcement response to fraud. We have also set ourselves the target of reducing fraud by 10% from 2019 levels by the end of this Parliament. To help to achieve that target, in March the Home Secretary hosted the inaugural Global Fraud Summit to galvanise the international response and strengthen collaboration.
The National Crime Agency has been crucial to our response. It leads and co-ordinates the United Kingdom law enforcement response to serious and organised crime. We have strengthened the agency’s ability to combat organised criminals, increasing its budget by 44% to more than £870 million since the start of this Parliament—[Interruption.] That includes support to Canterbury. The Serious Fraud Office is also a critical partner in the fraud system; it has recovered more than £160 million in proceeds of crime, put 16 executives behind bars and forced big business to pay more than £1 billion in fines in the last five years alone.
The order forms part of the Government’s ongoing fight against economic crime, which causes significant harm to the United Kingdom. Subject to proper safeguards, it brings the investigative capability of the Serious Fraud Office’s work within scope for direction by the director general of the National Crime Agency, akin to the arrangement that already exists in relation to police forces in England and Wales. In practice, that means that, where it is assessed that improving the intelligence picture and/or the operational delivery is required as a priority to tackle a threat, decisions on voluntary and directed taskings are taken following discussion with the national strategic tasking and co-ordination group. To answer the question asked by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Eddisbury, that will effectively be taken forward as a joint effort between the DG NCA, as he is called, and the director of the SFO.
The order provides a welcome additional power that will assist in sharing tools and expertise to fight serious and complex fraud, bribery and corruption. The relationship between the National Crime Agency and Serious Fraud Office is already extremely good, and the existing voluntary tasking arrangements are working. The order provides the mechanism for directed tasking, should it be needed, and I commend it to the Committee.
Dan Jarvis (Barnsley Central) (Lab)
It is a particular pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Twigg. I thank the Minister for his remarks.
As the Minister set out, the order amends the Crime and Courts Act 2013 and the Criminal Justice Act 1987. Doing so will provide the director general of the National Crime Agency with the power to direct the Serious Fraud Office to perform specified tasks in investigating financial crime. As the Minister knows, the Opposition will always work with the Government on countering serious and organised crime. We therefore support the order, because it is crucial that there is a joined-up response across our law enforcement agencies to fight serious and organised crime, including fraud.
Fraud is the single largest crime type in the UK. The crime survey for England and Wales estimates that 40% of crimes against individuals are frauds. Britain should be a hostile environment for all types of serious and organised crime, with an approach from our police and law enforcement agencies that is ruthlessly relentless in countering what constitutes some of the most pernicious criminal activity. Therefore, although I will endeavour to be brief, I want to make a few points and ask some questions about the context and detail of the order, and I would be grateful if the Minister responded to them, either when he rises to his feet or by letter.
Before I do so, I pay tribute to all those in the NCA, the SFO, and all our police and law enforcement agencies who fight serious and organised crime. The nature of their work means that they serve in the shadows, and some of their work, for instance fighting financial crime, may perhaps be a little less gritty than some of their colleagues’, but it is no less important. The old adage “follow the money” continues to be a sound one. After meeting some of them recently, my huge respect for them has only grown. They do not always get the recognition that they deserve, and I am sure the Minister and the entire Committee will join me in thanking them for their service.
It is important to note that the order originates from the Government’s serious and organised crime strategy published in December. That document, which provides important direction in countering some of the worst crime in the country, should have the soundest of foundations. However, it states that the estimated financial cost of serious and organised crime to the UK is £47 billion, a figure the Minister mentioned earlier—interestingly, I think he said “at least £47 billion”. By my maths—I am happy to be corrected if I have got this wrong—£47 billion is an inflation-adjusted figure from the £37 billion in the 2015 report. With fraud alone recorded to have doubled in 2023, according to the accounting firm BDO, the £47 billion figure cannot properly reflect the reality of serious and organised crime now, and therefore cannot properly inform the response required from Government to disrupt and defeat it.
I would be grateful if the Minister gave us his assessment of the very latest actual cost of serious and organised crime to the UK. If he has a good memory, he might remember that he said in his answer to my written question on 23 January that the Home Office would publish an updated figure. On 8 February, the Minister for Legal Migration responded to my follow-up written question on this matter, saying that a research report on the cost of serious and organised crime would not be published until 2025. I have to say, that is not good enough. Why cannot that important information be published sooner? Why could it not have been calculated in time to be included in the serious and organised crime strategy that was published back in December?
On the arrangements that will support the order, I draw the Minister’s attention to two issues. The first lies with a specific type of direction the NCA will give the SFO to carry out. The complex nature of fraud and financial crime cases means that they can be connected to other ongoing investigations into other aspects of serious and organised crime that could be the responsibility of the NCA, but not of the SFO. It is entirely understandable, and indeed necessary, that the Minister will not want to say anything that would compromise capability, but it might be helpful to the Committee if he could say something about the thresholds that need to be met before the NCA gives direction to the SFO to conduct specified tasks. Does he also have an estimate, even if it is approximate, of how many direct orders the NCA could issue over the next 12 months?
The order specifies that the NCA will meet the costs of the SFO’s completing a specified task. However, there are still questions about how the SFO will deliver, because it is not yet clear that it will have sufficient resources such as staff, offices, payroll, equipment and so on. Can the Minister give an assurance that the SFO will have sufficient resources to deliver on what is being asked of it by the NCA? If not, what work has taken or is taking place with the Attorney General’s Office to ensure that it can? Also, if the cost of an NCA-directed task carried out by the SFO exceeds the payment made by the NCA, who will pay the difference?
The Opposition welcome the strengthening of the close working relationship that already exists between the NCA and the SFO, and we support the order. However, we seek assurances from the Minister that the right infrastructure is in place to facilitate the new working arrangements between the NCA and the SFO. I am sure the Minister will continue to appreciate the constructive spirit of our remarks in these Committees as we work together in the national interest on these important matters.
Tom Tugendhat
I welcome the hon. Member’s contribution to this debate and his good grace and approach. He raised some appropriate and some slightly more challenging questions than I wanted on the £47 billion. As a loyal listener to “More or Less”, as I am sure he is, I may have to look for further guidance on this. That is the inflation-adjusted figure from £37 billion. If he will forgive me, he is not quite right to say that adding the fraud stats into that will make a different figure. It may or it may not. Of course, fraud has replaced a lot of other crime types that would have been counted in earlier figures. I assure him that I will not make him wait until 2025. I will chase the figures and come up with a better answer for him as soon as possible. I will write to him on that.
The hon. Member’s point about thresholds is a good one. That will be looked at by the director general of the NCA in consultation with the director of the SFO. Clearly, the resources can be spent in many different areas all the time. We are always looking to prioritise the most important and most high-impact investigations—not necessarily the ones with the greater financial burden, but those that have the most pernicious effect on people’s lives, directly or indirectly. Resourcing is always a challenge, so the threshold will depend on the different circumstances. There is not a blunt answer. It is a more complex approach that the director general of the NCA and the director of the SFO have to look at.
On who will pay, the costs will be discussed between the SFO and the NCA and, if need be, between the Home Secretary and the Attorney General. The Attorney General has been extremely supportive and active in making sure the SFO has the resources for investigations. I am sure that approach will continue and be followed by whoever may replace her. She has been a fantastic champion of the SFO.
I hope the Committee will support this fantastic order. It will make a difference to the NCA’s ability to direct and co-ordinate criminal investigations, and it will ensure that we have security and the protection that the British people expect against fraud. It is part of a larger effort and a wider package. It is a strengthening measure, which I commend to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Accounting Standards (Prescribed Bodies) (United States of America and Japan) (Amendment) Regulations 2024
(3 weeks, 3 days ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Department for Business and Trade (Kevin Hollinrake)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Accounting Standards (Prescribed Bodies) (United States of America and Japan) (Amendment) Regulations 2024.
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Hollobone.
The regulations were laid before the House in draft on 21 February, and were debated and agreed under the affirmative resolution procedure in the Grand Committee of the House of Lords on Tuesday 26 March. The Accounting Standards (Prescribed Bodies) (United States of America and Japan) Regulations 2015 provide a regulatory easement of the UK’s company reporting rules for US or Japanese-listed parent companies that have chosen to re-domicile in the UK. The easement was originally introduced in 2012, and was extended in 2015 and 2022. It provides qualifying companies with extra time to transition from their national accounting practices to UK-recognised accounting standards.
Parent companies listed in the US or Japan may take up to four financial years, following UK incorporation, in which to make the transition, in order to prepare their group accounts in line with UK accounting principles. When originally introduced in 2012, this was deemed especially helpful for companies using US or Japanese accounting standards, which might otherwise have struggled to adapt to UK domestic standards when domiciling to the UK. By providing this exemption, the regulations make the UK a more attractive place for companies in those jurisdictions to re-domicile into.
In 2023, the Department published a post-implementation review of the 2015 regulations. The review took evidence from a small number of previously US or Japanese-listed, now UK-domiciled, firms about their cost savings from the easement. The survey responses confirmed that the regulatory easement provides flexibility and enables cost savings for the businesses using it. Businesses that responded to the survey reported that the easement reduced their conversion costs significantly. One company also said that the regulations allowed it to submit accounts in the “most prudent and efficient” way while listed in the US.
Having conducted the post-implementation review, the Government decided to extend the regulations, which we believe make a small but useful contribution to a pro-growth regulatory regime that supports inward investment. To give effect to that decision, the Government laid the Accounting Standards (Prescribed Bodies) (United States of America and Japan) (Amendment) Regulations 2023 before the House on 6 September 2023. Those regulations extended the easement in recognition of its evident benefit to businesses that have used it so far. The easement would have expired without those regulations, thereby requiring newly domiciled US and Japanese companies to immediately convert accounting practice when filing their first set of UK accounts.
Although the post-implementation review found that the regulations are a helpful feature of the UK’s regulatory environment, it also identified a small risk of abuse or misunderstanding. The review noted that more could be done to improve the understanding that the easement is a transitional, time-limited concession, not a permanent exemption from the UK’s company reporting rules. In particular, the 2015 regulations did not require companies to indicate when their four-year period ends, which made it difficult to determine whether a company had exceeded the easement period. That would leave the door open for companies to use the easement for longer than permitted and make it difficult to monitor that risk.
The Government did not find any specific evidence of that abuse; none the less, we chose to take a proactive measure to prevent it. Regulation 4 of the 2023 regulations introduced an obligation on companies using the easement to include a note in their accounts stating when the easement ceases to apply. This additional requirement on companies was deemed to be a simple and proportional mechanism to reduce the potential risk of abuse. Regrettably, in making the provision to require a note in the accounts, the Department for Business and Trade made an error of parliamentary procedure by using the negative resolution procedure, rather than correctly using the affirmative resolution procedure.
The new statutory instrument is intended to correct the error. It removes regulation 4 of the 2023 amending regulations and substitutes a new regulation 5A in the 2015 regulations, doing this through the correct, affirmative resolution procedure. The rest of the 2023 amending regulations were made correctly, but the Government are grateful to the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments for drawing their attention to the procedural error.
Driving growth in the UK economy requires attracting inward investment. The regulations are just one example of how we can make it easier for overseas companies to incorporate in the UK and create jobs in the UK economy. I urge the Committee to approve them.
Rushanara Ali (Bethnal Green and Bow) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. I welcome the regulations, which correct an error. A mistake was made, as the Minister has described. Of course, we support this correction and support regulations that aim to enhance the attractiveness of the UK as a domicile for businesses. We must ensure that the UK remains an inviting destination for businesses. We must continue to work towards making our country an important destination for businesses to do business and somewhere they feel welcomed, and our legal arrangements must be such that that is the case.
The 2015 regulations provide to US and Japanese-listed parent companies an extended transition period of up to four financial years, after incorporation in the UK, to convert to UK accounting principles. We support the objective of the regulation to encourage US and Japanese-listed companies to re-domicile in the UK. As the Minister set out, regulation 4 of the 2023 regulations was laid incorrectly, under the negative resolution procedure, and today’s legislation corrects that error. Parent companies are therefore not subject to any enforceable obligation to note their group accounts under the existing, incorrectly laid regulation. I am glad that the new instrument corrects the mistake.
Driving growth in the UK must be one of our top priorities. To enable that, we need to ensure that we attract inward investment. I therefore welcome the correction to the regulations, which ensures that the aim of the process of overseas companies integrating into the UK is fulfilled.
Kevin Hollinrake
The prescribed bodies regulations provide an easement of the UK’s company reporting rules to support US and Japanese-listed parent companies that have chosen to domicile in the UK. I very much appreciate the shadow Minister’s support for the measures. For some larger companies, the savings can be in the millions of pounds. Helping companies to more easily move their incorporation to the UK, by reducing the costs of the switch, is the right thing to do for our economy and helps to ensure that the UK remains attractive and open for business. The Government now propose to correct the procedural error in making regulation 4 of the 2023 regulations, by means of this affirmative statutory instrument. I commend the regulations to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Petition
Access to GP appointments
International Freedom of Religion or Belief Bill
Wednesday 24th April 2024
(3 weeks, 3 days ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Special Envoy for Freedom of Religion or Belief Bill 2023-24 View all Special Envoy for Freedom of Religion or Belief Bill 2023-24 Debates Read Hansard Text Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 24 April 2024 - (24 Apr 2024)
The Chair
Good morning. Before we begin, I have a few preliminary reminders for the Committee. First, please switch electronic devices to silent if you have not done so already. No food or drink is permitted during sittings of the Committee, except for the water provided. Hansard colleagues would be grateful if Members would email their speaking notes, if they have any, to hansardnotes@parliament.uk. My selection and grouping list for today’s meeting is available online and in the room. There will be a single debate on all clauses and amendments.
Clause 1
Special Envoy for International Freedom of Religion or Belief
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Clause 2 stand part.
Amendment 3, in clause 3, page 2, line 8, leave out
“International Freedom of Religion or Belief Act 2023”,
and insert
“Special Envoy for Freedom of Religion or Belief Act 2024”.
This amendment adjusts the Bill’s short title so that it refers specifically to the special envoy.
Clause 3 stand part.
New clause 1—Prime Minister’s Special Envoy for Freedom of Religion or Belief—
“(1) There continues to be a special envoy called the Prime Minister’s Special Envoy for Freedom of Religion or Belief.
(2) The special envoy is to be appointed by, and may be removed from office at any time by, a Minister of the Crown.
(3) The special envoy must act with a view to—
(a) promoting freedom of religion or belief abroad, in particular by working with the government of the United Kingdom, with other governments and their representatives (including special envoys), and with organisations outside government;
(b) raising awareness of cases in which people abroad are persecuted or discriminated against on the grounds of religion or belief and advocating for the rights of such people.
(4) The special envoy must from time to time give a report about their work to the Prime Minister.
(5) A Minister of the Crown may give the special envoy directions about the exercise of their functions.
(6) A Minister of the Crown—
(a) must provide the special envoy with such staff, accommodation, equipment and other facilities as the Minister considers necessary for the carrying out of the special envoy’s functions;
(b) may pay allowances or other payments to or in respect of the special envoy.
(7) The special envoy’s functions are exercisable on behalf of the Crown.”
This new clause is intended to replace clauses 1 and 2. It includes largely the same material as those clauses but with several drafting and clarity-related changes.
Amendment 4, in title, line 1, leave out from beginning to end of line 3 and insert
“require the continued appointment of a special envoy for freedom of religion or belief and make provision about the special envoy’s functions.”
This amendment adjusts the Bill’s long title to reflect its contents more clearly. It is consequential on NC1.
Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con)
It is a particular pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Graham.
Before I start, may I pay tribute to our former colleague, the former hon. Member for Birkenhead, Frank Field, who died yesterday? He was a courteous gentleman of integrity and independent mind, and has already been much missed in this place. We worked together on a number of issues, notably on the lengthy passage of the Modern Slavery Act 2015, and I was privileged to take up his role as canon of Chester cathedral when he was obliged to relinquish it.
Frank had friends across the House, and that is not irrelevant today. So does this Bill. It is supported by colleagues from every political party; indeed, I do not know of a Member who opposes it, and I hope not to discover one today. I thank all colleagues who have turned up this morning to support the Bill. The hon. Member for Newport West is supportive and wanted to be present, but family illness prevents her.
I am delighted to speak to new clause 1, which replaces clauses 1 and 2. With the agreement of the Committee, clauses 1 and 2 will not stand part of the Bill. To clarify, if colleagues support the Bill, as I hope they will, I ask them—somewhat counterintuitively—to shout “No” when we come to the first two decisions. I thank Sir Graham for suggesting that I clarify that. The original clauses 1 and 2 as drafted will thereby not stand part of the Bill, and what replaces them will become the Bill going forward.
The Bill is a shared enterprise. There has been a cross-party effort over many years for the fundamental and universal human right of freedom of religion or belief to be taken seriously, and for article 18 not to be “an orphaned right”, as the inaugural report of the all-party parliamentary group for international freedom of religion or belief report put it as long ago as 2012. Having the Prime Minister’s special envoy as a permanent fixture in statute will embed the progress that has been made, and make the UK a global leader on freedom of religion or belief, or FORB. It would also fulfil the Government’s manifesto commitment to fully implement the Truro review.
The object of the Bill is international freedom of religion or belief, but its subject is, of course, the Prime Minister’s special envoy for freedom of religion or belief. It puts the role on a statutory footing. Amendment 3, which is in my name, therefore adjusts the Bill’s short title so that it refers specifically to the role. Amendment 4, which is in my name, provides explicitly for the continuation in legislation of the role of the Prime Minister’s special envoy for freedom or religion or belief.
As the Committee will appreciate as much as I do, there is already such a role, which I have had the privilege of undertaking for over three years now, as the third incumbent. This short piece of legislation does not seek to create anything new, but gives the role the permanence proposed by recommendation 6 of the landmark review by the Bishop of Truro of the Foreign Office’s response to the persecution of Christians.
I pay particular tribute to the noble Lord the Bishop of Winchester, who was previously the Bishop of Truro, for taking up with such gusto the challenge of the then Foreign Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for South West Surrey (Jeremy Hunt), who commissioned the review. He has continued to pay a keen interest in the progress of the recommendations. As my right hon. Friend mentioned recently, the bishop’s continuing and passionate engagement on the issue has helped put FORB into the mainstream, as well as, I hope, into statute.
The Bill, if approved, provides for the continuation of the role of Prime Minister’s special envoy for freedom of religion or belief. I will set out for the record the wording of my mandate in this role from 2020, as published and still remaining on the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office website:
“The Prime Minister’s Special Envoy for Freedom of Religion or Belief: brings together UK efforts to promote religious tolerance abroad, and works on how the UK government can protect and promote this fundamental freedom internationally;
works with the members of the International Religious Freedom or Belief Alliance to raise awareness of cases of particular concern, advocating for the rights of people worldwide who are discriminated against or persecuted for their faith or belief:
supports implementing the Bishop of Truro’s recommendations on Foreign Commonwealth and Development Office (FCDO) support for persecuted Christians around the world.
The Prime Minister’s Special Envoy undertakes these activities on behalf of, and reports to, the Prime Minister.”
I also confirm that I have always, in fulfilling this role, sought to advocate for and support all those persecuted or discriminated against, of whatever faith or belief, as I know have so many in this Committee Room today. Indeed, the support for that work is remarkable. The all-party parliamentary group for international FORB has on record over 170 Members of the Commons and the Lords, which I believe makes it the largest APPG on record.
Fiona Bruce
I thank the hon. Gentleman, who is the chair of the all-party group, for correcting me. There are 174 members. He also gives me an opportunity to thank him for his remarkably committed work on the issue. Barely a day goes by where he is not speaking in the House on it or diligently undertaking some other meeting, task or work to promote freedom of religion or belief. We are very fortunate to have his passionate enthusiasm on this issue in the House.
Fiona Bruce
New clause 1 reflects the continuance of a role that has the title of the Prime Minister’s special envoy for freedom of religion or belief. That is significant. As I know from my travels across the world, it provides the appropriate authority internationally to advocate on behalf of the UK, and, in this country, to hold the FCDO to account on how it is protecting and promoting this fundamental human right.
New clause 1 reflects the purposes, which I have just quoted, of the Prime Minister’s special envoy, which were also set out in the original clause 1. New clause 1(4) reflects the original clause in saying that the special envoy must report to the Prime Minister, which provides for the direct accountability of the role.
In terms of technical changes, it is almost unprecedented for the Prime Minister to be referenced in legislation. While it is recognised that it is the Prime Minister who does and will appoint their special envoy, the legislative description required is “a Minister of the Crown”. When it comes to the practical resourcing of the Prime Minister’s special envoy’s office and travel expenditure, it makes sense for that to be flexibly handled by the relevant Minister of the Crown.
Further, the other drafting change from the original Bill is to avoid the ambiguity of the creation of a separate —that is, a new—office, distinct from the current office of the Prime Minister’s special envoy, which I have within the FCDO. Accordingly, subsection (6) of new clause 1 gives provision for the resourcing of the office of the Prime Minister’s special envoy and for fulfilling the purposes set out in subsection (3).
I thank the Minister for her presence today and note, with thanks, her fulsome response in the House to the Bill’s money resolution earlier this week, in which she said that she was
“absolutely committed…to providing the support services to enable the role to continue for as long as it can.”—[Official Report, 22 April 2024; Vol. 748, c. 698.]
I trust the Minister will join me today in ensuring that the office of the Prime Minister’s special envoy will continue to be staffed by at least the two current positions of a private secretary and an assistant private secretary. The role and its relevance across every country of the world—apart from the UK, which is covered by a faith Minister—means it is a demanding one that requires resources. It involves working with countries that actively support article 18 of the 1948 universal declaration of human rights, notably through the alliance I mentioned earlier that now comprises 43 countries; working with those on a journey towards that support; or challenging those countries that, regrettably, do not support it. In reality, the staff level currently enjoyed by the role is the absolute minimum required.
My role has also received support from my parliamentary office and, in particular, the support of the Prime Minister’s deputy special envoy, David Burrowes, whose significant time is not funded by the FCDO. Indeed, I want to put on record my profound appreciation for all David has done throughout my holding of the role, for his consistently wise and calm advice and for his considerable support of the drafting and passage to date of the Bill, without which fulfilling the role would not have been possible. I am deeply indebted to him.
If colleagues will indulge my gratitude just a little longer before I close, I wish to put on record my thanks to the Deputy Foreign Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell) and the noble Lord Ahmad for their strong support for the Bill. I also want to thank the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary for their personal and wholehearted support for my role and for the Bill. As the Foreign Secretary, the noble Lord Cameron of Chipping Norton, said in the other place on 5 March:
“A Bill is being passed through the other place, and will, hopefully, come here, which will put that on a statutory footing. That would be the first time one of those envoy roles would be treated in that way, and that is quite right.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 5 March 2024; Vol. 836, c. 1547.]
He also said on 16 April:
“I very much agree with the Bill. In fact, I insisted that it went forward with government support…That reflects the importance that we in this Government and in the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office attach to celebrating freedom of religious belief.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 16 April 2024; Vol. 837, c. 871.]
Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab)
I have two questions to ask, but I want to start by honouring the right hon. Frank Field. It was a shock today. I know that he was much driven by his faith. I think we all feel his loss.
I also hugely congratulate the hon. Member for Congleton. She has done an amazing job in this role and we should all be proud of the conference she organised a few years ago. Bringing forward the Bill and putting the role on a permanent footing is something we all welcome.
That leads me to my two questions, which I hope can receive a response. First, religious persecution is widespread worldwide and it seems it is only getting worse. A Christian is killed every two hours somewhere in the world, antisemitism is on the rise, we see Uyghur and Rohingya Muslims being systematically persecuted, and in Iran followers of the Baha’i faith are victims of what Human Rights Watch has called “crimes against humanity”. I am interested in how the role of the special envoy could raise concerns, particularly within the FCDO, about persecution and discrimination and therefore try to prevent atrocities in future.
My second point was also raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Catherine West) on Second Reading. She asked how the Bill would
“balance the other rights that may occasionally collide with this question of a special envoy for freedom of religion or belief?”—[Official Report, 26 January 2024; Vol. 744, c. 572.]
She gave the example of the rights of women and girls, particularly thinking about reproductive rights. Similarly, there are concerns about the message the Bill may send to the LGBT+ community around the world. I therefore seek reassurance on how the Bill will ensure, when rights potentially collide or create tensions, that a hierarchy is not created by placing the rights of one group ahead of the other.
The Second Church Estates Commissioner (Andrew Selous)
I shall be brief. As the Member with the privilege of speaking on behalf of the Church of England in this place, I want to put on record the Church of England’s very strong support for this Bill and what it will do to protect the ability of people to practise their Christian faith around the world, but also to protect those of every faith, whether they are Jewish, Muslim or of any other faith, or of no faith and are persecuted. This Bill really matters because the situation globally has never been so bad and it continues to worsen. Those of us with the immense freedom to practise our faith or not practise any faith, as we enjoy in this country, have an absolute duty to speak out and give this Bill our wholehearted support.
Jim Shannon
I commend the hon. Member for Congleton on promoting this Bill. The glory will not be to her, but to the one that she serves and that we all serve.
I want to make a couple of quick comments. I am minded of the history of this, which the hon. Lady and others present will be aware of as well. Baroness Berridge approached me back in 2012 to ask whether I would consider starting an APPG on freedom of religion or belief with her. I was very happy to do so. It was on her heart and my heart as well. At that time, it was in the hearts of about 25 or 30 other MPs. It very clearly grew from that to be in the hearts of 174 Members of the House of Commons and the House of Lords. It is important that the issue has been brought forward.
This issue has captured the attention of those of all political parties, political opinions and religious beliefs? I speak at the APPG for those with Christian faith, but I also speak up for those with other faiths and those with no faith, because I believe sincerely and in my heart—the hon. Member for Congleton believes it as well—that we will be a voice for those across the world whose human rights are being suppressed and who are being subjugated and persecuted. The hon. Lady and I have spoken up on the persecution of Christians across the middle east, Pakistan and India, of Sikhs in Pakistan and India, of Hindus in Pakistan, of Muslims in India, of the Myanmar Muslims, of the Uyghurs, and of others across the world. These are all groups of people that this special envoy that the hon. Lady is promoting will be speaking up for.
I will say two things in conclusion. Last week, we had a special event at which we highlighted the issue of those in Pakistan who are being persecuted. We had a number of groups at a committee: Muslims in particular but also Christians, Sikhs and Hindus who are subjected to persecution in that country. Just yesterday, we had Nigeria, whose case is particularly worrying. Some 5,000 Christians have been murdered in the past year, and there have been abductions as well—five times more than there were even in 2020. Hundreds have been kidnapped. What about the 87 small schoolchildren—those young girls? Two hundred and fifty were kidnapped, but 87 have still never been returned. Those are the things that the Prime Minister’s special envoy will hopefully deal with, whether that is the hon. Member for Congleton or someone else in the future. It is really important that we speak up for those people across the world. I had not intended to speak, Sir Graham; I have just written some scribbles down on a bit of paper—if you saw my writing, you would understand it is extremely difficult to interpret at a later stage.
I believe in my heart, as does the hon. Lady and others hon. Members on both sides of the Committee, that our God is a great God—he is a God of love. The role of special envoy is a burden on the hon. Lady’s heart. I believe that others in the Committee have the same burden and will want to see the role of special envoy in place, and I very much look forward to its endorsement.
The hard work of the hon. Lady has pushed the role of special envoy forward, and I know that we all love that work and love her for what she does. Through the special envoy, we speak up on behalf of all those across the world who have a religious belief and suffer from human rights suppression or persecution. This role that the hon. Lady has put forward gives us the opportunity to be a spokesperson for those people. I look forward to all contributions; we are brought together and united in trying to achieve that goal. I especially thank the Minister and the Government in advance for what they have done, because they have recognised its importance.
Dr Lisa Cameron (East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow) (Con)
Like many colleagues, I rise to support this Bill wholeheartedly and to thank my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton for the dedication she has shown in the role. It is extremely important that the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office supports this role—as it does—and I thank the Minister in advance as well. This role is exemplary, and people contact me from many different countries to commend the work that is being done, such as those who have been persecuted and those whose families have been persecuted. I think that it places the UK in a real leadership position in upholding article 18 of the UN charter, and it is very important internationally.
We were fortunate that my hon. Friend came to East Kilbride when she did a tour of different areas of the United Kingdom. It is one of the most memorable events that I have had the privilege to hold in my constituency. Many different faith groups came to that meeting and many people of all different faiths, as well as those of no faith, spoke with her about the importance of the role. It is an internationally important role, but we should also remember that it means so much to people in our constituencies across the United Kingdom. Those who attended that meeting in East Kilbride, at which we were privileged to host the Prime Minister’s special envoy, have given me their very best wishes for the Bill’s progress today and for the work that my hon. Friend does.
Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Graham, and to be here in this Public Bill Committee, given that I was pleased to support the hon. Member for Congleton on Second Reading in one of our Friday debates on private Members’ Bills. Few people know that although some of those Bills come out of the ballot, there is an opportunity immediately after the ballot, and the hon. Lady was prepared to sleep in a tent on the third floor to ensure that she was first through the door to secure this opportunity—and she was. We are grateful to her for doing so.
Regarding the Bill, it is odd in parliamentary terms to walk into a Committee knowing that I support the Bill, that this process will completely change the Bill by removing the two substantive clauses and replacing them with a new clause, and that we will leave with the Bill still having gained unanimous support, because it is the essence of what the hon. Lady is trying to achieve through the Bill that we support. As the Democratic Unionist party’s leader in Parliament now, I wanted to be here to place on record not only our support for the Bill but our personal appreciation of the hon. Lady for the steadfast and committed way in which she has approached the issues that we are discussing over many years.
I know that the creation of a legislative underpinning for the Prime Minister’s special envoy for freedom of religion or belief was a Conservative party manifesto—a commitment of this Government. I am sorry that we have had to enter the last Session of this Parliament before we have taken the strong opportunity to finally land that legislative commitment.
The essence of the hon. Lady is that she has never made this process about herself. It is not about securing a role that she currently holds. It is about sustaining the role for future generations to impact all those who benefit from having a singular advocate in this Parliament to act on our collective behalf and on our country’s behalf to speak up for all those internationally who need that. I have reflected on many occasions that the hon. Lady is small in stature but mighty in her passion and her determination, and in the faith that underpins her drive in this regard.
My hon. Friend the Member for Strangford, who chairs the all-party parliamentary group on international freedom of religion or belief, and I am delighted, on behalf of our party, to give our full-throated support and our prayerful endeavours for the hon. Lady regarding this legislative process, which I trust will have a successful and profitable conclusion. It will be the enshrinement of a role that we all benefit from.
Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Con)
My hon. Friend the Member for Congleton is a truly honourable Member of this House. She has shown courage and determination to stand up for freedom of religion, freedom of belief and freedom of speech, not only in this country but throughout the world. She has shown the vital importance of maintaining this role as a UK prime ministerial appointment and I am proud to serve on this Committee to give her my support for her Bill today.
Throughout history, the United Kingdom has been a champion of freedom: freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom of worship and freedom to choose one’s own way of life. Throughout the Commonwealth, there is much work to be done. There are many countries that may have inherited our ancestry, our history and our heritage but they have not necessarily followed through in the way that they apply their laws. There is much work to be done to uphold those values of freedom, particularly freedom of religion. That is why the role should be permanent and why, from now on, all Prime Ministers should appoint someone to the role, so that there is always a person leading the fight to spread those values of freedom, including freedom of religion and belief, and all the other things that hon. Members have spoken about today.
I give my full support to my hon. Friend and I thank her for her service and her true beliefs. Many Members of this House do not stand for something clear, but I have to say that she is the one person who I have always known to do that.
Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)
I want to make a brief contribution because in the February recess, I accompanied my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton on a visit to Kosovo, where I was travelling as the Prime Minister’s trade envoy. On my previous visits, our ambassadors in Pristina and Tirana had both said that they would welcome a visit from the special envoy, so that they could show her how the faith communities are working well together in those two countries, although of course, in the wider western Balkans, there are tensions because of ethnicity and religion.
As I say, I travelled to Kosovo in February as the trade envoy and my hon. Friend travelled as the faith envoy. We were welcomed by people from the President and the Prime Minister downwards and it was evident that they welcomed the opportunity to engage with someone who held that position. While we were there, my hon. Friend made some useful contacts and is working on staging a conference in Pristina later this year, which will enhance the relationship between our two countries and, more importantly, between the various faith communities. Having seen her in action, I am delighted to be able to support the Bill.
Mary Glindon (North Tyneside) (Lab)
I am honoured to be part of the Committee and to be able to congratulate my friend, the hon. Member for Congleton. As other hon. Members have said, we are saddened today by the death of our colleague Lord Field of Birkenhead. I am sure there will be many tributes, and we are grateful for what has been said this morning. We will remember him and his family.
That sadness aside, this is a great morning for the hon. Lady because of all her work, as has already been said. Learning that she slept in a tent in the corridor to bring the Bill forward shows there are no bounds to her tenacity—I hope she had a comfortable night. It was well worth it, however, and we are grateful that she could bring forward the Bill and embody this role, as proposed by the Truro review. As all hon. Members have expressed, the Bill is important for people to recognise that our country feels that, in the world we live in today, the expression of freedom of religion and free speech are important, as we try to bring peace to our world.
On the questions put by my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham, I echo the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Catherine West) who spoke on Second Reading. In supporting the Bill, I would like to stress what she said then, referring to the shadow Foreign Secretary:
“In his role and during these meetings, he has made it clear that Labour will ensure that the UK stands against persecution and oppression in any form, and will promote freedom of religion or belief as a key component of our foreign policy”—[Official Report, 26 January 2024; Vol. 744, c. 571.]
in future, should we form a Government.
With that, I again congratulate the hon. Member for Congleton and wish her well as she continues in her role. We are thankful for what she has done on the world stage for Parliament and the UK.
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
It is an absolute pleasure to be serving under your chairmanship, Sir Graham. I must begin by putting on record my tribute to Frank Field. I had some limited interaction with him, and I know that he would be proud of my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton for all the work she has done in this space.
I do not think I have ever been in a debate where there has been so much approval for a piece of legislation or so much love—the word was used by an hon. Member —for a Member. I put on record my thanks for all the considered contributions and I join hon. Members in their gratitude to my hon. Friend for her leadership. It has taken some time for her to reach this place, but she is dedicated—I had not realised it stretched as far as sleeping in a tent. I put on the record my thanks to her and, of course, to David Burrowes, who was able to get his sister access to me on Saturday to ensure that I did everything I could to keep my hon. Friend happy, which is indeed my job.
When it comes to protecting people who are persecuted for their faith, my hon. Friend and I go way back. We worked on tackling the persecution of Christians in Pakistan and other countries, and of course the persecution of the Uyghur by the Chinese Communist party, so I am incredibly pleased to help the progress of this Bill. We have all expressed our gratitude to my hon. Friend, the current special envoy for freedom of religion or belief, and I pay tribute to her for the work she has done. She will be leaving behind a legacy, which is very rare for a parliamentarian.
I now turn to the Bill. Clause 1 requires the Prime Minister to appoint a special envoy for international freedom of religion or belief. Establishing that role permanently and in perpetuity was a recommendation in the Bishop of Truro’s 2019 independent review into the work of the FCDO and the freedom of religion or belief, and our 2019 manifesto committed to its implementation. The clause also sets out the duties of the special envoy and requires them to report periodically to the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister will determine the terms and conditions of the appointment.
Clause 2 requires the Prime Minister to establish an office of the special envoy to support the work of the special envoy. Clause 3(1) provides that the Bill will come into force on the day it is passed, and clause 3(2) provides that it will extend to England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland.
New clause 1(1) provides that:
“There continues to be a special envoy called the Prime Minister’s Special Envoy for Freedom of Religion or Belief.”
Ensuring that the role continues to be known as the Prime Minister’s special envoy will mean that it maintains its international authority and recognition, as hon. Members have said. The new clause also seeks to reduce the statutory duty on the Prime Minister to appoint and provide resources to the special envoy; the duty is delegated to a Minister of the Crown. That change is essential, as legislation relating to the Prime Minister’s powers is extremely rare and limited, especially where the processes can be dealt with administratively. I thank the special envoy for her understanding on that point.
The new clause also clarifies the duties of the special envoy. It states:
“The special envoy must act with a view to…promoting freedom of religion or belief abroad, in particular by working with the government of the United Kingdom, with other governments and their representatives…and with organisations outside government;…raising awareness of cases in which people abroad are persecuted or discriminated against on the grounds of religion or belief and advocating for the rights of such people.”
Those revised duties reflect the status of the work undertaken by my hon. Friend in her role as special envoy.
My hon. Friend has worked with other special envoys to secure numerous achievements on FORB. Perhaps the most notable of those achievements was her co-hosting of the fourth international ministerial conference on freedom of religion or belief, which brought together Government delegations, faith and belief group leaders, human rights actors and civil society representatives from more than 100 countries to address challenges to the right to FORB. She subsequently hosted a series of roundtables on individual countries, including Nigeria, Pakistan, Iran and Myanmar, which brought together key stakeholders, including embassies and non-governmental organisations, to promote respect for FORB.
I congratulate my hon. Friend on her accomplishments as chair of the International Religious Freedom or Belief Alliance. She was asked to carry out the role of chair for a second time last year—the first time in the organisation’s history that such a request has been made. As chair of the IRFBA, she established a scheme to raise awareness of prisoners of conscience each month, including individuals from Vietnam, Nicaragua, Cuba and Myanmar. In three cases, individuals were subsequently released, which is a tremendous result.
That is a small sample of the important work my hon. Friend has undertaken. Reflecting that work in the revisions to the special envoy’s duties will set the same high expectations for delivery for future incumbents. New clause 1 also simplifies the provision of resources to the special envoy by no longer requiring the establishment of a separate office for the special envoy. The envoy’s work is currently supported by her FCDO private office, the FCDO FORB team, the FCDO media office and other officials across the organisation, with an annual budget covering staffing costs and, of course, travel expenses. Resources should continue to be provided in the established manner.
New clause 1(7) makes the special envoy’s functions exercisable on behalf of the crown. Amendment 3 adjusts the Bill’s short title to “Special Envoy for Freedom of Religion or Belief”, so that it refers specifically to the special envoy. That adjustment to the title more accurately reflects recommendation 6 of the Bishop of Truro’s review, which specifically states that the role of special envoy for FORB should be established “permanently, and in perpetuity”, as I mentioned. The amended title clearly aligns with our manifesto commitment to implement the findings of the Truro report. Amendment 4 adjusts the Bill’s long title to reflect its contents more clearly, and removes references to the Prime Minister, for reasons previously discussed.
Let me respond to the hon. Member for Rotherham. The authority of the role is that it is established in the Department. The special envoy has access not only to her own staff, but to Ministers and officials across Government, as well as having the ear of the Prime Minister. The hon. Lady talked about a hierarchy of human rights. She and I know that there is no hierarchy. The persecution of individuals on the basis on their faith often involves not only their faith but other levels, including gender and, potentially, sexual orientation. There is no hierarchy of human rights; the UK defends the full range of human rights as set out in the universal declaration of human rights.
In conclusion, the Bill reinforces our commitment to the position of special envoy for freedom of religion or belief. It will support the FCDO as we ensure that progress made on the freedom of religion or belief is embedded, and that the freedom of religion or belief is central to our wider human rights work. The role has only been established because of the sheer determination of my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton.
Fiona Bruce
I thank the Minister for her response to several points and issues. I will also draw out some of the points made by colleagues across the Committee.
Let me respond to the hon. Member for Rotherham, the much-respected Chair of the International Development Committee. There is, of course, a range of envoys. The reason that the special envoy for FORB in particular is being put into statute is that doing so was a manifesto commitment. However, that does not in any way diminish the importance of the work of other envoys, nor the fact that the UK defends the full range of human rights, as the Minister said. Those rights are set out in the universal declaration of human rights and in international human rights treaties. Much of the work on human rights, including the work in the special envoy role, is often integrated and interrelated with other human rights. For example, the Minister mentioned the concerns that we have for women and girls. Many of us will be aware that millions of women and girls around the world experience discrimination, inequality and violence on the grounds of both their religion or belief and their gender: they are doubly jeopardised. That can be at the hands of state and non-state actors.
History has shown that, where freedom of religion or belief is under threat, other human rights are often also at risk. That is why my particular focus has been on this human right, while other people work on others. It is one of a number of this Government’s human rights priorities. In supporting the Bill, I hope that the Government will be further enabled to positively contribute towards protecting not only FORB but other human rights across the world. One practical example is that the International Religious Freedom or Belief Alliance, which now has 43 countries that work to promote and protect freedom of religion or belief, has six working groups, one of which is specifically on gender, for the reasons that I just mentioned.
I thank the Second Church Estates Commissioner, my hon. Friend the Member for South West Bedfordshire, for his kind remarks. From the many times that he has responded to questions in the House, I know that how keenly he supports the Bill and, indeed, the Church. I am grateful for that.
I could not fulfil the role without the support of the hon. Member for Strangford. It is utterly invaluable. One might say that we are divided in a political sense, but our hearts are inextricably interlinked on this issue. I thank him for having such a huge heart and for all that he does in this place.
I also thank others for the work that they do, because this is not an isolated role. Colleagues have been very kind in commending my work, but it really is teamwork. The UK should be proud of the global leadership that it has shown, but that can be done only because it is so collaborative.
It was a privilege to visit the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow—I managed to get that out!—and to see the strong relationships that she has built up across the faith groups in her area. That was such a positive example of what we should all be doing in our country as well as internationally. I thank her for inviting me to visit as part of the roadshow that my deputy envoy and I did in more than 20 towns across the UK. It was great fun.
We did the roadshow—I briefly digress—because we felt that people did not know how big the issue is internationally and how many people are affected. I will pick a statistic from the Open Doors world watch list, but of course there are many other statistics I could cite. Open Doors says that across the world about 360 million Christians are at risk of discrimination or persecution— that is just Christians. The Pew Forum has produced a recent report that says that restrictions on religion have reached a new peak globally:
“Religious groups faced harassment by governments in 183 countries… the largest number since the study began.”
Strengthening and building relationships across faith groups and showing the UK as an example of that is important.
Gavin Robinson
I feel a bit bad because I said that the hon. Lady was prepared to do it. For fear that rumours start spreading, I am glad that she has set the record straight. I am sure Hansard will back me up on what I said. But she would have done it, of that I have no doubt.
Fiona Bruce
In closing, I thank in particular my long-serving and, I think, long-suffering, over 14 years, chief of staff, Harriet Crompton, because she successfully pushed the button on her computer at exactly the right time to bring this Bill, as a presentation Bill, to the very top of the more than 100 Bills that colleagues sought to bring to this House to make legislative change. As I have said, I am very fortunate. It is very much not just me involved in this work; it really has been teamwork.
Question put and negatived.
Clause 1 accordingly disagreed to.
Clause 2 disagreed to.
Clause 3
Commencement, extent and short title
Amendment made: 3, in clause 3, page 2, line 8, leave out
“International Freedom of Religion or Belief Act 2023”,
and insert
“Special Envoy for Freedom of Religion or Belief Act 2024”.—(Fiona Bruce.)
This amendment adjusts the Bill’s short title so that it refers specifically to the special envoy.
Clause 3, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
New Clause 1
Prime Minister’s Special Envoy for Freedom of Religion or Belief
“(1) There continues to be a special envoy called the Prime Minister’s Special Envoy for Freedom of Religion or Belief.
(2) The special envoy is to be appointed by, and may be removed from office at any time by, a Minister of the Crown.
(3) The special envoy must act with a view to—
(a) promoting freedom of religion or belief abroad, in particular by working with the government of the United Kingdom, with other governments and their representatives (including special envoys), and with organisations outside government;
(b) raising awareness of cases in which people abroad are persecuted or discriminated against on the grounds of religion or belief and advocating for the rights of such people.
(4) The special envoy must from time to time give a report about their work to the Prime Minister.
(5) A Minister of the Crown may give the special envoy directions about the exercise of their functions.
(6) A Minister of the Crown—
(a) must provide the special envoy with such staff, accommodation, equipment and other facilities as the Minister considers necessary for the carrying out of the special envoy’s functions;
(b) may pay allowances or other payments to or in respect of the special envoy.
(7) The special envoy’s functions are exercisable on behalf of the Crown.”—(Fiona Bruce.)
This new clause is intended to replace clauses 1 and 2. It includes largely the same material as those clauses but with several drafting and clarity-related changes.
Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.
Title
Amendment made: 4, in title, line 1, leave out from beginning to end of line 3 and insert
“require the continued appointment of a special envoy for freedom of religion or belief and make provision about the special envoy’s functions.”—(Fiona Bruce.)
This amendment adjusts the Bill’s long title to reflect its contents more clearly. It is consequential on NC1.
Question proposed, That the Chair do report the Bill, as amended, to the House.
Fiona Bruce
May I conclude by thanking all those who have been involved in working on the Bill’s passage to date? I thank in particular my private secretary, Sue Breeze, who is indispensable to my role. I just regret that it is not possible to include her name in the Bill, so that subsequent special envoys of the Prime Minister would have the benefit of her very many years of experience on freedom of religion or belief and the global respect that she carries and that I have noticed whenever she has travelled with me across the world. We are truly fortunate to have her as someone in our FCDO who has been working on this issue for very many years.
May I also thank my parliamentary office for its support? I have mentioned my chief of staff, Harriet Crompton. May I also thank Lucy Williams? I particularly thank, for her unfailingly unflappable support, the Clerk responsible for private Members’ Bills, Anne-Marie Griffiths, who is always willing, whenever one goes into her office, to be interrupted from whatever she is doing—
Fiona Bruce
I see the right hon. Member nodding. I thought it was just me! No, Ms Griffiths is always willing to be interrupted to support colleagues. I also thank, for her energetic support, the Whip, my hon. Friend, and the hon. Friend of many in this room, the Member for Castle Point (Rebecca Harris), otherwise known as the Friday Whip.
It may not surprise people to hear that I believe in providence and the Lord’s hands on these proceedings. On the subject of Lords, I am delighted that if the Bill passes through its remaining stages, the Lord Spiritual who will, fittingly, take the Bill through the other place is the Bishop of Winchester, formerly the Bishop of Truro. He will, uniquely, be ensuring that his review’s recommendation to establish permanently and in perpetuity the role of the Prime Minister’s special envoy, with sufficient resources and authority, is implemented, and I wish him all haste and good speed as he does so.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill, as amended, accordingly to be reported.
Dogs (Protection of Livestock) (Amendment) Bill
Wednesday 24th April 2024
(3 weeks, 3 days ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Dogs (Protection of Livestock) (Amendment) Bill 2023-24 View all Dogs (Protection of Livestock) (Amendment) Bill 2023-24 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 24 April 2024 - (24 Apr 2024)
The Chair
Before we begin consideration, I have a few preliminary reminders for the Committee. Please switch electronic devices to silent. No food or drink is allowed, apart from the water provided. Hansard colleagues will be grateful if Members email their speaking notes to hansardnotes@parliament.uk.
I believe that the House is likely to be voting at 5 pm, and there could be six votes. If we continue to that time, we will be coming back, so it could get very late; Members might like to adapt the length of their speeches accordingly. My selection and grouping list for today’s meeting is available online and in the room. One amendment has been tabled. We will have a single debate on all clauses, the amendment and the schedule.
Clause 1
Livestock worrying: scope and consequences of offence
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Clauses 2 to 5 stand part.
Amendment 1, in the schedule, page 5, line 29, leave out from “conviction” to end of line 30 and insert—
“(a) except in a case falling within paragraph (b) below, to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale,
(b) in a case where the person in question has previously been convicted of an offence under this Act in respect of the same dog, to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale.”
The schedule.
Dr Thérèse Coffey (Suffolk Coastal) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve on the Bill Committee with you in the Chair, Mrs Latham. I thank all the right hon. and hon. Members who have agreed to be members of the Committee. There is a variety of Bill Committees—this is my second today—but that just shows people’s passion for ensuring that we have good, focused legislation, whether tabled by the Government or tabled, as in this case, by Members across Parliament. This Bill is an attempt to address concerns about the offence of livestock worrying.
The provisions were originally in the Animal Welfare (Kept Animals) Bill. I am conscious that people wonder why that Bill was paused. It started to become a somewhat unwieldy Bill that all sorts of things were being tagged on to that went considerably beyond the original purposes of that Bill. The Government, of which I was at the time a part, therefore decided to pause that Bill, but to come back with a more detailed one. I made that commitment when I was in office, and I am glad that, despite my having left office, the Government are still committed to the provisions of this Bill.
On Second Reading, I basically lost my voice—I think I managed less than a minute. I do not intend to speak for very long today, as I know that others are interested in raising specific points, but I want to summarise the Bill, as the notes eloquently do. I also thank officials in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs for their help in getting to this point.
In essence, the Bill is an attempt at simplification. Clause 1(b) brings camelids within the definition of “livestock”, because animals such as llamas are starting to be farmed considerably more and to be managed in livestock settings. Clause 1(a) brings incidents on roads and paths within the scope of the offence, because as anybody who has ever been to a farm with livestock knows, livestock do not sit in one field all their lives; they are moved around, and we need to ensure that dogs do not worry the livestock as they are moved. That simplifies the situation: it not only makes it clear that dogs should be under the control of their owner or the person walking them, but gives assurances to farmers about what the limits are. Other provisions ensure that offenders will pay the expenses arising from seizing and detaining the dog, rather than those costs falling on the police.
Simply doing some modest extensions is an important element of clause 1. Rather than trying to cover every animal under the sun, as has happened in other jurisdictions, it is ultimately about keeping the Bill in line with what was intended, while ensuring that farmers can still be concerned about the safety of their animals.
Clause 2 basically updates the Dogs (Protection of Livestock) Act 1953 to ensure that seizing a dog is more straightforward. In particular, we are starting to see some phrases about dogs that pose a continuing threat. The clause says:
“(1) A constable may seize a dog if—
they have reasonable grounds to believe that the dog has attacked or worried livestock on agricultural land or on a road or path”.
The reason for doing that is to make it more straightforward for police to grab a suspected dog, in order to stop such behaviour happening and avoid the potential impact on livestock, without having to go to court or wait until an owner is convicted of an offence.
Clause 3 ensures that we can be more up to date about getting evidence—for example, taking dental impressions. A dog bite can often be distinguished by what is happening with their mouth and what has happened to the animal, which is particularly important when an animal has been killed. I am sure the Minister will explain in more detail why we are including both “attacking” and “worrying” in the Bill. Again, to give a simplified view, people should be aware that this is not just about a dog attacking a sheep, a cow, a camelid or a pig; just running around them can cause distress to the animal and severe consequences, such as aborting. It is about those sorts of things as well. There is even a story about how a dog ended up chasing livestock over the edge of a cliff. We need to ensure that not just what people would perceive to be an attack—direct contact with the animal by the dog—but worrying behaviour more generally is addressed.
From discussions with the police, I anticipate that most sampling should be quite straightforward, but a more detailed examination of a dog may be required at times in order to establish the connection to a specific incident. If it is deemed that that would be quite intrusive, the law requires a veterinary surgeon to be involved to ensure that the dog in question is handled appropriately.
Clause 4 extends powers of entry and search via application to a justice of the peace. There have been too many examples of people saying that they will bring in their dog and then they do not; the dog disappears, never to be seen again. It ends up somewhere else or something else happens to it. The clause basically enables a quick element of justice to be applied in order to ensure that evidence can be seized quickly.
Clause 5 covers the extent, commencement, transitional provision and short title. I am grateful that the Department agreed that we should try to ensure that the Act comes straight into force at the end of three months. There were discussions about England and Wales, and whether this an animal welfare matter, which should be devolved. Actually, this legislation is not specifically about animal welfare. It is keeping in line with the original intent of the 1953 Act. As a consequence, it is to be debated by the UK Parliament and does not require discussion by the Senedd of Wales or Welsh Ministers. I hope that explains why the matter is reserved and why a legislative consent motion is not required.
The schedule is a way of tidying up aspects of the 1953 Act. Paragraph 1(6) amends section 1(4) of the Act and talks about “attacking” or “worrying”, which ensures the Bill covers what it is supposed to.
I tabled amendment 1 because, after looking at the original Act and having discussions with various organisations, I was concerned that it seemed that the penalties would be declining. I want it to be easier to get convictions, but I do not want to reduce the penalties available. I must admit that I drafted the amendment without going to the Department for further legal advice. I know the Minister is minded to accept its sentiment but would like the Government to table a cleaner legal version on Report. I am happy for them to do that.
We need to send a strong message to dog owners right across this country. We have just been in lambing season, and many right hon. and hon. Members have examples of awful attacks in their constituencies. We see on social media—it has been coming up a lot on things such as TikTok—that farmers are really frustrated that people are not in control of their animals, which can have a major impact. People are somewhat in denial about that.
It is suggested anecdotally that quite a lot of the problems are caused by dogs escaping from their homes. Their owners have no clue about it and would be mortified to know that their dog was on the loose. People have the power to shoot dogs that are worrying livestock, but not all of the farmers and one shepherdess from my constituency I met had a shotgun licence, and not all of them wanted to do that; they wanted the owners to be responsible. Hopefully, the deterrent of a potentially unlimited fine will make people more aware of what their best friend—their dog—could be doing to other animals if they are not under good control with good recall. That is why I am keen to ensure the deterrent is sufficiently strong.
I am conscious that I sprung the amendment on the Department at the last minute. I am very grateful to the officials and our Clerk, Anne-Marie Griffiths, for all the advice they have given along the way in getting us to this stage. I will not go through the ins and outs of the amendment, but I thank the Minister’s private secretary, Tania Wimpenny, who was my private secretary when I was in the Department, with whom I had a good discussion. What she may not have revealed to the Minister among all the excitement is that she is now engaged to be married. I wanted to ensure that that is in Hansard. I congratulate her on that.
I hope people realise that this Bill is intended to be straightforward. I know there is a lot of detail in the clauses, but that is often the case when we try to amend other legislation. These modest, sensible changes will be important for our farmers and the animals for which they care. I hope the Bill will get through the Committee today.
Ben Lake (Ceredigion) (PC)
Thank you, Mrs Latham, for calling me to contribute to this Bill Committee. I congratulate the right hon. Member for Suffolk Coastal (Dr Coffey) on introducing this Bill and on its reaching Committee. It is a very important Bill that addresses a problem that affects many of my constituents in Ceredigion.
In recent years, I have had to speak to too many farmers who have been victims of dog attacks on their livestock. Suffice it to say, such attacks are devastating, not only for the animals concerned but for the families and the farmers. Many have told me that they dread looking out the window in the evening to see their livestock hurrying about in fear of a repeat attack. It is very important that this Bill has reached this stage, and I congratulate the right hon. Lady on stewarding it this far.
Christina Rees (Neath) (Lab/Co-op)
In my constituency there is a lot of common land, where livestock graze with permission from the trustees of that land. Is that covered by this excellent Bill, on which I congratulate the right hon. Member for Suffolk Coastal? If the hon. Gentleman does not know, I am sure that the right hon. Lady will clarify matters.
Ben Lake
I believe that I am safe in saying—I am grateful to Government Members for their encouragement —that the powers do extend to livestock grazing on common land. That is important because we need to ensure that when such attacks happen, the owners, regardless of the livestock concerned, are assured that police have the powers necessary to fully investigate and hopefully put a stop to any repeat attacks, which often happen in my constituency. It is believed that the same dogs have committed attacks there more than once.
I reiterate my support for the Bill and congratulate the right hon. Member for Suffolk Coastal once again on bringing it forward.
Sir Geoffrey Cox (Torridge and West Devon) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Latham. I should make a declaration of interest: I own land on which livestock is kept.
I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk Coastal on doing an enormous service for livestock farming and those engaged in it not only through this valuable Bill but during her service as Secretary of State. Throughout her time in office, she took valuable steps towards enhancing the livelihoods of those whom I represent in my constituency. Her work is being carried on by the current Secretary of State.
I shall address just one or two elements of the Bill not in a critical spirit but in, I hope, a constructive one. I hope we can give some subsequent attention to my first concern about the Bill—the Minister may be able to help me by answering some of my questions or by reflecting on changes that could be introduced in subsequent stages—which is that at the moment several pieces of legislation could apply to the mischief at which this Bill is aimed. We have the Dogs (Protection of Livestock) Act 1953, which this measure amends, but we also have the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991. Section 3 of the 1991 Act makes it an offence to be the owner of a dog that is dangerously out of control, and the guidelines that the Crown Prosecution Service published on that offence suggest that a dog that is causing serious injury to other animals, including livestock, is potentially evincing evidence of being dangerously out of control.
We have, then, the offence in section 3 and the offences under the 1953 Act. What we do not have is coherence in the guidelines for prosecution and enforcement between when the Dangerous Dogs Act can be used and when the offence is of attacks on, or worrying, livestock. Having served as a Law Officer, I think there may well be a case for the re-publication of new guidelines on enforcement and prosecution, but the reason why I draw attention to the matter is that, even with the changes that my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk Coastal is introducing to the penalty provisions, it seems to me that they are extraordinarily light for the top end of this type of offending. An offence with a £1,000 maximum fine will generally be visited not with the maximum by a magistrates court but by a fine potentially of just a few hundred pounds—in other words, the cost of perhaps a few parking tickets—yet the impact, suffering and mischief that attacks by dogs on livestock cause to farmers and farming families are severe, and wholly out of proportion to a fine of a few hundred pounds.
My right hon. Friend will know—because I have discussed it with her—that just a few weeks ago the Dawe family, who are neighbours and constituents of mine, were subjected to an extraordinary overnight attack in which no fewer than 27 lambing ewes and lambs were killed—their faces ripped off and their bellies torn open. Many of them had to be put down when, in the morning light, that appalling scene of carnage was discovered. The irresponsibility of an owner who allows their dogs to roam free and to cause damage of that appalling character is not reflected by a fine of a few hundred pounds. Now, you may say to me, Mrs Latham, that perhaps in those circumstances an offence under section 3 of the Dangerous Dogs Act should be considered, and I would agree, but what we need is a coherent set of guidelines that sets out when the various offences in the hierarchy that exists should be considered by both police and the Crown Prosecution Service.
The second point that I wish to make is an allied point. It is astonishing that neither the Dangerous Dogs Act nor, certainly, the 1953 Act permits the court to disqualify an owner from owning a dog. I strongly submit to the Minister, for future consideration, perhaps in this Bill, that this offence ought to be added to section 34 of the Animal Welfare Act 2006, which lists the offences that gives to a court the power to disqualify a person from dog ownership. It may be that there is a lacuna, and under the Dangerous Dogs Act the normal remedy in those circumstances would be the destruction of the animal, but if the court decides that the animal should not be destroyed, surely some attention should be given to whether an owner with a dog so dangerously out of control—or even a dog that worries livestock, whether once or repeatedly—should not be allowed to own a dog until further order.
The two points that I recommend to the Minister, then—it may be that those assisting him can say that my fairly preliminary inspection of the laws in this field is wrong, and I can be reassured—are twofold. First, we need coherent guidance as to the way police investigate and prosecution prosecute, as to the balance to be struck and the considerations to be thought through, and as to the application of either a section 3 Dangerous Dogs Act offence or an offence of worrying sheep or attacking livestock, of the kind my right hon. Friend is dealing with. Secondly, we need to consider whether the offences, even those she is amending, are sufficient for this purpose. A repeat offender will be fined under level 5. That is an unlimited fine and that is good, but the repeated worrying of sheep or worrying of any livestock is not, many would say, sufficiently visited with adequate punishment by a fine alone. I commend that approach to the Minister, and if I am wrong about that or the policy of the Government is not to adopt it, we need at least to consider when section 3 should be used.
Finally, we need to consider the question of disqualification and whether or not this offence should be added to the list of offences under the Animal Welfare Act that make an owner eligible for disqualification. The court, of course, would have discretion; all the usual balancing factors that are relevant under that Act would apply. Where there is a fairly minor case of worrying, one would not expect a disqualification, but in a really grave case—such as that of the Dawe family, whom I have the privilege of representing—a court may take a thoroughly different view.
With that—I say again that this is meant not in a critical spirit but in a constructive one—I congratulate my right hon. Friend again. This is an extraordinarily valuable set of provisions that has been widely welcomed and I hope that we can consider tightening them further in the Bill’s journey through the House.
Kit Malthouse (North West Hampshire) (Con)
Like my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Torridge and West Devon, I am pleased to appear under your wise guidance, Mrs Latham, as we look at this vital and important legislation. I represent 200 square miles of rolling Hampshire downland, much of it dotted with sheep. Like my right hon. and learned Friend, we have seen our share of horrible incidents over the past few years; the legislation is therefore extremely welcome for me and my constituents—and I declare an interest as a dog owner.
I, too, have some small matters of detail that I want to raise for possible consideration on Report, in the spirit of trying constructively to improve the Bill. I will go through them, if I may. The first is about territorial extent. I am not as legally proficient as my right hon. and learned Friend, but I want to ensure that areas of Crown land are covered, not least royal parks, which often have their own legislation to cover what happens within them. Members will remember the famous case of Fenton chasing deer across Richmond Park—happily, in that case there was a prosecution and a conditional discharge for six months. We need to look at that. In particular, we need to think about the foreshore. There are parts of this country where sheep graze the foreshore, eating seaweed and whatever. It produces delightful slightly salty and sweet lamb, but the foreshore is a part of our landmass that has its own legal status and largely, I think I am right in saying, belongs to the Crown. It would be interesting to see how we can make sure that the legislation applies there.
The second issue that I want to raise is the retention of dogs by the police. When I was at City Hall, in a previous life, I started a campaign to drive out the plethora of dangerous dogs in London and improve the legislation. We got amendments then, but one thing that deterred the police from detaining dangerous dogs was the cost of holding them. Often, a dog would be detained, the trial would be awaited, the dog would be held—sometimes for months—the owner would not show up to the trial and the dog would be destroyed, but the police would be left with the cost. I understand that in this case there is a seven-day limit and I wonder whether we could consider that for amendment on Report.
In my honest opinion, owners will partially pay. They will get to seven days, plead that they cannot afford it and partially pay some of the costs to try to avoid their dog being put down. A game will be played. There needs to be firmer provision: either that, at seven days, partial payment is not good enough and the constable may dispose of the dog, or that an owner can agree immediately upon seizure of the dog that the dog may be disposed of. At the moment I cannot see in the Bill the possibility that, if my dog kills 27 sheep and is seized, I can say to the police there and then, “I don’t want the dog back. Do what you will with it,” at no cost to me.
Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mrs Latham. I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Suffolk Coastal for inviting me to be on the Bill Committee; I very much hope she does not come to regret it. I am interested in the Bill both in a practical sense—we all want to see livestock properly protected—and as someone who is, as the hon. Member for Ceredigion pointed out, a veteran of the kept animals Bill. I will come back to that in a minute, because some of the issues that have been raised were addressed in that Bill.
I will not delay the Committee by discussing the harm that is done. I echo the points that have been made. The harm was certainly raised by the shadow Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon North (Steve Reed), on Second Reading, when he detailed a number of cases in offering the Opposition’s full support for the Bill, which I echo.
It will not come as any surprise to the right hon. Member for Suffolk Coastal that I make the point again that we were discussing the kept animals Bill some two and a half years ago. I was delighted that she gave me the first explanation that I have heard for its withdrawal, but I am not convinced by it. That Bill was an extraordinary collection of things in the first place, and the only additions that I recall being made were some amendments—unhelpful ones, I suspect, from the Government’s point of view—from Conservative Back Benchers. It was withdrawn, and we have not had the relevant protections for two and a half years, due to political management issues in the Conservative party. Leaving that aside, there were important points in that Bill, some of which have been brought forward in private Members’ Bills, although that is a chancy way of doing things.
I was fortunate to find the bundle of papers from that period in my office earlier. I am glad that I did because, as the right hon. and learned Member for Torridge and West Devon and the right hon. Member for North West Hampshire said, the original kept animals Bill was a very different piece of legislation. It was much more comprehensive and introduced the notion of control orders and disqualification orders, which I think would very much address the points that have been raised. I am not clear why a different approach has been taken with this Bill.
The kept animals Bill would have effectively replaced the 1953 Act, but this Bill amends it and is quite different as a consequence. That includes the lack of a debate such as the one we had then—I am sure Members will remember it—about not just the control orders and disqualification orders but the very definition of “worrying livestock” in the 1953 Act. That led to a lengthy and complicated discussion about whether people should be expected to keep their dog on a lead when close to livestock. I am not sure why that has not been reintroduced, either. The then Minister, the right hon. and learned Member for Banbury (Victoria Prentis), declined our amendments, but we were strongly of the view that that would send a very strong message to people that if they are close to livestock, their dog should be on a lead. I would like us to return to that discussion, if possible, and consider including that provision in this Bill.
More could have been done for those reasons, but, having said all that, I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Suffolk Coastal for promoting this Bill. We support it and I wish it well as it progresses through the House, but it would be good to strengthen it on Report, if possible.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Robbie Moore)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Latham. I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk Coastal for promoting this incredibly important Bill. From the contributions we have heard in this debate, we know just how impactful it could be on constituents who have unfortunately experienced livestock worrying or livestock attacking.
I also thank right hon. and hon. Members for trying to improve the Bill as it moves through the House. “Our Action Plan for Animal Welfare”, published in 2021, set out our plans, aims and ambitions across animal welfare. It set out the commitments that we are focused on pursuing to deliver a better life for animals in this country and abroad. The Bill supports our commitments to ensure that new powers are available to the police so that they can respond efficiently and proactively to the worrying and attacking of livestock by dogs.
The Bill’s purpose is to amend the Dogs (Protection of Livestock) Act 1953. It will strengthen police powers and extend the location and species that are within scope of that Act. As we have heard, livestock worrying and attacks on livestock can have awful impacts. The behaviour of dogs that chase, attack or cause distress to livestock can result in injury or death. Our own family farm—I refer Members to my declaration of interest—has experienced sheep worrying and sheep attacking, so I know from experience how detrimental it can be not only to the financial measures of a business but to health and wellbeing. We must also consider the impact of the inability to protect one’s own livestock. Livestock can also suffer wider tragic impacts as a result of livestock worrying, including abortion. Such impacts go beyond animals and their welfare. As I have said, they will also have a direct impact on farmers and lead to financial loss.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk Coastal raised a case relating to the difference between attacking and worrying. Paragraph 1 of the schedule updates the terminology used in the 1953 Act and addresses that specifically. Attacking livestock is dealt with separately from worrying livestock, to recognise the violent nature of such offences.
Statistics from the National Farmers Union Mutual Insurance Society show that UK farm animals worth an estimated £2.4 million were severely injured or killed by dogs in 2023. That was up by nearly 30% compared with the previous year, which demonstrates why the Bill is so important. In addition, a survey carried out by the National Sheep Association found that 70% of farmers had experienced sheep worrying incidents in the past 12 months. Some 95% of the 305 sheep farmers surveyed said that they experienced up to 10 cases of sheep worrying every year.
The Bill will improve police powers and enable them to respond to livestock worrying incidents more effectively by extending powers of seizure and modifying entry powers. It also introduces new powers to take samples and impressions from livestock and the suspected dogs. That should facilitate investigations by making it easier for the police to collect evidence, which, in turn, should improve the rate of successful prosecutions and hopefully reduce the risk of further incidents.
The Bill extends the scope of the 1953 Act by broadening the locations where the offence may take place to include roads or paths. As Committee members have mentioned, it is important to move livestock from one field to another but attacks can happen when that transition is taking place. The Bill addresses the point of roads and paths being considered.
The Bill also amends the wording of the offence of livestock worrying to create separate offences for attacks on livestock and the worrying of livestock, in recognition that both attacking and worrying livestock are serious and devastating. I am particularly pleased that the Bill will also extend the species protected by the Act to include camelids, such as llamas and alpacas. I note the point of my right hon. Friend the Member for North West Hampshire, however, about other species that could be included, such as ostriches, should things change in future and should farming practices include other species. There may be a wish for that to be considered on Report.
I turn to the amendment tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk Coastal. Other Committee members referred to it and expressed support for higher levels of fines for the offence of livestock worrying. The current maximum fine that may be imposed in any case is a level 3 fine not exceeding £1,000. I understand that my right hon. Friend is keen to amend that fine to provide the courts with the appropriate flexibility to impose a higher fine where that is warranted. We as a Government agree that increasing the fine will serve as an additional deterrent to help to reduce the likelihood of future livestock worrying.
As drafted, however, the amendment is out of step with the current fine guidance as it refers to level 5 fines, when the practice since 2015 has been to provide for unlimited fines rather than level 5 fines. It also includes a tiered approach to take account of reoffending, which the courts can already supply under the Sentencing Council guidelines on aggravating and mitigating factors. As my right hon. Friend referenced, my officials will work with her as the Bill progresses to Report stage, before it comes back to the House, so we can table a revised amendment that will deliver on the desired intent to increase the fines that courts can issue to unlimited, and to act as a deterrent.
I am aware of the support for animal welfare in this country and the interest that the matter continues to receive. The strength of feeling has been apparent again from the discussions that we have heard. I will make a couple of additional points. On common land, the definition of agricultural land in the 1953 Act does not expressly reference common land but it does include land used for grazing, and therefore common land could be in scope of the Bill. Ultimately, it remains a matter for the courts to decide if the land in question is in scope in any particular case, but our interpretation is that common land could be determined by the courts to be in scope as grazing land.
On the shadow Minister’s point about dogs being kept on leads, the Bill does not cover that and, from our experience, there is good reason for that. The Bill deals with having control of dogs, but as Committee members may know, it is not right in every circumstance to have signage that specifically relates to keeping dogs on leads. I am aware of circumstances in Yorkshire where signage has stipulated that dogs must be kept on leads, but then someone might keep a dog on a lead and take it into a field full of cattle. If there are young calves, there will, of course, be mother cows that will want to protect their calves. If the dog owner keeps their dog on a lead and does not let go, there is a risk that the owner will also be put at risk if a mother and calf become separated and the mother wants to take down the dog. It is therefore not right in every circumstance.
That is why dogs being kept on leads does not fall in the scope of the Bill and has not been progressed at this stage. Of course, I would always refer people to the countryside code, which deals with the challenges that have been raised. The Bill builds on the Government’s ambitious programme of animal welfare reforms, and we are very pleased to support it.
Sir Geoffrey Cox
On disqualification, will the Minister go back to the Department and say to his officials that we ought to look at whether committing an offence under the 1953 Act should make someone eligible for disqualification from dog ownership? It would be a simple amendment that could be introduced in this private Member’s Bill, and I sense that there is widespread support for the proposal. If there is a good reason not to do it, the Committee and the House should of course listen to that, but I noticed that he was not going to deal with it—I hope he will forgive me; I may have been premature.
Robbie Moore
I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for his intervention. I was just about to talk about the implications of the experience of the Dawe family in his constituency, which was a horrendous scenario where 27 ewes and lambs were attacked—I assume there will have been multiple scenarios where disqualification would quite rightly have applied. While disqualification is not covered by the Bill, it is something that I will consider with officials for the next stage. There may be reasons why that is not in scope of the Bill, but I am absolutely willing to take that away and consider it with officials, as it has been rightly referenced by my right hon. and learned Friend.
Sir Robert Goodwill (Scarborough and Whitby) (Con)
I thank the Minister for giving way. We have talked a lot about fines and penalties, but could he advise me whether the court has the power to direct compensation to be paid to the farmers? In many of these cases, the value of livestock is much greater than any fine that can be levied. Of course, the farmer does not get access to the fine money, but they may well need compensation for their business to continue to be viable.
Robbie Moore
My right hon. Friend makes an excellent point. He is quite right that the Bill does not deal with that circumstance. Courts will be given the ability through sentencing guidelines to take into account unlimited fines through an amendment that will be introduced on Report, which the Government have committed to; it would therefore be up to the courts to implement that. He is right to reference the fact that the money from such fines will not then be distributed to the farmer, and it will therefore be up to the farmer who has been impacted negatively by sheep worrying or a sheep attack to seek compensation through civil means rather than through the courts. It is therefore outside the scope of the Bill.
As I said, the Government are wholly in support of the Bill and we will be considering further amendments that will be introduced on Report. The measures are vital in tackling livestock worrying and will greatly strengthen the existing legislation to decrease incidents of livestock worrying. I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk Coastal for bringing forward the Bill.
Dr Coffey
I thank all right hon. and hon. Members who have contributed. With a former Attorney General, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Torridge and West Devon, present, I am conscious that the devil will be in the detail on aspects of law. It is my understanding that disqualification from ownership should be possible, certainly in England. It is technically an issue of animal welfare, which is devolved, so there is added complication there. However, I am happy to explore this further with the Minister and my right hon. and learned Friend to ensure that it is still possible to achieve the outcome that he seeks, whether through this legislation or otherwise.
Sir Geoffrey Cox
The Dangerous Dogs Act does permit disqualification, so although the Animal Welfare Act considers the welfare of an animal, the Dangerous Dogs Act aims at a different mischief. There seems to be no reason why livestock worrying offences should not be included under the same principle as the Dangerous Dogs Act.
Dr Coffey
I commit to my right hon. and learned Friend to go away and work with the Minister and officials on the details of that particular issue. It was my understanding that there were other legal powers available for the outcomes that he seeks, but if that is not the case—he has expressed some concern about the level of detail—we should look to rectify that in future.
Daniel Zeichner
The fact that disqualification was brought forward in the kept animals Bill suggests that this Bill was the appropriate place for it.
Dr Coffey
The then Farming Minister did give an explanation when the kept animals Bill was paused. That Bill covered many issues, which have already been covered in private Members’ Bills and Government Bills in a number of different ways. Those issues have been broken up to try to ensure that the Bills are passed without all the extra things that people had been talking about. This is nothing to do with party political management; I remind the Committee that at one point in the kept animals Bill, we were starting to consider how to hold a chicken—quite far off topic from its original purpose. This Bill tries to simplify matters. I recognise that the hon. Member for Cambridge may have a different perspective on that, but I will stick to what I believe to be the case.
In response to my right hon. Friend the Member for North West Hampshire, as has been said, the Bill extends to agricultural land, which is perceived to have its natural meaning. It is not intended to cover the Fenton situation, although what happened there was unfortunate. We have to bear in mind that quite a lot of what we are dealing with is negligence by owners, rather than criminal intent. We are not getting into the situation of deliberately releasing animals to attack other animals. At the moment, I do not think it would cover a foreshore, but I do not have the precise legal definition. It basically covers bare land that would be used for agriculture. That is pretty comprehensive and certainly should cover the common land that the hon. Member for Neath referred to.
I am mindful of the questions that have been raised today, some of which, as I hope Committee members recognise, will be taken away to see whether further strengthening is needed. I am happy to meet Committee members, but I will also write to let them know about some of the questions that have been raised.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 1 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 2 to 5 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 1 agreed to.
Bill to be reported, without amendment.
Pensions (Special Rules for End of Life) Bill
Wednesday 24th April 2024
(3 weeks, 3 days ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Pensions (Special Rules for End of Life) Bill 2023-24 View all Pensions (Special Rules for End of Life) Bill 2023-24 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chair
Before we begin, I have some killjoy preliminary reminders for the Committee. Please switch electronic devices to silent. No food or drinks are permitted during sittings of the Committee, except the water provided. Hansard colleagues will be grateful if Members email their speaking notes to hansardnotes@parliament.uk.
On to business, my selection and grouping list for today’s sitting is available online and in the room. No amendments have been tabled. We will have a single debate on all three clauses of the Bill.
Clause 1
Changes to periods of life expectancy
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Mr Laurence Robertson (Tewkesbury) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dame Siobhain. I thank you, the Minister and all Committee members for attending. I also thank the Department for Work and Pensions legislative team, who have been a great asset and a source of useful assistance throughout the process. I thank the Opposition for their support and my hard-working staff for their efforts.
As I said on Second Reading, the Bill is small and narrow in focus, consisting of just the three clauses. It seeks to amend existing legislation that covers the definition of terminal illness for the Pension Protection Fund and the financial assistance scheme, which is currently a life expectancy of only six months. We seek to increase that definition to 12 months. The extension would allow people with a terminal illness to receive terminal illness payments when they are likely to have 12 months or less to live. Such payments are a one-off lump sum from the PPF scheme or an early payment from the FAS.
I am sure we would all agree that when someone receives the devastating news that they have a terminal illness, they should receive any and all financial help possible during their final days. The constant advances in medical science—treatments, drugs and palliative care—make this Bill that much more important, because things are rather difficult to predict. This extends to the pension schemes as well. Most private pension schemes already provide cover in the form of serious ill health payments.
As will be explained, the Government passed legislation two years ago to ensure the same outcome for individuals receiving certain social security benefits such as universal credit, employment and support allowance, and personal independence payments. I came to understand, however, that two aspects of pensions legislation lacked updated coverage. That legislation relates to the Pension Protection Fund and the financial assistance scheme—the focus of the Bill—which retained the six-months definition. The Bill seeks to rectify that.
In case any right hon. or hon. Members present in Committee were not at the Second Reading debate, I shall explain briefly what exactly the PPF and the FAS are. The Pension Protection Fund was established by the Pensions Act 2004. It pays compensation to individuals when the sponsors of their defined-benefit pension schemes—usually their employers—become insolvent and lack the necessary assets to pay pensions to the level that the Pensions Protection Fund would ordinarily pay. That applies for insolvencies that take place on or after 6 April 2005. The financial assistance scheme applies to individuals whose pension schemes were unable to meet their pensions liabilities in full when those schemes started to wind up between 1 January 1997 and 5 April 2005.
Currently, the PPF can make a one-off lump sum payment to someone who has not yet drawn their PPF compensation but is terminally ill. The FAS makes similar provision by allowing the early payment of financial assistance. Both the PPF legislation and the FAS regulations use the same definition of terminal illness. As I alluded to earlier, the Bill will bring the Pension Protection Fund and the financial assistance scheme in line with the Department for Work and Pensions’ definition of terminal illness, which, following the Social Security (Special Rules for End of Life) Act 2022, was likewise extended up to 12 months when calculating certain benefits. Therefore, the Bill seeks to harmonise the legislative definition of terminal illness such that following its commencement all legislation will use the extended 12-month definition.
I repeat that I hope that by harmonising the legislative definition we can encourage all pension providers that do not already have provision for considering serious ill-health payments when the member has a life expectancy of 12 months or less to consider putting that in place or updating or extending their scheme rules. Yes, the Bill has a narrow scope, but it might act as a prompt and as encouragement to other pension providers.
The Bill is legally tight, consisting of just three clauses. Clause 1 amends the current definition of “terminally ill”, normally referred to as “end of life”, from six months to 12 months in all relevant legislation; clause 2 covers the territorial extent and commencement of the Bill; and clause 3 establishes the short title of the Act: the Pensions (Special Rules for End of Life) Act 2024.
Sir Greg Knight (East Yorkshire) (Con)
Is my hon. Friend entirely happy with the wording of clause 2(4)? Has he had an undertaking from the Minister that the Government will bring the Bill into force as soon as possible? I ask because I was lucky enough to take the through Parliament Parking (Code of Practice) Act 2019, which had a similar clause. Some five years later, we are still waiting for the Government to introduce the parking code of practice, which is outrageous. If my hon. Friend has not had an undertaking from the Minister, does he think he should obtain one?
Mr Robertson
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for reminding me that the Bill’s introduction depends on the Minister taking action. It was not this Minister who spoke on Second Reading but one of his colleagues, and we did receive an assurance that the legislation would be in place as soon as possible. As I understand it, we need to make sure that the situation in Northern Ireland is brought together with our legislation, because it is a devolved matter. I will come on to that in a minute. The Minister on Second Reading assured me that it would be brought in as soon as possible; I do not know exactly when that will be, but I am sure that the Minister will confirm it today. If he does not confirm it as strongly as we would like, maybe we can intervene on him, but I am satisfied that, given the Government’s support for the Bill, they will seek to introduce it as soon as all the ducks are in a row—that is how I can best describe it. But my right hon. Friend’s point is very important.
The Bill’s territorial extent is slightly complicated, given that aspects of the Pension Protection Fund are covered by devolved legislation in Northern Ireland, as seen in clause 1(3) and (4) and clause 2(2). However, officials are working with the devolved legislature on that matter, and as I understand it our colleagues in Northern Ireland are keen to see the alteration happen as soon as possible.
As explained, the Bill focuses on only the Pension Protection Fund and the financial assistance scheme. Thus, clause 1 and its subsequent subsections seek to amend relevant legislation and provisions connected to the Pension Protection Fund and the financial assistance scheme. Specifically, subsections (1) and (2) amend the definition of terminal illness by changing the period of life expectancy from the current six months to 12 months, in respect of Pension Protection Fund compensation.
James Gray (North Wiltshire) (Con)
I warmly congratulate my hon. Friend on this extremely worthwhile Bill. It really is a superb effort and I am grateful to him for it. I am puzzled, however; perhaps I should have asked this question on Second Reading. Who defines whether the person is terminally ill within 12 months? After all, many diagnoses of terminal illness may well last longer than 12 months, and some people may have no such diagnosis. Where does the six or 12 month-period come from? Who decides it, and what is the certification that that is the case?
Mr Robertson
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that point. As I understand it, it is a classification or assessment made by the medical person in charge of a person’s very sad case. One of my motivations for introducing the Bill is that, given advances in medical science, it can be difficult to predict how long somebody is likely to live. Six months is a very short period of time and, through appropriate care, somebody can perhaps live longer than that. I seek to extend it to 12 months, which is somewhat more all-encompassing, but it is still a prediction. It is still drawing a line somewhere.
One of the points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Sir Philip Davies) on Second Reading was that perhaps we should assess the person’s capabilities and physical and mental state rather than try to predict how long they will live. That was a worthwhile intervention from him, but I do not think we are at that stage yet. What we are saying now is to extend the six-month period to 12 months, because that would make it a little more predictable—if that is the right word. It is a difficult area and my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire has picked up on a good point.
Clause 1(1) amends schedule 7 to the Pensions Act 2004 and subsection (2) amends schedule 5 to the Pensions Act 2008, with both substituting six months for 12 months.
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)
I, too, offer the hon. Gentleman my congratulations. The Bill is extremely worth while. We have talked about the difficulties of diagnosis and the fact that 12 months is a more reasonable period, but does he anticipate that extending the period from six to 12 months will bring a lot more conditions and illnesses into the scope of the legislation?
Mr Robertson
I am grateful for that intervention; it is a good question. Not being a medical person, I assume it would bring some more illnesses within the definition, but it will not affect a huge number of people. As I say, the Bill is fairly narrow in scope. What I hope it will do is prompt the providers of other pension schemes to consider adopting the 12-month period rather than six months. Yes, I am sure it will bring in more people with various illnesses. Not being a medic, I would hesitate to go any further, but that is a good point.
Clause 1(3) and (4) make similar provisions to subsections (1) and (2) but for Northern Ireland, amending the definition of terminal illness in respect of Pension Protection Fund compensation payments. Subsection (3) amends schedule 6 to the Pensions (Northern Ireland) Order 2005 and subsection (4) amends schedule 4 to the Pensions (No. 2) Act (Northern Ireland) 2008. Again, both substitute six months for 12 months.
I have a few more provisions to read through yet; I apologise to the Committee. Subsection (5) amends the definition of terminal illness and the period of life expectancy in relation to progressive disease in regulations 2(9) and 17(3D) of the Financial Assistance Scheme Regulations 2005. Again, both substitute six months for 12 months.
Christina Rees (Neath) (Lab/Co-op)
I congratulate the hon. Member on his commendable Bill and thank him for inviting me to be part of his Committee today. Please forgive me, for I should know this, but I cannot find it in the notes: which medical professional would be responsible for assessing the life expectancy term? Would that be confined to one or two medical professionals?
Mr Robertson
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for raising that point. My understanding is that it is one medical professional. I cannot give her a specific answer, but I understand that it is the person who is in charge of that case for that particular person. I do not know exactly how senior they are. I understand that it is not subject to second opinions or anything like that.
Dr Thérèse Coffey (Suffolk Coastal) (Con)
I thank my hon. Friend for allowing me to intervene at this point. I was responsible as Secretary of State for doing quite a lot of this realignment. In essence, the NHS treats and issues certificates on the basis—which brings in other elements—that the end of life is, in its view, 12 months, so it will be a doctor, nurse or similar who does that. This is a simple alignment with how the NHS defines terminal illness in practice.
Mr Robertson
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for providing more information than I have to hand. As far as I can see, that is the right way to go about this. Twelve months probably gives a little more reassurance to the person making that assessment.
Transitional provisions are guidelines that outline how to transition from the old regulations to the new ones, and saving provisions are designed to protect certain rights, privileges, obligations or legal proceedings that are already in place before the new regulations or orders come into effect. That means that subsections (7) and (8) of clause 2 simply allow for the creation of regulations or orders that include special clauses to manage the change from old to new regulations, protecting against any unintended consequences that might arise during the transition.
To return to the Bill—we are getting there—subsection (9) of clause 2 provides that regulations under subsection (4), relating to the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions and with the territorial extent of England, Wales and Scotland, will be made by statutory instrument. That is a form of legislation, as everybody here is aware, that allows a provision of an Act of Parliament to be subsequently brought into force or altered without Parliament having to pass a new Act. Subsection (10) provides that an order made under subsection (5) of clause 2, relating to the Department for Communities in Northern Ireland and with the territorial extent of Northern Ireland, is exercisable by statutory rule—again, a form of legislation that allows for detailed regulations to be created without the need for a new Act of Parliament.
Finally, as I mentioned, clause 3 is simply the short title of the Act, which, if the Bill is passed, will be the Pensions (Special Rules for End of Life) Act 2024. I do hope that it will be passed in this Parliament and that the extended definition of terminal illness—life expectancy of 12 months—will come into force, providing a little bit of ease to individuals who have received the most devastating news. I thank the Committee for its indulgence.
Dr Coffey
It is a pleasure to speak in Committee about the Bill, which I strongly support. As I have already pointed out, some of the realignment involved is intended to ensure some simplicity for people at one of the most difficult times of their lives, so that they do not have to go around getting different aspects of treatment or negotiating. We made that good change a few years ago. There have been various bits of legislation along the way—some welfare and pensions legislation is done through regulations and some through primary legislation, so it can seem cumbersome. But this is the right moment to make sure that this part of the support available to people in their difficult last moments is fully aligned.
I would like to say something to the Minister. I am conscious that getting even regulations through Parliament takes time and more effort from officials. I would like him either to confirm that the regulations have already been drafted in anticipation of Royal Assent, so that they can be laid before Parliament straight away, or to say that he will consider simply changing the element in question. I have been encouraging others leading private Members’ Bills through Parliament to change the commencement dates so that they come into force three months after Royal Assent.
I am conscious that the Pensions Regulator and similar organisations might have to address some issues, but they should know that the Bill has the full support of this House—of both Houses, I anticipate. We should not wait for further legislation to be commenced, given that people at the end of their lives would welcome this matter being put to bed straight away.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Paul Maynard)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dame Siobhain. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Tewkesbury for bringing forward this legislation; I should also thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk Coastal, the former Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, for paving the way.
This may seem a small and discrete piece of legislation, but it is very important. As my hon. Friend the Member for Tewkesbury explained, the Bill extends the definition of terminal illness for compensation payments made under both the Pension Protection Fund and the Financial Assistance Scheme. Members will be able to claim their compensation on the grounds of terminal illness if a medical professional confirms that they have less than 12 months to live, rather than the current six months. That will enable eligible members to receive the vital support of payments at an earlier point in their illness. The change restores the original policy intent of alignment between the social security special rules provisions and both the PPF and FAS. It will also bring those two schemes into line with the tax definition of “serious ill health”, which allows private pension schemes to make payments where the member has less than 12 months to live.
I will try to cover some of the issues raised today and on Second Reading. There was a particular concern on Second Reading as to whether people whose schemes were not in the PPF or FAS would have a similar opportunity. Although I cannot provide definitive numbers—I do not believe they actually exist—for serious ill health payments, one of the leading independent trustee firms, Dalriada, has confirmed that:
“Trustees may only make such payments in accordance with the provisions of their scheme’s trust deed and rules. In practice, most scheme rules do allow for such payments.”
Officials have also contacted the Association of Pension Lawyers, which collectively acts for many schemes of all sizes. It has confirmed that, in the experience of its members, most occupational pension schemes will have an option of a serious ill health lump sum payable on a discretionary basis.
We have also heard questions today, and as we did on Second Reading, about who would be making the decisions on terminal illness, and the range of those illnesses. I can confirm that those decisions will be made by healthcare professionals, such as clinicians and medical practitioners, who have had direct oversight of the individual concerned. Although there is no definitive list of what constitutes a terminal illness, I imagine that the provisions would certainly include illnesses such as advanced cancer, dementia, motor neurone disease, and other neurological diseases, such as Parkinson’s. However, in my view the definition does not exclude any particular range of conditions, because one’s lived experience of a condition is not determined by the label that we hang around our necks. I find that I have been saying that for 48 years of my life, frankly. We do not determine someone’s lived experience just by the name of their particular condition.
My hon. Friend the Minister for Employment was also asked on Second Reading whether fixed time limits were the right way to go, and whether there would be adequate training for clinicians and communication to make people aware of the changes. The Department engaged widely on time limits ahead of the Social Security (Special Rules for End of Life) Act 2022, and chose the 12-month approach specifically to align with the NHS definition of “end of life”, and to link up with existing initiatives for clinicians that encourage the identification of people in their final year of life. This Bill simply aligns the definition used for the PPF and the FAS with that used more widely by the DWP and the NHS.
As part of the preparations made ahead of the 2022 Act, the Department engaged extensively with senior clinicians from key medical organisations and hospices, as well as representatives from multiple charities and networks of welfare advisers. DWP bulletins were sent out by the British Medical Association, the Royal College of General Practitioners, the Royal College of Physicians, the Association for Palliative Medicine, Hospice UK and NHS England networks across the country. The Department also initiated plans to create a learning module for clinicians to raise awareness among the clinical community of the financial support available for those who are nearing the end of life. That learning module went live in February.
Assurances were also sought that the definition of a terminal illness would be consistent across the DWP. I can provide that assurance today. As the Minister for Employment said on Second Reading, this Bill builds on the previous legislation—which we have just heard about—which changed the special rules for social security benefits. The scope of that legislation limited the changes that we could make to social security benefits administered by the DWP, as they involved the fast-tracking of benefit claims. This final change brings payments made by the PPF and FAS into alignment with those changes.
As I mentioned a little earlier, this Bill aligns the PPF and FAS definition with the tax rules for serious ill health. That will ensure that the payments made by the PPF do not trigger unauthorised payment tax charges on either the PPF or the individual to whom the payments are made. If the definition was to be amended beyond 12 months, as some have suggested, members could have faced significant tax charges on their payments, which I am sure no one wishes to see happen.
I have noted the comments today from my right hon. Friends the Members for East Yorkshire and for Suffolk Coastal about the commencement of the provisions in the Bill. I can confirm today that the intention is for that to happen as soon as practicable after Royal Assent. I see no reason for delay or obfuscation. We have all agreed today that this is a vital piece of legislation that will benefit many of the most vulnerable in our society at the time they need help most, so I have no intention at all of delaying it.
Sir Greg Knight
I am most grateful to the Minister for what he has just said. Can he confirm that that is an undertaking that he has given, and that it is unequivocal?
Paul Maynard
Given that the phrase I used was “as soon as practicable”, I can give that solemn undertaking. I would hate it if either scheme had some kink in its processes that might cause delay. I will do everything in my power to ensure that this is done as soon as possible. I meet the PPF regularly, and this will be on the agenda for the next meeting to make sure all its ducks are in a row, like all the Department’s are.
To conclude—
James Gray
Before the Minister does that, does he agree that one person who would have been very pleased by this legislation is that great champion of pensions and of pensioners, Frank Field, who died yesterday? He was a great man and a great gentleman.
Paul Maynard
I am grateful for that intervention, because I should have thought to start my speech by paying tribute to Frank Field and the immense amount of work he did in the Department for Work and Pensions. He was a thoughtful and humane man, respected on both sides of the House, and I am more than happy to join in paying tribute to him.
Being told that one is nearing the ends of one’s life can be a devastating and frightening experience. It is crucial that those reaching the final stages of their life do not have to worry as much about their finances and can focus on spending their time with the people who matter to them. The Bill takes us one step further toward ensuring that that can happen, building on the changes made back in 2022. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Tewkesbury for promoting the Bill, and I commend it to the Committee.
Mr Robertson
I thank the Minister for that positive response. We look forward to the measure being introduced as soon as practicable. I also thank all members of the Committee for their attendance and contributions today, as well as the team who helped to put the Bill together.
It was rather remiss of me to forget to pay tribute to Frank Field, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire for reminding us. A long time ago, before I was elected to this House, I had the pleasure of working with Frank on a charity project I was involved with, just across the river at Lambeth Palace. We were raising money to create a hostel for homeless women in London at Marylebone complex, just off the Marylebone Road, and Frank was very active member of the fundraising committee. There was no benefit to him; he did it because he felt it was the right thing to do. I pay sincere tribute to Frank.
That seems a good point to finish my speech by restating my thanks to everyone who helped with the Bill.
The Chair
I am sure we are all united in sending our condolences to the family and friends of Frank Field, a man who showed us all how to be a Member of Parliament.
Hon. Members
Hear, hear.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 1 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 2 and 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Bill to be reported, without amendment.
Westminster Hall
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Brain Injuries in Football
(3 weeks, 3 days 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
Damian Collins (Folkestone and Hythe) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered brain injuries in football.
The fact that so many Members are present to seek to intervene or speak in this short debate shows the great interest in the topic. The subject of brain injuries in football and concussion, and brain injuries in sport as a whole, has received considerable attention in recent months, but it is an issue we have been familiar with for many years. My wife’s grandfather, George Richardson, who played professional football for Sheffield United and Hull City, died from a brain haemorrhage in 1968 aged just 56. It was widely believed in the family that it was a consequence of heading heavy footballs when playing as a striker in the football league in his youth.
In 1966, famous for the England World cup win, there was also the end of the first domestic season in which injury substitutions were allowed in English football. A report that I read in the Liverpool Echo from that year recorded that 772 injury substitutions had been made, of which more than 10% were made as a consequence of concussion or head injury. The vast majority were for leg injuries—understandable for football—but even then quite a high number of players were taken off for concussion. We can imagine the high bar there would have been at the time, given that understanding of the consequences of concussion and long-term health impacts were not as well understood.
Staying with 1966, five members of England’s World cup-winning team have subsequently died as a consequence of dementia or brain-related conditions. Recently, other well-known England and Scotland footballers, such as Jeff Astle, Gordon McQueen and Joe Kinnear, have also died from brain-related injuries. However, no longer is this just a matter of tragic stories being brought into the public domain of great loss and sympathy for the families concerned; it is now a matter of increasing scientific study, especially in Scotland, with the 2019 field study conducted by Doctor Willie Stewart of the cases of more than 7,000 former Scottish professional footballers, looking at their cause of death against a study of the general population involving 23,000 people.
Ian Blackford (Ross, Skye and Lochaber) (SNP)
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this debate. He makes an important point about that field study in Scotland. At the time some people dismissed it, because it was only one study, but what has changed in the intervening years is that there have been studies in other European countries. I would argue that the evidence is now overwhelming. It is not just the high-profile cases that he talked about; thousands of footballers are caught up in this and are in financial difficulty. What we really need, given this understanding, based on the scientific evidence, is to have this type of injury classed as an industrial injury by the Industrial Injuries Advisory Council.
Damian Collins
The right hon. Gentleman makes an incredibly important point.
I will dwell briefly on the main statistical outputs of that field study, because it is the best baseline that we have in the UK. The figures are stark. The study discovered that former footballers have a fivefold increase in Alzheimer’s disease, a fourfold increase in motor neurone disease and a twofold increase in Parkinson’s disease against the base level for the general population.
Further medical studies have identified, too, the medical condition of chronic traumatic encephalopathy, or CTE, which is linked to head trauma—head injury. It can be caused by a severe blow to the head, but also within the course of playing football. It causes a release within the brain that is made worse by repetitive injury. That is why the right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford) has a point about classifying this as a form of industrial injury caused by the circumstances of playing football. It can have prolonged and lasting effects. Players who have received concussion injuries on several occasions may be more likely to have severe trauma later on, even if it is recognised at the time.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I commend the hon. Gentleman for bringing this subject forward. It has taken some time and I commend him for his zeal in making it happen. There have been advances and helpful discussions with the Irish Football Association. Does the hon. Member agree that the lessons learned have meant that changes must be made, including the pilot scheme that was introduced by the IFA in 2020 to allow substitutions for suspected concussion with no disadvantage to the teams? That means that players do not feel that they have to shake it off and can be medically wise. There are some things that can be done. For every debate that we bring forward, it is important to highlight the issues, but it is also important to highlight the possible solutions.
Damian Collins
I agree with the hon. Gentleman that concussion substitution would be a sensible measure. In Scotland, I believe there is a campaign for rugby called, “If in doubt, sit them out”, which recognises the danger of concussion injuries and allows a pause in play. Often the incentive within professional sport is to keep people playing as long as possible, and often the players want that themselves. However, there must be proper safety standards so that the right decision is made and the incident does not lead to lasting injury and trauma.
In the United States of America, the recognition of CTE as an injury caused by playing professional sport, particularly American football, is well recognised. The National Football League is providing hundreds of millions of dollars of support for players who are diagnosed as having CTE. There is recognition of the link between head injury and playing sport, and people are properly supported and compensated.
There are two challenges that we have to look at. First, how can we prevent unnecessary and lasting injury as a consequence of head and brain injuries in football and other sports? Secondly, how do we support people who, late in life, are suffering as a consequence of the injuries they sustained during their playing career? The question of compensation is one that families in particular have raised. While a £1 million fund has been created by the Premier League, administered by the Professional Football Association, the concern is that there is no guarantee beyond the first year of its operation, which we are still in, that the fund will continue—although we hope that it will. It needs to have proper resources and to be properly accessible to families.
I spoke recently to John Stiles, the son of former England footballer Nobby Stiles, who made it clear to me that in his father’s case, his care costs per year were over £100,000, and yet the cap for funding from the current fund is £60,000 a year. That would not have been enough. In that case, Nobby Stiles decided to sell his medals, including his World cup-winning medal, which helped pay for his retirement and his costs. However, not everyone is in that position. Many other footballers and their families can be in a position where they are required to sell the family home, although they were told that would not be the case when the fund was created. Some former players and their families have had to sell their homes.
Duncan Baker (North Norfolk) (Con)
Last week I raised on the Floor of the House the point about funding, because Chris Sutton, the former Celtic, Chelsea, Blackburn Rovers and—more importantly, being in Norfolk—Norwich City legend, is my constituent. Currently, support is in place from the PFA and the Premier League’s brain health fund, which has already paid out thousands to help families. That is positive, but a proper registered charity would be the way forward to ensure that the funding is in place. Does my hon. Friend think the Minister could help with putting the proper vehicle in place?
Damian Collins
I am sure that the Minister has heard the point my hon. Friend makes. I think the Minister’s convening power could be extremely helpful in this case. There needs to be a properly resourced fund that football pays into. There is enough money in football to provide compensation for players who clearly need it.
The cap on the fund means that it will not cover some care costs; it would not have done so in the case of Nobby Stiles, had it existed at that time. However, there have been other deaths of former players recently, such as Chris Nicholl, a former player for Aston Villa and Southampton, who died without his family receiving a penny of funding. Similarly, John McNamee, a former Newcastle player, died as a consequence of CTE and his family had to sell the family home to cover care costs. Real concerns are being raised by the families that, limited though these funds are, they are not universally accessible, and there is no guarantee they will exist in the future.
Sir Gavin Williamson (South Staffordshire) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing the debate. The points that have been made about the brain health fund are incredibly important. Does my hon. Friend agree that in addition to the Premier League and the Professional Footballers Association, the Football Association and the English Football League also have a part to play, and that it is by all partners and Government coming together that we can deliver much more for players today and into the future?
Damian Collins
I completely agree with my right hon. Friend. There has been criticism from the families about the fund. It was created voluntarily by them, but the EFL and the FA are not part of it, and they need to be. All the groups that represent professional football need to come together and provide that support fund.
I agree with the right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford) that we should look at classifying these as industrial injuries, but football does not need to wait for that classification; more could be done now to put those support elements in place. This is where I look to the Minister. I know that the issue has been raised with him before, and he has taken a keen interest in it. I believe the Government can play a role in bringing the parties together. There should be a recognition of the link. I know that the Department is supporting more research and convening a forum to decide where the areas of priority research should be. That will help us to understand how we can safeguard young sports players today and safeguard against brain injuries in the future.
More must be done now to recognise the existing link and accept a responsibility. There is a danger sometimes that people are concerned about legal liabilities; but we have known about this link for a while. In March 2024, Dan Roan of the BBC published a report showing that FA board minutes from 1983 recognised the concern about head and brain injuries and the causal link between those injuries and playing football, so let’s not pretend that this link was not known. Something needs to be done now.
Does the Minister think he can play a role bringing the FA and the English Football League together with the Premier League and the PFA to agree a package of financial support to make the available fund sustainable, to look at lifting the cap above £60,000 a year and to guarantee that no family will ever have to sell their home to pay for the care costs of a former footballer? Will football accept its responsibility to care for these heroes of the past, who incurred their injuries while providing entertainment and joy for millions of people and who have enriched other people who have made money out of the game?
Yesterday, on Second Reading of the Football Governance Bill, I raised the case for player welfare to be part of the remit of the regulator. I do not think the regulator’s job should be to write rules for football; it should be there to ensure that competition organisers and clubs adhere to the standards that have been set by the competitions with regard to athlete and player welfare. That would be consistent with the corporate governance responsibilities that the regulator sets. In terms of funding support for players’ care costs in later life, that could be another opportunity where the fines collected by the regulator could support both grassroots sport and legacy injuries related to football, particularly brain injuries. The fund could be used helpfully in that way. I do think there is enough money in football that primarily the professional football organisations themselves should set that standard.
Finally, as has been mentioned, the question of the rules that govern concussion and brain and head injuries in sport today is really important. I do not want to see things like heading the ball removed from football. It is a physical game and is enjoyed as such, but players should be aware of the risks they are running. There should be safety standards, such as concussion substitutions during matches or training, and ensuring that people sit out when they have had a head injury and are given a proper amount of time to recover. There should also be consideration as to whether unnecessary repetitive exercises in training that include heading the ball are really necessary if they cause damage. These things need to be properly understood. In some cases, more research may be needed. We should look at this on an ongoing basis.
As a starting point, let us recognise the link that exists and the genuine need of support that some former players and their families have now. Football already respects the fact that the connection does exist, but we need a proper agreement to resource this and make sure that the support is there and the fund continues. I ask the Minister, as the Football Governance Bill passes through the House, to consider the role that the regulator can play in ensuring that the welfare and safety standards we should expect from clubs and competition organisers are actually followed through.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Stuart Andrew)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Rees. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Damian Collins) for securing this important debate. I am under no illusions about the significant interest in the issue among right hon. and hon. Members. The fact that so many colleagues are here for a half-hour debate proves that point.
Brain injury in football is an important issue that touches many people’s hearts. Last September’s Backbench Business debate on the links between football and neurodegenerative disease demonstrated the wide cross-party support and depth of feeling about this vital issue in the House and in wider society. That has been reflected in the many personal stories of constituents that hon. Members have raised.
Ian Blackford
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for referring to the debate that we had on 14 September. As he rightly says, it was a cross-party debate; I led it with the hon. Members for Moray (Douglas Ross) and for Easington (Grahame Morris). I was very encouraged by the response from the Government Front Bench at that point. Subsequently, on behalf of the three of us, I had discussions with the Industrial Injuries Advisory Council.
There is a recognition of the wealth of evidence that exists, but we now need some help from a Government Minister to get to the next level. The previous Minister for Disabled People, Health and Work—the hon. Member for Corby (Tom Pursglove), who has now moved on—had indicated that he would have a meeting with the three of us. I have been trying to push the replacement Minister by letter: I wrote to her on 18 January and on 13 March. Will the right hon. Gentleman assist us in getting that meeting for the benefit of everyone engaged in that debate and this one, so that we can do the right thing and ensure that more people like John McNamee—a Hibs legend as well as a Newcastle one—do not face the same financial injustice?
Stuart Andrew
It was certainly a pleasure to respond to that debate, and I made a commitment to write to the Department, which I did. I was due to meet the Minister for Disabled People yesterday, but I had to spend all day in the Chamber for the Second Reading of the Football Governance Bill. That meeting will be rearranged, and I will be sure to raise the right hon. Gentleman’s request. I will come on to his point about industrial injuries shortly.
The safety, wellbeing and welfare of everyone who takes part in sport is paramount. I also know how important football clubs and players are to all our local communities. The recent examples of dementia-related deaths of former footballers are of great concern to Members across the House and to me as the Minister for sport. It is important to acknowledge that the vast majority of people play sport safely, but head injuries in sport do occur.
Player safety must be a major focus for sport, as we recently highlighted in our Government sport strategy, “Get Active”. More work is still needed to ensure that robust measures are in place to reduce that risk and improve the diagnosis and management of sport-related head injuries at all levels of sport. That should apply during not just matches but training, and there should be provision for both professional and amateur players, as hon. Members have mentioned.
The national governing bodies are rightly responsible for the regulation of their sport and for ensuring that appropriate measures are in place to protect participants from serious injuries. I am pleased to say that positive progress has been made across different sports in recent years. For example, home nation football associations have changed their guidelines to prevent under-11s from heading footballs during training in England, Scotland and Northern Ireland, and the FA is co-funding research with the Professional Footballers’ Association to build the evidence base relating to brain injuries in football. It is not just national governing bodies contributing to improvements in player safety; players’ associations such as the PFA also play a valuable role in supporting professional players and providing short and long-term support to those affected by sporting injuries.
Damian Collins
The Minister mentions that further work is being done by the FA, but is there any doubt in his mind or the Government’s about the link between brain injury and sporting injury?
Stuart Andrew
I will come on in a minute to research and to some of the things I want to take from the debate.
Hon. Members have mentioned the brain health team and the range of support for former players and their families, which of course includes assistance with claiming state support and benefits. I have discussed the work on player welfare with the PFA’s chief executive, including the football brain health fund for players affected by dementia, which was established last year with the aim of providing financial support for players. An initial amount of £1 million has been made available to provide discretionary financial support, as assessed by an independent panel, to improve quality of life.
I welcome the creation of the fund, the first of its kind in English football. I hope that it will provide support to those former players who need it most. The PFA has confirmed that further investment will be forthcoming, but I will seek further reassurances for that fund. I acknowledge that there is some scepticism from former footballers who have contacted me to express doubts about the fund’s effectiveness.
Sir Gavin Williamson
Will my right hon. Friend also make representations to the FA and the EFL about the work being done on the brain health fund? On temporary concussion substitutions, the decision will be made not by the FA or the Scottish Football Association, but by the International Football Association Board, of which the largest component is FIFA. Will the Minister use his office and his position to make representations to FIFA and the International Football Association Board so that the voice of home associations is properly heard and action is taken to introduce temporary concussion substitutions?
Stuart Andrew
I thank my right hon. Friend for his intervention. I have had letters from former footballers expressing concern about the fund, and I wrote just yesterday to the PFA to seek assurances that the fund is working. I recognise that there is wider work to be done, and I will be more than happy to convene a meeting or roundtable with all the interested bodies and reflect the comments that right hon. and hon. Members have made today. I will, of course, include FIFA.
Damian Collins
I am very glad to hear that. At that roundtable or a subsequent one, will the Minister also meet the families who are raising concerns about the practical operation of the funds and the difficulty of accessing them?
Stuart Andrew
I would be more than happy to do so. In fact, I suggest that it is probably sensible to do so before we do the roundtable, so that I can reflect what I hear from the families.
There has been some discussion of the industrial injuries disablement benefit. The Department for Work and Pensions provides specific support for that benefit and the Industrial Injuries Advisory Council is the independent scientific body that will make recommendations. I know that many Members feel strongly that the council should explore professional footballers’ access to the benefit. My understanding is that the council is currently considering any connection between neurodegenerative diseases such as dementia and the possible effects of repeated head injuries sustained during a career as a professional sportsperson. It needs to give further consideration to the evidence before it can make a decision and will publish its findings when the investigation is complete. It would be premature for me to speculate on how that will progress, but I will definitely raise the matter with the disability Minister.
Ian Blackford
I am grateful for the Minister’s remarks, because many of us feel that the research is now overwhelming. The role that we can play on a cross-party basis, with his assistance, is to demonstrate to the advisory council that an early determination would be welcome, particularly in the light of the hardship that so many footballers experience as they struggle with the impact of brain injury. We cannot allow this to be dragged out ad nauseam. We need to get to a conclusion and make sure that footballers get the help they deserve.
Stuart Andrew
I will try to reflect the right hon. Gentleman’s comments as accurately as possible at my meeting with the disability Minister.
It is important to highlight that the Government are leading work on brain injuries in sport, and specifically on concussion. As part of that, my Department has worked with interested parties to develop the first ever single set of shared concussion guidelines for grassroots sports across the UK. The guidelines, which were published last April, were developed by a panel of UK and international experts in the field of sport-related concussion. They build on the world-leading work in Scotland that hon. Members have mentioned.
We are grateful for the support of Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish colleagues in expanding the remit of the new guidelines to cover the whole UK and their full use for everyone involved in grassroots sport, from school age upwards: participants, coaches, volunteers and parents, as well as those working in education settings and healthcare professions. Through the guidelines, we want to encourage more people to enjoy the benefits of being active and playing sport. We hope that they will be a useful tool in reducing the risks associated with concussion. At all levels of sport, if someone is suspected of having concussion on the field of play, the overarching message, as my hon. Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe said, is “If in doubt, sit them out.”
Evidence-based research is an important component of ensuring that sport is made as safe as possible. My Department has therefore established a research forum to look at concussion in sport. That group brings together key academic experts with experience in traumatic brain injury, neurology and concussion to identify the priority research questions around sports concussion that still need to be addressed for the sporting sector. It is now formulating a report to identify the priority research questions, which is expected to be completed this year. Alongside that, our Department has established an advisory panel with the aim of identifying tech innovations that can help with concussion in sport.
Separately, the Department of Health and Social Care is formulating the Government’s new strategy on acquired brain injury, including dementia. Our Department is feeding into that process to ensure that those who play sport are represented in the gathering of evidence. We remain committed to working with the sector to make sport safe and enjoyable for everyone, including through technological solutions and the prevention of concussion.
Damian Collins
I thank the Minister for giving way one last time. Alongside the establishment of new guidelines based on research, which everyone welcomes, is the question of enforceability. There is a sad history in sport of anti-doping regulations and other welfare standards not being enforced properly because there is no external validation. Policies are often executed within team and club environments by the coaches and the medical staff who report to them, with no external supervision. Having an external actor to check that the right things are being done will be important to making the new guidelines effective.
Stuart Andrew
I heard my hon. Friend’s comments very clearly yesterday. The regulator we have established for football has a very tight scope—we needed to do that—but my hon. Friend raises some interesting points that I will take away and consider. I will certainly make the point, when we convene the roundtable with all the interested parties, that further work is needed in this area. Much good work is going on across Government, but I recognise that we need to do more.
I understand the strength of feeling about the issue and its effects on those who suffer from this terrible illness and on their families. We will continue to work with the sports sector, including the football authorities, to ensure that player safety is prioritised so that everyone can take part in sport safely. I thank my hon. Friend again for securing this debate, and I thank everyone present for their thoughtful contributions and their interest in the area. Once I have had the roundtable, I will be happy to update hon. Members on the outcomes of the discussion.
Question put and agreed to.
Football Index Collapse: Lessons Learned
(3 weeks, 3 days 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
Liz Twist (Blaydon) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the lessons learned from the collapse of Football Index.
It is a pleasure to serve with you as Chair, Mrs Murray. This debate is about the lessons to be learned from the collapse of Football Index. I had a debate on Football Index in June 2022, but I am here again because I was alarmed to read reports in The Times and The Guardian just a few weeks ago about a new platform, KiX, which uses Football Index as a proof of concept and involves some of the people previously involved in Football Index. I do not want my constituents to be caught up in a scheme that replicates the problems of Football Index, so we need to learn the lessons.
The collapse of the supposed betting platform Football Index was mired in controversy, as the site proved to be incorrectly regulated for the majority of its lifetime. Those regulatory failures affected tens of thousands of people across the UK, many of whom lost substantial amounts of money. I am sure most Members in Westminster Hall today and across the House have received emails from constituents who lost life savings, struggled with their mental health and dealt with putting their lives back together after that failure.
Let me give a quick recap. The Sheehan report, which the Government commissioned, was damning in its verdict that there were regulatory failures from both the Gambling Commission and the Financial Conduct Authority in their work to protect customers from Football Index. According to the report, the failures go back to the beginnings of the platform. The Gambling Commission was made aware of the “go to market” function back in April 2015, but did not note that feature during the licensing process. It did not consider other aspects of the platform’s similarity to a stock market at the licensing stage, and the platform’s terms and conditions were not subjected to detailed scrutiny prior to 2019. The report states that at that point the Gambling Commission became aware of the full nature of the product, but it did not suspend the platform’s licence for another two years. That is crucial, because if the platform been taken down in 2019, it could have saved some customers huge amounts of money. The report also noted that, during that time, the Financial Conduct Authority expressed inconsistent views about whether the platform fell under its remit, and was driven by resource prioritisation, rather than by its legal responsibility to protect consumers.
Those failures cost victims dearly. Many lost their homes, their life savings or their wedding funds, causing them huge amounts of stress, anxiety and depression, not to mention financial difficulties for some. My constituent Collin spent months unable to work as a result of the stress. He told me:
“I feel a massive sense of guilt and anger that a huge amount of my family savings has been stolen. That money could have been used for my children’s future, house improvements, holidays and other investments.”
Many victims are reluctant to come forward due to the shame that they feel after being misled in such a way. That has not been helped by the language of the Government, who referred to support for “problem gamblers” in their response to the dormant assets consultation last year. To be clear, no one should have to feel shame if they are struggling with gambling addition, but that framing negates the fact that the product’s promoters branded it as an investment product.
None of the victims walked into a bookie’s and put £3,000 on an accumulator or a race. They were misled and instead believed themselves to be investors. They were misled and instead believed themselves to be investors taking risks, hedging funds and building a portfolio—something that would be normal for those who engage in the stock market. To suggest otherwise is to let the platform and the regulators off the hook.
There are unanswered questions. Since my debate in June 2022, there have been three different Prime Ministers, four Secretaries of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, and four Ministers responsible for gambling, but as of yet, no one has been able to make much progress on this vital issue. In that time, I have heard countless more stories of the hardships suffered by victims as a direct result of these regulatory failings. Together, their financial losses amounted to as much as £124 million. They are desperately waiting for action and dealing with uncertainty. They fear that they may never see justice, and that they may never be compensated.
I pay tribute to the journalists who have been fighting to keep this issue in the public domain. Joey D’Urso at The Times, Ellie Pitt at ITV and Greg Wood at The Guardian have all helped to tell the story of the victims and have given them a voice. I encourage the Minister and those present to attend the all-party parliamentary group hearing on 30 April, so that they too can hear at first hand from those affected.
It is important that we keep the focus on this because so many questions remain. Although the Sheehan report was fundamental to exposing some of the regulatory failures, the text itself references the significant time constraints under which it was produced and the fact that it therefore could not take in the full amount of evidence that has since come to light. Some of the victims have lost everything, and they deserve to have their voices heard.
Having secured a meeting with the Minister back in 2022, the Football Index group has continued to gather and develop evidence that strengthens its case. However, I have met the group, and the Government have not accepted a submission from it. I am grateful to the current Minister for meeting representatives of the group, but after three long years, they deserve more—they deserve action.
There are ongoing concerns related to what the regulators knew and when, and whether there were additional opportunities to prevent the eventual outcome that were missed. It is my understanding that the current Minister was sufficiently concerned by what he heard to consider an independent review of the evidence by someone external to the Department and the Gambling Commission. No doubt the Minister will tell us himself exactly what he has been doing, but the action group are still waiting for progress on this issue. If we are to learn lessons from the collapse of Football Index, there must be proper, independent scrutiny of all the available evidence. I hope that the Minister will commit to that during this debate.
Turning to novel products, a process of examining what went wrong with Football Index is vital, so that we can protect people from such harm in the future. Unfortunately, recent developments have made this matter all the more urgent. As I said at the start of this debate, in a recent article in The Times it was revealed that the co-founder of the Football Index platform is working with others to create a new trading platform, citing Football Index as proof of concept. This is deeply worrying. I can only imagine the frustration and anger that victims must feel upon hearing this news; they will be concerned that others might be let down in the way that they were.
The new platform, KiX, will be a football cryptocurrency trading project that makes use of non-fungible tokens and cryptocurrency. Ministers have previously said that the Gambling Commission has strengthened its approach to novel products, and I understand that the commission is currently reviewing elements of the KiX product. However, the commission has also said that the product may lie outside the scope of regulation, given the involvement of NFTs and crypto.
On 23 April, the Government set out plans to overhaul gambling and admitted that Football Index blurred the boundaries between gambling and investing. If Football Index blurred the lines, KiX is seemingly crossing over them altogether to create a similar product in an unregulated market. Having seen the impact on Football Index victims, how could we possibly permit another product that preys on football fans by persuading them to part with hard-earned income and invest in their knowledge of football?
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
I thank the hon. Member for giving way and congratulate her on securing the debate. She talked about susceptible fans sometimes being preyed on when it comes to gambling. Does she agree that one of the big emerging problems in the past few years has been the virtual epidemic of gambling companies sponsoring almost every single Premier League team, to the extent that young people think of and see their heroes as being part of the gambling industry, which is compounding the problems that she is rightly analysing today?
Liz Twist
I thank the hon. Member for his intervention. Of course, we could have a whole different debate on the influence of the gambling industry on football—indeed, I am sure that in future months we will have such a debate. But today that link between gambling and clubs and their players, with or without their consent, is being used to attract people to gamble money.
As I was saying, I fear that the product that I am talking about today—KiX—is dangerous and has the potential to bring misery to more people. I therefore urge the Minister to do everything he can to ensure that this platform does not launch without the utmost regulations being in place. To put it simply, that is the very least that the victims of Football Index deserve and we do not want to see more victims being created through new platforms.
I also bring to the Minister’s attention another company—StocksFC. I am told that it has been operating in the crypto space for about a year. Alarmingly, a quick glance at its website and at the Twitter account of its head of marketing shows the dangers of this type of platform. It is clearly masquerading as a stock market and is manipulative in its language, suggesting to people that they are “investing” and sharing the totals of profits made on their supposed investment.
I will add that despite this platform allegedly being a crypto-based platform, there are no entries about it on the blockchain and users in the UK can deposit money straight into its system from their debit cards. I am sure that the Minister will agree that that is deeply concerning and a danger to consumers. Does he know whether the Gambling Commission is aware of this operator and if so, what discussions has he had with the commission to ensure that consumers are being sufficiently protected?
Many victims of the original Football Index collapse are vulnerable and eager to recoup their losses through any means, and I fear that new platforms could prey on their vulnerability. I hope that the Minister will raise these concerns with the Financial Conduct Authority, and that the FCA and the Gambling Commission will work in partnership to ensure that nobody is left victim to an unregulated football stock exchange ever again, consulting with the Football Index action group to learn from the real-life examples that it can provide.
The evidence regarding the regulatory failures that led to the collapse of Football Index is highly compelling. It serves as a reminder that we cannot let anything like that collapse happen again. Meanwhile, victims have long-standing grievances that are yet to be resolved.
People from across the country will now be willing the Government to respond to the new platform of KiX in a serious manner and to review, in full, the evidence that the Football Index action group has sourced and put together. I hope that the Minister will listen to calls from the victims, because that is quite simply the least that they deserve.
Finally, I would welcome any update that the Minister can provide on this subject. At the heart of this scandal is injustice. We need to develop a plan that seeks to compensate victims of the Football Index collapse effectively while working to ensure that any future football platforms, such as KiX, cannot be launched without learning considerably from the lessons of the Football Index scandal.
Mrs Sheryll Murray (in the Chair)
I remind Members that they should bob if they wish to be called in the debate.
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair this afternoon, Mrs Murray. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon (Liz Twist) for securing the debate and for the work she has done over a number of years to highlight this issue, as well as other existing or future problems that need to be tackled.
We know that Football Index has been described as
“the biggest scandal in British gambling history”,
with thousands of customers suffering cumulative losses of up to £134 million. It is a scandal and a failure. I am sorry to say that we are all getting rather too used to saying in this place that, once again, people have been let down. Whether it the sub-postmasters, the Women Against State Pension Inequality Campaign, the leasehold scandal, infected blood, the loan charge, mortgage prisoners, Equitable Life or the myriad other investment scandals that have seen people’s life savings stolen, too often in this place we end up saying that what happened was totally wrong and should not be allowed to happen again. But yet again that is where we find ourselves today.
It is little wonder that public faith in our elected representatives continues to erode when Parliament seems to be incapable of learning from past mistakes. Whether it is regulatory failures, loopholes or bad actors, this place seems unable to stop them. Consumer protection and other basic safeguards for our citizens seem to have gone missing in action. We are failing in our basic duties; light-touch regulation has clearly had its day. We know the terrible stories of those affected by Football Index—losses into seven figures, individuals driven to the brink of suicide, marriages collapsed, families torn apart and life savings vanished—and those impacts have been part of all the other scandals I mentioned. Too many people in this country have suffered grave injustices that we seem incapable of putting right.
Football Index has been described as a Ponzi scheme. As we have heard, its executives were warned soon after its launch—in fact, as early as 2016—that their so-called football stock market would prove unsustainable. All the warnings came some five years before its eventual collapse, leaving serious questions about how effective regulation was. According to newspaper reports, the Gambling Commission was warned in January 2020 that Football Index was
“an exceptionally dangerous pyramid scheme under the guise of a football stock market”.
We all know that that warning proved to be correct.
Perhaps it was the unusual nature of the product that meant it carried on without effective intervention. However, I have looked at Trustpilot reviews for many of the major online gambling companies, and there are a litany of tales about frozen accounts, withheld funds and appalling customer service. It seems that even the more straightforward gambling propositions are able to get away with far too much, so it should be little surprise when an unusual scheme, which was unsustainable by design, also escapes attention.
The FCA took its time to get involved, and was also indecisive, changing its view twice as to whether Football Index fell within its regulatory remit. On two separate occasions, in September 2019 and September 2020, when it did indicate that Football Index fell within its remit, the FCA did not follow up with adequate action, and the product continued to be unregulated.
Those who used Football index talked about it being advertised as an investment product, with only a very small note squirrelled away on its website saying that it was a betting scheme, which is what it really was. FCA regulation allows for redress for losses through the Financial Services Compensation Scheme, but because Football Index was considered gambling—although not overtly advertised as such—the failure to regulate it meant that the losses were allowed to continue to stack up.
The Gambling Commission has now updated its framework on how it assesses risks, so that the novelty of the product is fully considered. Licences will not normally be issued if the product’s name contains language associated with financial products. The FCA now has, I understand, an executive director to oversee its relationship with the Gambling Commission where products appear to cross boundaries. However, despite those actions, the reality is that nobody has been held to account.
Even those originally involved in the company have got away with it. The Insolvency Service, which I wrote to, decided there was insufficient evidence to justify directors disqualification proceedings. The people who created Football Index in the first place are allowed to carry on with impunity. That is wrong, because they knew it was unsustainable and they were warned about that from the very start, but they carried on anyway.
That leads us on to KiX, which my hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon mentioned. The KiX website says:
“Digital Athlete Tokens (DATs)…represent the on-pitch performance of individual footballers…and are deployed as smart contracts on the blockchain”.
It says that the owner of a digital athlete token becomes
“eligible for twice weekly winnings.”
I do not really know what that means, but it has a familiar ring to it—as we have heard, some of the people behind Football Index are part of KiX. That quote about digital athlete tokens means it is as clear as mud to me whether this should be regulated by the FCA or the Gambling Commission—perhaps it is neither. KiX is apparently a “decentralised autonomous organisation” and apparently has a
“decentralised, egalitarian and democratised blockchain ethos.”
If that word salad is not enough to put you off investing, I hope that someone, somewhere, who actually understands what that means is going to take responsibility for regulating this.
We have let people down, and these products need proper regulating and policing. We really do not want to end up here again in another few years, bemoaning our lack of action. I have had too many constituents ripped off by one investment scheme or another, and the lack of accountability, justice and—I am sorry to say—interest from those whose job it is to ensure that there is justice says to me that we are letting people down on a systemic basis. We have to do much better than we are at the moment.
Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to speak in the debate with you in the Chair, Mrs Murray. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon (Liz Twist) on leading the debate and on her excellent work on this issue. I have two constituents who were affected by the collapse of Football Index in 2021. One told me he had lost £20,000 as a result. He said:
“I am a father and soon-to-be husband whose family has been swindled by the stress, guilt and shame which this has brought me in such an important part of mine and my family’s life. This has put me in some very dark places and I have had thoughts and stress like I’ve never experienced before.”
Failings by a number of organisations led to this impact on customers, which was highlighted in the Government’s independent report into the regulation of Football Index, led by Malcolm Sheehan KC. First, the report found that BetIndex Ltd, which traded as Football Index, did not properly notify the Gambling Commission of the nature of its product in its licence application, and nor did it inform the commission of changes to its product as it should have done.
Secondly, the report found that the Gambling Commission could have responded better, including through better scrutiny of the product offered by BetIndex in 2015, better monitoring of the development of the product, and quicker decision making once it identified in 2019 that BetIndex appeared to be operating outside the scope of its licence. Indeed, as my hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon said earlier, if the platform had been taken down in 2019, that would have saved money being lost by a number of the victims. Thirdly, the report identified areas of improvement for the Financial Conduct Authority, including its speed of response to requests from the Gambling Commission and the consistency of messaging on its regulatory responsibilities.
It is welcome that the Government have committed to implementing the review’s recommendations and that, in September 2021, the Gambling Commission and the Financial Conduct Authority agreed an amended memorandum of understanding, including on response timetables and the process for escalation of unresolved issues. However, I understand that people such as my constituents, and so many others, still feel very upset and angry at the loss of capital as a result of the collapse of Football Index.
Some believe that there were further failings by the regulatory bodies that were not identified in that independent review. In particular, people feel misled about the nature of the product they were using. One constituent told me about
“the magnitude of the deception that took place by the Football Index, which positioned and promoted itself as a safe investment with ‘guaranteed yields’.”
They also said:
“This attracted a significant number of users who were wholly misled as to the nature of the Football Index product and the degree of safeguards pertaining to its regulation.”
There is a need to improve financial literacy to help counteract financial products that are purposely misleading and confusing, and aimed at exploiting customers for greater profit. Unless lessons are learned from the collapse of Football Index, there exists a risk that a similar situation could emerge through new platforms.
Like my hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon and others present, I am particularly concerned by reports about the new trading platform KiX, which is using Football Index as a proof of concept. The Times has reported that KiX is being advised by the co-founder and chief executive of Football Index, Adam Cole. As we have heard, users of KiX will be able to trade footballers using non-fungible tokens, but because KiX is a decentralised, autonomous organisation underpinned by the blockchain technology used by cryptocurrencies, it is not currently regulated. Its website says that KiX is beginning with football but may expand into other sports if successful. Campaigner David Hammel has called the development of KiX
“a real kick in the teeth”
for all those affected by the collapse of Football Index. I would be interested to hear from the Minister whether the Government have had discussions with regulators about how to protect people from the risks of this latest scheme.
Returning to the issues caused by the collapse of Football Index, it is important that the Government fulfil their intention in the gambling White Paper to protect vulnerable people from gambling harms and financial detriment. This situation should never have been allowed to occur and it must never be repeated, and I look forward to the Minister reassuring us on behalf of our constituents that it will not be.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Blaydon (Liz Twist) on bringing the debate forward. She will recall leading a debate on a similar subject here a couple of years ago, and I was very fortunate and pleased to support her, just as I regularly support other Members in Westminster Hall, which is always a pleasure, by the way, because the issues are really important. The hon. Lady is right about this issue: it is important—it is important because some of my constituents have found themselves in this terrible malaise, having lost money, so it is good to return to it.
If the Minister does not mind me saying, I am very pleased to see him in his place, as he always tries to answer constructively the questions and queries we pose to him. I was remarking to him earlier that he performed really well in the debate on the Football Governance Bill last night in the main Chamber, where his final comment referenced, “They think it’s all over! It is now!” I am old enough to remember that saying in 1966. I know that the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Barnsley East (Stephanie Peacock), is far too young to remember that, but a whole lot of others here are not—I better be careful not to say too much now, or I will be reprimanded.
I took part in the last debate on the impact that Football Index has had on all our constituents, including mine—I will not mention their names, but I will refer to them. It is really good to be back here to discuss what lessons we have learned and what has changed. That was the question posed by the hon. Member for Blaydon: what has changed? Hopefully, the Minister can reassure us in his response.
The collapse of Football Index was detrimental to so many people, and some were undoubtedly financially ruined—I know someone who sadly was, although I am not able to put their name on record, but I have seen the detrimental effects. The situation has also highlighted the importance of being gambling aware. It is important that we get it right this time and the next time round. I was hoping that the hon. Member for Swansea East (Carolyn Harris) would be here, because she has been such a stalwart at the forefront of gambling issues. I admire her greatly, and she has taken up the subject in this House with real enthusiasm in order to make changes.
What is our football knowledge really worth? In football’s first stock market, people had fantastic prospects of making money based on how well they knew football. I know a whole lot about Leicester City, having been a loyal supporter since 1969, when I was a wee boy at school. That was not yesterday, by the way—it ages me greatly when people do the figures. The point I am making is that, although I do not know all about football, I love it. Most people here in this debate probably love football, but they may not know all the ins and outs of the subject matter before them.
The financial losses from this collapse have been absolutely devastating. I have read some absolute horror stories from people in my constituency and further afield. Some have lost hundreds of thousands of pounds that were invested in open bets on football players and their performance. It is also my understanding that the company folded with £124.5 million in remaining open bets—wow! Isn’t that truly extortionate? It shows the magnitude of what we have before us today and why this debate is so important.
Some 67% of people in Northern Ireland have been said to gamble, and they cover a range of ages, sports and other means. My hon. Friend the Member for East Londonderry (Mr Campbell) referred to all the other sports and the implications for them as well. Individuals must be aware of their gambling habits and the potential dangers that come along with gambling. Reports have suggested necessary recommendations for any similar scheme in future.
One point that we must get right is ensuring that any gambling company offering long-term bets will be able to cover payments to customers. That is to be covered by the Government’s forthcoming gambling White Paper. I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say about the White Paper and how it will address some of the issues we have before us today. If it does not—with respect, Minister—we will need to see how it can be strengthened and enforced.
Others will make contributions. I am not sure whether the hon. Member for Inverclyde (Ronnie Cowan) is going to speak, but he has great knowledge of this subject. I hope he will intervene at some stage to give us some of his wisdom on the matter. I mean that honestly because he has a particular grasp of the situation.
Ronnie Cowan (Inverclyde) (SNP)
The issue is that when it comes to gambling products, we understand that there are rules and regulations in place. They are not to my liking, but they are there. This scheme and the successor schemes are designed to work in the grey areas—the dark shadows—of gambling. The Financial Conduct Authority did not even know whether it was responsible for them.
Hopefully, down the line somebody will be able to hold these companies to account. Their will is not to create an exciting thing for football fans to get more involved with and enjoy a game of football; their will is to take money out of people’s pockets. We know plenty of gambling products that are already doing that. I am not sure there is much in the White Paper at all that touches on FI. There has to be something that ensures the regulations are clear and understandable. It must also stop KiX: if KiX is up and running, plenty of other organisations behind it will be waiting to do exactly the same thing, and all they will do is extract money from punters’ pockets.
Jim Shannon
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. He has posed a few questions that are pertinent to the debate. I look forward to the contributions from the SNP spokesperson, the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Patricia Gibson), and the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Barnsley East (Stephanie Peacock), and the questions they will pose in turn to the Minister.
We need to see a sea change that does away with the grey areas that the hon. Member for Inverclyde referred to and the uncertainty, where people can get sucked into the process. Ensuring that customers can get their money back is of major importance. Early day motion 697 was tabled on 25 November 2021. I am pretty sure the hon. Member for Blaydon was instrumental in tabling the EDM and ensuring that others signed it. I signed the EDM to show support and to urge the Government to do more to ensure that those owed money receive a full reimbursement.
As I have stated before, gambling is a personal choice. I am not here to tell anybody what they should or should not do; I will always try to give people choice if I can. At the same time, sometimes Government have to encourage people to be more aware of what the choices are. As the hon. Member for Inverclyde said, there are clearly occasions when that does not happen, and that is why it is important to have a system in place. While gambling is a personal choice, we hope that those choosing to do so are educated about the potential risks. The losses can be huge. I read one story—I thought about it long and hard—about a young man, probably in his early 20s, who lost £165,000: my goodness! He lost what he did not have. He found himself in all sorts of problems, and he stated that it completely turned his life upside down. How could it not, given that he lost that amount of money at an early stage in life?
Many have openly referred to the shame they feel and how such things have affected how they look at gambling. There is absolutely no doubt that the Financial Conduct Authority should have regulated Football Index, and there are still questions to be answered. I know this may not be the Minister’s responsibility, but I would really like to know what discussions have taken place with the Financial Conduct Authority and what it is doing to regulate the situation. There are still questions to be answered.
Although it is argued that FI was seen as an investment, not gambling, its business model still relied on money from constituents and it was undoubtedly fundamentally flawed, as some of my constituents are able to confirm. Many people state that they feel let down by the regulators and that more should have been done to ensure the system was working correctly.
I will conclude because I am conscious that others want to speak. I look forward to hearing from the two shadow spokespeople, the hon. Members for Barnsley East and for North Ayrshire and Arran, and the Minister. Consumer protection must be at the heart of the lessons learned. The FCA’s consistent view has been that all the products fell within its regulatory perimeter up until the collapse in March ’21. Evidentially, that is no longer the case, and therefore we need a legislative change and reassurance.
Legislatively, it is always better to put these things in black and white. I hope action is taken to support those who suffered losses as a result of the collapse. I urge the Minister and our Government to ensure that victims do not wait years for reimbursement. That would be unfair, and we have a chance today to urge the Minister to grasp that. I commend the hon. Member for Blaydon for bringing forward this issue; there is no one in the Chamber who does not think she has done exceptionally well.
Gill Furniss (Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairpersonship, Mrs Murray. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon (Liz Twist) on securing this debate on such an important issue, which has caused a great deal of suffering for thousands of people.
Several years ago, I met a group of parents outside Hillsborough stadium whose loved ones had tragically taken their own lives after struggling with gambling addiction. The victims were mainly in their 20s and 30s. The parents were taking part in the Big Step, and were walking between five Yorkshire football grounds to call for an end to gambling advertising and sponsorship in football. Thirty-five clubs across the UK have signed the Big Step’s pledge to eliminate gambling advertisements in football, and Premier League teams have agreed not to take front-of-shirt sponsorship deals from gambling firms from 2026. However, that leaves us in the nonsensical situation whereby we recognise the dangers posed by gambling sponsorships but are happy to relegate them to the sleeves of football kits and advertising hoardings around stadiums, despite research showing that only 5% of gambling logos showed during live Premier League football matches would be affected by the front-of-shirt ban—in my opinion, that is 5% too many.
We need to do far more to combat the blight of gambling sponsorship in sport. I remain disappointed that the Government’s White Paper on gambling reform, which required the introduction of a cross-sport gambling sponsorship code of conduct, has been continually delayed. Will the Minister tell us when that code of conduct will be introduced? Will he investigate KiX, which is now operating instead of FI?
Sadly, any changes to legislation on football sponsorship are too late for the users of Football Index. Prior to its collapse, Football Index sponsored the shirts of three English Football League teams. Those sponsorship deals helped to convey an aura of trust and respectability that may not otherwise have existed, furthering the dupe that it was an investment platform. Football Index was more than happy to play into that misconception. Internal company documents reveal that Neil Kelly, the director of BetIndex—the Jersey-based company that ran Football Index—said:
“the Football Index platform functions somewhat similarly to a stock market, hence for marketing purposes it is sometimes referred to as the football stock market and when the Company uses this term, it is deliberately misspelled as the football ‘stockmarket’.”
As one of the previous speakers said, that is working in the dark shadows of the law. It is completely unacceptable, and I really hope that the Minister will put it right. The deliberate misspelling may have reassured directors that they were not operating a stock market, but that distinction was less than apparent to their customers. The Guardian reported:
“The only hint on its website that it was actually a betting site was an easy-to-miss strapline, which was added several years into its existence at the insistence of the Advertising Standards Authority.”
The authority had previously complained that the language used by Football Index was
“synonymous with the language used to describe conventional stock markets and investment products.”
The Gambling Commission has been made aware of the concerns, having been warned in January 2020 that tens of thousands of users were being
“misled into believing they are investing rather than gambling, with little or no consideration that all of their money is at risk”,
and that the platform was little more than an “exceptionally dangerous pyramid scheme” in a formal submission by industry experts. However, the platform’s misleading nature meant that there was a reluctance from both the Gambling Commission and the FCA to take ultimate responsibility for regulating the product, to the detriment of the thousands of Football Index’s victims.
Let us not forget that consumers have rights, including a right to redress if their product is mis-sold. Customers in a regulated industry such as gambling have the right to expect that the regulations will be adequate, appropriate and diligent. The users of Football Index have been wronged. The regulatory failings have cost thousands of people dearly, and they deserve compensation for their losses. However, beyond that, we need real systematic change. Football is watched by millions of young people every week, yet they are still subjected to constant gambling advertisements. I fear that without urgent reform, more consumers will fall prey to similar products that intentionally blur the lines between gambling and investing. Will the Minister commit to helping ensure that the gambling sponsorship code of conduct is introduced as soon as possible?
Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)
I am pleased to participate in this debate. Like others who have spoken before me, I congratulate the hon. Member for Blaydon (Liz Twist) on bringing it forward. It is important that we learn lessons and remember the mistakes made during the collapse of the online gambling product, Football Index. I also pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Inverclyde (Ronnie Cowan), who has done a huge amount of work on this issue and in the wider gambling context generally.
I remember well when Football Index collapsed in 2021. I remember a number of constituents contacting me in despair, some having lost significant sums of money in what they believed was an investment because it had been marketed as such. It was deliberately marketed to look like a football stock market where customers could invest in players, collect dividends based on performance and sell their shares in a player at a profit if they did well. However, when operations were suspended, customers lost more than £90 million in open bets, or in other words, investments in players.
What became clear is that Football Index was akin to a pyramid scheme, operating unsustainably until its collapse by paying customers dividends using new customers’ investments. That collapse represents the biggest collapse of a gambling product in the UK. However, relatively speaking, it has not attracted the attention that it ought to have done. We know that the Gambling Commission had been warned some 14 months prior to the collapse that the platform was an
“exceptionally dangerous pyramid scheme under the guise of a ‘football stock market’”.
Its business model was fundamentally flawed and spiralled out of control.
As we have heard, the issue is that many of those using the platform were not fully cognisant of the fact that they were gambling, participating in a pyramid scheme dressed up as something quite different. If somebody does not know that they are gambling, they surely cannot be fully aware of the risk to which their money is exposed. The reality is that Football Index’s deliberate imitation of an investment product led to
“unparalleled levels of irresponsible gambling”
from thousands of users who were misled into believing that they were not gambling but investing, and obviously had no idea of the risks to which they were exposed. There is unanimous agreement in the Chamber today, and I am sure that the Minister will be listening to that carefully.
All the information was contained in a report to the Gambling Commission, which did nothing and rejected the warnings, as it did not consider that there was enough evidence to show that the undertaking was fraudulent. It then transpired that the Gambling Commission was not properly notified of the nature of the product in its licence application, nor was the regulator informed of changes to the product after its launch as required. There has clearly been an absence of scrutiny and, one might say, of curiosity in some quarters, given the concerns raised about the platform. Football Index was never regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority, but areas for improvement for that body have been identified, including the speed of response to requests from the Gambling Commission and consistency of messaging on regulatory responsibilities.
For the constituents who contacted me about the issue—I am sure that it is the same for other Members’ constituents—the financial losses have been significant. For some, they have been life-changing, and have put strains on family relationships and future plans. Still there has been no redress for those who were told they were participating in an investment instead of a gambling opportunity. Indeed, the only hint on Football Index’s website that it was a betting site was an easy-to-miss strapline, which was added several years into its existence, and only at the insistence of the Advertising Standards Authority.
This situation happened because of spectacular failures in regulation, which allowed a gambling product to masquerade as a financial service or investment platform, without the regulation that that would suggest. Those who were fooled by Football Index—and they were fooled—should not pay the price of this failure of regulation. That only adds insult to serious injury. I know that the Minister will say that gambling losses cannot be made good by taxpayers’ money, but I draw his and other Members’ attention to the words of David Hammel, who is one of the spokespeople for the Football Index action group. He said:
“The regulators don’t actually cost the taxpayer any money, they are funded by licence fees and they also contribute to the Treasury by way of fines and settlements. There is a net surplus since…Football Index was first licensed in 2015, it’s approaching £1.3bn or £1.4bn that’s gone into the public purse.”
Football Index action group wants a mere 10% of that sum to be reassigned for use as redress. That would not directly involve taxpayers’ money.
Ronnie Cowan
I have one of those numbers going around in my head. It is said that £90 million was lost. Well, it was not lost. It is there somewhere. Someone has that money in a bank account somewhere; it did not just disappear into the ether. We are trying to find redress for people who have lost tens of thousands of pounds. If we identify that money, surely there is a way. Even if it is in a bank account in Jersey, there has to be a way of paying redress to the people who lost it in the first place.
Patricia Gibson
I thank my hon. Friend for that point, but I also urge the Minister to look carefully at the suggestion of David Hammel from the Football Index action group. I agree with Mr Hammel, and I want the Minister to consider his proposal for how redress can be managed for the victims of this scandal.
It almost goes without saying, but I will say it anyway, that such a fundamental regulatory failure must not happen again, yet Members have raised concerns about the co-founder of Football Index being involved in a new trading platform, KiX, that has striking—chilling, even—similarities to the one under discussion. I hope that the Minister will use his role to ensure that regulators keep a close watch on that new product. We must ensure that the same mistakes are not repeated, and that it is clear to all users whether a site is a gambling site or an investment site. There should never be any dubiety that the customer has to work through; it should be clear and front-facing.
I am sure the Minister will agree that this must not happen again. I ask him to think carefully about the suggestion from Mr Hammel about how we can recompense users of Football Index without directly using taxpayers’ money.
Stephanie Peacock (Barnsley East) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Murray. I will begin by paying tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon (Liz Twist) for securing this important debate and for all her work on this important issue.
The collapse of Football Index three years ago was devastating for many people up and down the country, as we have heard. Football fans had been told that they could put their money and confidence in players who they identified as rising stars, and were promised that they would be paid dividends if they were correct. It was advertised as the world’s first football stock market, which was misleading to users as they believed they would be using the football knowledge they had gathered over years to make money on the scheme, rather than participating in gambling.
After administrators were called in, the collapse took an estimated £90 million in customer funds. Victims have formed the Football Index action group and I pay tribute to its work. It is campaigning to ensure that the events that led to the loss of that huge amount of money never happen again, which my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders) spoke about so well. Some users lost hundreds of thousands of pounds, as the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) highlighted.
Following the collapse, the Gambling Commission decided to suspend Football Index owner BetIndex’s operating licence in 2021. The Government then commissioned a review by Malcolm Sheehan KC of the events surrounding the establishment and subsequent collapse of Football Index, with the intention of learning lessons from the mistakes made. His report concluded that BetIndex failed to properly inform the Gambling Commission of the nature of the product in its licence application and did not inform the regulator of changes to the product after its launch as it was required to.
The Football Index action group includes that among its criticisms of the model, arguing that everything about the index sought to brand it as an investment product rather than a betting site, as my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough (Gill Furniss) outlined. Indeed, one of the index’s two main features, the “go-to-market” feature, was not communicated to the Gambling Commission as part of the original application, flouting the commission’s expectation of openness and transparency during the process.
The Government report also found that there was potential to improve the Gambling Commission’s handling of the incident. In the first instance, reports that the Gambling Commission was made aware of the issues with Football Index in 2019, two years before the collapse of the product, are extremely worrying. Questions remain about why the commission failed to act sooner, thereby potentially mitigating some of the effects of the collapse. The report recommended a number of steps for the commission to take, including greater scrutiny of new gambling-related products intending to come to market, consideration of the effect of language used on consumer understanding of gambling products, and more prompt decision making and action. The report also suggested that the Financial Conduct Authority could have done much more to help, and recommended improvement of regulatory co-operation between the commission and the FCA.
It is welcome that the Government have committed to implementing the recommendation of the Sheehan review in full, as my hon. Friend the Member for Worsley and Eccles South (Barbara Keeley) said. People feel that they have been let down by both Football Index and the regulator, and argue that they should never have been put in this position without intervention to prevent cash losses. They remain angry and the Government must learn from the incident to ensure that others do not find their capital at risk in the same way.
In an age when advances in technology have allowed the betting and gaming industry to develop rapidly, it is right that we work with the industry to ensure that consumers are protected from potentially harmful schemes while allowing those who gamble responsibly to continue to do so.
Alex Sobel (Leeds North West) (Lab/Co-op)
My hon. Friend is presenting an excellent summary of the failures of Football Index. Like others, I have constituents who lost large sums of money. I am concerned to hear that a new platform called KiX—a football cryptocurrency trading platform modelled on Football Index—has been set up with the involvement of Adam Cole, one of the founders of Football Index. Should the Government not ensure that the FCA and the Gambling Commission both look into KiX at this early stage and that the appropriate regulatory activity happens this time so we do not see a repeat of Football Index?
Stephanie Peacock
I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention and I will come on to that point in just a moment.
The rapid growth in technology and our growing awareness of the impact of gambling harms mean that changes to our gambling regulation are now long overdue. It is important that we revise our gambling legislation to avoid incidents such as the collapse of Football Index in the future. Those who flout the rules of the regulator should be punished for their actions so that customers can be sure that those operating in the market are legitimate.
That has sadly not been the case, however, as reports emerged this month that the co-founder of Football Index, Adam Cole, is now helping to launch a product similar to the collapsed platform. That will be released as the new football cryptocurrency trading project KiX, as has been mentioned. The Football Index action group spokesperson, David Hammel, described that as
“a real kick in the teeth”
for victims. I would like to raise those concerns with the Minister and ask him why Adam Cole has been allowed to be an integral part of a new platform that mirrors Football Index.
We have heard about the devastating effect that losing money through Football Index has had on the mental health and lives of users. It is clear that more must be done to ensure that vulnerable people and families are protected. The Labour party welcomes the measures outlined in the gambling White Paper with the intention of protecting vulnerable people from gambling harms and financial detriment.
Examples like the collapse of the Football Index outline the serious threat that not having the right legislative and regulatory protections in place can cause to consumers. I hope the Minister will listen to the concerns of the Football Index action group, and that he can tell us what the Government have been doing to ensure that this can never happen again and how they can learn from past mistakes.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Stuart Andrew)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Murray. I thank the hon. Member for Blaydon (Liz Twist) for tabling this debate. I know she also secured a debate in 2022 on the impacts of the Football Index collapse. I would like to acknowledge the contribution she has made to ensuring that these events receive the attention that they deserve. She is an admirable representative of those in her constituency and others who have been affected. The Government appreciate, and I certainly do, the impact these events have had on them and many others. I personally offer my sympathies to all of those affected financially by the collapse of Football Index.
I thank all hon. Members for their contributions today. I also want to say thank you to David Hammel for his campaigning work on behalf of people who have lost money as a result of these events. I have met Mr Hammel and know that he has engaged administrators, regulators and politicians on behalf of those affected.
Today’s debate has been valuable and I commend all those who have contributed for their thoughtful comments. It has been important for me personally to hear the perspective shared this afternoon on this important topic. I want to be clear that I and the Government recognise the serious consequences that the collapse of Football Index has had on consumers. As I said, I sympathise with all those affected. It is important that we ensure that a similar scenario cannot happen again.
I will not repeat the background to these events, as that has been well covered by colleagues. I want to focus on the action being taken following the independent review of the regulation of Football Index, led by Malcolm Sheehan KC. I thank him for that work. His report examined the regulatory circumstances around the granting of a licence to BetIndex, its subsequent suspension and the company’s ultimate financial failure. Importantly, it identified areas, as others have said, where the Gambling Commission could have been more effective in responding to the challenges posed by this novel product. It also highlighted where the FCA could have co-operated more effectively with the commission.
The report recommended that the Gambling Commission should enhance its scrutiny of novel products; such products are less likely to fit neatly into existing regulatory frameworks, and there is greater risk that they are poorly understood by customers, as colleagues have mentioned. It recommended closer examination of the language typically associated with investments and financial markets, which can obscure the fact that a product is a gambling rather than a financial product. It outlined the need for more prompt decision making, quicker internal escalation and greater scrutiny of any differences between described and actual features of products. Finally, the report recommended that the commission consider whether operators should be required to demonstrate additional levels of liquidity in the case of longer-term tradeable bets like those offered by Football Index.
Although Football Index was never regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority, Mr Sheehan’s report recommended that the FCA should also seek to achieve quicker and more consistent decision making on regulatory responsibility issues. The report concluded that the FCA could have been faster to come to decisions in the Football Index case and to communicate those to the Gambling Commission.
The Gambling Commission and the FCA agreed a formal memorandum of understanding in June 2021. The Sheehan report described that as an appropriate and proactive step. However, it also made recommendations about how the memorandum could be strengthened. It recommended that the new memorandum should include an agreed mechanism for resolving disputes over regulatory responsibility; mechanisms for ensuring that disputes are identified, discussed and escalated where necessary; and provisions for the written recording of meeting outcomes.
It is vital, as the title of the debate points out, that we learn lessons from the Football Index case to ensure that a similar situation does not take place again. I am pleased that all the recommendations of the report for the commission and the FCA have been implemented in full.
The Gambling Commission has taken various actions to achieve that. It consulted on and updated its statement of principles for licensing and regulation in June 2022. It has updated how it assesses risk so that novel products are properly considered. It now undertakes systematic reviews of novel products offered by existing licensees. It has also increased the resources available to ensure that licensees disclose notifiable changes to products. The commission has also changed its approach to licensing products where long-term bets might appear more like financial products. It has made it clear in its statement of principles that it will not normally grant a licence to products that use language usually associated with investments or financial products.
Various colleagues raised issues around advertising, and the hon. Member for Worsley and Eccles South (Barbara Keeley) asked about the gambling White Paper. We are not introducing one single Bill because we want to ensure that we get as many of the changes done as quickly as possible. We are making good progress. I have consistently committed to trying to get everything done by the summer. Some of these things will be ready for statutory instruments soon, but some are what the Gambling Commission will implement. By splitting it up, rather than having one big Bill that might take a long time to get through this place, we are proceeding at pace to bring about the reforms.
The FCA has also implemented all the recommendations from the report. Importantly, it has taken steps to improve the speed and consistency of its decision making, including nominating an executive director to oversee the relationship with the Gambling Commission.
An updated memorandum of understanding addressing all the review’s recommendations was agreed between the commission and the FCA in November 2022. The agreement has established a process and timeline for co-operation between the two authorities and a process for escalation, and created a relationship owner and primary contact in each authority to oversee the operation of the memorandum. It also requires a quarterly minuted meeting between the two authorities to ensure that the memorandum operates as it should. The most recent meeting took place yesterday.
There are also now ad hoc meetings between the chief executive officers of the two authorities, which provide an avenue for escalation of regulatory matters if required. I am grateful to the Gambling Commission and the FCA for their work to ensure that this important report is acted on.
I mentioned David Hammel, and I admire the work of campaign groups such as the Football Index action group and the way that it has conducted itself. I met him last year and we have had follow-up correspondence. I am taking seriously the extra evidence that Mr Hammel has submitted in relation to the Sheehan review, and I am considering, as the hon. Member for Blaydon mentioned, whether it would be appropriate and feasible for Mr Hammel’s evidence to be scrutinised by someone external to the Department.
A lot of Members mentioned the new product, KiX, which has described itself as a football cryptocurrency trading project and bears similarities to Football Index. It involves trading footballers in the form of so-called “Digital Athlete Tokens”, which are purchased with cryptocurrency. The tokens pay out a yield based on the performance of footballers. It appears that the product is in a test phase and is not currently live, nor does it appear possible to deposit currency.
The Gambling Commission is taking proactive steps in relation to KiX. It has written to the hon. Members for Blaydon, for Swansea East (Carolyn Harris) and for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury) to outline its approach, and it has written to my Department. The commission is currently reviewing a number of elements of the KiX product. That includes a review by its compliance and legal teams to consider whether, if launched, it would meet the definition of gambling under the Gambling Act 2005. It has also written to the individuals responsible for KiX for further information on the product and their intentions, and to highlight the consequences of launching a product that meets the definition of gambling in Great Britain without an appropriate licence.
Ronnie Cowan
Is the Minister saying that the Gambling Commission alone will decide whether KiX is given a licence to bring its products to the marketplace? I have a meeting with the Gambling Commission at 4.30 this afternoon and I would like to ask it that question, too.
Stuart Andrew
The hon. Gentleman interrupted me just before I was going to say that the commission and the FCA are already engaging to establish the details of the product and to agree the appropriate steps.
There have been reports that two individuals previously involved in running Football Index are involved in KiX. Adam Cole was the co-founder of Football Index. He surrendered his personal management licence in September 2021 while under review, and the commission reached findings of fact regarding his involvement in Football Index. Those would be considered if he were to make a new application for a personal licence.
The commission also wrote to Abdullah Suleyman, the former head of trading at Football Index, to confirm the nature of his involvement in KiX. Following the letter, he surrendered his personal management licence on Monday 22 April.
Liz Twist
I recognise some of the steps that have been taken, but this comes down to the fact that we do not want to see people being taken in in the same way as they were with Football Index. It is great that those individuals have given up their personal management licences, but they have already shared their information and used their experience to set up a new system. What more can we do to make sure that people in the UK are clear about the status of this and that it is properly regulated?
Stuart Andrew
I was going to come on to that point. I reassure colleagues that the commission will continue to take a very active role in the monitoring of this product, and the FCA is also looking into the KiX business and will take appropriate risk-based action if it identifies that any of its activities fall into the FCA’s remit. However, I will raise this issue with both organisations again to ensure that everything is being done, because, like everybody else here, I do not want this to happen again. I hope I can reassure the House that the commission has been monitoring the market for several years for potential products that attempt to replicate Football Index. It has intervened in several instances. Although it would not be appropriate for me to name those businesses, that demonstrates the commission’s proactive work in this area.
The hon. Member for Blaydon raised the issue of StocksFC. The Gambling Commission is engaged with StocksFC and is monitoring the company at this moment. I will write to the commission for further information on that product and ensure that everything is being done to monitor it.
Barbara Keeley
I want to emphasise the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon made, but I also want to pose a question: what credibility does the Minister think the Gambling Commission has now, given that so many people have lost so much money? As for the commission posing the question of KiX, “Is it gambling?”, if it is based on the Football Index proof of concept and the expertise going into it is from Football Index, it is Football Index mark 2 in a different form. Hon. Members have all outlined how much this was not an investment and how much it was gambling. In fact, questions of compensation are affected by that, in that Ministers have said that taxpayers’ money should not be used to compensate people for gambling losses. So it seems to me that it is a bit of a joke to ask, “Is it gambling?” Do we have to ask that when it so obviously is?
Stuart Andrew
I understand the hon. Lady’s point, but it is important that these things are looked at properly, under the remit of the existing legislation. The Gambling Commission has done a lot of work in this space to try to deal with the grey area that the hon. Member for Inverclyde (Ronnie Cowan) mentioned. I want to come on to that point, because the cryptoasset side of things brings in another area of work.
I assure Members here that I will speak to my Treasury colleagues to highlight this issue, and to ensure that we do not find ourselves in a position like this again and address each of these issues. I am confident that the relationship between the Gambling Commission and the FCA is much improved and that the regular meetings between the two organisations will ensure that there is not a slip again. However, in order to get this right, I am more than happy to speak to colleagues in other Departments to ensure that no cracks still exist.
Patricia Gibson
I want to press the Minister: can he assure me that he will go away and look at the suggestion made by David Hammel of the Football Index action group about a route to deliver compensation without having to take it directly from the taxpayer?
Stuart Andrew
I think it would be worth more than my life’s worth to commit Treasury colleagues to a policy, but I understand the hon. Lady’s point. I have seen that suggestion and I am sure that Treasury colleagues will have views on it. I will raise that with them and write to hon. Members following their response.
I thank everyone who has contributed to the debate. I hope that I have been able to provide clarity about some of the lessons that have been learned from the collapse of Football Index and the action that has been taken by the Government, the Gambling Commission and the FCA as a result. I understand the real consequences that people have felt. This debate has been invaluable for me to ensure that we consider all the issues that need addressing and speak to colleagues across Government so that we do not see this awful situation happen again.
Liz Twist
I thank everyone who has taken part in this debate, including my hon. Friends the Members for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders) and for Worsley and Eccles South (Barbara Keeley), the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), and my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough (Gill Furniss). I thank the shadow Front Benchers, the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Patricia Gibson) and my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley East (Stephanie Peacock), and I thank the Minister for his response.
I have a few points to make. As is usual these days, people have been tweeting points at me all the time as well, so I was watching those. The main thing I want to say is that we all want to ensure that we learn the lessons and make it not possible for people to be fooled—to be misled—in this way again. That is what our attention must go to.
I am particularly concerned that we should not see people falling through a gap in the regulatory frameworks, whether that involves the FCA, the Gambling Commission or any other organisation. It is really important that we not only reach memorandums of understanding but ensure that that works and, if neither one seems suitable, that we look at what on earth we can do to make sure that the gap is plugged in the meantime. That is really important for people.
I note that the Minister has undertaken to speak to the Treasury, which is really helpful. Arguably, we could have been having a debate in Treasury time saying what happened and what went wrong. It is really important that the Government work together to ensure that people are not misled and not required to look at the tiny print at the bottom of a website to find out the status of a scheme.
Finally, in news hot off the press, we talked about the FSCS, and I understand that there are currently 10,000 users on that scheme and that we are still looking at it. I do not expect the Minister to be able to respond on that, but it would be helpful if we looked at it outside this debate.
I thank everyone for participating. Let us make sure that what happened with Football Index is not allowed to happen again.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the lessons learned from the collapse of Football Index.
Universal Credit: Farmers
(3 weeks, 3 days 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
Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered universal credit and farmers.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairpersonship, Mrs Murray.
This morning for breakfast I had oat clusters, and for lunch I had a cheese panini with some salad—it is a good day when I remember to eat. So far today, without even thinking about it, I have had produce from oat and wheat farmers, dairy farmers and a variety of vegetable farmers, and I am suspect everyone here could say something similar if they stopped to fill in a food diary. Farming is integral to our day-to-day lives.
When we are down here in Westminster, farming might seem very far away—there is not a field in sight—but my constituency of North East Fife is rural and has a wide variety of agricultural businesses. Next month, the annual Fife Show will attract farming from across North East Fife and the surrounding areas, and bring that community very visibly together. It is therefore not surprising that I am here today talking about this issue, given the constituency I represent, but it affects even MPs representing urban constituencies: farming is quite literally the lifeblood of our very being. Without farmers, we would not have food. I say that at the start of a debate on universal credit to drive home the very important point that we must not lose sight of the needs of our farmers, and must do everything we can to support them. Surely that is what the Government’s Farm to Fork strategy is all about.
The state of our food supply chains mean that some farmers need benefits to boost their incomes, and that is deeply worrying. That is a debate for another day and another Department. The fact that some need support is why we are here today to ask the Minister and the Department to design a system that works with, and not against, farmers.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
The hon. Lady always brings subjects to Westminster Hall and the Chamber that are of particular interest to me. I declare an interest: I am a member of the Ulster Farmers’ Union, and we own a farm outside Greyabbey, so I understand the issues and the implications of what she is saying. Does she agree that farmers may have three good months of income—not necessarily profit—followed by nine months of hardship, so the monthly system is not appropriate for their seasonal work? Rather than making farming viable, the Government aid through the universal credit system may put people off and make farming untenable for families. That is incredibly concerning as it affects our food security, which this debate is also about—food security and delivering for the nation.
Wendy Chamberlain
The hon. Gentleman always gets straight to the key issues in his interventions. I will talk about a number of the things that he referenced. Indeed, the monthly aspect of universal credit is one of the key challenges.
Let me start with the basic point: the Government are asking the vast majority of farmers to go through the process of transitioning to universal credit from tax credits now, right in the middle of peak farming months. For example, it is the middle of lambing season. Let me be blunt: sheep farmers do not currently have the time to sort through accounts, visit the jobcentre or have interviews by phone. We all recognise that farming is not a 9 to 5 job where appointments can be scheduled. The sheep three fields down having a difficult birth will not be able to hold on just because the jobcentre is due to call. The farmer who cares deeply for their animals and also cannot afford to lose income if things go wrong will not be able to stay in the farmhouse to wait for that call. They will be down in the field with the sheep to keep an eye on things and intervene if need be. Even if there is a phone signal, which is not always guaranteed, a farmer can hardly talk through the viability of his or her business while elbow deep in that sheep.
I appreciate that that sounds slightly comical, but it is deeply frustrating for farmers and incredibly stressful when they are worried about losing their income. It shows a failure within the DWP system to understand how farming works, so I ask the Minister: what thought and consideration was given to farmers when the decision to roll out the transition to universal credit was made? I know the National Farmers Union raised concerns about the transition as early as 2018 in evidence to the Work and Pensions Committee. Did the Government pay any attention to that? Even if they are talking to the NFU, I cannot see the outcome in those policy decisions.
I recently tabled a written question asking for an impact assessment on how the roll-out of universal credit to farmers has been done. The response—I will be honest—did not exactly answer the question, so I will make the assumption that the answer is no. If I am wrong, I am happy to be corrected on that, and I hope the Minister will use her time to set out the findings from that assessment. But the response I received did point me to the latest findings from the “Move to Universal Credit”, in which there was only one paragraph relevant to farmers—an observation that additional checks on self-employed claimants may be a factor in the low take-up of universal credit. Obviously, that is a part of it, but it somewhat understates the issue, and it also conflates all self-employment businesses. Farming is very different to somebody, for example, running a shop, selling handmade products, or a tradesperson such as a joiner. Here we are: I am going to assume that the Minister has heard the warnings from the NFU, has seen correspondence from MPs, has spoken to farmers herself, has had her officials carry out research into the farming industry, and has seen the media coverage on the radio, specialist farming news and print media.
In any case, I will explain why universal credit fails farmers. Universal credit does not account for variable incomes and does not allow for those incomes to be averaged out. The very nature of farming means that farming income varies significantly through the year, or even over multiple years. I want to go back to that sheep farmer who is busy saving their animals and bringing new ones into the world, rather than speaking to a work coach. That lamb will not be ready for sale until much later in the year, meanwhile the sheep and the lamb will require food, shelter, water, shearing and possibly extra hands on the farm to help out in the busy months. An animal farmer might in some cases try their hardest to grow crops to be harvested in each season, but often that is not practical. Not all areas are suitable for all produce, and even if they were, economies of scale mean that it can be more profitable to specialise. That does not mean there is no work that needs to be done until harvest and sale time; just that the work done by farmers does not get paid for many months. Meanwhile, seed, fertiliser and fuel costs are all going up. That is arguably one of the reasons why some farmers need extra support in the first instance.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
Like my hon. Friend, I have had correspondence with the Government on this issue. The sheep farmer example is a very good one. That sheep farmer will have income, possibly in the autumn from the sale of the sheep, possibly from a basic payment, and possibly from something like the less favoured area support scheme. There might be a small wool cheque at some time in the late summer or early autumn, but apart from that, that is all the income, which then has to be spread and harvested throughout the rest of the year. That is the reality for the sheep farmers to which my hon. Friend refers, and it shows the virtual impossibility of shoehorning that into a universal credit scheme that looks at things on a monthly basis.
Wendy Chamberlain
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend, and he has illustrated part of the challenge. We are finding that, when that income spike happens, that is the very point where farmers are losing the benefit to which they should be entitled. It is important to recognise that sometimes it all goes wrong: a really bad harvest; illness among livestock; a year of barely breaking even; or worse. Otherwise, in the main, hopefully all that hard work and waiting pays off and payments come in. After months of very little, there is a significant income boost, and a boost that—as I have just said—will write off universal credit for that month, even though that income boost will have to stretch over the many months until the next sale day.
Tax credits allowed farmers to average out their income over a multiple-year cycle to truly reflect their monthly income over time. Universal credit only takes a one-month snapshot, and I know that people have experienced difficulties with universal credit in occupations such as farming for that very reason. Given that work coaches are required to assess whether self-employment is gainful, there is a significant risk of months of loss being seen as not real work. Recently, on that very issue, a headline in the Telegraph stated: “Farmers claiming benefits told their farms are ‘hobbies’ and to get jobs”. Some work coaches might understand how farming works, but it is clear that others certainly will not and do not—it cannot be left to luck. I doubt the Department has spare funds to train all work coaches in farming practices, so a standard reform of how income is assessed would surely be a much fairer and efficient path to take.
Another related issue that I will highlight is the imposition of the minimum income floor after the 12-month transition period. I fully accept that there must be measures to stop people being able to potentially manipulate benefits to prop up an unsustainable small or hobby business. Applying a deemed minimum income when calculating universal credit works in those cases, but I seriously question why it is useful to take vital income support away from farming families in those months where their produce is being produced rather than sold. Farmers are not earning the minimum wage in those months, so why on earth are we pretending that they do?
The 12-month transition period is welcome, but the nature of farming will not change in the course of a year. Arguably, all that will do is push the problem down the road, so I urge the Minister to go away and review it. If she is genuinely concerned about farmers exploiting universal credit, there must be other anti-abuse provisions that we could be looking at. The minimum income floor is a blunt tool that is doing more harm than good.
My final point is similar to my first, because after the administrative burden of applying to universal credit, farmers must continue providing monthly income updates. Farmers are not accountants; they often operate in partnerships and, most importantly, they work full time doing the actual farming. Their definition of full time is different from others, because it means well over 12 hours per day, seven days a week. When exactly does the Minister think that farmers will have the time to meet those obligations?
I ask the Minister to not just repeat the same platitudes that have been signed off and sent in a standard letter, which my right hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) and I have both received. I have seen that letter shared online many times, and I assure the Minister that it has done nothing to reassure anyone.
The good news for the Minister is that she needs only to look back to the tax credit system to find out what works; she does not need to reinvent the wheel. What farmers need is a system that allows for averaging income over multiple months and years, where benefits are paid during income spikes and where there is no assumed minimum income when it is low. They need a system without the administrative burden of monthly appointments and paperwork, and with an understanding of how farming works and the variety of set-ups, be that tenant farmers, those in partnerships, and everything in between.
It is not just farmers saying that. I have an example from a rural land and property agent, who has published a blog entitled “Why the Universal Credit System Isn’t Working for Farmers”. The Farming Forum threads on the change currently have nine pages of comments on one thread, while another thread has 24 pages. There is a Facebook support group for farming families that has been deliberately kept open so that MPs, journalists and others can see what farmers are saying about this change.
Yesterday, on that Facebook page, someone anonymously posted that because their family were so busy on the farm they could not get to the job centre, and their benefits had been stopped. The writer went on to say, in their own words, that they wanted to chuck themselves off a bridge as a result. A few days before that, someone wrote that they were able to feed their children but they could not afford to eat that day themselves. They used to get £700 in tax credits a month, but the assessment for universal credit does not take into account the difference between income paid to the family and income used to meet farming bills.
The system change means that someone who is producing our food cannot afford to eat. That is just not okay. Farmers are literally the reason why we are here in the Chamber with full stomachs, why our children have the energy to go to school and learn, why we can go to the supermarket and make our dinners tonight and why our restaurants are some of the best in the world. It is not an issue that will go away; it is a crisis for too many farming families. We must support them, and I hope that the Minister’s response recognises the gravity of the situation.
The Minister for Employment (Jo Churchill)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mrs Murray. Before I respond, I would like to pay tribute to Lord Field, whose passing was announced earlier today. He was a wonderful individual who contributed over many decades to the important issue of welfare. My personal memories are of his kindness and compassion during my early days here. As a former Work and Pensions Committee Chair, I know he would have taken great interest in all the activity happening across the House on welfare issues, not only this week but in the recent past.
I congratulate the hon. Member for North East Fife (Wendy Chamberlain) on securing this debate. First, let me put it on record that the Government recognise the vital contribution of farmers to the country and to the economy as a whole. It is worth the most enormous amount to us, in not only the growing sector, but the manufacturing sector. From my own early days as a young farmer, right through to my representing a rural community, I have been more than embedded, and I understand the challenges. The hon. Lady will know—as I do—that, as with many business areas and sectors, these businesses come in a multitude of forms. Although I appreciate what she said about her farmers lambing, my farmers are trying to get seeds in the ground after the most appalling rainfall. I say gently that they are not the only businesses dealing with fluctuating incomes, transitions throughout their year or lives where they put in 12-hour days. We are working with them, and I agree that that point is important.
For clarity, I met the representatives from the National Farmers Union on 19 March, and I am very grateful to them. As soon as the issue of the migration of those in the farming community from tax credits to universal credit was flagged to me, I reached out to the NFU directly, it responded and we had the meeting to discuss that issue. I cannot answer the specifics that the hon. Lady brought up, but I am interested in them, because the tax credit migration notices have only just gone out, so I am confused as to why there would have been the stories she mentioned. Perhaps if I might be facilitated with those individual challenges, I can make sure they are addressed swiftly.
Officials in my Department are continuing that engagement to ensure that farming communities are communicated with clearly, that the transition to universal credit is as smooth as possible and that the concerns are heard. At official level, I had meetings on 9 and 10 April with officials from my Department and the NFU. Engagement has been constructive. Actions include sharing the third-party information pack on the move to UC with the NFU, which will share it with farming charities—the pack supports welfare rights organisations and charities in understanding the process of making claims and what support is available; the NFU promoting the move to UC activity to the farming community via its regular communication channels; work with the NFU to produce a product for work coaches explaining the farming sector, because I, too, do not like that term; and inviting the NFU external affairs team to a monthly UC stakeholders forum. I have also asked whether we can have somebody with the right expertise at our county shows throughout the country to have a session in the NFU tent, the CLA tent or wherever is appropriate, so that people can have discreet conversations where they are most likely to be facilitated.
The Department is providing that support, including assistance when making a claim for universal credit to those who need it. Importantly, that also includes comprehensive transitional protection if they are eligible. Transitional protection is an extra payment in a customer’s UC award ensuring that their entitlement is not lower than what they would have received on tax credits at the point of movement. Transitional protection is there to smooth the change, which is why individuals should fill in the migration notice when they get it. Importantly, self-employed customers are also exempt from the application of the minimum income floor for a 12-month period, providing significant time for the adjustment to UC to take place.
It is therefore vital that customers take action when the migration notices are received, so that they do not miss out on the important transitional protections we are trying to provide to make sure that a worried customer—today we are talking about farming, but they could come from various other sectors—is helped and managed through the migration. When I discussed this with the NFU in March, it understood the need to avoid delay and indicated that it stood ready to support individuals and ensure they engage.
Mr Carmichael
I am sure we can all play a role in ensuring that this transitional relief and the importance of returning the form are understood—doubtless, the NFU and others will do that, too. The difficulty I have, however, is that even at the end of that transitional period, I do not see what in the farming business model will have changed. There will still be self-employed people with income coming in significant sums, but at small points in the year. At the end of the transition, we will still be where we are today—that will not change. If there is going to be change, it must come from the UC system.
Jo Churchill
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his comments. If he will allow me, I will come on to those shortly. I gently say that he comes from a tourist-driven area, where those incomes for those individuals fluctuate, and we expect them to have moved over to the UC system.
With regard to self-employment, universal credit addresses a number of flaws with the tax credit system. The Government stand by these reforms, which were first introduced in 2013. To give context, self-employed individuals have previously been able to report very low earnings from their business activity while receiving much of their income from tax credits. That can act as a disincentive to grow a business or look elsewhere for employment, if a business is not viable. All of us in this room know that businesses vary in their viability. This is an arguably unfair situation for the taxpayer and risks trapping individuals in low-earning self-employment and thereby, in some instances, more of a dependency on the welfare system.
All customers moving to universal credit, including farmers, are asked and expected to attend a one-off meeting with a work coach to confirm their employment status. This means confirming that farming is their main employment, being regular, organised and developed, and trying to making a profit—not that it has to, but just that it is their main job. I am sure the hon. Member for North East Fife would not disagree with this approach, as it is focused on fairness. We consider each claimant’s circumstances individually, and it is no different for farmers. They are most likely to be considered gainfully self-employed, for the exact reasons she laid out: they have livestock, they have to be there every single day, or they have crops to grow and so on. They will therefore be free to work on their business with no expectation to look for other work or take it up while in receipt of universal credit.
During a farmer’s first year in receipt of the new benefit, they might be expected to meet their work coach up to four times more, but to minimise this, multiple appointment channels are available, which I am assured includes digital, so it might just be a short meeting over Teams. With all due respect, that is not any more onerous than engaging with a feed supplier or with accountants. After 12 months, the minimum income floor is applied, and no further work coach interactions are required if an individual’s or a household’s circumstances stay the same. Again, once established—that is what the transition period is about—that stability is carried through.
I know that concerns have been expressed about the impacts on farmers through the way their earnings are reported and the administrative burden that this might cause, but I would like to reassure hon. and right hon. Members that my officials are working with the NFU to better understand whether farmers are worrying about this challenge in anticipation, or whether there are things we can do to assist. That includes the NFU’s attendance at monthly stakeholder engagement sessions and our offering to speak at NFU events. It is not to anyone’s benefit to have people worried in this situation.
Universal credit seeks to take earnings into account in a way that is fair and transparent, with earnings considered in the assessment period in which they are received, with a customer’s award adjusted accordingly. That does mean that individuals are required to report their earnings more frequently than with tax credits and in a slightly different way. However, the system has been designed to be simple and straightforward, with customers needing to provide only the total income from receipts into the business and high-level details of payments out during the assessment period.
While we are debating universal credit and farmers, I gently say that the farming community, as I alluded to earlier, is not the only profession experiencing these large monthly fluctuations, with retail and tourism also doing so. I am sure that the hon. Member for North East Fife agrees that it is important that we work with our farmers, vital as they are to all of us, given the food they put on our plate, to alleviate concerns, overcome barriers and help with the transition to UC.
Assessing earnings monthly rather than annually may have a greater impact on all self-employed people with large monthly fluctuations, but steps have been taken to account for that. Where a self-employed customer reports a loss, the value of the loss is carried forward and taken into account when assessing earnings in future assessment periods. Similarly, when customers experience a spike in their earnings, only earnings that have exceeded £2,500 more than the amount that would normally reduce their universal credit award to zero will be carried forward to affect a future assessment period.
Universal credit is a broad system of support that takes account of all individual household circumstances. I am a little concerned that the assumption today is that every engagement a farmer might have with the Department for Work and Pensions would be a negative one; that is not the case. Where additional help is available—for example, with childcare or other assistance—individuals will be signposted to the support they are eligible for, which they might not have been aware of prior to making their claim.
Finally, I want to put on record my thanks to the NFU, which swiftly engaged with us when asked and was honest and forthright about the challenges. It has stepped up to working with us. I hope that we can work together to assist the broader farming community, which is hugely important to the nation. I strongly encourage people to engage with the migration notice so that they can access the support and income protection as we make the move to universal credit.
Mr Carmichael
On a point of order, Mrs Murray. It was remiss of me while intervening in the debate not to remind the House of my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I hope you will allow me to do so now for the record.
Space Industry
(3 weeks, 3 days 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
Mark Garnier (Wyre Forest) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the UK space industry.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Murray, and a delight for me to talk about this extraordinarily thriving industry right here in the UK.
As chair of the all-party parliamentary group for space, I get the opportunity to see at first hand what is happening in the UK. The group has recently put on four exhibitions, taking over the Attlee Suite here in Parliament to highlight various aspects of our thriving space industry. We started last year with launch and propulsion, followed by current applications that use space, and we have finished with two sessions on the future of space and the important issue of space sustainability. The exhibitions were well attended by parliamentarians, civil servants and industry experts, and over the four events, more than 40 space companies had the chance to highlight their skills and products to attendees. The exhibitions were supported by ADS and UKspace, and my thanks go to the teams that helped both with those events and in supporting the all-party parliamentary group.
Such drop-by exhibitions serve to highlight that the UK space industry is thriving, active and innovative. Indeed, it is the leader in smart thinking for the sustainability of space and how we will preserve it for future generations. Smart thinking on things such as ESG —environmental, social and governance—kitemarking for UK-licensed space flights, and the wider discussions of space sustainability bonds mean that the UK is a thought leader that will ensure that the ultimate infinity of space is not lost to us because of an impenetrable cloud of space debris orbiting the earth.
At this point, I should declare that my fascination with the sector goes so far that I take an interest in specific companies and organisations, and I refer hon. Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I will, of course, avoid speaking about those interests that are financial this afternoon, for important reasons.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I commend the hon. Gentleman for introducing the debate. I spoke to him beforehand and I am keen to ensure that whenever this process moves forward on the engineering side, we in Northern Ireland can benefit. Does he agree that, with engineering the largest subsector in Northern Ireland and especially in the field of aerospace, skill and capacity levels are high and therefore ripe for further investment? Does he further agree that Northern Ireland and the United Kingdom must be globally promoted as being shovel ready or, to use the terminology, rocket ready for greater investment?
Mark Garnier
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right and I will mention Belfast later. Queen’s University Belfast has recently hosted some incredibly important energy-beaming experiments, which will completely open up the possibility for the UK to be world leaders in space-based solar power. I will talk a little more about that later.
My interest in space also derives from my unachieved desire to be an aeronautical engineer. My career in the City of London and an interest in economics have given me the insight to recognise that the space industry is the epitome of what Adam Smith talked about in his 1776 book “The Wealth of Nations”. The space industry epitomises a mature economy’s desire to seek ever more productive activities and the UK is doing particularly well in that area.
The UK space sector as a whole has a turnover of some £17.5 billion per annum, employing nearly 50,000 people, 2,300 of whom are apprentices.
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)
I thank the hon. Member for giving way and for obtaining this debate, which is of particular significance in Scotland and in my constituency. I recently visited San Francisco and its space industry, where Edinburgh University is highly regarded. An ecosystem and an environment have been created there that engender growth and co-operation between the university and the private sector specifically on space. Does the hon. Member feel we are doing enough in this country to engender the same sort of ecosystem in places such as Edinburgh, where there is that potential?
Mark Garnier
We are, but we could always do more. It is interesting that the hon. Lady chose that moment to intervene because I was just about to mention the amazing things going on in Scotland. Scotland is fascinating for a whole load of different reasons, but she is absolutely right to raise those important points. How we take forward our space industry now through the relationship with the Government is incredibly important to its success. I will talk more about that later, but she should be proud that Scotland is doing so well. I am pleased to see several Members from Scotland who are here to rightly represent the interests of their constituencies, and I look forward to hearing from them all.
In fact, my next line was that more CubeSats are built in Glasgow than anywhere else in the world. Indeed, the space industry in the UK has led to a number of key hubs for space across the country, in addition to Glasgow and Scotland more widely. While it is sometimes easy to overdo the definition of a hub, we have a handful of significant centres leading the way. Harwell Science and Innovation Campus near Oxford hosts a large campus of space companies, from start-ups supported by the Satellite Applications Catapult to offices for big primes and the European Space Agency. Surrey has its research park at Guildford centred around the leading UK satellite company, Surrey Satellite Technology Ltd. Cornwall has a hub developed around the Newquay spaceport and Goonhilly earth station. Leicester has its own science and space park with a fabulous museum and, of course, a space-dedicated university. Scotland has not just its hub around Glasgow, but potentially three vertical and two horizontal launch centres.
The global opportunity is immense. Across the world, turnover is expected to grow from £270 billion in 2019 to £490 billion by 2030. It is vital that the UK not only participates in that growth with our own domestic ambitions, but accelerates its opportunity by seeking wider export markets.
David Morris (Morecambe and Lunesdale) (Con)
I declare an interest as the UK space adviser—non-paid, of course. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government are putting more money into the space sector than any other Government before them?
Mark Garnier
They are, but it could always be better. Again, I will come to that later, but my hon. Friend is absolutely right that support from Government in this complicated sector is incredibly important.
To get back to the export market opportunities, the team at space consultants Space4Sight has identified 25 nations across the globe that are only now starting to show their space interest, all of which would benefit from a collaboration with UK companies and expertise. Indeed, I am heading to Vietnam in a month in my role as the Prime Minister’s trade envoy to Vietnam, and one of the scheduled meetings is to promote UK space exports to that economy, which is growing incredibly strongly. This is a huge opportunity for the UK to grow space technology exports to newly identified space nations.
Although we are good at this stuff, we must not be complacent. We have a lead in many areas, but without the right environment, we could lose out to other nations. We need to think about what space is. I have always seen it as a thriving economic sector, yet I notice that the Government, in their last restructuring, chose to locate it in the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology, as opposed to the Department for Business and Trade. Space is a business, not a science project. While I have immense respect for those supporting the sector in DSIT, and they have done an incredibly good job, I hope the Minister will reassure me that his Department sees space as a sector that contributes to our economy, with a lot of commercial opportunity.
I would not want the Minister to feel that I do not appreciate what his Department and some other Departments do for the sector. The Government invest directly in space activities and, according to the OECD, our public spending amounts to around 0.025% of our national GDP. It sounds like a small number, but it represents quite a significant amount of money. However, when compared with other countries, it starts to look a bit small. It is half the relative commitment of Germany, India and Belgium. It is a third of the commitment of Italy and Japan, and a quarter of the investment by France and the United States of America. The sector is highly commercial, but because of the challenges of high upfront costs, other countries have discovered that de-risking opportunities for investors through grant funding stimulates private investment. I hope Members of all parties agree that we should get behind stimulating private investment in the sector through grant funding.
We should not necessarily see space as a sector in its own right. We have other assets in the UK that would benefit from a symbiotic relationship with this super high-tech, high-productivity sector of the economy. The City of London has been a global leader of finance and financial markets for a few centuries now. Expertise in trade finance, investment, insurance, currency trading and the wider associated legal service has made the City of London a global financial hub for a long time, but our lead position is always under threat. For the City to remain a leader, it needs to remain relevant.
A few years ago, I prepared a discussion paper on how we can take inspiration from Gordon Brown’s tax interventions in the UK film industry to find a way to stimulate the City as a space finance hub. Gordon Brown created tax breaks for film investment. I suspect a direct line can be drawn from his intervention to the success, for example, of the Harry Potter franchise. That series of films would always have been made but, without that tax incentive, those spells may have been cast with a Hollywood accent.
A selected tax break here, an innovative approach to governance there, and the City could dominate the world as the go-to place to raise money for space-related opportunities. The City would continue its path from being innovative financier of trade across the globe to modern financier of trade beyond the globe. Other ideas are coming out of the City that would be good to get behind. Professor Michael Mainelli, who is now Lord Mayor of London, has been promoting a space protection initiative that looks at the further purchase of space debris retrieval insurance bonds to go on space flights to ensure that any debris could be recovered in the event of a satellite going out of service. Perhaps they could be called space junk bonds.
If we combine that financial expertise with our world-beating universities and wider technical capabilities, the UK will become the destination for all aspiring space entrepreneurs and developers. With imagination for things such as a British space bank, copying the British Business Bank or UK Infrastructure Bank, the funding that the British Government might offer could be leveraged several times. That would reinforce the message that the Government in the UK are not just grant funding but supporting space through innovative strategic partnerships.
Either way, uplifted long-term funding for the space sector to deliver priorities in the national space strategy, such as the space industrial plan; adopting a long-term approach to industrial strategy that includes a policy commitment to grow small and medium-sized enterprises; and an improved wider understanding of the space sector to encourage more people into science, technology, engineering and maths careers, would have an extraordinarily energising effect on this highly productive sector of our economy. That would certainly solve our current productivity conundrum.
There are further ways the Government can help our growing space sector and the many SMEs that participate. SMEs not only act as suppliers to the big primes in programmes and projects, but have their own prime missions and services. That brings world-beating capability to the market. We need to consider how we can further boost the sector. For example, a British space bank might also be an equity investor as well as a debt funder, complementing the UK Space Agency’s grant funding. Government procurement can act as an anchor customer for demonstrator missions. Scaling up the space technology exploitation programme would help, for example, to boost rapid development and implementation of cross-Government space policy programmes, thereby boosting economic activity in the sector.
I want to finish with some thoughts on an area where we are leading the way, and which demonstrates how widespread the application of space technology can be: space-based solar power. I should declare that I serve as the chair of the advisory board of the Space Energy Initiative, a coalition of businesses, academia, Departments and specialists in this burgeoning area of solar energy from space. I also serve as a non-executive director of Space Solar, the UK’s leading company seeking to develop this actually not very new technology. I stress that those are non-financial interests; I give my time on a pro bono basis.
That is an example of how an emerging sector is growing fast right here in the UK. The Department for Energy Security and Net Zero sponsored and set up a three-day conference last week to study this area, at which I spoke on the last day. It was astonishing to be in a room with such an extraordinary collection of highly intelligent people, looking at something they all know is not just a probability but a reality that will provide dispatchable, baseload, cheap green energy at gigawatt scale within the next 15 years.
Although many doubters suggest that that is science fantasy, UK primes, the UK Space Agency, international primes, the European Space Agency, leading universities and the UK Government all know that this is a reality. Space-based solar power will happen, with or without UK involvement. We are fast approaching the time when we need to decide whether we are to be the driver of this innovative approach to net zero or just another passenger.
If we seize the opportunity, space-based solar power will provide cheap, clean energy faster and cheaper than nuclear. It will be an astonishing export asset for the UK, be it through licensing the technology to other nations or selling the power directly from the satellites. It will tackle other issues in the UK, such as grid equalisation. I repeat that the UK is leading in this field. It is leading because the Government have supported not just the ESA’s Solaris programme but UK research for UK businesses.
In the last few weeks, a huge success has been achieved in the field of energy beaming through 360° using phased array antennas—and it was done in Belfast. The Government have stepped up to the plate to make this happen, and have indicated possible further support through match funding.
However, it does not matter whether we are talking about space-based solar power, GPS where the technology not only finds the nearest pub but times financial transactions, internet services via OneWeb, or Earth observation that helps everyone from generals in Ukraine to farmers seeking yield improvement. A massive range of services comes from the UK space industry, and many of us do not even realise that they happen. We must therefore strive to make sure that our space entrepreneurs are a success, and that this British business success supports the whole of our economy and public finances. That means that we need Government support, because we do not want to find ourselves, as we have done in the past, inventing something brilliant but not exploiting it commercially. For example, Frank Whittle was a brilliant engineer who invented the jet engine, only to see, a few years later, an American pilot flying an American aeroplane over America, using British technology to break the sound barrier. We do not want to see that again.
We are really, really good at this stuff and the Government know we are. That is why we can never get enough support in this incredible industry. I am conscious that many other Members are keen to speak, but I am sure that the Minister has heard what I have said and I very much look forward to his speech later.
Mrs Sheryll Murray (in the Chair)
I remind Members that they need to bob if they wish to be called in the debate.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mrs Murray. I pay warm tribute to the hon. Member for Wyre Forest (Mark Garnier) for securing this debate and for the work he does in the sector. We have spoken about the strategic significance of the space industry for the United Kingdom as a whole. Everything he said in that respect was absolutely correct, but the words in his peroration—about ensuring that we maximise the opportunities that will come from the industry—were particularly pertinent. For my constituency, that goes beyond the high-level opportunities that the hon. Gentleman identified.
There are a number of specific local opportunities for Shetland, as we host on Unst—the most northerly of all the Shetland Islands—the Shetland spaceport at SaxaVord. We have seen that quite remarkable progression in recent times as a consequence of a lot of hard work by the Shetland spaceport, and I pay particular tribute to Frank Strang and his colleagues for getting it to this point. It is now licensed by the Civil Aviation Authority, and we were delighted that it got a commitment of £10 million from the Government in the Budget. Indeed, such is the nature of the achievement that the Shetland spaceport is now even getting some interest from the Scottish Government—something else that must be welcomed.
If you look at the right map, Mrs Murray—by which I mean a map that has Shetland on it, and not just parked somewhere in the Moray Firth in a box—you will see that Shetland, and Unst in particular, sits at the highest latitude point in the United Kingdom, and indeed one of the highest in Europe. That, in turn, allows for a greater payload to be launched for the same fuel efficiency, turning many of the disadvantages with which we have struggled for so long into advantages. Because of where we are, there are natural opportunities for security and safety that would not necessarily be found closer to other larger centres of population.
Christine Jardine
I was privileged to visit my right hon. Friend’s constituency last month to see the SaxaVord spaceport and the work being done there. Does he agree that a lot of that work reflects the ingenuity and effort that went into developing the oil and gas industry in Shetland, and which is now being used in a similar way to develop SaxaVord, and that that has already been recognised by the space industry elsewhere in the world?
Mr Carmichael
I am delighted that my hon. Friend understands that it was a privilege to visit Shetland. She is absolutely right about that. What I am coming on to say fits well with that, because there are lessons for Shetland to learn from its engagement with the space industry and from how we have successfully engaged with the North sea oil and gas industry for the past 40-odd years.
The history of Saxa Vord, even in my time, has not always been a happy one. Back in the day, it was an RAF radar station waiting for the Russian bear in the cold war to come screaming over the polar ice cap. With the end of the Soviet Union and the fall of the Berlin wall, it was felt that that sort of presence was not necessary. That may have been somewhat premature. I remember, as a Member of Parliament, when the RAF announced its drawdown from Saxa Vord in 2005. I remember going to a meeting of the local community in the Baltasound Hall and the feeling of absolute desolation at that point, because RAF Saxa Vord had become such a massive part of the local economy of Unst. That was to go virtually overnight, and it was a struggle to find something to replace it. We welcome the coming of the space industry to Shetland, but we welcome it on our own terms and—as we did with the offshore oil and gas industry—we want to maximise for ourselves the opportunities that it can bring to our communities.
Some of this is already starting to emerge. SaxaVord spaceport has a science, technology, engineering and maths initiative that already has collaborative research and development projects under way with academic institutions, including the University of Alaska, the University of Strathclyde and the University of Edinburgh—I suspect that Edinburgh probably has the least welcoming environment, in terms of temperature, of those three.
SaxaVord also has an outreach programme for local Shetland schools and colleges, generating future technical skills in the area and ensuring a sustainable spaceflight ecosystem in Shetland and the wider United Kingdom. For us as a community, keeping young people in our community or giving them opportunities to come back when they have been away and had their education is critical. We see this as an opportunity.
It has to be said, though, that the coming of a spaceport to Unst will be transformative for the community. One project that the community is keen to proceed with—and which is deserving of some support from the Scottish Government and the United Kingdom Government—would be to replace our inter-island ferries with fixed-links tunnels going from mainland Shetland to Yell, and Yell to Unst. It is a case that stands well in its own right. It is not an easy thing. To see the opportunities that come from the construction of tunnels, look no further than to our neighbours to the north-west, in Faroe Islands. That is the sort of thing that should be Shetland’s price for playing host to the space industry. That is the sort of opportunity that we as a community should be entitled to exploit and to expect co-operation on, and support from, Government and elsewhere.
We are putting a lot of ourselves into this industry. This industry has great significance strategically for the United Kingdom, as well as economically and militarily, and in just about every other way imaginable. When the Minister replies, I hope he will acknowledge the significance of the contribution that Shetland stands to make to the rest of the United Kingdom, and that there is an understanding that, if we are to step up to the plate for the benefit of the rest of the United Kingdom, then the rest of the United Kingdom should acknowledge that responsibility.
Steve Double (St Austell and Newquay) (Con)
It is a pleasure to speak in this debate, Mrs Murray, and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre Forest (Mark Garnier) on securing it.
Something exciting has been happening in the space industry in Cornwall in recent years. We have seen the revival of the world-leading Goonhilly satellite tracking station, and I am incredibly proud to have Spaceport Cornwall, based at Newquay airport, in my constituency. It is something that I started championing before I became a Member of Parliament, way back in 2014, when the original call for sites for a spaceport went out. I worked very hard with Cornwall Council, the airport, the Government and the UK Space Agency to get the licence for the spaceport, and I was absolutely delighted that in January 2023 we had our first launch—well, almost. Frustratingly and sadly, due to a faulty $100 fuel filter, the final stage of the rocket burn failed, so the satellites did not reach their intended orbit.
However, that should not detract from the fact that, for Spaceport Cornwall, we played our part perfectly. Everything went well at the spaceport itself. Spaceport Cornwall remains the only licensed spaceport in Europe, and we are ready to launch again.
Also, there continues to be great interest in the facilities that we have, especially the satellite integration clean room—a world-class facility, and there are not many around the world—and our space systems operations facility, which is a dedicated office block on the spaceport site that continues to receive expressions of interest from people who want to locate there. Last month, Slingshot Aerospace announced that it will expand into the UK, with new offices in London and Cornwall, and just this month Space Ai, the Argentinian blockchain innovators, announced that it will set up new offices at the spaceport in Cornwall.
We continue to attract interest from around the world, and there is still a great deal of interest from launch operators who want to launch from Cornwall. There are advanced discussions going on with a number of potential partners that could see us launch satellites from Cornwall once again in the coming months.
In my view, the UK will struggle to fulfil its space sector ambitions without launch capabilities, and although it feels like all the attention is now on Scotland and the vertical launch site there, as the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) highlighted, it is important not to forget that in Cornwall we have a UK launch site that is licensed and ready to launch.
Mr Carmichael
The hon. Gentleman is making an important point. Inevitably in a competitive process, that kind of rivalry can emerge, but the real rivalry is between the UK space industry and the space industry elsewhere in Europe and the world. There must surely be a role for horizontal launch in Cornwall and for vertical launch in Shetland, and also at the Sutherland space site.
Steve Double
I am very grateful to the right hon. Gentleman, who makes the point that I was literally about to make—it is amazing how often that happens in debates. I am convinced that there is room for both. If the UK is really going to play the role that it aims to play, of being a world-leader in the space industry, we need both capabilities in the UK—vertical launch and horizontal launch. I am convinced that horizontal launch will very much be part of the future of space launch. As satellites become smaller, a horizontal launch will be the sustainable and more accessible option for many operators who want to put satellites into space.
Will the Minister ensure that his Department and the UK Space Agency do all they can to continue to support Spaceport Cornwall, and also work with us so that we can secure the partners to enable us to launch satellites from Cornwall once again in the months and years to come? The UK has an absolutely huge opportunity to stay ahead of the rest of Europe. As the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland pointed out, we are in a good position in the global space race to ensure that the UK can take advantage of that opportunity.
Spaceport Cornwall is a huge opportunity economically for the UK, and specifically for Cornwall, to attract investment and create the highly skilled and well-paid jobs that we desperately need in the Cornish economy. But for me, this has always been about something more than that. It has been about inspiring young Cornish people to believe that they can go and get the qualifications in science, technology, engineering and maths, and then have a career in the space industry while still living in Cornwall. That is what has driven me throughout this whole process.
With the establishment of the spaceport and the work that the team have done to engage with schools and colleges, we have already seen literally thousands of schoolchildren from the south-west come to see what is going on there and be inspired. That is so important, because one of the challenges we face with our young people in Cornwall is a lack of aspiration. There is no replacement for something on their doorstep that inspires them to say, “Yes, I can go on, get the qualifications and get a good career in this sector.” To that end, we were delighted that Cornwall secured the replica LauncherOne rocket, as a visible and tangible display: the centrepiece of an education centre that will inspire our young people and stimulate their interest in the space industry for generations to come.
There has been a bit of misunderstanding, in that the UK Space Agency seems to think that we are looking to build a tourist centre. We are not. It is an education centre, which will attract visitors and, in particular, inspire young people. Can the Minister look at what support his Department and the UK Space Agency can provide to Cornwall, so that we can create a world-class education centre? It will play a part in inspiring the next generation of scientists and engineers, not just in Cornwall and the south-west but across the whole country. We will need them in the UK if we are going to fulfil our ambition to continue to be a world leader in space.
These are exciting times. Just as Cornwall has always pioneered and led the way in new technology, whether that was the steam engine or Marconi and wireless communication, we again want to play our part in leading the UK into space launch.
Mrs Sheryll Murray (in the Chair)
I remind the SNP spokesperson and the shadow Minister that they have five minutes and the Minister has 10 minutes, because this is an hour-long debate. I call Carol Monaghan.
Carol Monaghan (Glasgow North West) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Murray; it is fitting that you are in the Chair today, because you have been such a champion for Spaceport Cornwall —I hope that that might get me an extra minute or two—alongside the hon. Member for St Austell and Newquay (Steve Double). I want to correct him slightly. He talked about the failure of the launch, but the launch was actually successful; the failure came after. We have to take the positives from that, because this will be a learning process.
As a former teacher, I know that there are two things that get children really excited: dinosaurs and space. If we could get dinosaurs on space rockets, we would have everything sorted! The space sector is important for technology development, Earth observation and, increasingly, security and defence. Scotland plays a key role in that. We have already heard from the hon. Member for Wyre Forest (Mark Garnier), whom I congratulate on securing this important debate, about the importance of Glasgow in satellite manufacturing, with companies like Clyde Space and Alba Orbital. We also have space data analysis in both Glasgow and Edinburgh, as we have heard from the hon. Member for Edinburgh West (Christine Jardine).
What we are not so good at—and this is not just in Scotland but across the UK—is selling ourselves: telling people what we are doing in the industry. In Glasgow, Edinburgh and other places where there are space sectors, why do we not have big signs with rockets and propulsion units? That would tell young people that the space sector is here, alive and vibrant, and that there are jobs to be had in it. The Government could play a role in that.
We have heard about the five potential spaceports in Scotland. The right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) talked about SaxaVord in Shetland, and we are looking forward to seeing the first vertical launch from that spaceport. We also have North Uist, A’Mhoine in Sutherland—the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone) mentioned that—Machrihanish in Argyll, and of course Prestwick.
Scotland has great ambition in the sector. There is ability in our universities, so it is not a surprise or a coincidence that so many space companies have set up in Scotland. The ambitions are to capture a £4 billion market share of the sector by 2030 and an increase in employment in the space sector to 20,000. Those are ambitious targets, but they are achievable. To reach its full potential, the industry needs proper Government support. We have rejoined Horizon Europe, which is useful but there have been years outside Horizon Europe, and space talent now have to pay visa and NHS fees to come here, which is problematic.
Four years ago, the Government bought a £400 million stake in the satellite company OneWeb. On talking to the then Science and Technology Committee in 2021, Chris McLaughlin from OneWeb told the Committee that by 2024-25 we would be building satellites in the UK. We have not seen that yet, so I ask the Minister: we have heard about lots of companies doing great work, but how many jobs has OneWeb created in the UK for our £400 million stake? What steps have the Government taken to ensure that OneWeb’s second generation satellites will be built here in the UK? How are the Government raising awareness of the opportunities in the space sector, and what representations has the Minister made about reducing visa and NHS fees for those working in it?
There are real opportunities here. It is right that we inspire the next generation. To do so, we need physics teachers being paid proper wages. Without paying them proper wages, they will take their skills and work elsewhere. We need them here.
Scotland was famously at the heart of the first industrial revolution. As we enter a new era of industrial revolution, Scotland will once again play a key role in creating and developing new technologies in the space sector. I look forward to seeing more launches across the UK. I agree with the comments made today: there is room for horizontal and vertical. The more spaceports we have, the more we become a focus for the space industry across the world. I am sorry for the time I have taken, Mrs Murray—your tribute at the start took me extra seconds.
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Murray, and to follow the hon. Member for Glasgow North West (Carol Monaghan). I congratulate the hon. Member for Wyre Forest (Mark Garnier) on securing the debate; as a member of the all-party parliamentary group for space, I can bear witness to what an excellent chair he is and what a great champion he is for the industry.
We all know that space is not just for the stars. Members from constituencies in Scotland, Northern Ireland and England have all emphasised—I am sure Members from Wales would, too—the potential and actual contribution that it makes to their economies. The right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) and the hon. Member for St Austell and Newquay (Steve Double) particularly emphasised that point. The space industry impacts everybody and everything, from climate change monitoring and rural broadband to transport and agriculture. It is vital for security—just look at Ukraine—and for telecommunications.
In 2021 I spoke in a debate on space debris, which has been mentioned. That creates challenges and opportunities that literally go over most people’s heads. Labour’s first mission in Government is to secure the highest sustained growth in the G7, and space provides key opportunities for growth. Our aerospace research and development is a long-term endeavour, and our industrial strength is the result of decades of support by successive Governments—and Labour would build on that legacy.
Although there remain challenges to overcome, our regulators must be responsive to innovation in the space sector, from in-orbit manufacturing, as we have heard about, to space-based renewables. Labour’s regulatory innovation office would rewire regulators to support innovation, including the space sector. The office would set and monitor targets for approvals, benchmarked internationally, and give regulators steers from Labour’s industrial strategy, which would help ensure that space was seen as an industry and not as a project, as the hon. Member for Wyre Forest suggested. We would also support the Regulatory Horizons Council, with deadlines for the Government to respond to its work. On that subject, when the RHC reports on space, will the Minister commit now to a timeframe for the response from the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology? Will he also set out what specifically the Government are doing to support pro-innovation regulation for space?
As well as proper regulation, the industry needs greater stability from this Government, which has been in somewhat short supply, and not just at the macro level. We have seen the National Space Council that was set up by one Prime Minister cancelled by the next, and then reinstated by the one after that. We left the Galileo Project, and the U-turn on the rival system cost a further £60 million. The Science, Innovation and Technology Committee has also expressed concerns over the lack of coherence in the space strategy, and we heard about the ambiguity and the harmful speculation over the OneWeb deal after the Eutelsat merger, and the impact that has had.
The space industrial plan was three months late, and it is unclear how the Government see space relating to the key technologies in the science and technology framework, so could the Minister speak specifically to that point? I obviously welcome the Minister to his place, but he is the eighth Science Minister in five years. Does he concede that uncertainty is bad for business and bad for space? Labour’s industrial strategy, with our statutory industrial strategy council, will provide the stability and partnership that the industry needs, and enhance our sovereign capabilities, building on the work of the Satellite Applications Catapult and the UK Space Agency.
My final point is on skills, which Members have mentioned. The space industry is so important and it inspires the next generation of engineers. One of the reasons that I went into engineering was because I wanted to design spaceships. I never got to—not yet, but maybe that is still to come. Labour is proposing a national body that would be called Skills England, to provide leadership and bring together Government, businesses, training providers and unions to drive local skills needs. Expanding opportunities in this industry should create good jobs for people of all backgrounds. In February I visited Space Park Leicester, where the university, local government and industry work together to make space more accessible to all. Labour is pledging an action plan for diversity in STEM. I hope the Minister will support that, and I hope that we can see space as an opportunity for all.
The Minister for Science, Research and Innovation (Andrew Griffith)
It is a delight to be here under your chairmanship, Mrs Murray. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre Forest (Mark Garnier) on initiating this well-attended debate about the all-important UK space industry, as well as on his commitment to and leadership of the all-party parliamentary group. I am myself a former member, and I know how hard-working and formidable his connections are in this domain, together with my hon. Friend the Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale (David Morris).
This is a tremendous week for UK space, and I hope all Members will join me in congratulating astronaut Rosemary Coogan on achieving her space wings and graduating from astronaut school on Monday, together with two other British astronauts, John McFall and Meganne Christian. We hope they all have the opportunity in the coming years to leave this orbit behind and fly into space.
It has been enlightening to hear all the important points that hon. Members have raised in today’s debate, including on the way in which space and its attendant industries touch every single part of the United Kingdom. Today’s debate encapsulates the importance of the subject, from Spaceport Cornwall all the way to the opposite tip of these isles in Shetland and Orkney. There could not be any better examples than that.
Space is important to everybody and is an important economic activity. That is why the Government have a clear set of plans, which I can assure everyone that we are delivering upon daily. In 2021, we published the UK’s first ever cross-Government national space strategy. We are now spending approximately £650 million a year on space, which is an uplift of more than 70% on the amount we spent as a nation in 2018-19. I should be clear that this does not include all the space-related investment and spend on projects via Copernicus, UKRI and the Ministry of Defence.
Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
As the Minister knows, work continues apace at the Sutherland spaceport. It is interesting to note the recent announcement about the amount of investment that Orbex has attracted. Part of this is private money; when the markets speak, we listen. Returning to the remarks made by the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central (Chi Onwurah), it is about skills. The big challenge for us is how we will get the seedcorn we need to develop these homegrown skills. I suggest to the Minister that the Government should showcase proudly everything they are doing on this front, by holding space industry fairs—
Mrs Sheryll Murray (in the Chair)
Order. If this is supposed to be an intervention, it must be short.
Jamie Stone
Could I recommend that consideration is given to this in various parts, such as Caithness in my constituency?
Andrew Griffith
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to champion the spaceport in his constituency and to mention the importance of what is called private space, where companies such as Orbex are pioneering new ways of reaching for the stars. A number of hon. Members have also pointed out the significance of space in making an economic contribution and inspiring future generations. I will take away the hon. Gentleman’s wonderful suggestion of a space youth fair—let us see what we can do together with the UK Space Agency. My hon. Friend the Member for St Austell and Newquay (Steve Double) made exactly the same point about Spaceport Cornwall.
It is often pointed out that the United Kingdom could be more joined up in its space endeavours. The space council, in whichever iteration, brings together other Departments in orbit with the Ministry of Defence so that we can continue to punch above our weight. We have recently opened a joint space command centre for both civilian and military space.
My hon. Friend the Member for St Austell and Newquay mentioned his hard work before Spaceport Cornwall was even established, which is huge testimony to the work he does for his constituents across north Cornwall. He also mentioned Goonhilly and the very significant space cluster that exists in Cornwall. The Government remain extremely supportive of Spaceport Cornwall and all its endeavours, and the point is very well made about the launch capability of the United Kingdom, which I talk about to both the UK Space Agency and the Ministry of Defence in these uncertain times.
Moving to the other end of these isles, the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) talked about Shetland’s spaceport. It does indeed have formidable natural advantages, and so inspired by the opportunity, the Government resolve to do everything they can. That is why my right hon. Friend the Chancellor so significantly put an investment into SaxaVord, subject to reaching acceptable terms. In this very important week for defence spending, I offer this small vignette: the Labour party cut defence and closed RAF Saxa Vord, while this Conservative Government are investing in the future of Shetland. I hope that does not provoke an intervention from the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central (Chi Onwurah). [Interruption.] It is a fact. Facts sometimes can be provocative, but they are nevertheless facts.
We are bringing together many UK assets in space in the Harwell science and innovation campus space cluster. While it is also a significant contribution to levelling up, we have published not just the space industrial plan but plans for space clusters and space investment funds. I believe that the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central and myself will both be speaking at the North West Space Cluster in June, which will give us both an opportunity to commit to the future of space in that important region of the United Kingdom. As my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre Forest raised a point about Adam Smith, space is at the heart of the comparative advantage and the productivity of this nation.
It is a busy world in space. It is going to be a banner year. We hope to see space launches from European soil from the first time. Just this week, the UK Space Agency announced an £8 million investment in the UK innovation & science seed fund. When my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre Forest opened the debate, he talked about the importance of getting capital to flow and of the connection with the City of London and finance. I hope that £8 million at the earliest stage—the seed and even the pre-seed stage—of the lifecycle could make a real contribution to growing the space supply chain and skills.
We will be responding to the Regulatory Horizons Council report on space well within the allotted timeframe. Before we break for the summer we will be publishing the space workforce skills plan, which the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central raised. That is something very close to my heart and, I suspect, to the hearts of other Members. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) has left the Chamber, but Northern Ireland, as with all the regions, is an important part of the space sector. Its legacy and history in aerospace engineering is something that I firmly hope we can continue to bring to bear.
Time is running out and there is so much more we could talk about. We are off to the European Space Agency, and our commitment to that body remains as strong as ever.
Carol Monaghan
The Minister has not mentioned visa fees for space experts coming here, nor has he mentioned OneWeb.
Andrew Griffith
I would be delighted if the hon. Lady wanted to apply for another debate. I can see that there is a significant appetite to discuss some of these issues. The Government are very committed to maximising the economic and strategic advantage of OneWeb. It is a company that is based here. I have visited it just down the road in Shepherd’s Bush—I think it is still called Shepherd’s Bush. The new White City campus is where thousands of satellites, licensed and regulated out of the UK, are being flown as we speak and delivering all sorts of contributions to society. I am very supportive of the hon. Lady’s contribution to science, so I would love to engage further when we have more time. Mrs Murray is looking at me to say, “Hurry up.”
We will continue to work across this House through organisations such as the all-party parliamentary group, with industry, with the supply chain, and with our partners internationally, both through multilateral forums such as the European Space Agency and bilaterally. We will do all that with the objective of ensuring that the United Kingdom remains a strong spacefaring nation, and that the citizens of this country benefit from the prosperity and the inspiration that comes with space.
Mark Garnier
Thank you for overseeing this debate, Mrs Murray. It has been very enlightening, and I am conscious that Scotland is very well represented here. The space industry is fantastic, and I am grateful to the Minister for raising the points he did.
Launch is an interesting area: it is about logistics, but it is the inspirational path that people will look at. When we see rockets launching into space from the United Kingdom, that will be the point when everybody will get incredibly excited. I am grateful that we are doing extraordinarily well on space licensing here with the Civil Aviation Authority.
We have a fantastic opportunity in the space sector. I am an evangelist for the whole sector, and I think it is wonderful. I am grateful to the Minister for giving a commitment on the amount of money that will be invested into the UK space sector. That is absolutely crucial. Space is very difficult; it is very tricky. Getting things working in space requires a lot of investment in getting it up there. Commitment from the UK Government is exactly what we need to de-risk it and generate more private capital coming into the sector. Ultimately, we want it to be sponsored and funded entirely privately, unless the UK Government are a customer. We can get there, but the sector needs help to get that far.
I am conscious that we are about to have a bell for a vote any second now. Thank you very much, Mrs Murray.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the UK space industry.
Written Statements
(3 weeks, 3 days ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Light Dues 2024-25
(3 weeks, 3 days ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Guy Opperman)
My noble Friend, the Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Transport (Lord Davies of Gower) has made the following ministerial statement:
A strong and growing maritime industry is vital to the economy of the United Kingdom.
The work of the general lighthouse authorities, which provide and maintain marine aids to navigation and respond to new wrecks and navigation dangers in some of the busiest waters in the world, is crucial to maintaining our vigorous safety record and continuously improving safety standards.
Light dues for 2024-25 will not be changed but we will look to increase the maximum charge of the tonnage cap from 1 April 2025 to 50,000 tonnes.
The freeze in light dues for 2024-25 will provide industry with much needed clarity for planning at a time of uncertainty in shipping across the globe. The tonnage cap has remained unchanged since 2010, but the number of very larger vessels has changed considerably. Increasing the cap would provide an uplift to revenues that will enable the essential replacement of GLA vessels and potentially avoid increasing light dues over the coming years.
Light dues will continue to be reviewed on an annual basis to ensure that the general lighthouse authorities are challenged to provide an effective and efficient service which offers value for money to light dues payers.
[HCWS425]
Marine Counter-terrorism: Contingent Liability
(3 weeks, 3 days ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (James Cleverly)
I am today laying before the House of Commons a departmental minute on the use of contingent liability by the Home Office to support the delivery of maritime counter terrorism response capabilities by our emergency service partners.
In enabling delivery of these capabilities, this Government have undertaken analysis on the insurance implications. It concluded that HMG indemnity is the most practical solution to ensuring full insurance coverage is in place. While the likelihood of a scenario occurring requiring use of the contingent liability is remote, it will provide operational delivery partners with additional assurance regarding any realised financial liabilities for any claims arising from the response to a maritime terrorist attack, in the event of market failure.
HM Treasury has approved this proposal in principle. In the unlikely event the liability was to manifest, further evidence would be provided and provision for any payment due under the liability will continue to be sought through the normal supply procedure.
A full departmental minute has been laid before the House of Commons providing more detail on this contingent liability.
[HCWS426]