Lords Chamber

Monday 3rd November 2025

(began 7 hours, 57 minutes ago)

Share Debate
Watch Live
Skip to latest contribution
14:48
None Portrait Oral questions: Financial support for London boroughs Lord Bailey of Paddington (Conservative)
-



**** Possible New Speaker ****

turn their lives around. Second question Lord Bailey of Paddington.
14:48
14:48
14:49
14:50
14:51
14:52
14:52
14:53
14:54
14:54
14:55
14:56
14:56
14:57
14:57
14:58
14:58
14:59
15:00
15:00
15:01
15:01
15:02
15:03
15:04
Lord Wilson of Sedgefield Portrait Lord Wilson of Sedgefield (Labour)
-
-
Yeah. will. We will. It's very good of him. We will. We will look into how we ensure that public, public private partnerships work in the future for the benefit, not just for customers, but for the government and for the taxpayer. And we need to ensure that we move forward in this so that everybody is part of the success story, which I think it can be if it's done I think it can be if it's done right. My Lords I'm, I'm somewhat confused by the dissonance from the confused by the dissonance from the minister and and the aforementioned Lord Livermore when I when I questioned him on the same subject, questioned him on the same subject, he said the Treasury was working on, on on appropriate contract models.

on on appropriate contract models. The minister seems much more reticent about the future of public private partnerships and the role private partnerships and the role of them. So is the Treasury in favour of them? And is the Treasury actively seeking ways of making them work for the public, or is it sort of waiting for them to come sort of waiting for them to come along? I thank my noble Lord for that question. I think I will leave that question. I think I will leave off the obviously we've got the budget in, what, three and a half weeks time.

There will be another announcements made there. We do announcements made there. We do want to make this a success for the public, and that's why we've we've opened up we're going to open up opened up we're going to open up from next April. Stocks and shares ISIS to a long term asset fund so that everybody can benefit from it.
15:05
15:06
15:07
15:07
15:07
15:08
15:09
15:09
None Portrait Oral questions: AI training in the UK’s existing workforce Lord Evans of Rainow (Conservative)
-



**** Possible New Speaker ****

that the Treasury will be looking at in the next few weeks before the budget and after. Oral question.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Oral question. Lord Evans of Rainow my Lords, I beg leave to ask the question in my
15:09
15:09
15:10
15:11
15:11
15:12
15:12
15:13
15:14
15:15
15:15
15:17
15:18
15:20
15:20
15:21
15:21
15:22
15:23
15:24
15:24
15:24
15:25
15:26
15:27
15:27
15:27
15:28
15:28
15:29
15:30
15:30
15:31
15:31
Baroness Brinton Portrait Baroness Brinton (Liberal Democrat)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

contents have it after clause 36, amendment 27 the Baroness Brinton. I do apologise, I have just

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I do apologise, I have just dropped my notes. Thank you. I've got one. My Lord. I apologise to got one. My Lord. I apologise to the House for not being able to take part in this bill at an earlier stage, and the Second amendment in this group, number 57, in the name of Lady Lister of Burtersett, addresses the issue of age assessment of young asylum seekers who may or may not be under 18. And we continue to support these amendments.

My amendment 27 deals with a more specific part of the age assessment process, and it seeks to introduce an immediate mandatory referral for a certain compliant, social work led age assessment before any criminal proceedings can be taken against the individual. And I do thank the Home Office for issuing their paper on abbreviated age assessments earlier in the year, which clarifies their position on this sensitive issue of issuing criminal proceedings against an asylum seeker who says they are under 18, but Who officials believe to be over 18.

And from these benches. Whilst it is a helpful clarification, it doesn't change the core position that this amendment wishes to remedy. At the heart of the government note is an abbreviated and expedited process, now led by the National Age Assessment Board, NAB social workers, and we still argue that this process needs to be carried out by local authorities and not by the NAB, because the NAB is answerable to the Home Office and, of course, to its Ministers. Any age assessment process must be independent of the government and its staff, who have already decided often that the individual is probably over 18.

So I have some questions for the minister. The considerably shorter, abbreviated age assessment process has turned the premise of how old an individual is into trying to determine that somebody could be under 18, as opposed to establishing their actual age under the Merten compliance system, whereas the full assessment uses age ranges in much more depth. In January 2022, the Kent intake Unit tried an abbreviated process with an investigation halfway between a full age assessment and a brief inquiry, which was found to be unlawful in the courts.

Can the Minister say how the abbreviated system will be different to the previous Kent intake unit case? And can the minister say if someone is in a hostile hotel saying they are a child, then they are potentially a child in need in that area and therefore the local authority needs to respond. Given that the case law makes it abundantly clear that they have to take a view that is independent from the Home Office. And what would be a miscarriage of justice is if the Home Office tells local authorities who think they are children that they are, that they are not children, that must remain the role of local authorities.

So can the minister confirm that local authorities will still play this absolutely key independent role? This amendment is laid because concerns continue, that the National Age Assessment Board uses a hostile approach to the age assessment process. The Greater Manchester Immigration Aid Unit have investigated the experiences of children who have been assessed by the NAB and found that they operate according to Home Office's political agenda, which is felt by the children being assessed. It carries out assessments that do not follow established age assessment guidance and therefore make it difficult for children to engage meaningfully in the process and it causes distress.

Retraumatization mental health crisis and ongoing trust issues for these children, one young person said to the Greater Manchester Immigration Unit that from time to time you feel that they are against you. This is their intention to end with the report that you are an adult. End quote my Lords. This is not a safe human rights approach to making a decision about whether a young person and child could be deemed to be over 18 and then treated as such if they do not have the safeguarding protections afforded to under 18 s in our court system, I beg to move.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Proposed after clause 36, insert the new clause as printed on the marshalled list.
15:36
Baroness Lister of Burtersett Portrait Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Labour)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

marshalled list. My Lord. I'll speak to amendment 57. In my name and that of other noble lords to whom I'm grateful noble lords to whom I'm grateful for their support, as I am for the Refugee and Migrant Children's Consortium, for all their help. And to my noble friend Lady Longfield, who can't be in her place, but who has written to my noble friend, the Minister, in support of the amendment, drawing on her experience as a former Children's Commissioner for England. I'm also grateful to my noble friend, the Minister, for finding the time the other week to discuss some of this with some of us, and I should make clear my support for amendment 27 and everything that has been said so far.

This amendment is focussed on the age assessment of children at the border. It will create safeguards for asylum seeking children whose age is in dispute, and would set limits on the use of scientific or technological age assessment estimation methods, which I believe the noble Baroness, Lady Neuberger and Lady Hamwee will cover. It also provides for an annual report to Parliament to recap the case very briefly. The Home Office continues to assess, as we have heard incorrectly as adults, a significant number of asylum seeking children arriving in the UK, based on a quick visual assessment of their appearance and demeanour.

This has serious consequences, some of which have already been outlined, which includes significant safeguarding risks for children, are placed in accommodation with adults without appropriate safeguards, including the oversight of child protection professionals. Concern has been expressed about this by the Children's Commissioner, Ofsted and the British Association of Social Workers and just last week by the Home Affairs Select Committee, who called it a serious safeguarding issue. Yet the Home Office appears to be more concerned about the potential risk of an adult masquerading as a child being housed with children, even though child protection professionals will be present in those circumstances.

The Select Committee made clear that it did not share the Home Office's director General of customer services. Confidence in the current system. In his recent inspection report, the Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration highlighted that over a decade of concerns around the Home Office's perfunctory visual assessments remain unaddressed and the questions about policy and practice remain unanswered. He noted that inspectors were surprised at the lack of curiosity from individual officers, and corporately about decisions that were subsequently disputed and overturned, and that the view that there was no learning to take from the assessments made by local authority social workers, to which noble Baroness Lady Brinton referred.

I welcome the fact that the government have accepted all the Chief Inspector's recommendations and that they are working to improve the data, which have been woefully poor hitherto. I would simply draw attention now to what the Chief Inspector described as his overall message, namely, that the Home Office should look to work more closely and collaboratively with external stakeholders, among whom he included NGOs as much as possible in designing and delivering its processes. Thus, his first recommendation was that the Home Office should produce a stakeholder map and engagement plan that takes full account of the practical and presentational value of involving external stakeholders, including non-government organisations, in the development and delivery of relevant policies and best practice, including, but not limited to input into and implementation of each of his other recommendations.

May I therefore ask my noble friend how he plans to respond in practice to this recommendation, and in particular, whether he would agree to the establishment of a task and finish group that includes NGOs, notably members of the Refugee and Migrant Children's Consortium, to work with officials on taking forward the Chief Inspector's recommendations. I understand that such Cabinet, such collaboration has existed in the past, but was ended about ten years ago, so it would not be setting a precedent. I know it would be warmly welcomed by stakeholders, especially if provision were made to hear from those of direct experience of age disputes.

The proposal was also supported by my noble friend Lady Longfield in her letter to to the Minister. My Lords, I've I've made clear to my noble friend the Minister, that I do not plan to push the amendment to a vote, but that I would be very disappointed if he is not able to agree to this very modest proposal, which does no more than embody the spirit of what the Chief Inspector has recommended. My Lords. I'll hopefully.
15:41
Lord Harper Portrait Lord Harper (Conservative)
-
-
Not speak.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I hope the Minister won't feel this is becoming a pattern because I, I'm, I think I'm largely going I, I'm, I think I'm largely going to be on the same side as the minister on this particular issue, I think, and hopefully bring a I think, and hopefully bring a little bit of, of balance to this debate, because I think both noble debate, because I think both noble ladies that have spoken have mentioned the Chief Inspector, and I looked carefully at his report.

I looked carefully at his report. And there are there are points on both sides. I think it was a very balanced report, and it's worth balanced report, and it's worth just putting some of the points on the record that the noble lady who just spoke didn't put on the record. He made the point that accurately assessing the age of young people assessing the age of young people is undoubtedly difficult, and it has always been very difficult. It has always been very difficult.

It was difficult when I was the immigration minister between 2012 immigration minister between 2012 and 2014, the same debates that take place now took place then, and take place now took place then, and it remains difficult. And one of the reasons it's difficult is because if you're not careful, because if you're not careful, there is an incentive in the system because we treat rightly, rightly, we treat children differently and more generously than we treat adults. If you're not careful, adults game the system and say their children when they're not, and that is a problem.

It's a problem because you put adults in an environment with children, and that does present a child protection risk. And secondly, it enables adults who've entered the country illegally and inappropriately to try and avoid the consequences of their actions. And that therefore brings into disrepute the system which isn't actually in the good for anyone. And the inspector makes the point. And I'll do both sides of this. He does make the point that the Home Office does get some of its initial age decisions wrong, and it would be helpful if both sides accepted that.

So that is a point, I think, for the Minister to recognise that this is difficult. The Home Office doesn't always get it right. But he also said, and I think this is very important, that the debate would be better if both the Home Office and its critics could agree that some migrants lie about their age, and that to attempt at that, not to attempt to make some form of initial age assessment, which both noble Ladies that have spoken have criticised, risks incentivising more to do so.

So there's a balance to strike here, and my concern about the two amendments, and I'm pleased that they aren't going to be pressed to the vote because I wouldn't be able to support them. The first one, amendment 27, I think, puts a bright line rule in place, which I just think effectively will strengthen the incentive for anybody to claim that they're a child, because that amendment would mean automatically they would go into the process and be treated as a child until it had been shown that they weren't.

And I just think that would make the Home Office's job on behalf of us all in having a functioning immigration system even more difficult. My concern about amendment 57, given the actually the the last oral question we just had and the pace of technology is that in subsection three, it says it starts specifying how we should use technological methods of age estimation, including facial age estimation, and saying that they mustn't be used as the sole or primary basis for determining age or overriding the presumption that someone is a child.

Now, my problem with that is the pace of that technology is such that I don't think we should be ruling out its use as the determining factor in statute. And since this, my understanding is, and I'm sure there are experts in the House on AI who can correct me if I'm wrong, is that this technology can get somebody's age within a few years of the true age. Now, I accept that when you're on the the boundary of being a child or an adult, that is quite important.

But the point is that is pretty accurate. And who knows where that is going to have gone in a few years time. And I wouldn't want there to be something in primary legislation if we had a very accurate method, perhaps with other things of determining somebody's age, that we ruled it out in primary legislation, given all the complexities around that. So I think caution should be adopted when using technology. I think that's absolutely right. So I think that if that's the spirit of the amendment, then that is perfectly sensible.

But I think having a bright line rule in there that prevents it becoming more important than it will be today if it's proved to be very accurate, I think would be unwise. And I know that the minister and his colleagues have are trialling this technology, and I, for one, will look forward to seeing the results of that pilot that they're running to see how accurate in practice with the cohorts of children and adults that will be put through the system, how accurate that technology is.

So I think, in conclusion, all I would say is this is a difficult area. I think it's wise for the Home Office to accept that it sometimes makes mistakes, as the Chief Inspector has recommended. But I do think critics of the Home Office ought to accept that this is a difficult area, even if the Home Office is doing everything it possibly can and mistakes will be made. But also, we mustn't design a system that sets up incentives for adults to wrongly claim that their children, in order to gain and evade the system.

If you do that, you will test the patience of the British people and the current position, which I think is, as we've had in debates before in this House, where I think for unaccompanied asylum seeking children, the British public has a lot of generosity. If it feels that adults are using that generosity to gain the system, that generosity will disappear. And I think everyone will rue the day if that's the case. So I think we should all listen to what the chief inspector said in his balanced conclusions.

Recognise both the difficult and the Home Office makes mistakes. But also there are migrants who lie about their age in order to gain the system. And if everybody accepts both of those points, then I think, as the chief inspector says, we will have a better and more balanced debate to get to a strengthened asylum system, but one that's fair, not just to those claiming asylum, but that's also fair to the British people and their generosity. their generosity.
15:48
15:49
Baroness Neuberger Portrait Baroness Neuberger (Crossbench)
-
-
My Lords, I rise to support amendment 57, to which I've added my name, and I'd also like to thank the Refugee and Migrant Children's Consortium for all the help that they have given us. I'd also like to support amendment 27 for very good reason and not for the first time. Amendment 57 introduces statutory safeguards for individuals whose age is disputed. And to the noble Lord Lord Harper, I would say we do not suggest that we should prohibit visual assessments at the border.

What this amendment 57 ensures is that those assessments comply with child protection principles, especially the benefit of the doubt standard established in case law and international guidance. And this principle requires that where age is uncertain, the individual should be treated as a child unless there is compelling evidence to the contrary. And that's the principle which I believe we should stick to now. The amendments align with recommendations from the independent Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration and the noble Lady.

Baroness Lister has already said that. But crucially, the amendment also addresses the government's proposal to use AI based facial age estimation. My Lords, I feel that I'm a broken record on the subject of facial age estimation and indeed on age estimation in general. We've had to contend with the proposal in the past to use x ray systems to determine age and time after time. We've argued that it's not only inaccurate to do so, and the noble Lady Baroness Butler-Sloss has made that point very clearly, and that's been using our teeth or wrists for x rays.

But it's unethical to expose people to unnecessary radiation, and x ray should only be used for the benefit of the people concerned. And we're delighted that the present government is not proposing x ray amongst its scientific methods. And we're also immensely grateful to the Minister for having conversations with us on this subject. However, the AI systems suggested are not foolproof either. Indeed, independent evaluation show that these systems have error margins of between 2 and 4 years of the noble Lord, Lord Harper has said, and they exhibit demographic bias, which is exactly what the noble Baroness Lady Butler-Sloss has said.

A particularly, it turns out, for younger ages and for minority ethnic groups. And academic research confirms that children's faces are harder to assess accurately, and claims of near-perfect accuracy remain unverified. Overreliance on such technology risks replicating systematic errors rather than fixing them, so it means we'll be replacing human error with a machine error. Now, we all recognise that age assessment is complex and can't be solved by one measure, but we do believe that the government needs to listen to experts and adopt safeguards that make the system safer for children, and amendment 57 offers a practical, rights based solution.

It preserves operational flexibility at the border. It reinforces compliance with children's legislation, and it ensures transparency and accountability in the use of technology. So I very much hope that the noble Lord, the Minister, can give us some more details about how the trial of this AI technology will work, and indeed, that he is going to be able to give us reassurance that it will not be relied upon unless it is truly accurate. And it looks as if we're a long way from that.
15:53
Baroness Hamwee Portrait Baroness Hamwee (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I was too. Late to. Get my name down to Baroness Brinton amendment. I'm sure she will understand the points that have been made on the Second

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendment in this group very largely apply to her amendment as well. The noble.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The noble. Lord, Lord Harper suggests, tells us that adults gain the system. I would agree with him that safeguarding applies both ways. safeguarding applies both ways. Both if someone is assessed as a child when he is, usually he is an child when he is, usually he is an adult, both when he is. Assessed as an adult, when in fact he's a child. an adult, when in fact he's a child. So the question that we have is where you start from? Where do you where you start from? Where do you how do you approach this, that claimants are fraudulent or that claimants should be believed until the contrary is shown the benefit of the doubt as the noble lady Baroness Lady Neuberger has has said, where is the greatest danger? It will be obvious from my signature to Baroness Lister amendment, where I believe it is.

I think two I'll accuse myself of this. I don't want to accuse other people of it, but there is a cultural bias. And I say that even though I've got a lot of Middle Eastern blood in me, and so I shouldn't be as biased as someone who is an ancient Briton. But I detected it in myself. I accept that this is a hugely difficult area, and that technology is advancing almost as fast as we can draft amendments, which is it makes it all the more difficult.

I'm sure it's advanced a long way since the Guardian law. I was stopped because I seemed not to be the same as the person shown in a photograph in my passport, because I was wearing earrings, which meant the distance between my ears was not the real distance. I asked a couple of questions for written answer recently. The the first one I got a sort of generalised assurance, so I asked some very specific questions, which inevitably got an answer about the Home Office providing further updates regarding testing in due course.

And in a way, that's the thrust of my question today to ask the Minister how and when Parliament is to be updated on what is going on, and not just Parliament, but all the stakeholders. It's not a word I like particularly, but it describes the variety of people who are concerned with this. In. I can't find the date 6th of October. The answer included if and when this technology is used in live cases, full information and guidance will be available to those undergoing facial age estimation, as well as to staff involved in the process.

And that suggests to me that the Home Office stays in its silo looking at the issues, looking at the process without involving all those stakeholders who need to be included, who include social workers. For instance, in the case of the Second Amendment, social workers in local authorities, because it's the local authorities who have to carry the can, who have to look after children who are under 18. And the figures and I, I accept that the figures that are reported on Gov.uk UK are only up to quarter two of 2024.

So I'm making the point as a general one for all of us not accusing the government of anything, but they show that of those reported three sets of figures, the in three quarters. Rather. I don't mean three quarters, I mean three of the quarters. The issue was resolved at the claimant being over 18, though in fact the numbers show that there were very little difference between those under and those over 18 in the particular quarters. But in five quarters, the other five quarters, considerably more were quarters, considerably more were found to be less than 18, including 240 compared to eight at less than 240 compared to eight at less than 18 compared to 18 plus 744 at less.

Less than 18. I've done fudging my figures. I'm not meaning to fudging them, I'm just making a mess of them because I've not written them out properly. But the differences in the numbers are less than 18, were considerably more than those found to be over 18 the. Inspector made a number of recommendations. The government has accepted them all. That's the formal response. Then followed by. Explanation, which again doesn't seem to be as precise as I one would like it to be.

And I hope that particularly where the Home Office has said in response to the Inspector that the date of implementation will be December 2025, that's next month, we can hear that the Minister will agree to reporting on those various points, perhaps in February, very soon, because December isn't very far away. If things are going to happen in December and I can see he is checking up on this, it would be very helpful to the House to know that there is in place a system for reporting on what's going on.

Yes, sir.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My my Lords, I think the evidence that's coming from this evidence that's coming from this debate we're having this morning, this afternoon is that there are examples, a lot of examples where people are being wrongly assessed as adults. This last weekend, I met as adults. This last weekend, I met with a group of local authority leaders, and they told me about a leaders, and they told me about a situation last November and I said, has it improved since about children being kept in children being kept in unaccompanied children in hotels who came out and came into their who came out and came into their care? And I said, has it improved? And they said, well, the numbers And they said, well, the numbers may have changed, but we are still having examples of young people who have been taken out of the system because they've been wrongly assessed.

So I think the current assessed. So I think the current system for determining the age of unaccompanied children seeking asylum does remain deeply flawed.
16:01
Lord German Portrait Lord German (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
And I think there's not there aren't many who would accept that, that it's all working really well. We already have some indication that the numbers in the cohort of people who are being sent back to France included a number of children, largely because they were inspected very rapidly upon entry by border officials. And as we know from the noble and learned Lady that Baroness Butler-Sloss that we that the appearance, the demeanour and physical development are all affected by the environment, life experiences, ethnicity and that making visual assessments is notoriously unreliable.

And I, in answer to the the question about, you know, there are some people who are going to play the system. What we need to understand is when children are wrongly treated as adults, they are denied the rights and protections afforded them as children, and they risk and risking being placed in an adult accommodation, detained or even prosecuted. Now that's a clear safeguarding failure. Misidentification of children as adults poses a greater safeguarding risk than the reverse, primarily because adult systems lack the robust protections necessary for children.

And we've already seen cases where individuals who raise their ages under 18 were subsequently arrested and charged in the adult criminal justice system, leading to time spent in adult prison on remand or convicted of immigration offences, so that the stakes in this bill are extremely high. And with the new offences related to immigration, crime contained within this bill, which carry substantial periods of imprisonment, sometimes up to 14 years, it is critical that we safeguard against the unintended consequence of criminalising vulnerable individuals seeking protection.

Now, I know that the government has started to look very carefully at these issues because the joint committee stage, we had this discussion and the the these concerns about how the amendment would operate in practice were mentioning the risk of delays that could arise from waiting for a full assessment, which is something the government said potentially frustrating the removals process and adding to asylum backlogs. But the government did at that time, and the noble Lord Minister will know that he gave he gave assurances that existing safeguards are in place.

He named three that the Home Office decision on age for immigration purposes is not binding on UK courts. That the Crown Prosecution Service is advised of age dispute issues and determines if pursuing prosecution is in the public interest. And thirdly, that the Home Office has introduced an additional safeguard whereby an abbreviated age assessment conducted by qualified social workers is provided for individuals assessed as significantly, significantly over 18 who maintain their claim to be a child and are identified for potential criminal charges.

But my Lords, these assurances do not go far enough when a child's liberty and future are at stake. Firstly, relying on the CPS prosecutorial discretion and the courts ability to take a decision on age retrospectively is insufficient. When we know that individuals have already been wrongfully detained and imprisoned in adult settings, the risk of unlawful detention must be mitigated at the earliest possible point before the charges proceed. Secondly, the proposal of an abbreviated age assessment is inadequate in the context of criminal law.

This amendment requires a comprehensive and compliant age assessment which adheres to professional standards and best practice, and involves gathering information holistically. And I should say at this point that the the the other amendment in this group, of course, does. And as the the noble Lady has already said, Baroness Lister has already said we do need to engage with all parties in respect of this matter. There are so many different interests here, not just local authorities and and the key people within them, but those who have expertise in this area.

It is a difficult area and therefore you need to bring together all those expert expertise to ensure that justice, through a full assessment, is preferable to the costs, both human and financial, of wrongful imprisonment or unlawful detention. The government is right to focus on improving the robustness of the process, and that losing the, you know, includes looking at what the Na, the A does and how it operates, and whether it is up to the job of doing the things which we have been talking about already in this amendment.

The issue of facial age estimation technology, it's almost a case of saying, well, in the future we may have that possibility. But as with anything, if we were trying to tackle new drugs or or give or give new treatments to people, we wouldn't do it without sound, professional advice that it was actually in order and would actually produce the right results. So the question must remain open to that matter. And I'm sure the noble Lord, the Minister, will know that this exploration of this issue may have some way to travel.

So amendment 27, in the name of my noble friend, is a fundamental safeguard, ensuring that expert child focussed social work assessment occurs before an individual is drawn into the criminal justice system. As an adult, we know this amendment is being supported by organisations across the children's sector. It ensures that the principle of protecting children from criminal proceedings is enshrined in law by requiring a high standard of age verification by appropriate experts, before any prosecution can proceed. And I would say also, of course, in this group, we do support the the intention of amendment 57 also.

But I think there are very serious matters here, which I hope the noble Lord, the Minister, will be able to address.
16:07
Lord Cameron of Lochiel Portrait Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Conservative)
-
-
Earlier here.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Begin the second day of report with the first of two great groups on age assessments. And as with the on age assessments. And as with the committee stage, they have again produced a very stimulating debate. The two amendments in this group, The two amendments in this group, tabled by the noble Baronesses, Lady Brinton and Lady Lister, approached the issue. However, from approached the issue. However, from a different standpoint to our later amendments, and that is perhaps not surprising. But it will also come surprising.

But it will also come as no surprise that we take a different and opposing view to the different and opposing view to the underlying principles in both these amendments. It cannot be right, as amendments. It cannot be right, as is proposed, for a person to be automatically assumed to be a child. Whether age cannot be proved by way Whether age cannot be proved by way of documentary evidence. We know that too many illegal migrants that too many illegal migrants purposefully tear up or lose.

Coincidentally, their passports or identity documents, or indeed, as identity documents, or indeed, as has been said, lie about their age so as to game the system. Once in the United Kingdom, my noble friend Lord Harper made several compelling arguments in respect to both these arguments in respect to both these amendments, and I have very little to add except to say that we have to add except to say that we have seen too many cases where individuals have claimed to be children despite being grown adults, and that to these benches represents a grave safeguarding represents a grave safeguarding failure.

So for all those reasons, my Lords, we cannot support these amendments.
16:09
Lord Hanson of Flint Portrait Lord Hanson of Flint, The Minister of State, Home Department (Labour)
-
-
I'm grateful, if I may say so, to the noble lady Baroness Lister for her amendment 57 my noble friend, and also to Baroness Brinton for her amendment 27, because it has stimulated a discussion. And I'm grateful also for the letter that I received from my noble friend Baroness Longfield, which she sent to me today to give support to my noble friend Baroness Lister. Amendment 57. We've had a number of contributions, and I'll try and refer to the issues that have been raised as part of the discussion today in this report stage.

I was grateful also, if I may say so, for the chance to have a meeting with the noble Baroness Neuberger and Baroness Brinton and my noble friend. I think Baroness Lister as well was was present. I know she wasn't present for that one. I've had so many meetings with my noble friend Baroness Lister I lose track of which which meetings that we that we've had. But anyway, I was grateful for the opportunity to meet with colleagues to discuss those amendments in due course. I think there's general consensus to date that age assessment is a difficult area of work, and no single combination of assessment techniques are able to determine chronological age with precision, and members from all sides of the House have raised that issue.

The government takes it extremely seriously, and the amendments are ones which I think are right to press the government on the issues that we've raised to date. I think Baroness Butler-sloss as well, put her finger on the difficulty sometimes of age assessments, and it's self-evidently a very difficult area for us to examine in detail. Could I just start, though, by also mentioning the report from the Independent Borders Inspectorate? I think it's important to say at the start of this discussion that the government did accept all eight recommendations, several of which are in progress.

Noble Lord Harper and my noble friend Baroness Lister have referred to that amongst others. They include plans to proactively engage with local authorities, appointment to the noble lady. Brinton brought forward social workers and key stakeholders to advance progress on the recommendations, and I hope that throughout this, members of the House will recognise that the government takes this issue extremely seriously. If I can, I'd like to start with amendment 57, which seeks to incorporate an age assessment measure into the bill.

The proposed clauses would change the current age threshold for a significantly over 18 policy from 18 to 21 with written reasons, and would put this onto a statutory footing. Now, initial decisions on age are an important first step to ensure individuals are routed to the correct immigration process. Immigration officers currently only treat an individual as an adult, where they have no credible and clear documentary evidence proving their age, and two members of the Home Office staff independently assess that their physical appearance and demeanour very strongly suggest that the individual is significantly over the age of 18.

This approach to initial decisions on age is being considered by the Supreme Court, and held to be lawful. The government believes that significantly over 18 is the right threshold, and that raising this even higher would present significant safeguarding risks. By putting adults into settings with children. The principle of doubt remains a key element of the policy. Where there is doubt that an individual is not significantly over 18 and individually will be treated as a child pending further assessment by the local authority.

The point that the noble lady Baroness Brinton has raised. But it is extremely important because obviously if an individual is deemed to be over 18 and isn't, that presents safeguarding risks and vice versa. If an individual is deemed to be under 18 and is actually over 18, then that equally presents safeguarding risks. So it's extremely important that we examine this individual detail in some detail. The question of date has been raised and it's important as well. And I've given assurances in the meeting that we did have with the noble lady and with Baroness Neuberger that we are collecting data and that the government expect to resume publishing age assessment data in early 2026.

We have got developments now representing a significant advancement on technical infrastructure, enabling more accurate and consistent recording of key activities and therefore, the up to date age assessment data is not currently published, but work is underway to develop improved recording and reporting on those issues. And that, I think, I hope, addresses the amendment seeking to place a statutory duty on the Secretary of State to lay annual reports on this data. We will have very shortly that data, and I do hope that we can publish it.

There has been significant discussion, and the noble Lord German Baroness Neuberger have made reference to this. And indeed the noble Lord Harper did as well to the facial age estimation technology and its use in age assessment processes. I want to just refer noble members to the written ministerial statement on this subject, which was issued by my colleague, the Minister for Border Security and Asylum, in July 2025. Facial age estimation is indeed being currently explored by the Home Office as a potential assistive tool in the assessment process, and again, going back to the points that the noble Lord Harper mentioned, further testing and trialling has been commissioned with the intention of developing this technology further.

In late 2026. Now, the results of this testing and the necessary validation are required before any final decisions are made on how best to implement this technology. However, the exploratory work that we've undertaken has shown that the technology is continuously improving and as evidenced in emerging scientific literature, including the recent report issued by the National Institute of Standards and Technology, this is showing that the potential is there for this to be of assistance. Now, again, this amendment potentially would ensure that the work didn't progress to the extent that it could be.

It's a bit too early, in my view, to rule that out. At the very point the noble Lord Harper has has made. I'm grateful to have him on my side yet again, a novel experience for for me. But there we go. I'm grateful to have that support, and I think it would be premature to restrict the potential use of this technology while work is ongoing. Now, again, we are going to examine this in detail. We're going to look at the safeguards in detail, but I hope those comments reassure honourable members that the relevance and substantial work is in train.

And therefore amendment 57 is unnecessary. The government is committed to continuous and constructive engagement on age assessment. Now, the noble Baronesses Lead Amendment amendment 27. I agree with her on the importance of safeguarding children. And on the 30th of June this year, the government introduced additional safeguards in criminal cases to mitigate the risk of a genuine child being imprisoned in adult prisons for immigration offences where an individual who has been assessed to be significantly over 18 maintains their claim to be a child and has identified potentially for criminal charges, the Home Office will provide for an abbreviated age assessment to be conducted by qualified social workers.

Anyone determined to be a child or needing more in-depth assessment will be referred to a local authority for an assessment, and she's raised a number of key points on that. And let me just say to her that the National Age Assessment Board, which launched on the March the 23rd, 31st, 2023, has now rolled out nationally, continues to offer significant improvements to our process for age. Assessing, continues to have expert social workers whose task is to support local councils in collecting comprehensive age assessments, and the Borders Inspectorate recognised in their report recently that the National Age Assessment Board is a good example of partnership working and has undoubtedly made a positive contribution for the future.

Now, the noble lady mentioned that it is located in the Home Office and that that is true, but its assessment and its members of staff are distinct from Home Office immigration decision making functions, and the aim of achieving accurate age assessments will remain its primary consideration. So even where they refer to the National Age Assessment Board, local authorities continue to have a very important role in age assessment decisions taken in respect of children in their care. So I think in summary, if I may say so, it's helpful and I'm grateful to all noble lords and ladies who have contributed to the debate.

They've all made extremely valid points probing the government's position, but ultimately it is a difficult issue to assess. We have safeguarding challenges by getting that wrong, and therefore we think that the proposals, as currently outlined are satisfactory and that both amendment 57 and amendment 27 would water down and create certain further difficulties on these issues. But I say to all members who've spoken in the debate that the government keeps this matter under review. The government will look at facial recognition, the government will report back.

The government will have further statistics on these issues in due course. And the government's intention is to try to ensure that we do get as accurate information as possible to ensure that we place individuals in the appropriate category for safeguarding and other that.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Excuse me. I'm sorry to interrupt, but before the noble Lord sits down, I think I'm allowed Lord sits down, I think I'm allowed to do this. I, I raise a very specific question about how the specific question about how the government proposed to respond to the Chief Inspector's the Chief Inspector's recommendation about involving stakeholders, and I did ask him, and we did raise this at the and we did raise this at the meeting that he's forgotten I was at, but I was at and I don't know, at, but I was at and I don't know, don't worry about a task and finish group that would involve stake, group that would involve stake, particularly NGOs, because they bring such understanding to the bring such understanding to the issues.

So I said I would be very disappointed if the noble Lord, my disappointed if the noble Lord, my noble friend, refused that. But I'm even more disappointed that he

**** Possible New Speaker ****

hasn't even addressed it. So well. I think actually, I did

**** Possible New Speaker ****

So well. I think actually, I did address that for my noble friend. I think I did, I said at the very beginning of my statement that the government has accepted all eight recommendations from the inspectorate, included plans to inspectorate, included plans to proactively engage with local authorities, social workers and key stakeholders to advance progress on the recommendations. And I gave her in the meeting that I briefly flicked through when I met her, I think three times in the last couple of weeks on various meetings, and I did give her that assurance in the meeting, and I've given that assurance again today, and I hope that assurance will satisfy my noble friend.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm really sorry to push this, but what I was asking was how that recommendation was going to be recommendation was going to be implemented and that it I mean, if he is giving an assurance that NGOs he is giving an assurance that NGOs will be included in the the discussions, that as to how the all discussions, that as to how the all the recommendations of the Chief inspector should be implemented,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

then I'm very happy. But I'm not sure that's exactly what he's said. Well.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Well. Let me say it again and see if I can help my noble friend. Once again, the government has accepted again, the government has accepted all eight recommendations. That's clear. Right? We've accepted all the recommendations from the Borders Inspectorate. We've Borders Inspectorate. We've accepted them all. This includes and this is one of the recommendations the board has. Inspectorate made plans to proactively engage with local authorities, social workers and key stakeholders of which voluntary stakeholders of which voluntary agencies are key stakeholders.

And I met them again last week to I met them again last week to discuss this very matter, to progress the recommendations. Now, progress the recommendations. Now, how that's going to pan out will be for my right hon. Friend, the Minister for Asylum and Immigration, Alex Norris, to take forward. But I'm giving this House the assurance that's the engagement level that we're trying to give. And on that basis, I hope again, I can satisfy my noble friend and that she will withdraw her amendments and that the noble Lady will also withdraw hers.
16:22
Baroness Brinton Portrait Baroness Brinton (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
My Lords, I'm very grateful to all the noble Lords who have spoken during the debate we've had on age assessment, and I'm particularly grateful to to Lady Lister for her amendment, which, as the noble Lord, the minister recognised, actually sets a wider framework for the concerns about age assessment. Whereas my amendment was highly specific, about one area of concern, and I think I would say to both the minister and also to Lord Harper and Lord Cameron, nobody is saying in either of these two amendments that we don't think there should be any age assessments.

What we're arguing for is age assessments that are appropriate and safe for the particular circumstances that the two different amendments address. And I'm very, very grateful that Lord Harper said, you know, this isn't an exact science. You know, we know we understand that. And I think that's exactly where part of our concerns come from. And I think full assessments is the only way, particularly when young people who say they are children might end up being treated during a criminal case as an adult is a very particular concern, which is the reason that I made the amendment because those under 18 are afforded particular support during cases that isn't available.

If, therefore, the age assessment is extremely important. And that's why my amendment asked for a full age assessment, not the abbreviated age assessment, which the Minister says is now being is now taking place. So I think to summarise as best I can without taking anything away from Lady Listers intervention just now is to say we hear the noble Lord, the Minister saying that there have been changes and that you are watching and developing as certainty is developing, watching and developing as as time progresses from this side of the argument, we say we don't see enough evidence that these systems are safe.

And I hope that the Minister will continue to discuss with us outside of the passage of this bill, because some of us have been arguing for this for three years or more, and we still have concerns which we are seeing in the current system right now. When somebody who is a child has been treated as an adult and then found to be a child. My Lords, that should not be happening. But on the basis that this is a progression. And I hope that the the noble Lord, the minister, will meet with us in

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the future. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment. The amendment be withdrawn. The
16:26
None Portrait Amdt: 28 Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (Green Party)
-



**** Possible New Speaker ****

The amendment be withdrawn. The amendment. Is withdrawn in 238. Moulsecoomb.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Moulsecoomb. My Lords, I would like to say first and noble Lord the Minister, that these are meant to be helpful that these are meant to be helpful amendments. And I think perhaps if they were read with a sort of favourable eye, they might actually be seen as such. To start, I would remind your Lordships that freedom from executive detention is the most fundamental right of all. It's not only an international human right, but a national one as well, reaching back 800 years to the Magna Carta.

In the absence of any statutory time limit on the length of detention other than for children and pregnant women, the right to liberty has been safeguarded in our common law amendments to strip back section 12 and uphold the common law. During the passage of the illegal migration Bill that was back in July 2023, were supported from all corners of this House. Quite a motley crew of very noble Lords. Amendment 28 and the consequential changes made by amendment 30 seek to simply restore the common law to the position it was in before section 12 of the Illegal Migration Act 2023 was brought into force, before section 12 sought to chip away at it.

With so many other provisions of the Illegal Migration Act to be repealed by clauses 38 and 39 of this bill, section 12 should be added to their number. And there's two reasons. First, the reasonableness of a period of immigration detention should not simply be in the hands of the minister, down to her opinion. It should be entrusted to the responsibility of our courts in our world renowned common law system. This isn't to say that courts will ignore the Home Secretary's views.

On the contrary, in 2007, our Court of Appeal specifically acknowledged it will no doubt take account of the Home Secretary's views as may seem proper. Second, by returning to the common law position, we would also uphold the right to liberty under international human rights law. In 2016, the European Court of Human Rights agreed that it was this consideration by domestic courts of the reasonableness of each individual detention that ensures the absence of a general fixed time limit in the UK's system, because it does not in principle give rise to increased risk of arbitrariness.

Finally, repealing section 12 of the Illegal Migration Act is consistent with recommendations of the Joint Committee on Human Rights at paragraph 103 of its report on this bill, it clearly stated, we agree with our predecessor committee and recommended the repeal of section 12 to restore certainty and to ensure compliance with article five. Now, turning to amendment 32, in my name, I also take forward the task of continuing to recommend the government leaves out the retrospective element of the detention power in clause 41.

That's the power to detain people when considering whether to make a deportation order on the basis of their presence. This amendment is modest when compared with the recommendation of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, which was to leave out clause 41 of this bill altogether. This amendment is simply about removing Retrospectivity in subsection 17, which treats the detention power as always having had an effect. Now the government's position appears to be that clause 41 is necessary to clarify matters, but it is not retrospective.

Both cannot be true. It's either necessary because it is retrospective and protects the government from false imprisonment challenges, or it's unnecessary because it is already the position in law. The government's own impact assessment, when read carefully, shows it's been unlawful since the 20th of October 2014 to detain people in the way they have changing the law now and treating it as if it had always had effect will not provide legal certainty nor foreseeability to people detained in these past 11 years.

It only insulates the government from challenge and inhibits people from having a domestic remedy and compensation for their unlawful detention, and this precedence of making unlawful deprivation of liberty lawful places us on a very slippery slope. I would ask the government to reconsider its position on both of these amendments to repeal a section of the law prior to prior government's passing the Illegal Migration Act to erode our common law and to leave out retrospectivity from its new detention order, all to uphold the right to liberty, the right to be free from executive detention, that most fundamental right of all.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

I beg to move. Amendment proposed clause 38. Page 32. Line 20. Leave out. 11 and.
16:30
Lord Harper Portrait Lord Harper (Conservative)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

Insert 12. My Lords I rise just to briefly

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords I rise just to briefly set out why? I don't think this is a particularly helpful amendment, which I'm sure noble Baroness is which I'm sure noble Baroness is not entirely surprised to hear, and I'm not sure. Despite what she said, it's entirely intended to be helpful. This is one of these areas where, again, there's a there's a balance to strike. And I think the Illegal Migration Act. Absolutely. She's quite right. Did shift the balance a little in favour of the Home Secretary because I think the balance has drifted too far in the other direction.

And this is another area. And I strongly support the need to have some limits and restraint on the ability of the Home Secretary to use detention powers. But again, if you're not careful, those that try and frustrate the system inappropriately, people who have no right to be here use the rules to try and frustrate an attempt to legitimately remove them from the country. And I saw many cases where people who had no right to be in the United Kingdom, who had failed on a number of occasions in legal processes to stay here, use this as another tool.

If you have very bright line rules and you have very strict rules about it, then the danger is that they gain the system and frustrate it. And the Home Secretary doesn't want to detain more people than is absolutely necessary. There's a very significant cost in doing so. The Home Office, as she well knows, does not have an unlimited budget, but it is necessary to have these powers. And I certainly felt that the powers that were in place before this act, the provision that the the noble Lady Baroness Jones is trying to repeal, I felt did need strengthening.

And as I said, the it does move things in the direction of the Home Secretary. But as with all of the Home Secretary's powers, she has to exercise them in a reasonable and lawful manner. And all of her decisions that she takes are challengeable by way of judicial review. And the language in the Illegal Migration Act still has the words. Whether the detention is reasonably necessary, it still has that test in it. The Home Secretary has to exercise that judgement. And if somebody feels that the Home Secretary has got that judgement wrong, then it's still open to challenge it, but it has shifted.

I agree with the noble Lady Baroness Jones has shifted the balance in favour of the Home Secretary. And I come back to what I said in the in the earlier group, there's a balance to strike here. And in a lot of the debate so far, it's all coming from one particular angle, which is coming from and I don't I don't criticise the noble Lady for doing it. I just feel that there needs to be the other side of the argument put, so that the House is able to have a more balanced argument, to look at the necessity of having a firm system, which, yes, allows people to come to the United Kingdom and stay here, whether they're if they're following our rules or they have a good, legitimate asylum claim.

But equally, it's equally important that where they do not, they are not able to use the rules and regulations that are there to protect people, to frustrate the legitimate exercise of that power. And as I say, for all those that want a system, whether it's of asylum or allowing people to come here legitimately, I do urge them to be careful what they wish for, because we are getting to the point where the public, I think, are losing patience. And if the public don't feel that ministers who are ultimately accountable both to the House of Commons and the House of Lords, if they feel they're not accountable, those ministers are not accountable, don't have the powers to deliver a system that the public want to see.

Then public belief and confidence in the system will disappear. And that would be very dangerous. And I think for those that want a more liberal system, they would rue the day that that happened. So I think having that balance is necessary, and I think the changes that were made in the Illegal Migration Act on detention, I think those powers moved in the right direction. And the fact that the government, although it's done a pretty wholesale removal of the powers in that act, hasn't removed this one, I think suggests to me that ministers think that that shift in the balance was sensible, and I therefore hope that it remains in place.

And I therefore, regretfully, if she pressed it, I wouldn't be able to support the amendment that the noble Lady has tabled. But I hope she understands why, and it won't be a surprise, I suspect, to know that I wasn't able to support it. it.
16:35
16:37
Lord German Portrait Lord German (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
And my Lords just a brief intervention from us, I think, in in relation to this matter, which was raised at committee stage, and I'm grateful to the noble Lord, the Minister, for telling me what reasons he had for not taking out section 12 of the Illegal Migration Act. It does raise some further questions, which I guess the noble Lord the minister might might have been expecting, but essentially what the amendments that the noble Lady has moved or is talking to collectively aim to inject greater protection for civil liberties, ensure proportionality in the use of detention powers and demand clarity regarding the mental element required for the new immigration offences in this bill.

The matter I would like to raise to the Minister, if I just can read the last two sentences of his response about section 12 policies to differentiate in line with the provision. This is about section 12 of the illegal act can be resumed if required. They're not in use at the moment and have not been in use since this government took office. This government is prioritising steps to restore order to the asylum system, etc. as you might expect. But while the government reviews this approach, it would not be appropriate to remove these provisions from the statute book.

So could the Minister tell me what is the review of what of what approach? In order to determine whether or not these the this this provision should be removed and also whether or not in the immediate future there's any intention to recommence the section 12 of the Illegal Migration Act. I think in conclusion, all I'd like to say is that the, you know, having some clarity in this matter would be useful. And of course, the Law Society, as you might expect, says its retention by removing the court's ability to decide for itself whether the detention of a person for the purposes of removal is for a reasonable period risks increasing unlawful and prolonged detention.

So there is a legal aspect about retention at the moment. I know it's not being used, but we do need to ensure that there is a there is the fallback that is described by the Law Society is in place. And with those questions, I look forward to the response from look forward to the response from the law. My Lord, I shall begin, the law. My Lord, I shall begin, perhaps by making plain our opposition to the amendments in this group.

In committee, we spent much time rehashing the arguments over the Illegal Migration Act 2023. over the Illegal Migration Act 2023. We have made our position abundantly plain. It's obvious that abundantly plain. It's obvious that there exists a gulf in opinion regarding that 2023 act between regarding that 2023 act between many of us in this House.
16:40
16:40
Lord Hanson of Flint Portrait Lord Hanson of Flint, The Minister of State, Home Department (Labour)
-
-
elegant arguments of Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb. Yes.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm grateful to the noble lady Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb for her amendments, and I'm grateful for the way in which she presented for the way in which she presented them and said that she was trying to be helpful and supportive on these matters. And I'm grateful for that. Help and support. Amendment that. Help and support. Amendment 28 seeks to add section 12 of the Illegal Migration Act to the list of sections of the act being of sections of the act being repealed under the Border Security and Asylum and Immigration Bill, and Asylum and Immigration Bill, section 12 of the Illegal Migration Act establishes that it is for the Home Secretary, rather than the courts, to determine what is a reasonable period of time to detain an individual for a specific an individual for a specific statutory purpose, for example, for removal.

Now, again, the noble Lord removal. Now, again, the noble Lord Harper has put down the first point I would have wished to make, which is that the Home Secretary is is that the Home Secretary is currently a member of the House of Commons, and I answer for the Home Secretary in this House on matters Secretary in this House on matters to do with the Home Office. So we are accountable to Parliament for are accountable to Parliament for the decisions that are taken. But actually and this is the important point, which I want to put to the point, which I want to put to the noble Baroness that even with section 12 in force, the courts will continue to have a significant role on oversight over detention.

And this goes again to the point that the noble Lord German has made and indeed, my noble friend Lady Lister at the committee stage, in that individuals detained under immigration powers may apply at any time to the first tier tribunal of the Immigration and Asylum Chamber for Immigration bail, where a judge will assess whether their continued detention is justified and if they consider that it is not, will grant immigration bail. So the Home Secretary has more discretion. But there is still judicial oversight on immigration bail.

Additionally, and I did say this in committee as well, individuals can challenge the legality of their detention through judicial review in the High Court, where the court will consider whether the Secretary of State has made a reasonable decision in detaining a person or in continuing their detention. And if the court considers that the Secretary of State did not act reasonably, it will ensure that the person has access to an appropriate remedy, including ordering release if appropriate. Now, again, greater discretion for the Home Secretary, but actually strong judicial oversight as well as parliamentary oversight of this matter.

Now, section 12 simply makes it clear that the Secretary of State judgement of what is a reasonable period of detention should have more weight. This is logical, since the Home Office is in full possession of all relevant facts, and I would argue is best placed to decide whether continued detention is reasonable in all circumstances. That could include safeguarding the public. It could include safeguarding the individual. It could include the issues of costs that have been mentioned. But ultimately the Home Secretary is determining what is reasonable based on the information before her.

And I think, again, the noble Lord Sandhurst from the opposition, from benches has added his voice to those general concerns. Section 12 also provides for detention to continue for a reasonable period, whilst arrangements are made for a person's release. This is particularly important when we have, for example, foreign national offenders to be accommodated in a specific location in accordance with licence conditions or indeed safeguarding referrals for vulnerable people. Previous case law established the principle of grace period to enable a person's release, and section 12 provides legal clarity.

Now, by placing this on a legislative footing. Now again, section 12 applies to all immigration detention powers and amendment 30, in the name of the noble Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb, which is consequential to amendment 28, seeks to ensure that the provisions which apply to section 12 are repealed. Now, for the reasons that I've set out, although I know she's trying to be helpful on this matter, I think it's right that section 12 is retained for all immigration detention powers to give the Secretary of State that that additional discretion, but subject to parliamentary oversight and subject to judicial oversight.

Now, again, her amendment, amendment 32, is now seeking to remove the retrospective effect of clause 41, clause 41, as members have discussed, clarifies the existing statutory powers of detention with the Home Office, is considering whether deportation is conducive to the public good and consequential amendments to existing powers to take biometrics and searches upon being detained for this purpose. Now, I will argue for the noble Baroness that it remains the Home Office's position that the current detention power is lawful.

This clause provides greater legal clarity regarding its application and without the retrospective effect. And this is the key point that I think a number of noble Lords have mentioned in their contributions. The key challenge of that would be such claims risk undermining the integrity of past deportation proceedings and frustrating future deportation proceedings. Clause 41 clarifies these powers. It's not expected to increase the use of detention powers, but is intended to remove ambiguity and ensure that existing practices are legally robust.

Now, the noble Lord German asked about essentially when and how we can review this matter. We'll keep all matters under review. There are further potential issues around immigration and asylum trailed with the Immigration White Paper. We've got to keep these matters under review at all times, but I would argue to both him and to the noble Baroness Jones of Moleskin, that the extension of Home Office Secretary of State powers is still subject to all of the legal oversight that she would wish to have, and is still subject ultimately to parliamentary scrutiny on how those powers are exercised.

And I will answer to this House if there were any abuses, inverted commas of that power that members wish to draw to the attention of the both houses, to the Home Secretary, and to myself as the Minister, accountable in this House. So I would urge her to withdraw the amendment. withdraw the amendment.
16:47
16:48
Baroness Hamwee Portrait Baroness Hamwee (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
withdrawn. By Lord Crathorne amendment 29 Baroness Hamwee my Lords I beg to move amendment 29. I also have amendment 69 and 79 be in this group, which includes amendments 29 and 31 A from the noble Lady Baroness Maclean. My Lords, amendment 29 would have the effect of the repeal of section 29 of the Illegal Migration Act, a section which, like others, is not in force. It would. Section 29 would enforce, if enforced, broaden the public order disqualification to mandate because may becomes must that potential and confirmed victims of modern slavery and human trafficking are disqualified from protection.

Identification and support are denied a recovery period and limited leave to remain in the UK, and may be removed from the UK unless there are compelling circumstances which mean that the provisions should not apply. I use the term broaden because it includes the deportation of people who have committed low level offences, which takes us into the territory of section 45 of the Modern Slavery Act 2015, which I think is now quite generally regarded as being inadequate, if not in its own terms.

So I think that there is some consensus around that, and that the offences which that, and that the offences which are excluded are too few and don't exclude some that are not so serious. The clause is provides a defence for modern slavery victims who are compelled to commit a crime, but it's also inadequate in the awareness of the clause and therefore whether it should be brought into. Consideration in a prosecution. The Illegal Migration Act provision was criticised by a previous independent asylum Seekers Commissioner, who said that limiting the public order exemption would, I quote, severely limit our ability to convict perpetrators and dismantle organised crime groups? I emphasise those words because the focus of this legislation is, as I understand it, intended to be on the perpetrators and organised crime groups.

The Joint Committee on Human Rights raised the same point, and the government responded saying that this section would have commenced bring all foreign national offenders into scope for mandatory consideration of disqualification from modern slavery protections. And I again emphasise words, those two words, because it's only not mandatory if there are compelling circumstances, which is a difficult phrase, difficult ever to prove. Amendment 69 and 79 B would both restrict information sharing between public authorities when vulnerable, abused, exploited people are involved.

They have particular need of protection and the concern extends not only to people who are exploited and who would like to be able to report the exploitation. It also applies to other people, their colleagues, who would like to report on their behalf but are concerned about exposing themselves. I don't want to repeat what I said at committee stage, though I don't resile from it. We had some banter then about a photograph of the Ministers celebrating the passage of the 2015 act.

If that was the right occasion. We've had some discussion about the series of photographs. I was sent a photograph as well, which includes both the noble Lord and me supporting the position of overseas domestic workers. I think the minister thinks that was an even earlier occasion, but the passage of time hasn't changed the issue. Even though we may look, certainly I do rather different from my photograph. The minister reminded us that the bill is about tackling organised immigration crime.

He used the term turbo charged and I've already talked about the commitment we should have to victims. I've searched for a sort of equivalent terminology. All I've come up with is not steamrollering them. He referred to the NRM, the national referral mechanism, providing a, quote, a structured, compassionate route for potential victims of modern slavery to receive help without fear of intimidation and immediate immigration consequences. The problem is that they do fear, and they are deterred from reporting, whether on their own behalf or on behalf of someone else.

He said also that in the future, in the Immigration White Paper, we've made specific reference to Kalayaan. That's the organisation which supports overseas domestic workers to Callaghan and domestic workers, and I will reflect on those points as we go through. That was at column one, four, eight, four on the 10th of July. I did word searches on the white paper, and I found one reference to domestic workers, though it was in another context, and I returned to all that at amendment 44, probably.

Excuse me on the next day of committee, though, of course, if there's been any reconsideration to date, I'd be happy to hear it. And I couldn't find Callaghan. I'm not trying to make a cheap point, but if it's there and following the debate, perhaps I could be directed to it. The most important point is that the government recognises there's a genuine concern around here and intends to reconsider the overseas domestic worker visa route. So any further information, news that he can give the House today would be welcome.

The two other amendments in this group would retain clauses 22, 23, 20 and 25 to 29 of the Illegal Migration Act. In other words, would bring in section 29 to which I've spoken and other provisions relating to modern slavery, except one which applies to Scotland. So I think they raise the question about how the noble Lady considers we should be treating victims of modern slavery and human trafficking, including those who claim to be victims, and what should be the future of the NRM.

I beg leave to move. Amendment amendment 29.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

And amendment proposed clause 38,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

page 32. Line 22. Leave out 28.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

And insert 29. My Lords with. wrongly. And to.
16:57
Baroness Maclean of Redditch Portrait Baroness Maclean of Redditch (Conservative)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

Follow on from what. The noble Lady Baroness Malcolm has just. Been saying. The amendments I.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Been saying. The amendments I. Tabled 29 and 31 a would in fact reintroduce and commence the modern. Slavery clauses.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Slavery clauses. And provisions in the Illegal. Migration Act of. 2023.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

And the net effect of them would mean that individuals who have. Entered illegally. Can't use.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Modern slavery provisions as a route to frustrate removal. But it is very important that we continue to support. Genuine victims.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

to support. Genuine victims. At the same time. And the. Reason I've. Tabled these. Amendments is because. When they

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendments is because. When they were necessary. Back in 2023, when this act was passed. The need for. Them has passed. The need for. Them has become even more pressing. Now I declare an interest as a as a

**** Possible New Speaker ****

former Home Office minister who. Led on the modern. Slavery support. System and. Has seen. The challenges of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The challenges of operationalising this system. And protecting. Victims of this awful crime, which is what we all want to do. The world has changed your Lordships since the Modern Slavery Lordships since the Modern Slavery Act was passed, the patterns of migration have shifted dramatically. The system that we. Built for very The system that we. Built for very good reasons over a decade ago is now being stretched and in some cases, exploited in ways Parliament cases, exploited in ways Parliament never intended.

And in particular, I can find no reference in the original debates that we intended to create a welfare and support system for victims of crime from all. Over the world, rather than our own citizens.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Who've. Been trafficked and abused. And yet, that is exactly what's yet, that is exactly what's happening now in 2024, for the first time, 44% of referrals to the first time, 44% of referrals to the NRM reported exploitation overseas, and that was overtaking those claiming exploitation within the UK claiming exploitation within the UK at 43%. And this concern is shared across Parliament. I quote the Home Secretary, who said in response to the egregious situation that we saw connected to the one in, one out, asylum seeking individual who claimed that he was a victim of trafficking in France.

She said some asylum seekers are making vexatious last minute claims of being victims of modern slavery to block removal, so the Home Secretary and the government can simply use the measures already on the statute book. That's the fastest way to tackle this. If they can perhaps get over the not invented here objection. When we have these debates, those who do the very important work are supporting victims, will claim and will state rightly, that it's impossible to provide definitive evidence that the system is being abused.

And I agree with that. And that's why I've tabled amendments later on to address that point. But whether we like it or not, there is a significant interaction between illegal arrivals and referrals into the NRM. Just this quarter, we've seen the highest number of referrals since the start of the NRM in 2009. And the people that are being referred now are non-UK nationals. The largest groups being referred are Albanians, followed by Vietnamese. And in context for context, in 2014, the entire system handled fewer than 2500 referrals, and yet last year it handled nearly 2500 referrals just from Albania.

And this surge has placed immense strain on the system and on public confidence, and of course, also on the taxpayers on the public purse, because the government is committed to spending £379 million over five years on the modern slavery support system. So just referring back to the Lords debates on these clauses of the Illegal Migration Act, that my amendment seeks to retain my normal Noble friend Lord Murray of Blidworth speaking for the government, said then it is a central tenet of the bill that a person who satisfies the conditions in clause two will not have their asylum, human rights or modern slavery claims considered in the United Kingdom.

And he went on to say, it is a sad but incontrovertible fact that our modern slavery protections are susceptible to abuse by illegal migrants seeking to frustrate their removal from the United Kingdom, whereas in 2019, just 6% of people arriving in the UK on a small boat and detained for return involved a modern slavery referral, the figure in 2021 was 73%. So my Lords Britain can be both compassionate and firm, but it cannot be naive. And I do follow here the noble Lord Harper my noble friend Lord Harper, in asking this House to be honest about the fact that people will seek to lie about their experiences, especially when the incentives are so strong and the evidence threshold necessarily very low.

So this these amendments would protect those exploited while removing incentives for illegal entry. And I incentives for illegal entry. And I

**** Possible New Speaker ****

beg to move. First of all, I'd like to rise

**** Possible New Speaker ****

First of all, I'd like to rise to support my noble friend the three amendments that she has in three amendments that she has in her name 29, 69 and 79. B amendment 29 proposes the repeal of the 29 proposes the repeal of the section 29 of the Illegal Migration Act and, as it's confirmed, to remove individuals who have sought
17:02
Lord German Portrait Lord German (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
remove individuals who have sought to use modern slavery protections in bad faith. We've heard clear warnings that section 29 represents a dangerous expansion of the public order. Disqualifications originally introduced by the Nationality and Borders Act of 2022. Crucially, section 29 transforms the disqualification of potential and confirmed victims of trafficking and modern slavery from a discretionary power into a mandatory duty unless compelling circumstances exist. This mandatory disqualification extends to non-British nationals sentenced to imprisonment of any length for a crime of any seriousness.

This blanket approach fails to take into account the reality that victims of modern slavery are frequently coerced by their traffickers into committing criminal offences, and by lowering the threshold so severely and making disqualification mandatory, there is an increased risk that vulnerable survivors will be denied protection, denied a recovery period, and ultimately ultimately removed from the United Kingdom, potentially exposing them to retrafficking or retribution. The International Organisation for migration has explicitly called for the repeal of this section.

Now, the government argued in committee that section 29 needs to be retained for its potential operational benefit and to allow flexibility in reforming the national referral mechanism. While reviewing the national referral mechanism is vital, retaining a measure that institutionalises the potential criminalisation of victims is fundamentally unjust and unnecessary, section 29 seriously undermines our commitment to tackling modern slavery. We must uphold our duty to protect the exploited. Amendment 69 would introduce a new clause to strengthen protection for victims of slavery or human trafficking, by placing a duty on the Secretary of State to amend the Modern Slavery Act of 2015.

This amendment seeks to establish crucial firewall arrangements. Its intention is to safeguard vulnerable individuals by preventing public authorities when determining if a person is a victim of slavery or human trafficking from sharing information with immigration authorities that might result in deportation or prosecution for an immigration offence. That firewall is the is absolutely critical for many people in order to for them to report on what is happening to them. So we must ensure these victims feel safe seeking help and engaging with the national referral mechanism process.

Without a robust firewall, a victim coerced into illegal entry might fear that disclosing their history of exploitation to obtain assistance will simultaneously expose them to immediate prosecution and removal. It's this chicken and egg, egg and chicken. This is an unacceptable dilemma to face for them to face. Amendment 69 weakens the grip of traffickers, enabling victims to come forward and seek justice. So by implementing this firewall, we align safeguarding duties with our enforcement aims, preventing information provided for protection purposes from being weaponized against the victim by the state itself.

Amendment 79 addresses a fundamental vulnerability in our system the inherent conflict faced by a victim of Labour abuse who was simultaneously subject to immigration controls. This secure reporting clause is designed to prevent information disclosed by a victim or a witness of Labour abuse from being used for a purpose within section 40 brackets. One of the UK Borders Act 2007, which of course is the gateway for immigration and nationality purposes. This firewall is desperately needed because exploitative employers rely on the fear of their workers, that authorities will prioritise issues around their immigration status over the abuse that they have faced.

Unscrupulous employers use threats about illegality, detention and removal as a method of control and coercion. This turns the state's immigration framework into a tool of the exploiter. Amendment 79 Be combined combats. This. I must say that from these benches we also oppose amendments 29 and 31, which is a reversal of the modern slavery safeguards which which appeared in the Illegal Migration Act, sections 22 through to 28 of the Immigration Act, removed protections for victims of modern slavery who had arrived in the country without a valid visa.

The current bill includes the repeal of these sections, a step that is widely welcomed because these positions could have been catastrophic for survivors and therefore we support the government in proceeding with these amendments and in removing those clauses from the Illegal Migration Act. In this bill, section 29, as a proposed here, is dangerous because it expands the scope of public order disqualifications and makes them mandatory. This measure mandates disqualification for potential victims of modern slavery unless there are compelling circumstances, even if they've been convicted of an offence of any length at all.

So, in conclusion, we support the government in in in the intention in this bill of removing those clauses in the Illegal Migration Act and press the government on way in which the the firewall of which we've spoken earlier can be protected.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords efforts to tackle modern slavery are indeed a noble modern slavery are indeed a noble and important cause. We all agree on that. But as my noble friend on that. But as my noble friend Lord Harper said during committee, there is a balance to be struck. My noble friend Baroness Maclean of Redditch has made many of the points I would have made, and I will not repeat those arguments, will not repeat those arguments, particularly at report stage. Suffice to say, however, that protections which were initially protections which were initially intended to protect victims of modern slavery have now become loopholes that are being exploited
17:09
17:10
Lord Hanson of Flint Portrait Lord Hanson of Flint, The Minister of State, Home Department (Labour)
-
-
series of amendments before the House today on the report stage of the bill. And can I just say at the beginning that having served on the Modern Slavery Act in 2015, when a Member of Parliament in another place as the lead shadow spokesperson for the Labour Party at that time that we continue today and government are steadfast in our commitment to tackling modern slavery in all its forms and to supporting survivors. That goes without saying. Now, the amendments before the House today, firstly, amendment 29 from the noble Lord German and the noble Baroness Lady Hamwee seek to ensure that they retain, if commenced, sorry, it would if commenced, amend the public order disqualification to allow more foreign national offenders to be considered on a case by case basis for disqualification from modern slavery protections on public order grounds.

Now, I would argue, to both the noble lady and to the noble Lord German. The section 29 needs to be retained in its current form so that it can be considered for future commencement, alongside potentially wider reforms. As part of the government's wider commitment to work with partners on the long term reform of the national referral mechanism. And I'll come back to this point later when I discuss amendment 69. I turn, if I may, to the amendments 29 and 31 a from the noble Baroness McLean of Redditch.

Yes, of Redditch, which seeks to retain further modern slavery sections from the IMA, and for those sections to be commenced on the day this act is passed. Now, again, for the reasons that the noble Lord German has mentioned, the government has been clear we are repealing these sections because it has committed to ending the migration and economic partnership with Rwanda, which we didn't feel served a useful purpose. The government is only going to retain measures of the IMA that are assessed to provide operational benefit in delivering long term, credible policies to restore order to the immigration and asylum system.

And I'm afraid that the amendments 29 and 31 a for the reasons of the noble Lord German has mentioned, are not ones that we can accept today. But I'm grateful for the noble Baroness McLean, for her contribution and for raising those issues. Now. Amendment 69 from Baroness Hamwee and from the noble Lord German seek to prevent a public authority when determining whether a person is a victim of slavery or human trafficking from sharing information with immigration authorities and with other public authorities that might result in deportation or prosecution for an immigration offence.

Now the noble Lord Sandhurst from His Majesty's Opposition Front bench made some very valid points on those amendments from the noble Baroness Hamwee and from noble Lord German in terms of restricting information shared in respect of modern slavery notification. The Modern Slavery Act of 2015 does provide certain public bodies in England and Wales with the statutory duty to notify the Secretary of State when there are reasonable grounds to believe that a person may be a victim of slavery or human trafficking.

This information provides that notification enables the UK to fulfil its obligations to identify and support victims. The duty to notify is discharge by adults by making a referral into the National Referral mechanism for consenting adults, or by completing an anonymous entry on digital systems where the adult does not consent. This information provided is used to build a better picture of modern slavery in England and Wales, and to help improve law enforcement responses. It does not include, and this is the key point, information that identifies the person unless the person consents to the inclusion of that information.

It should also be noted that child victims do not need to consent to enter the national referral mechanism, and as such, the National Referral Mechanism. Referral discharges the duty to notify. Now if a person and this is another key point, is identified as a potential victim of modern slavery or trafficking. They are currently eligible for a recovery period, during which they are protected from removal from the UK if they are a foreign national and are eligible for support unless disqualified on grounds of public order or bad faith.

Now imposing restrictions on the information provided to identify and support victims of modern slavery would be to the detriment of our obligations to those vulnerable people. But also, I would suggest to our duty to protect UK borders and protect the public. Now, it may help the House if I just inform the House that we are continuing to look at longer term reform of the national referral mechanism, including the possibility of potentially updating and looking at new modern slavery legislation.

Home Office organised a call for evidence over the summer on how we can improve the process of identifying victims for modern slavery. The call for evidence focussed on definitions of victims of modern slavery and improving identification and decision making process for the National referral Mechanism. The call for evidence has now closed, but we're currently analysing those responses received. If I can turn to the amendment 79 B, which would bar information from being used for an immigration purpose, if that information was provided by victims or witnesses of Labour abuse in connection with that abuse.

Now, the clauses 27 to 31 of the Bill on the HMRC and DVLA trailer registration data sets referenced in the amendment. They're going to be collected for specific purposes and I can offer the noble Baroness the assurance that these do not include information provided by victims or witnesses of Labour abuse in connection with such abuse. The HMRC data is solely information held in connection with HMRC's customs functions, and that relates to processes by which goods and cash cross the UK border.

The DVLA trailer registration data is limited to some basic details about UK registered traders and keepers of those trailers, and sharing both data sets with the Home Office enables better identification and detection of border criminality that would not be identified if the data were analysed in isolation and not significantly shared at all. So I wish to affirm to the noble Lady that serious Labour abuse and exploitation are issues that we take seriously. That is why indeed we've spent many, many, many hours already in this session of Parliament on the Employment Rights Bill, which includes specific and significant provisions aimed at strengthening employment rights and protecting vulnerable workers, and at the same time removing abuses from the system as a whole.

So we must remember that mechanisms already exist to support those with insecure immigration status who are victims of abuse. The national referral mechanism is in place specifically to ensure that individuals can be properly identified and supported. Now, the issues in this grouping, I think have been worthy of discussion, but I would ask both the noble Earl, Lord and Baroness to withdraw these

**** Possible New Speaker ****

amendments and in due course for the noble Lady not to press us order. I'm very grateful to noble Lord,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm very grateful to noble Lord, who's an expert in the Modern Slavery Act, as are the Baroness Hamwee and Lord German. I am not, but could he explain? I still but could he explain? I still haven't quite got it. Why, if why? haven't quite got it. Why, if why? It's right that if section 29 survives from the Illegal Migration survives from the Illegal Migration Act 2023. A known victim of modern slavery, if convicted of a crime, loses all the protections that he or she has had as a as a as a victim of modern slavery and is to be deported.

The opposition argument against amendment 29 argument against amendment 29 seemed to be that it would create spurious claims of modern slavery. I, I follow that argument a degree I, I follow that argument a degree of it, but I follow it. But the what about the person who is has an what about the person who is has an established claim under modern slavery has is entitled to asylum here, but will be if section 29 survives, he will be deported.

Have

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I understood it correctly? I'm grateful for the noble Lord calling me an expert on modern calling me an expert on modern Soviet matters. I dealt with the bill ten years ago. There's a lot of swimming around. The goldfish of swimming around. The goldfish bowl has been undertaken since since that time. But it is since that time. But it is important that we recognise the importance of that act in establishing basic criteria which establishing basic criteria which the noble Baroness May of Maidenhead brought forward and which I, as the Shadow Minister, which I, as the Shadow Minister, then supported and tried to stretch even further as the noble Baroness Hamwee continues to remind me.

I Hamwee continues to remind me. I think the key point for the noble think the key point for the noble Lord in his point to me is the words that I used in my opening words, which is a case by case words, which is a case by case basis. The act, if commenced, would amend the public order disqualification to allow more for foreign national offenders to be considered for deportation, but on considered for deportation, but on a case by case basis for disqualification from the modern slavery protections on public order slavery protections on public order grounds.

So it's important that we don't have a blanket dismissal, but that we do have the potential for that we do have the potential for the national referral mechanism, the Home Secretary and others to look at these matters on a case by case basis. And I hope that would satisfy the noble Lord. Well, he shakes his head and said he doesn't satisfy him. Sometimes I can't satisfy every member of this House, but I simply say to the noble Lord that I think the case by case basis means that if someone wants to make a case that they shouldn't be covered by this, the opportunity is there for them to do so.

So I beg

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the noble Lady would withdraw her amendments. Lords with regard to the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Lords with regard to the reporting restrictions, two of the amendments in this group, I say
17:21
Baroness Hamwee Portrait Baroness Hamwee (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
amendments in this group, I say again, it is a matter of how those affected perceive the situation to be, because that affects their behaviour. With regard to amendment 29, it still of course not in force. It's not been brought into force. So I do wish the Home Office had the courage of its convictions and got rid of it. If we're being told that, I think we are, that the subject of modern slavery, protection for victims and so on may come before us in some new form, certainly being considered, then that would be the point at which to bring in some of what's in section 29, if that's thought to be appropriate.

Some, but not all of it. Perhaps I can only hope. I think that it remains not brought into force. So I don't think that's a very good way to deal with legislation. But I beg leave to withdraw amendment 29.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Is it your Lordships pleasure, the amendment be withdrawn? The amendment is by leave withdrawn. Amendment 29 a not moved Baroness Amendment 29 a not moved Baroness Maclean not moved. Amendment 30 Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb not Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb not present. Not moved. Amendment 31 present. Not moved. Amendment 31 Baroness Jones. Is there any other noble Lord who wishes to move this noble Lord who wishes to move this amendment? Amendment 31 not moved. Amendment 31 A Baroness Caine not Amendment 31 A Baroness Caine not moved.

Amendment 32 Baroness Jones moved. Amendment 32 Baroness Jones not moved. Amendment 33 Lord Barker.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

not moved. Amendment 33 Lord Barker. My Lords, I rise to speak to. My amendment 33.
17:23
Lord Bach Portrait Lord Bach (Labour)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

It seems appropriate that this. Amendment is being debated at the start of Pro Bono. Week.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Week. Given that this is the one amendment that deals with the issue. amendment that deals with the issue. Of legal aid. My Lords, at the heart of this amendment, it's about the rule of law and the fundamental right of access to justice. As I've been delighted to see throughout pursuing this amendment committee, these values are beyond party politics and are universally accepted across the House. And I would like to think across the country, the purpose of this amendment is to ensure that people in the custody of the state, for immigration reasons, are provided with effective legal advice and representation.

Within 48 hours of being detained. At a time when we are seeing more accelerated processes, for example, the UK France Treaty and the growth in the number of people being detained. This matter, I argue, is more urgent than ever. Indeed, individuals flagged for deportation under the UK France agreement must respond to the Home Office's notice to remove them within seven days. As such, it is surely even more essential that legal advice is provided early and quickly within 48 hours.

Let me briefly remind the House of the basic problem of legal aid deserts in immigration. One. 60% of people in England and Wales are unable to access a local immigration legal aid lawyer. Two 55,000 people are unable to get an immigration legal aid lawyer when they need one. It's both the law and Home Office policy under all governments that people should be able to receive legal advice before they are removed. There's no suggestion from any frontbench that this should change.

As such, the more effective the provision of legal advice and representation, the more effective the immigration system can start becoming. I want to develop three points which were raised in the committee debate. First is the cost of the amendment. Second, and at the heart of this amendment is whether the current system for providing legal advice and representation in immigration detention is actually working. And thirdly, is the cost saving that savings that will flow from improving the availability of legal aid lawyers first, during the committee stage debate debate, some peers and the minister himself questioned the cost of accepting accepting the amendment.

I underline that this amendment does not expand the scope of eligibility for legal aid. Anyone who receives legal aid due to this amendment was already entitled to it. This amendment is about improving the speed and the quality of that advice, which frankly, is woeful at present. We always understood that this amendment was, in effect, cost neutral to the legal aid budget. It would not increase or decrease legal aid eligibility, and I am indeed grateful to the Minister for confirming this understanding in a letter which our noble Lords will no doubt have seen, which has been published in the House of Lords Library.

It's a targeted amendment meant to help the government fix the most broken part of the legal aid system liable to collapse, perhaps without some fairly urgent intervention. Now, secondly, and as I say at the heart of this amendment, I want to address the question of whether the current system for providing legal advice and representation in immigration detention is working effectively. I remind the House of the basic system. There are two schemes for providing legal advice in immigration removal centres and prisons.

The Detained Duty Advice Scheme, or DD, and the Telephone Legal Advice Service, or Tla's research. Going back now more than a decade, or reveals a sharp drop in people accessing the schemes I've just mentioned since the cuts that we, the House, knows well about in 2011, a survey this year of by Bill bail for immigration detainees, for example, found that only 27% of respondents held in immigration removal centres had a legal aid solicitor. This contrasts my Lords with 75% pre the Laspo act.

Crucially, this isn't because people don't want legal aid and help, but because they cannot access it. During work on this amendment, I was lucky enough and fortunate enough to speak to many immigration experts and civil society organisations to whom I have to say I owe a great deal for their help during preparation for this amendment. These experts and civil society organisations provided many practical examples of the government schemes, failing to provide the very basics of access to justice.

For example, told of a victim of human trafficking who simply stopped hearing from his DD a lawyer after weeks of working together, he met with five other lawyers, none of whom had the capacity to take on the case. It took 15 other referrals by bail for immigration detention to secure a legal aid lawyer, and another example is of another case concerning a vulnerable adult at risk with serious mental health needs, who tried five times to secure a lawyer through DD over two months.

They couldn't secure one and had to be supported through a charity outside the scheme by Lords. He was later granted bail by the Home Office, perhaps indicating that this was not a. Some undoubtedly are, but this was not a meritless claim. The House may hear of other egregious examples during the course of this debate. My Lords, these cases are not exceptional people in dire need of support, victims of human trafficking and modern slavery, refugees, not people abusing the system are every day of the week either not receiving legal aid support at all, or are receiving very poor quality service for capacity reasons.

My Lords, the current government schemes are not working satisfactorily and, I argue, need urgent change. Thirdly, and finally, I want to expand on a point made by several noble Lords at committee. The argument from economy was how Lord Kerr the noble Lord Lord Kerr put it put simply, how could this amendment actually save the taxpayer money? The Public Law Project has carried out research on cost shifting in immigration, legal aid, or how cutting legal aid forces up costs for other government departments and public services.

In a 2024 report, they identify first, there are costs to the Ministry of Justice and the Courts and Tribunal Services. Parties who are unrepresented need longer hearings, more support at appeals and are more likely to pursue low quality appeals and need more adjournments. Secondly, there are costs to local authorities the longer an asylum claim remains unresolved because people are unable to access legal advice and representation. The longer local authorities have to provide housing support and support for asylum seeking children in their areas, for example.

And thirdly, there are costs to our NHS. People who are not properly supported suffer from greater ill health and mental stress, especially when combined with pre-existing traumas, placing a burden on health services. And of course, hospital discharges can be delayed by unresolved immigration applications because there may be no suitable accommodation to discharge a patient to my Lords in 2000. In 2024, the Access to Justice Foundation commissioned a report entitled The Value of Justice for all with the Bar Council to quantify the savings to government from an effective legal aid scheme.

It concluded for every £1, £1 spent on free legal advice, the state saved £2.71, a saving of almost 3 to 1. An effective legal aid scheme saves money. It makes obvious economic sense. Lords. I'm eager for us to make concrete progress on improving access to justice in this area of immigration detention. The current system isn't working and serious steps need to be taken to fix it. This amendment has the advantage, perhaps, of being consistent with both principle the requirement that all asylum seekers in custody should have early and effective legal advice, and of being consistent with practicality and good sense, and at no extra cost.

And indeed, the opportunity to save overall public funds. My Lords, I beg to move.
17:34
Baroness Ludford Portrait Baroness Ludford (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
Amendment proposed after clause 41. Insert the new clause as printed on the marshalled list.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I rise to support enthusiastically the amendment led enthusiastically the amendment led by the noble Lord Lord Bach, and I've been pleased to to co-sign it. I've been pleased to to co-sign it. The noble Lord rightly talked spoke about the the rule of law and the about the the rule of law and the fundamental fundamental right of access to to justice, and he access to to justice, and he referred to the UK France deal. Now, I understand that at Brook House, a I understand that at Brook House, a large number of people were detained and served notices of detained and served notices of intent to remove them on the 25th of August this year, with a deadline of the 1st of September to respond, but no appointment under the Detained Duty Advice Scheme the Detained Duty Advice Scheme were available until at least the 2nd of September, i.e.

the date 2nd of September, i.e. the date after they were supposed to respond, and previously on the attempt to and previously on the attempt to remove people to Rwanda. The Inspectorate of Prisons, during Inspectorate of Prisons, during their 2022 inspection of Brook House, which of course is an immigration removal centre. They immigration removal centre. They noted that one detainee, quote, understood that he needed to reply to the notice of intent within seven days, but described his escalating panic as he could not speak to the lawyer.

As the window drew to a close, and the inspectorate said that in the five cases they looked at, no detainees had replied to the notice within the seven day window or before the decision to issue removal directions. But as the noble Lord Lord Barker has very. Astutely argued this, this is an invest to save amendment. And it reminds me of the one that I'm backing from noble Lady Baroness Coussins on the right to interpreting and translation services, where noble Lord Lord Katz have been kind enough to to meet with us in the.

It may they might seem an upfront cost, but it will actually make the system work more efficiently and and save save money because at the moment they're going to be costs to the administrative justice. As the noble Lord Lord Birt has pointed out, the court and tribunal services unrepresented parties with longer hearings, more supported appeals, more adjournments and so on, cost to local authorities with unresolved asylum claims, meaning that local authorities have to provide housing support for longer, etc.

and cost of the NHS with the mental stress and ill health from people who are not properly supported. It reminds me very much if noble Lords don't think that I'm going somewhere on a on a down a rabbit hole, but it reminds me of of of diabetes. Technology might seem absolutely nothing to do with this subject, and it isn't. But my late husband was a type one diabetic, and the NHS for a long, long time was very reluctant to supply people with diabetes.

Insulin dependent with the technology like insulin pumps and oh god, I forget the names. Anyway, that enabled much better control of blood glucose. Better control means fewer hypos hypoglycaemic incidents which are severe. One could take someone into hospital and the problem was, as I had tried to understand it, that the cult of technologies on the budget of the GP, but the cost of the hospital stays, of course, on the budget of the hospital. So there was no overall cost benefit analysis.

And you can see that all around the NHS, of course. And eventually someone sort of some bright spark realised that with diabetes taking up 10% of the NHS budget, it made no sense not to invest in people having much better blood glucose control. But it took a very long time. And and you know, I think that there has to be someone who takes a holistic view of all of this and sees that you don't actually save money in, in the longer term by failing to support, in this case, an effective legal aid schemes.

The noble Lord Lord Bach concluded an effective legal aid scheme saves money. It makes economic sense.
17:39
Lord Carlile of Berriew Portrait Lord Carlile of Berriew (Crossbench)
-
-
I. I rise in support of the noble Lord Lord Marks amendment, of which I too am a signatory. My Lords, I think the principle is not controversial. The principle is established. This seems to me to be really a matter of organisation, but a matter of organisation that's been as neglected as the analogy used by the somewhat remote analogy, but interesting one used by the noble Lady Baroness Ludford Lord Barker illustrated with cogency the extra costs to the Ministry of Justice of of improving availability of legal aid.

There are no extra costs of improving legal aid. There is a net financial sailing saving as long as the organisation is improved. Indeed, organising the availability of legal aid as required by law would remove not only the expensive delays in individual cases, but the controversial delays in individual cases, which in some instances have led to demonstrations at hotels and other places where significant numbers of asylum seekers are living. And I would suggest to the noble Lord, the Minister, that simple adjustments to the system of dealing with asylum cases could make a huge difference to the processing of that vast cohort of cases, including the required provision of legal aid.

Just so we see what we're looking at, I would suggest that an overwhelming majority of the cases fall into two easily identifiable categories. First, the majority, which in truth are cases with no or almost no merit, and which can be dealt with quickly. Secondly, cases with obvious merit which need to be separated from the critical mass early so that they can be dealt with on their undoubted merits. So I have some specific suggestions to make to the noble Lord, the Minister Minister.

First, I suggest to him that the asylum the a lot of mnemonics in this. I'm afraid that the asylum intake unit, the a you and the National asylum allocation unit, the n a and the Home Office third country unit, if it has an mnemonic, mnemonic, it's hot, hot Q, which is quite descriptive of what is happening. Hot Q should all be placed at the detention centres or other facilities where applicants applicants are resident in large numbers, and there the processes could then be completed within days.

Save in exceptional cases where there is refusal, the appellate tier, the first tier tribunal, Immigration and asylum chamber could also sit at or near the same applicant's case should then be considered first as a paper application. That is exactly the process that's followed in judicial review cases, where paper applications are considered in large numbers by single judges. I know that because I did it for a number of years as a deputy High Court judge, and through a process like that, using the legal aid agency on site to one could deal with these cases within a short time, within days, at the same centres, the legal Agents legal aid agency, through its civil aid service, could provide officials directly, not necessarily through law firms, if at each centre there were persons trained in immigration and asylum.

Legal aid to consider each case. And I would say to the Minister that although we've heard that there are shortages of lawyers to deal with immigration, legal aid, and there are, one of the main problems is the absence of a critical mass for lawyers to concentrate in one place. If there's enough work, there'll be some lawyers there to do that work. If there are only 1 or 2 cases, the lawyers simply won't do it. That's the law of supply and demand, which applies equally to legal services as to any other other service.

And so I suggest that if the government, if the department managed these services holistically and efficiently, heaven forfend that they would, then these cases could be dealt with and the numbers could be reduced in, to coin a phrase, half a minute less than no time, certainly within a very short time. Now, the sense of urgency that I've described that this process requires is uncharacteristic of the legal system. As a lifelong professional member of the legal system, I plead guilty to that much.

But knowing it as well as some of us in this chamber, do I believe that the legal system can adapt to speedy processes where the merits require it, and where there is a right to legal aid? For example. So let's concentrate my Lords on dealing with the backlog, giving people legal aid, allowing them legal advice, but doing it promptly

**** Possible New Speaker ****

whilst providing a fair system, including, of course, legal aid. Here, here, here.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Here, here, here. My Lords, I rise to support this amendment. And as I said, what I was going to say is almost
17:46
Baroness Prashar Portrait Baroness Prashar (Crossbench)
-
-
was going to say is almost redundant. But I will still emphasise a couple of points. I think Lord Bach, very admirably, I think, highlighted why the current system needs fixing and also the rationale for it. And Lord Carlile has actually given some practical advice in terms of how he can actually speed up the process. Because if this amendment is accepted, it will actually improve the efficacy of the system, improve access to justice. And in the long run, as we've heard, save money.

And it's worth also emphasising that this amendment does not seek to extend the scope of the current provision of legal aid. It merely seeks to improve its effectiveness and its access. And as you've heard in the light of the UK France deal, the shortcomings of this scheme are even more evident because those detained under this deal are facing greater risk of not having legal representation before they are removed, and experience today shows that in substantial cases there have been delays over seven days in accessing and depriving people of opportunities to receive legal aid.

Charities working in this area, and we're very grateful to them for providing examples have shown the inadequacies of the current system, and they have drawn attention to the delays and inability of the individuals to get timely and proper assistance. But I have to say that the failings of this scheme are not new. They were evident well before the UK France deal and were highlighted by the Inspector of Prisons in 2022. During his inspection of the Brook House Immigration Removal Centre.

So I think the benefits of this amendment are self-evident, and I would strongly urge the government to accept the amendment and some very critical advice given by Lord Carlile, how to actually improve the process and the organisation of the scheme.
17:48
17:49
Lord German Portrait Lord German (Liberal Democrat)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

needs addressing urgently. Lords at the beginning of his remarks, Lord Bach said noble Lord remarks, Lord Bach said noble Lord Bach said this was pro bono week. Well, I must say to the noble Lord Carlile, you have fulfilled your job for this House, and I, I'm sure that we'd be very grateful. And the Minister will noble Lord the Minister will be very grateful for the advice that you have given pro bono, and I hope that you if he asks for more, he'll be willing to.

You'll be willing. You will be willing to accept it. I think I've learned two things from this, from what has been said so far in this, in this debate. The first one is that we we have a crisis of of legal aid. I think there was no one who spoke in saying it's all fine and dandy, and that the second one, of course, is that that what is available is not working well. On the first of those, I think the, the, the survey for immigration detainees by bail found that only 42% of people held in Ircs had a lawyer in their immigration case in 2025.

And that's a steep decline down to 42% from 75% from from some years ago in 2012. And for those detained in prison, 71% of respondents had not received legal advice under the scheme. I think the second concern which is which is raised, of course, is that about what is provided and that is the 30 minutes often considered to be of doubtful quality and insufficient, as professionals have argued, immigration law is highly complex. I think those of us who are working in this bill will understand that this is a this is a very highly complex area of work.

And for a detained person who may be traumatised, speak little English or have just arrived, it's unrealistic to believe that they on their own can navigate this complex labyrinth of law without proper professional assistance. The amendment is necessary, not merely on humanitarian grounds, to protect the integrity of the rule of law itself. First of all, access to judgement and secondly, practical effectiveness. I don't want to repeat the points about cost, which are obviously going to come up in the response, but it will actually save the taxpayers money.

Invest to save early. Quite clear from everything that has been said so far, and we must be clear also that a failure to provide legal aid can amount to a breach of fundamental rights, particularly under article six of the European Convention. So this amendment offers a practical and necessary solution to a systemic failure. It mirrors existing successful arrangements such as the Immigration Police Station Advice Scheme, used when detained persons are found to have no criminal element in their case, it simply ensures that an immigration lawyer is allocated to an individual upon entering detention, providing a necessary check against unlawful incarceration and ensuring fair process.

I'd like to end with a quote which was given by one of the organisations working in this field, ensuring prompt legal counsel for detained persons is not merely a gesture of goodwill. It is the necessary foundation for a fair judicial process, a system that incarcerates first and allows access to justice later, is like starting a race 48 hours behind the starting gun. The individual is severely disadvantaged before they even begin to fight for their rights.
17:53
17:54
Lord Hanson of Flint Portrait Lord Hanson of Flint, The Minister of State, Home Department (Labour)
-
-
I'm grateful to my noble friend Lord Bach for his amendment, and if I may say so, I'm grateful for the opportunity I've had, limited though it is, to speak to him outside of the chamber about the motivation for the amendment, which remains unchanged since the committee stage, which would seek to impose a duty to make civil legal aid available to detained persons within 48 hours of them being detained, and I note the support from the noble Lady Baroness Ludford, the noble Lady Baroness Prashar and the noble Lord Carlile of Berriew and the my noble friend Lady Lister, in support of my noble friend Lord Bach.

I can't go as far, dare I say it, as the noble Lord Sandhurst in the denunciation of my noble friends amendment, because I do feel that it's a point well made. But I want to assure him and other noble lords who've spoken in the debate, that access for justice, for those in immigration detention is a priority, which is shared by the government. I agree with those who spoke in the previous debate on this subject, and indeed today, the provision of legal aid for those seeking protection is an important issue to maintain an effective asylum system and to ensure that we have reduced costs and reduced asylum backlog.

And indeed, as a result of that hotel use, and indeed that we have increased returns because speeding up the asylum process depends on good legal aid. But it also depends on the things, the measures that the government are taking separately about putting extra investment into that area to speed up those asylum claims. But that is why, as I noted in the previous debate, that we do have legal aid available for asylum cases and for immigration advice for victims of domestic abuse, modern slavery, separating migrant children and those challenging immigration decisions.

As I noted in the previous debate, additional support to detained individuals, all those in immigration removal centres can access the 30 minutes that has been described today and free legal advice through the Detained Duty Advice Scheme. This triage appointment supports people to meet with the legal provider, who may provide further legal advice, subject to the matter being within the scope of legal aid and the detained person's eligibility for that legal aid. Now, concerns were raised in the previous debate about the take up of this advice.

I can assure noble Lords that all detained individuals arriving at an immigration removal centre are advised of their right to legal representation and how they can obtain such representation, and that's done within 24 hours of their arrival. As part of their induction, all individuals arriving at an immigration removal centre in England are booked. An appointment with a legal representative under the scheme I've just described, unless they decline to have that appointment, their appointment will take place as soon as possible after they attend the Immigration Removal Centre, which could be as early as the next working day.

But obviously, as noble Lords have mentioned, it may on occasion be longer. We've produced leaflets in 26 languages on the operation of the scheme, and therefore I'm suggesting gently to my noble friend that the amendment 33 would have no material effect on the access to justice, as those in the system are entitled for that initial appointment under that long standing scheme. Now, again, if I may, I would like to clarify, because in the committee stage debate, the noble Viscount Goschen and myself both questioned the potential cost of this.

I've had the opportunity to look into the costings, and I'd just say to him that the government's position on this is not related now to cost. It has been assessed and we've looked at this in detail where the proposed amendment to be introduced, the overall spend on legal aid would be unaffected. So the cost element is not one of the things that we need to look at now, because there's a high likelihood that detained individuals will seek legal aid, funded support, regardless of the time limit, and their eligibility for legal aid would be unchanged.

Where a time limit to be introduced. So the concern and discussion around the amendment is based on the consideration that existing arrangements are unable, already enabled detained individuals to seek an initial appointment and therefore it is unnecessary. I want to reiterate to all members that the vital role legal aid plays, both in mainstreaming and maintaining an effective immigration and asylum system and ensuring the most vulnerable, such as victims of modern slavery and human trafficking, can navigate the complex legal system.

We have. Indeed, as my noble friend has mentioned and knows, we have taken important action to support the provision of immigration and asylum legal aid, and the government has confirmed uplifts to immigration and asylum legal aid fees, which is a significant investment, the first since 1996, and the government is also funding the costs of accreditation for immigration and asylum caseworkers, providing 1.4 million in 2024 and a further 1.7 million in this year. And I want to continue to work with my noble friend and indeed the suggestions made by the noble Lord Carlile of Berriew, to look at how we can improve the efficiency of this system still further.

So in response to my noble Lord friend Lord Bach and the noble Lord Carlile of Berriew, I'm happy to meet with them to look at the suggestions that were made as part of the debate that we've had today. I'm happy to examine further the noble Lord Carlile's suggestions. They are, dare I say it, hot off the press this evening and I think it's worthy of examination. I'm happy to reflect on those suggestions to work with my noble friend Lord Bach, but I suggest to him as well that the amendment is one that does not add to what we currently offer, and therefore I would ask him to withdraw it with the assurance that we will look at the issues that both he and other noble Lords have raised in this debate.
18:01
Lord Bach Portrait Lord Bach (Labour)
-
-
My Lords, I'd like to thank begin by thanking the noble Lord, the Minister, for his response and for what he's kindly offered at the end of his end of his response. I particularly want to thank all those who have spoken in this debate in support of this amendment. I hope the House will accept that they carry with them a huge amount of experience in this area, and they should be listened to with very, very great care.

My Lords, there are examples, I'm afraid, Legion of examples where the system is not working as well as I'm afraid. The minister suggested it was from the obviously information he has received. The classic example is the one that the noble lady Baroness Ludford mentioned, and it refers to those among the first group of asylum seekers detained under the treaty with France, not a treaty I object to. Actually, in policy terms, I agree with it. But in this particular case they were allowed seven days to make their response and representations.

The notice was served on them seven day notice. Presumably they were entitled, as anyone else in their position, to the 30 minutes of free advice. However, it seems not one of those men received any legal advice in the seven day period. Two were apparently apparently informed they couldn't have legal advice, and only two days after the seven day period had run out were was the serious error put right with an additional advice left? As I say, this isn't an attack on the treaty or what it is trying to do.

It's an attack. My Lords, if I may use that phrase on the system that allows this to happen, I think the speeches that were made in support, particularly that, if I may say so, the noble Lord Lord Carlile of Berriew, should make the government think really carefully about whether this system is working as well as they think on the ground as they think it actually is. All the government departments have involved, and they very much are, of course, the Home Office and particularly the Ministry of Justice need.

And I hope they will look at the system, see how it's working, keep an open mind and hopefully in due course make changes for the better. In the meantime, I'm most grateful to the noble Lord, the Minister, for his offer of a meeting. After this debate is over and I take I will certainly take it up and I hope others will as well. I never had any intention of calling a division on this issue. The idea behind it is to try and persuade the government that there is a real problem here, and I hope that we've

**** Possible New Speaker ****

managed to do that in this debate. The Lords I seek permission to withdraw my amendment. Pleasure, this amendment.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Pleasure, this amendment. Be withdrawn. The amendment is withdrawn. Amendment 34 Lord.
18:05
Lord Cameron of Lochiel Portrait Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Conservative)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

withdrawn. Amendment 34 Lord. Day, the Lord Cameron.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Day, the Lord Cameron. My Lords, almost daily we are subjected to ever more horrific stories of foreign nationals committing horrendous crimes in committing horrendous crimes in this country who are all too often permitted to stay in the United Kingdom. Fahad Al Anazi, an asylum seeker from Kuwait being housed in a hotel in Liverpool, sent sexual messages to a person he believed to be a 14 year old girl. He was sentenced to eight months in jail. The sentence was suspended for 24 months.

Consequently, he will be spared jail time and under the current law, he will not be subject to automatic deportation. Section 32 of the UK Borders Act 2007, as it stands, permits the automatic deportation of a person sentenced to at least 12 months imprisonment, or who is convicted of an offence which is specified in an order made under section 72 for A of the nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 and sentenced to a term of imprisonment. The individual just cited was convicted of attempting to engage in sexual communication with a child, which is an offence under section 15 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003, but is not specified under section 72 for, and since he was convicted of an offence that is not specified and was not sentenced to more than 12 months in prison, he will not be automatically deported.

My Lords, this is obviously wrong. This is a man who is seeking to obtain asylum status in the UK, who is being housed at the taxpayer's expense and is a convicted paedophile. And yet the law will permit him to stay. There are many more examples of this and it cannot be right. We cannot claim to be protecting the British public when we permit people like this to remain in the country. The amendments in this group, in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Jackson of Peterborough, will change that.

Amendment 34 will ensure that where any foreign national is convicted of an offence, regardless of the sentence, they will be deported. The amendment does this through two avenues. Firstly, it makes an alteration to sections three and 24 of the 1971 Immigration Act. Subsection two of my amendment changes the current discretion in section three for a court to recommend deportation where a person over the age of 17 is convicted of an offence to make that recommendation mandatory. The change to section 24 ensures that where a person commits the offence of entering the UK illegally, they will be liable to deportation and the Secretary of State must make the necessary arrangement for that person's removal.

Secondly, my amendment amends sections 32, 33 and 38 of the UK Borders Act 2007 to remove the condition that a person must be sentenced to a custodial sentence of at least 12 months to be eligible for automatic deportation. Government figures show that 12% of the current prison population are foreign national offenders, and that is nearly 11,000 people. Not only this, but a further 19,500 foreign national offenders have been released from jail but not deported. And we know that this government has released almost 40,000 prisoners before the end of their sentences and their sentencing bill, which introduces the presumption that any sentence shorter than 12 months will be suspended, will mean that another 40,000 people will avoid jail every year, and the government claims this is necessary due to prison capacity.

Of course, if the government were to adopt our proposals to remove all foreign national offenders from UK prisons and deport them, and ensure that any foreign national convicted of a criminal offence was also swiftly deported, we would have thousands of spare prison spaces. The British public does not want foreign nationals who commit criminal offences to remain in the United Kingdom. A poll from March this year found that over 80% of people want them deported. But unfortunately, under the law as it stands, this will not happen even after the government brings in changes to the early removal scheme via clause 32 of the sentencing bill.

A significant proportion of foreign criminals will not be deported, and that is to say nothing of those foreign national offenders who have served sentences and then been released. And my noble friend Lord Jackson's Amendment 72 would ensure that they would be given a deportation order within seven days of their release from prison. When the time comes, if the noble Lord decides to test the opinion of the House, he will have my full support. Where this government has acted, we will support them.

They have increased the rates of removal for foreign national offenders and that is welcome. But it is not enough. I beg to move. 41.
18:09
Lord Jackson of Peterborough Portrait Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Conservative)
-
-
Insert the new clause.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I am pleased to speak to amendment 72 in my name and to amendment 72 in my name and emphatically support amendment 34 in the names of my noble friends on in the names of my noble friends on the Front Bench. This amendment seeks to enshrine in law the responsibility and duty on the government to remove from this government to remove from this country those who do not have the automatic right to be here, and who have committed a serious enough have committed a serious enough offence to have been sentenced to a term of imprisonment.

If you come to this country and make it.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

to this country and make it. Your home, then you must. Understand that if you break the law, there are consequences. This amendment should would apply to amendment should would apply to those who have committed crimes serious enough that they present a risk to the security and public risk to the security and public safety of the British people. The increase in the number of foreign

**** Possible New Speaker ****

increase in the number of foreign national offenders between 2021. And. 2024 is three times greater than

**** Possible New Speaker ****

2024 is three times greater than the British national convictions, at 19.4%, compared to 5.9% in 2024. There were 20,866 non summary convictions, of which violence and sexual offences by foreign national sexual offences by foreign national offenders amounted to 14,016 crimes, or 67% of offences, and a quarter of jailed sex offenders come from just five countries. We also have over 11,000 foreign national offenders housed in our prison estate. As my noble friend said, Albanians take up over a thousand prison places and to my knowledge, as they have neither been part of the British Empire or the Commonwealth and have never been citizens of the European Union.

Why is this the case and what what are ministers doing about it? At the same time, the number of foreign national offenders has risen to 19,244. At the end of 2024. Those are ones that have been released and not deported. One of the reasons for this is the backlog of legal cases by those who have challenged deportation. The government needs to take to take strong action to clear this backlog and remove offenders who present themselves. But this government can blame only itself, in all honesty, for this crisis for which it has no solutions.

It's cultural cringe to the European Court of Human Rights and its activists, so-called jurists, has facilitated the abuse of the central tenets of human rights and obligations by our own activist judiciary, as well as some rapacious and cynical human rights lawyers. Lord Hain my my Lords the necessity of this amendment, the imperative of placing such a duty on a statutory footing, has been shown by recent events. A foreign offender who was imprisoned for sexual assault was accidentally released, then only deported after he was recaptured.

He was then paid £500 so that he would not try and challenge his deportation. He was given taxpayers money in case he tried to claim asylum. The government should not be in a situation where officials must decide that the paying of foreign offenders to leave nicely is the only way forward in order to cause a disturbance. That is not the best course of action. An individual convicted and having served time for sexual assault should not have the ability to hold our immigration system to ransom.

My Lords. On a wider question, can I ask the Minister, could he advise the House on the progress made in the returns deal with the Balkan States and the review of article eight of the European Convention on Human Rights, which my noble friend Lord Harper challenged him on two months ago. On the 8th of September. On that date, the noble Lord, the minister stated at column 1164 we will simplify the rules and processes for removing foreign national offenders and take further targeted action against recent arrivals who commit crime in the UK before their offending can escalate.

Later this year, we will table legislation to strengthen the public interest test, to make it clear that Parliament needs to be able to control our country's borders and take back control over who comes to and stays in the UK. May I ask the noble Lord, the Minister, when are we likely to see this new legislation? I can see that the government has done some positive and moved in in a positive direction. Around 5100 foreign national offenders were deported in 2024, which to their credit is more than just the 4000 deported under the previous government.

That said, a large number chose to leave voluntarily. I spoke in committee, my Lords, about a chronic issue of mismanagement in the criminal justice system, that mismanagement has now been brought to public attention, and in the 12 months leading to March 2025, 262 prisoners were released by mistake, a 128% increase compared to the previous year. A criminal justice system which is as dysfunctional as ours, as error prone as this, needs clarity brought to it where possible, and this is what this amendment brings.

Now, I agree, my Lords, my own party's record was suboptimal, but this government has had 16 months to develop. That's polite, a workable strategy. And yet the one in, one out strategy is an embarrassment and an international joke. Plans to spend vast sums of money on asylum, hostels and houses in multiple occupation continue, and we are welcoming Gazans and their families without any proper security, vetting or due diligence. My Lords, we need a strong, firm response to bring this deep rooted issue under control.

The British people want the government to act. There has been some positive progress, but they need to go further. And on that basis, I commend this amendment to the House.
18:16
Baroness Hoey Portrait Baroness Hoey (Non-affiliated)
-
-
Well done.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I rise to. Support very. Strongly amendment 34 and 72. And I imagine that if the public are watching this, this would be the First Amendment this afternoon, that there would be wholehearted that there would be wholehearted support for. Yes, but I want to and I think it's it's just such common I think it's it's just such common sense that anyone who is not a British citizen and is foreign, national and has been sentenced to prison, personally, I would like them deported as soon as they're sentenced, but I accept that that sentenced, but I accept that that may not be that may be going a little too far for the noble Lords, but at least when they've served their sentence, they should be deported.

But I want to raise just a couple of very quick points about a couple of very quick points about the concern that I think the noble Lord, the Minister, will know in Northern Ireland that, like other Northern Ireland that, like other Bills three Bills in fact, in the last while, the Rwanda Act, the Illegal Migration Act 2023 and the Illegal Migration Act 2023 and the soon to be defunct Legacy Act, that all of those were ruled by the courts in Northern Ireland, that courts in Northern Ireland, that they could not be working in Northern Ireland.

And I want to Northern Ireland. And I want to just ask to him to be very, very clear about this is meant to be a bill for the United Kingdom. But bill for the United Kingdom. But the reality is that because of the Windsor framework article two, the which includes commitments that Northern Ireland will keep pace with certain EU rights, there is absolutely clear, I think, to me, and I hope to the Minister, that if the EU law says something different from our national law, then EU law applies on these kinds of issues.

And so there could be two categories of people in Northern Ireland courts. It seems beyond doubt that foreign criminals convicted who are EU citizens will have the additional protection of the EU Citizens Rights Directive and those who are not EU will still have protection, enhanced protection from deportation under the Windsor framework and it will lead to, I think, a possibility that Northern Ireland could become this kind of real magnet for foreign criminals. I really do hope that that the current government, who have appealed a court ruling on this issue, which is very, very important and we hope that we'll get that result very soon from the Supreme Court.

But we cannot have a situation, my Lords, where this bill could go through and then we end up with part of the United Kingdom not being able to to deport in the same way. Foreign, national.
18:18
Baroness Butler-Sloss Portrait Baroness Butler-Sloss (Crossbench)
-
-
I'd like.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

order. Of deportation. I very much support. As I suspect the.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Whole. House does, that they. Should be removed. But looking

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Should be removed. But looking at clause at amendment 34, it's not, as Lord Jackson. Suggested. Where somebody has got a prison

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Where somebody has got a prison sentence. It's anyone who has. Been convicted of an offence. Does that.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Mean if somebody is convicted of. Careless driving. They are. Actually to.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

They are. Actually to. Be deported? And on the reading of. Amendment 34.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendment 34. Sub amendment two, that's exactly what it appears to be. And exactly what it appears to be. And that does seem to me a trifle extreme. But the second point I extreme. But the second point I wanted to raise was, although I recognise that deportation to a recognise that deportation to a safe country who is prepared to take the person back is one thing take the person back is one thing where I wonder, does the noble Lord, Lord Davis of GA, intend people who've come from unsafe countries to go to? What's concerning me is to go to? What's concerning me is where somebody from Afghanistan or from Syria at the moment, or from Darfur commits an offence, it would be unlikely that they could be sent back there or to Iran.

And where is it suggested in the wording of this amendment that these people should go to?
18:20
18:20
Lord Harper Portrait Lord Harper (Conservative)
-
-
My Lords, I rise briefly to support both of these amendments. I think it's sensible that we set a presumption that those who are here, as effectively, are guests that have to follow the rules and and enabling them to be or insisting that they be deported if they commit crimes strikes me as very sensible. Putting it in in statute is very important. We've done this before. In the past, when we were having problems with courts interpreting some of the human rights legislation around people's right to a family life, interpreting it very broadly, we made some clear rules and put them in primary legislation in the 2014 Immigration Act and that largely, not entirely, largely dealt with those problems.

It had a rule in there that if you were sentenced to a prison sentence, a certain length, you had to be deported. This is a logical extension of that, and I think it would actually strengthen the government's hand in a number of the cases that my noble friend Lord Jackson and my noble friend Lord Cameron set out were actually Ministers sound as frustrated as the rest of us that they're not able to deport people, or if they are, only after a very lengthy legal process.

And I think just picking that point up that was made by the noble lady Baroness Hamwee a moment ago about the challenging the deportation. I think my Noble Friends amendment is drafted because the person concerned would have had the opportunity under the criminal law to challenge his sentence if there was some issue with the legal case. But having been convicted of the criminal offence concerned, then it should follow that they are then deported and you shouldn't get a second bite of the cherry to have effectively another appeal when you've already had the chance to appeal against the sentence in the first place.

I think the other benefit of these amendments is yes, initially, they would be challenging for the government for the reasons that I think the noble Lady Butler-Sloss set out about where you can send people back to. But what it would do is it would force the government to do two things. First of all, it would force them to engage with some of the countries where returning people is more challenging. And there are two ways you do that. Either you send people back before they finish serving their sentence, and you have a prisoner transfer agreement where they can go back to that their home country and continue serving the sentence in that country before their release from prison.

That is the preferable outcome, I think, where they still have a measure of justice. The second thing it would do is it would force the government to confront the case, the cases that the noble lady Baroness Butler-Sloss set out, which are challenging. I accept, but it can't be right that because somebody is from a from certain countries, they can come to the United Kingdom, commit any level, any level of criminality, and once they finish their prison sentence, we can't get rid of them.

And one of the things that I think we should force the government to confront is whether if you can't send them back to their home country with two, two tests, one is actually does someone forfeit the right to avoid being. Let me just finish the sentence. Then of course I'll give way to the noble lady. Should someone who comes from a country that we don't deem safe be able to forfeit the right to not be sent back to it by their conduct? That, I think, is a question that we should ask.

And then the second one I'll address

**** Possible New Speaker ****

after I've given way to the noble lady. I asked the noble Lord, what about careless driving? Because about careless driving? Because he's dealing with people who've been convicted and sentenced to imprisonment. But the wording of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

imprisonment. But the wording of this amendment would include careless driving. Well. The noble lady, I would say,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The noble lady, I would say, first of all, that careless driving is not, I would suggest, a trivial is not, I would suggest, a trivial offence. I, I dealt, I dealt when I was immigration minister with a a father who had lost their child because of someone's poor driving, and we were struggling to remove them from the country for a similar reason. The noble lady Baroness Hoey set up. They were an EU Hoey set up. They were an EU national and there was a a stricter test about whether you could remove them.

And I have to say that father them. And I have to say that father who lost his child thought that that driving offence was really that driving offence was really quite serious, and so I wouldn't trivialise it at all. The second trivialise it at all. The second thing is that we should also look at the opportunity. If we can't deport somebody to the country from deport somebody to the country from which they come, whether there's the opportunity as we set out in our Rwanda policies about whether you can deport them to another safe country, because actually it's very clear the British people don't want serious criminals who've come to this country staying here.

And look, there's a debate about the detail of this that we can have. But I think the principle is a very clear one. And when the minister replies, I hope he can address the principle about whether he thinks that people in the circumstances set out by my note two noble friends should be able to stay here. And finally, finally, oh of course.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm sorry, I, I want to follow the argument or the reasons that the argument or the reasons that the noble and learned Baroness had just tried to raise you. Look at the wording. I'm afraid the process the wording. I'm afraid the process could all still be very long. You say, when a person to whom this subsection applies is convicted of subsection applies is convicted of an offence, the court must sentence the person to deportation from the United Kingdom trial judge.

They said this person is grievous bodily said this person is grievous bodily harm and and is being tried and the EVs the jury's working. They will say, yeah, he's guilty. So he's found guilty of the crime that he's committed. And you're saying committed. And you're saying immediately that same court must sentence this person to deportation, but the person who's been convicted still in this country has a right of appealing. First of all, he may of appealing. First of all, he may challenge the way the jury was selected and the way everything selected and the way everything happened.

And then thirdly, they may actually challenge the sentence itself, saying, this is condemning itself, saying, this is condemning me to death because the place that you want to send me, I left there because it is still a very dangerous place. So you're sentencing me to death, and you're saying that that will happen. The processes of appeals will still happen. It won't happen immediately.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Look, that was quite a lengthy intervention with quite a number of intervention with quite a number of of points there. Look, the the point I would make to the noble Lord is, I think that the case he Lord is, I think that the case he raises about a country that that we would normally deem not safe is a perfectly reasonable one. But as I perfectly reasonable one. But as I said, I think my challenge back would be do we think that somebody would be do we think that somebody who comes from certain countries where we would not normally return where we would not normally return someone, is there any offence of a level of seriousness which we think should make them immune to being should make them immune to being sent back to that country? And I think there are certain offences that people commit where it is that people commit where it is reasonable, where they forfeit the right to stay in the United Kingdom.

And I think that is a perfectly And I think that is a perfectly reasonable case. Now, it may be that the wording in these amendments isn't entirely perfect, amendments isn't entirely perfect, but I think the argument that we're having that if you come to this country and you commit a serious sexual offence, for example, that, my noble friend, use an example, or you murder somebody or you rape them, should should you be able to stay here forever because the country from which you come isn't ideal, and which we normally wouldn't send you back to? I think that is a that is a debate worth having, and I think the general public would take a much more robust position in those cases than, than many members of your Lordships House would feel comfortable with.

And I think that is a debate worth having. The final point I would make is just to urge, as my noble friend Lord Jackson did, because he got in before me just to challenge him to see whether the minister can respond on the points on the debate we had earlier about what is the government going to do to bring forward either amendments or changes to how it interprets human rights legislation, to give it a better chance? Because I'm assuming the government is not going to accept these amendments to give it a better chance of removing people who who we know the government would actually like to get rid of.

And the case that my noble friend Lord Jackson set out, I think Ministers was were sounded to me like they were very frustrated and as frustrated as my noble friend. So I look forward in due course to the minister's reply here.
18:29
Lord Deben Portrait Lord Deben (Conservative)
-
-
I don't think I would be.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Accused of being very extreme on these issues, and therefore. I do want to apply.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I do want to apply. A very serious matter here, which is that.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

This is an issue which most. Disturbs people in Britain and

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Disturbs people in Britain and those of us who are determined. To protect. A multiracial.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

A multiracial. Society who. Believe strongly in people

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Believe strongly in people proud. To have grandchildren, who are being educated with a.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

being educated with a. Wide range of different backgrounds in schools. Which care backgrounds in schools. Which care about that. We are very concerned that we do not deport people who have been guilty of offences, and have been guilty of offences, and have been guilty of offences, and we are concerned because it is. by t Britain, not who have committed offences. Now it is clearly that offences. Now it is clearly that this amendment is faulty.

Because we're not talking frankly about offences of a very. Very minor kind. That's not what we're talking about. What I hope the Minister will help people like me who are entirely. Moderate about these issues. I hope he will help us, because every time there is a case when someone. Is not deported who has been found guilty by a British court of an offence which is of a serious kind or merely of a kind, which we believe people who are our guests here, because that is the circumstance, should have considered as part of their responsibility that they live here in peace with the rest of us.

Every time that person is not deported, then those loudmouthed people of then those loudmouthed people of the right are given. Yet more. More reason to be incendiary. Now, I'm sorry that my noble friend used some of the words that he did in his defence of his amendment, because I think his amendment properly amended so that we don't get ourselves into Lady Butler-Sloss concerns that I think his amendment is one which is should be supported by people who couldn't accept some of the things that he said.

But what he has put forward and what the frontbenchers put forward is something which the government really does have to answer, because the public really feels strongly about this. And I have to say I feel strongly about it. I don't understand why somebody who isn't a citizen, who commits a crime should not be deported. I do understand that some of those circumstances will be difficult because of the country from which they have originally come. I do understand that you need to amend this amendment properly to meet what we really want.

But what I want to ask the Minister is will he accept that unless we face up to this issue, we will constantly be giving to people whom we don't want to stir up trouble? The most wonderful opportunity to do so. And that is why this these amendments have got to be taken seriously.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Hear, hear. Very quickly, because. It has always puzzled. Me
18:34
Earl of Erroll Portrait The Earl of Erroll (Crossbench)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

because article eight has got two clauses in it. The first one, the right to private. Family life. The second.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Part of it. Is you may, you may you can. Ignore that. If it's in accordance.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

If it's in accordance. To the law, it's necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

of national security, public safety, or the economic well being of the country, for the prevention. Of.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Disorder of crime, protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others. So I don't see freedoms of others. So I don't see what the problem is with having something with that to insert, whereby we can remove people if they are breaching that, and it's part of article eight. Article eight is not an unqualified right

**** Possible New Speaker ****

to to a family life at all. And on. The point, by the way, about careless driving. Of course,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

careless driving. Of course, careless driving is sort of if you've made a bit of a mistake. Dangerous driving really is a. Dangerous offence and that I can

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Dangerous offence and that I can quite see would qualify. I'm not so depends.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

On the circumstances. Can I just. Make an observation? I think it's been a fascinating debate this afternoon.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

debate this afternoon. And I. Do support the the amendment standing in the names of Lord Cameron. And and Lord Jackson. And I

**** Possible New Speaker ****

And and Lord Jackson. And I think this is a type of debate that I think we need to have in this chamber. These are moral issues. chamber. These are moral issues. They're wide issues. They go to the heart of what we do with our justice system. But I think one justice system. But I think one thing that's been forgotten in the debate this afternoon is the purpose of some measures which have been described by some as extreme been described by some as extreme and somehow a little bit too far reaching is to have a deterrent
18:35
18:36
18:36
Lord Mackinlay of Richborough Portrait Lord Mackinlay of Richborough (Conservative)
-
-
who's done it. It should be the knowledge of the wider public, whether that's our standing population or those who are living population or those who are living amongst us seeking refugee status, that there are normalities and that there are normalities and reasonable behaviour that is expected of all. And if we have what some describe as extreme what some describe as extreme measures on our statute book, perhaps that could actually facilitate better behaviour. So I don't think we should be frightened of this.

And I think we do need a wider debate and the government actually opening up more countries to be deemed acceptable and deemed to be deemed acceptable and deemed safe, because we do hear of our European neighbour countries are taking rather a different view of taking rather a different view of what is deemed a safe country, including Afghanistan, than we do in this country, because I don't in this country, because I don't think that their their human rights industry is quite got to the advanced state that we have in the advanced state that we have in the UK.

We have an opportunity here to for the British public to realise that these parliaments are that these parliaments are listening to them and their concerns and, and I do welcome this concerns and, and I do welcome this wider debate. So if we don't adopt this today, I think the government should take it on board as to where the government can move towards the position of the wider public.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I think it's entirely positive that we can say, let's
18:37
Baroness Fox of Buckley Portrait Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-affiliated)
-
-
positive that we can say, let's look at the wording of this. We might have some qualms about whether we need to reword it, avoid unintended consequences. That's fine. But I think the noble Lord Lord Mackinlay made the right point. This is a very important and a moral debate, and it's one which actually more and more people in the country are frustrated that Parliament is not having. So it's very positive that we are. I wanted to just emphasise two things really, which is that the emphasis that often happens is that we are considering what would happen if we deport people to countries that we deem to be unsafe, what will happen to their safety? Whereas actually the key question is what about the safety of British citizens who actually get forgotten in that whole discussion? So we end up with this ridiculous situation where we're saying, oh, I'm really worried about this person who has committed a serious sex crime, that if they're returned to their country, they might actually be thrown into some terribly unsafe prison.

They might be beaten up or killed for the fact that they're a sex criminal. You have that, oh, we've got to save them rather than the victims of that particular person. So that's why people get frustrated about the topsy turvy nature of it. The second thing is, is that until we actually legislate on this, then the British public could rightly say that the government has no control over a decision that it wants to make, which is to deport foreign nationals who commit crimes in this country.

And that's entirely appropriate. Even if we work out the wording so that it's proportionate. And the final thing is we're about to start the sentencing bill, something I'm very interested in. The plight of the state of prisons is incredibly depressing at the moment. The in fact, if you're going to talk about unsafe, I don't know that going in prison is that safe for anyone as it goes. But anyway, they're overcrowded there. There's real serious problems in our prison system.

It seems. Absolutely unexplainable that we would have people in that prison system both taking spaces that we just haven't got, who we should by right, say, do not deserve to be in this country because they broke the social contract. They were given an opportunity to be here. Sometimes they they're illegal. That's different. But if they are given right to remain and then they either murder, rape or steal or whatever from their fellow citizens, they have broken the the basis on which we trusted them to stay.

And that's reasonable. I think the noble Lord Lord Deben made a point. This is not an extreme position. This is a normal, common, sensible position which I have as I've everything I've heard from the government they agree with. But if they agree with it, then they need to legislate accordingly, which is what these amendments try and do.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yes. My Lords, this has been very

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, this has been very interesting. It'd be no surprise, I think, to members of the Conservative Party that we oppose amendment 34 and we oppose amendment 72. In fact, it's quite interesting here that in this interesting here that in this debate, once the the rat has been let out of the sack, that the let out of the sack, that the amendment itself is, is not capable of being put to the House, then of course, this is turned into a course, this is turned into a Second Reading debate about other issues, which are the way we should be talking about about this matter.
18:40
Lord German Portrait Lord German (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
be talking about about this matter. I will turn to that in a moment, but just take this amendment at face value as they're written, because that's what the report stage of the bill is about reporting about amendments, which we're discussing, not about raising other issues which should have been raised in Second Reading debates way back at the beginning amendment. These amendments embody approach of absolute and mandatory deportation that sacrifices judicial discretion and proportionality in favour of unworkable rigidity, thereby undermining fundamental legal safeguards and international obligations.

Amendment 34 proposes a sweeping new deportation regime. The explanatory material states that this new clause would require the deportation of any foreign national who is convicted of any offence in the United Kingdom. Further, it seeks to amend the Immigration Act 1971 by requiring a court to sentence a non-British citizen over the age of 17 convicted of an offence to deportation from the United Kingdom. You might call this the the Mars Bar scheme, whereby anybody who steals a mars bar will be deported or percussive wasn't serious enough.

It may well be that you have to have a multipack of Mars bars rather than a single one. So we must oppose this this proposal on multiple grounds. Firstly, lack of proportionality and balance. This amendment introduces an obligation to make a deportation order with no exceptions and no discretion. Such an absolute provision ignores the circumstances of the offence, mitigating factors, or the length of time a person may have been lawfully in this country. It comes to something with a noble Lord praise in aid of the ECHR has been able to support us against an amendment from the Conservative Party.

I think that's an extremely interesting way forward. Risk of torture and human rights breach. This obligation to deport would apply, even if removal would send the person concerned to a country where they will face torture, or even in some countries where they have capital punishment. The proposal is unworkable and contrary to our international obligations. Thirdly, vulnerability and modern slavery. Amendment 34 would remove protections for under 18 and victims of human trafficking. For example, a small child arrived in the UK, committed a crime, was sentenced to prison, and was subsequently found to be a victim of modern slavery.

For the purposes of force, criminality would be subject to automatic removal without any court or tribunal mechanism to consider the circumstances of their case. Fourthly, eroding criminal safeguards. Amendment 34 seeks to amend section 24 of the Immigration Act 1971 by omitting instances of inverted commas knowingly from certain immigration offences, removing this element of mens rea lack of knowledge is defence will likely result in consequential deportation decisions being subject to more challenges. Under the European Convention on Human Rights Amendment, 72 places a duty to remove foreign offenders on the on the Secretary of State.

It mandates that a deportation order must be made against any non-British citizen who has been sentenced to a term of imprisonment different in this amendment, and completed their term. Crucially, it dictates that the Secretary of State must make the deportation order within the period of seven days. Now, this amendment falls foul of some of the critical flaws in amendment 34. Firstly, an unworkable time timeline and mandatory duty placing a statutory duty on the Secretary of State to execute a deportation order within a rigid seven day period against any person sentenced to imprisonment, disregards the complex process required for removal, particularly when a human rights or protection claim is lodged.

Secondly, absence of scrutiny and due process. Such an absolute obligation removes necessary judicial oversight and requires deportation without considering the individual's human rights. The objective of mandating deportation in this manner risks encouraging offending behaviour, and would not necessarily increase removals from the UK. Thirdly, it conflicts with legal principles in mandating deportation for any offence. Conviction. Without exception, this amendment ignores the fact that deportation orders can be made against those who are victims of coercion or human trafficking.

To support these kinds of absolutist amendments, especially in the context of deportation, is incredibly difficult for anyone who believes in the rule of law and due process. So, my Lords, we must remain resolute in our commitment to deport those who abuse our hospitality by committing crimes in the UK. But the paths produced and proposed by amendments 34 and 72 substitute effective balanced legislation with measures of legal absolutism. We must empower the government to act decisively, but we must do so in a way that respects fundamental rights, due process and proportionality.

These

**** Possible New Speaker ****

tests. I'm grateful to the noble Lord Cameron and the noble Lord Jackson of Peterborough for tabling the amendments, because they have as self-evidently generated a good discussion on some important principles. For the avoidance of any doubt, the support of Baroness any doubt, the support of Baroness Fox Lord Mackinlay of Richborough, the noble Lord Harper, and others. the noble Lord Harper, and others. For the avoidance of doubt, the government will oppose these amendments tonight. But that doesn't mean that the government is doesn't mean that the government is going to be opposing the principle of deporting foreign national offenders.

Could I just start by offenders. Could I just start by saying I'm really grateful to the noble Lord Stephen for his measured approach to this issue. I very often find myself agreeing with him now, which is contrary to what I
18:47
Lord Hanson of Flint Portrait Lord Hanson of Flint, The Minister of State, Home Department (Labour)
-
-
now, which is contrary to what I did during the whole of the 1980s. But I'll, I will, I will, I will take that back as a, as a, as a potential area of support. And I appreciate his, his reasoned approach to this issue because he is right. It is important that the British people know that the government will take action on these issues. It is important that the British people know that this fairness on these issues, and it is important that the British people understand that this government is not going to tolerate foreign national offenders committing offences in this country, which is why I just say to all noble lords who have spoken today, in the period between July of the general election in 2024 and July of this year, this government has increased the number of foreign national deportations by some 14% over the previous year of the previous government.

Now the noble Lord Jackson shakes his head. This government has increased the deportation of foreign national offenders during the course of this year. Now I know, he said. And he gave reference to the previous Conservative government, 5200 foreign national criminals in the past year, July to July, were removed. Now, that's why I just say to the noble Lord Deben that we're trying to meet the objectives that he set. It is important that individuals in the country know that. But the amendments brought forward today, amendment 34, would seek to extend automatic deportation to any foreign national convicted of an offence.

And I take the point that the noble and learned Lady Bernard Baroness Butler-Sloss, has mentioned an offence committed in the UK without consideration of the Human Rights Amendment 72 from the noble Lord Jackson seeks to prevent any appeal against deportation. Both of those issues remove protections for under 18 for victims of human trafficking in the face of the UK Borders Act 2007. It also would require a court to pass a sentence of deportation to any foreign national convicted of an offence in the UK, and the noble Lord German comments on that were extremely important.

Now, again, just to back up what I've said with regard to the performance on removal of foreign national offenders, Noble Lords have made some very important points about how we need to put in place prisoner transfer agreements. I spent a part of 2009 when a minister of justice, negotiating one with the Nigerian authorities. It's important that we continue to do that and continue to work with our partners. But no one's going to have a prisoner transfer agreement. Agreed. If we ignore our human rights issues under international obligations, nobody's going to sign one of those with this country if we're ignoring our human rights obligations as a whole.

Now, what is the government going to do if we accept that I will oppose the amendments proposed by the Front bench and the noble Lord Jackson today? Well, we're going to simplify the rules and processes for removing foreign national offenders. We're going to take further targeted action against any recent arrivals who commit crimes in the UK before their offending can escalate. Later this year, we're going to set out more detailed reforms and stronger measures to ensure our laws are upheld, including streamlining and speeding up the removals process process later this year in the Earl of noble Earl of Erroll, we're going to be looking at article eight and how we can streamline that proposal.

We're going to bring forward legislation to strengthen the public interest test, to make it clear that Parliament needs to be able to control our country's borders and take back control over who comes to and stays in the UK. Striking that right balance between the rights of individual family rights and the wider public interest. The very point the noble Earl mentioned. Now, those are things that we're going to bring forward. We're going to bring them forward later this year. It may not satisfy noble Lords that in this House that we're not doing it today, but we're going to bring those things forward.

But the amendments before us tonight would not be workable. And as the noble Lord German has said, would be contrary to our international obligations. Now, again, I recognise that some members of this House will want us to walk away from our international obligations. I understand that, but actually our obligations are there because we do support the Council of Europe Convention for action Against Trafficking in Human Beings, of which we're signatory. We do support other legislation which give human rights legislation, which is important.

And I don't I don't accept for a moment. I don't accept that amendment 34 or amendment 72 would be of assistance in helping us maintain an international reputation, which I think is important for this UK to maintain.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I just hope that the noble Lord would accept that we are discussing a border security, asylum and immigration bill, and what he's immigration bill, and what he's saying is what the government is going to do. The problem for some going to do. The problem for some of us is that this bill ought to have had this in it. And as a result, we've got two unsatisfactory amendments. But the only way that we can bring home to only way that we can bring home to the government just how serious this is, is how on earth can we this is, is how on earth can we produce a what will be an act before us without what the minister before us without what the minister is now saying is going to be? And that's the problem we all have.

We that's the problem we all have. We support the government's very considerable improvement. I have already said to my own side that I already said to my own side that I think a bit of humility about how well we manage some of these things would help a lot, but it doesn't mean to say that there shouldn't be a bit of virility about asking the a bit of virility about asking the government actually to act more quickly, and it should have been in this act, which is why some of us this act, which is why some of us are going to find it very difficult not to support the amendments, not because we think the amendments are because we think the amendments are right, not because they shouldn't be different, but because the government's produced a bill which

**** Possible New Speaker ****

doesn't have this in it. Yeah. Well, the this.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Well, the this. Bill covers a whole range of manifesto commitments that the government brought forward in the general election, including the general election, including the establishment of Border Security Commander and that Border Security Commander, for example, going back Commander, for example, going back to the issues the noble Lord Jackson mentioned about Albania has established a Balkans task force dealing with the whole range of dealing with the whole range of issues there to tighten up on our performance with countries such as Albania.

This bill covers a whole range of other matters, but the noble Lord Deben has been around a long time. He knows the government long time. He knows the government has processes to follow and legislation to bring forward. I'm saying today that we are going to saying today that we are going to bring forward, in very short order, the measures I have outlined detailed reforms on ensuring our laws are upheld, simplifying the rules on processing for removal rules on processing for removal foreign national offenders, strengthening public interest tests under article eight.

That's going under article eight. That's going to happen in very, very short order. Not everything can happen in the first 12 months of a government. But actually, if I go back to the But actually, if I go back to the point that were mentioned, the non-legislative drive has seen us increase the number of foreign increase the number of foreign national offenders by 14% removed from this country. So it's a it's an absolutely important matter that we have. Now. I just want to before I finish the noble Baroness Hoey asked me an important issue, and I just want to give her a response on this.

Immigration is a reserved matter. Deportation powers are consistent across the United Kingdom. Article two, one of the Windsor Framework provides a commitment at the right. Safeguards and equality of opportunities set out a particular part of the Good Friday Agreement are not diminished as a result of EU exit. This means that certain rights people in Northern Ireland had, before Brexit, cannot be reduced as a result of EU exit. The Home Secretary is currently continuing to challenge some court interpretations on those matters, including the scope of article two, one of the Windsor Framework, both in the case of Dillon versus the SOS for Northern Ireland, as well as pursuing an appeal against the High Court ruling on the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission's application, JR 295, which found that certain provisions of the Illegal Migration Act were incompatible with article two of the Windsor framework.

Bluntly, though, bottom line is when foreign nationals commit serious crimes in our country, we will do everything in our power to deport them. We will bring back measures in the near future on some of the issues that have been raised to date, to give greater support and clarification, but I can't accept the amendments in the name of the noble Lord or indeed the noble Lord Jackson of Peterborough.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I'm very grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate. It's been very this debate. It's been very spirited. I've listened very carefully, especially to the noble Lord, the minister, who has
18:55
18:56
None Portrait Division
-



**** Possible New Speaker ****

When voting is open. Voting is. Now open. Yes. Yes. OK. Yes. OK. So. Yes. Yes. Three Yes. Three minutes.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My My Lords My Lords.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords. My lord.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, the question. Is that amendment. 34 be agreed to. As many as are

**** Possible New Speaker ****

34 be agreed to. As many as are to. The contrary, not. Content. Not content will go to the right of.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the right of. The throne. The not content to the left by

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I I will.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I will. Report.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Report.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Report.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

You to. No one. You can have You to. No one. You can have an

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My My Lords. My Lords. The question. Is.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

That this amendment.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yes.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yes.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yes. My Lords. There have voted.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

There have voted. Contents 182, not contents 227. The not contents have it.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My My Lords, My Lords, I My Lords, I beg My Lords, I beg to My Lords, I beg to move My Lords, I beg to move that

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I beg to move that adjourned. The question is that further consideration on report. Be now adjourned. As many.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

adjourned. As many. Of that opinion will say. Content the contrary, not content. The contents will have it. We will allow a moment.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

We will allow a moment. For the House. To arrange itself for the
19:09
19:09
Lord Roborough Portrait Lord Roborough (Conservative)
-
-
a group of committee because the facts have changed following the CV Supreme Court judgement. This creates an opportunity to accelerate home building, which this. Bill currently threatens to eliminate unnecessarily. I speak to the application of the Habitats Regulations to Ramsar sites from the backbenches and leave the policy area of House building to my frontbench colleagues, as it is their speciality. My amendments remove clause 90 and schedule six from this bill, preventing the legal imposition of Habitats regulations on Ramsar sites.

And before I go on, I should refer the House to my Register of interests as an owner of development land, as far as I know, not impacted by nutrient neutrality or Ramsar. My Lords, we in government chose to apply Habitats regulations to Ramsar sites through policy as a well intentioned move to recognise the special international status of these wetland sites. I do not see evidence that our largest neighbours, such as France and Germany, have chosen to do the same. Since then, we have all watched in horror as Natural England's advice on nutrient neutrality within the Habitats regulations has led to as many as 160,000 new homes being blocked.

We know that 18,000 of these are through the application of Habitats regulations to the Ramsar site on the Somerset Levels. I and my noble friends have asked the government several times how many more homes than this. 18,000 are currently blocked by the unnecessary application of Habitats regulations to Ramsar sites, and I hope we can receive that answer today. My Lords, the C.B. fry judgement that simply adopting this as policy does not carry legal weight was right. The Habitats Regulations derive from EU law and were designed to apply to sites with protection under EU law, and no further Natural England has been able to advise for years that specific land should have Spa or SAC designation and be brought under Habitats regulations.

The fact that many Ramsar sites have only partial or no protection as European sites is because so far Natural England have judged they do not need it. Ramsar sites already have protection under paragraph 104 of the National Planning Policy Framework. If, after the C.B. fry judgement, Natural England were to advise that more European designations were necessary on the Ramsar sites, and the government accepted that, then at that point habitat regulations would apply should my amendment be passed. I am sure Natural England will want to evaluate that point, and I would urge them to be highly scientific and evidence based in that process, because the eyes of those needing houses will be on them.

The Natural England advice in the C.B. fry case related to the Ramsar site was not even that the development would add to the level of phosphates in the Somerset Levels, but would slow the rate of improvement in phosphate levels. Natural England had no objection based on the Spa designation for the Somerset Levels. This appears to be a pretty tenuous argument. I urge the government to accept my amendments, not to blindly block new House building and allow the Habitats regulations to perform more closely to their original intention.

Clause 90 and section six of this bill. Unnecessarily and voluntarily gold plate the application of the Habitats Regulations to Ramsar sites for which they were not intended, to the detriment of the broader interests of our country. Without my amendments, this planning bill, designed to accelerate housebuilding and growth will actually block housebuilding. leave.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Out clause 90 my Lords. If there's. One thing I've heard time and time again during the passage of time again during the passage of this bill and from the government front benches, this is a bill to streamline the obstacles for anybody who wants to get anything
19:13
Lord Fuller Portrait Lord Fuller (Conservative)
-
-
anybody who wants to get anything done in this country. And that's what amendment 208 does, which I support it entirely. Just under two weeks ago, as my noble friend, the Lord Lord Roborough mentioned in the Supreme Court for four years of litigation concluded in the Frye case, and the case revolved around the protections of Ramsar sites. In essence, the court was asked to judge whether Ramsar sites were subject to the same onerous requirements as sites protected by the EU Habitats Directive, including the potential for developments to be blocked at the stage of discharging planning conditions many years after they have obtained that planning permission.

Now, for over 50 years since 1971, when the Ramsar Treaty relating to over 2500 wetlands in 172 nations, was signed in the town of Ramsar in modern day Iran. It has never been the case that EU Habitats Directive Directorates apply to these important places for that for that period over the entire world, Ramsar sites have been protected without any reference to the EU, to EU regulations or any other state paraphernalia that flows from Brussels. And why would they be? Because there are 23 sites in Brazil, six in Cameroon, one in Mongolia, three in Equatorial Guinea and 39 in Japan.

The EU is irrelevant to these places where Natural England, as the government's statutory adviser, quite wrongly asserted that EU habitats regulations were relevant when they're not. Don't take my word for it. Take the word of the Supreme Court. They concluded that the regulator had no business in making the equivalence between Ramsar and the other nature sites, which are covered by the Habitats Directive. The Supreme Court held that Ramsar sites were not subject to this level of protection, as they fell outside the Habitats Directorate.

So 12 days ago, a regulatory burden was lifted. Now, inexplicably, the government now seeks to undo that pro-growth judgement by bringing the Ramsar sites back within the Habitats Regulations, even though they fall outside the regulations parent directive. So we need a moment to see what's happened here. The justices concluded the Natural England had overreached themselves in their advice to government, that they couldn't interpret the legislation accurately. They misdirected themselves and, crucially, misadvised the entire development industry as to the truth.

Natural England dossier had the effect of holding up tens of thousands of homes. The evidence before the court in the Frye case was that 18,000 homes had been held up in Somerset alone, many already with planning permission, owing to Natural England's misplaced concerns. Now the economic consequences have been crippling. Housing affordability is worsening. The scientific analysis behind their objections remains questionable, and I know that from their approach to nutrient neutrality and Norfolk, in effect, a global treaty was used to gold plate EU legislation when it had no business of doing so in the UK.

That's not me saying it. That's what the Supreme Court found. Natural England got it wrong, badly wrong. And even when they had the chance to throw in the towel and admit their mistake, they pressed on for four years now. So let's get this right. The quango that government tells us can be trusted to get Britain building is exposed as a blocker, not a builder, not as a matter of opinion, but as a matter of law. Now, that's not to say there should be no regulation at all.

In fact, quite the reverse. We on these benches believe strongly that Ramsar sites should be protected, as they currently are in government policy under paragraph 194 of the National Planning Policy Framework, subject to the ordinary principles of planning law. It's just that this organisation that will be simultaneously the adviser, regulator, operator, price setter, enforcer and promoter of all the EDPs contemplated by part three of this bill is making a complete Horlicks of it again. Tens of thousands of homes, quite unnecessarily and wrongly, have been held up, and fewer affordable homes have been built, especially in the rural communities that need them most.

Because Natural England lacked the competence and professionalism to read, interpret and advise ministers on the regulations properly. But with that court case to hand, you would have imagined that the government would have been delighted with the court's decision. They're the ones who keep saying we need to sweep, sweep away all the gold plating of the regulations that holds back growth. The government tells us they have chosen a path to lower regulation by this bill. They have sought to persuade the OBR, but they are sincere in this aim.

But what's this? Within an hour of the Supreme Court's decision, the Treasury's own solicitors were boasting online that they were going to reapply the gold plate that had been summarily removed by the court justices. With the implementation of clause 90. My Lords, they have kidded the public and the press that they are interested in sweeping away bureaucracy. Instead, they are lard on ever more regulation and delay. So I invite those members of this House to support this amendment, in line with the judgement of our learned friends, to agree that we already have all the protections we need for Ramsar sites in the NPPF.

And here's the important thing for the UK to be consistent with our treaty obligations and the custom and practice by all the other 172 signatories to the Ramsar Convention from all around the world. We should not be an outlier in this. Yet that's what the government is intending by its own clause 90, My Lords. The Prime Minister tells us he wants to follow international treaties and the international law, yet he hasn't said it once. He said it a hundred times.

Now, both the treaty and the law aren't clear. Clause 90 isn't needed. So let's see whether his government is a builder or a blocker, whether they are sincere about streamlining regulations, or they'll have our economy stuck in

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the mud. My Lords, amendments 208 and

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, amendments 208 and 231A tabled by the noble Earl Lord
19:19
Baroness Pinnock Portrait Baroness Pinnock (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
231A tabled by the noble Earl Lord Roborough and others seek to remove clause 90 and schedule six from the bill. Now from these benches, we are frankly not supportive of these amendments. While we appreciate the arguments made about streamlining and simplifying the legislative framework, it is, we believe, more important to recognise the significance of Ramsar sites and to treat them in the same category as European sites when it comes to environmental protection. These wetlands, and there are 176 designated sites in the UK, are often of extraordinary ecological value, supporting biodiversity that is not only nationally but internationally important.

To remove the relevant provisions at this stage would risk sending the wrong signal about our priorities, and would weaken the coherence of the overall environmental protection. The goal of the government has been all along to try and to preserve sites that are of environmental importance, and the arguments that are part three of this bill have not entirely gone the way we would hope, but have gone a long way towards raising the importance of the environment. As far as planning system goes.

And so what we're keen to do is uphold the value of Ramsar sites alongside other protected areas. And, you know, dismiss the arguments made by those who on one hand say we need more houses on these wetland sites, but on the other will argue for other sites nearer, perhaps in the greenbelt or designated sites not to be built. So let's be clear the environment comes first in as regards environment and protecting biodiversity, and our precious environmental heritage is of key importance to us.
19:22
Baroness Scott of Bybrook Portrait Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Conservative)
-
-
My Lords, I rise to speak in support of amendments 208 and 231 a tabled by my noble friend Lord Roper. These may appear as technical provisions. Clause 90 dealing with temporary possession of land in connection with compulsory purchase and schedule six making consequential changes to part three of the Bill. However, as we've heard throughout from the speakers so far, their combined efforts risks damaging the very housing and infrastructure goals that this legislation is seeking to advance.

The bill, as currently drafted, extends the legal obligations of the Habitats Regulations to Ramsar sites. In practice, this means further restrictions on housing development and a fresh layer of uncertainty for local planning authorities and developers alike. The results, as my noble friend Lord Rober has warned, is that a bill meant to get Britain building risks doing totally the opposite. My Lords, tying up housing delivery in yet more red tape and delay this point cannot be overstated. The country faces a housing crisis, not a crisis of ambition, but a crisis of delivery.

By removing schedule six, we avoid further complexity in the already overburdened Environmental Assessment Framework, a system that is too often paralyses local authorities and developers in costly uncertainty. Rather than securing real gains for nature. My Lords, the government's own target of 1.5 million new homes will not be met if planning reforms continue to tangle itself in excessive regulation and unintended consequences. Of course, environmental protection must remain a central consideration in planning. But as my noble friend rightly observed, the small nut being cracked by a sledgehammer of part three has now been shown to be even smaller.

The recent ruling he referred to has already resolved many of the issues these provisions sought to address. What remains, therefore, is unnecessary bureaucracy and an additional drag on housing delivery. However, I would like to reiterate that the outcome of the Supreme Court judgement in the CG fry case has now shifted the status quo following the judgement, clause 90 and schedule six will have the perverse effect of blocking development rather than facilitating it. This surely cannot be the government's intention, and therefore we are minded to seek to test the opinion of the House when amendment 208 is called.

If the government has nothing further to say on this issue, these amendments, my Lords, are not anti-environment environmental. They are proportionate. Pro clarity. And my Lords, most importantly, pro housing. They seek to ensure that this Bill does what it says on the tin to plan and deliver the infrastructure and homes that this country so desperately needs. So I urge the Minister to look again at clause 90 and schedule six. Are these clauses truly necessary to achieve the bill's goals, or are they, as the evidence increasingly suggests, just obstacles in their

**** Possible New Speaker ****

delivery? My Lords. My Lords. Amendments 208 and 2318, both
19:25
Baroness Hayman of Ullock Portrait Baroness Hayman of Ullock, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Labour)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendments 208 and 2318, both tabled by the noble Lord Lord Roborough seek to remove clause 90 in schedule six from the Bill. in schedule six from the Bill. These relate to Ramsar sites, as we've heard, and noble Lords will be aware from the debate that these are wetlands of international importance that have been designated under the Ramsar Convention on Wetlands. And I thank noble lords who have contributed to this debate to date in England. These sites have been given the protection of the Habitats Regulations assessment process through policy, as set out in the National Planning Policy Framework.

So, to support the effective operation of the Nature Restoration Fund, we propose placing protections for Ramsar sites on a legislative footing with part one of schedule six, amending the Habitats Regulations so that protections for Ramsar sites align with the protection of other internationally important sites. Placing protection of Ramsar sites on a statutory footing will ensure that the NRF can be used to address the negative effects of development on Ramsar sites going forward, and this has been welcomed by environmental groups as a pragmatic step to align protections across sites of international importance.

The government has, of course, carefully considered the implications of the recent Supreme Court judgements which we have been debating, and this distinguished in very specific circumstances between the legal protection provided to European sites under the Habitats Regulations and the policy protection afforded to Ramsar sites. This ruling has now led to some commentary suggesting that placing Ramsar protections on a statutory footing will now serve to prevent development from coming forward, and this was a belief held by the noble Lady Baroness Scott in her speech just now.

This, however, is mistaken. Noble lords who have followed the judgement will know that it found habitats, regulations, protections for Ramsar sites should not have been applied as a matter of policy, rather than legal obligation to developments that are already in possession of planning permission prior to the imposition of nutrient neutrality advice in 2020. While some and the noble Lord Lord Roborough mentioned this in his introduction, while some have suggested that large numbers of homes will be unlocked if clause 90 and schedule six are removed from the bill, this does not bear up to scrutiny, and the reason for this is because there have been no new planning applications that have come forward since the imposition of nutrient neutrality advice in 2020 that are affected by the Supreme Court's judgement.

All by the protections for rampart Ramsar sites that are proposed in this bill. And furthermore, while this case has been progressing through the courts, the government has provided significant investment to deliver local mitigation schemes, including in Somerset, which has ensured that mitigation is available to allow development to come forward. I would like to respond to some of the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, who suggested that 18,000 homes in the Somerset catchments are delayed by nutrient neutrality.

This is actually the number of homes in existing plans from 2020 to 2032. So we're talking about a 12 year period. It includes homes that already have mitigation and homes for which no application has yet been submitted. Therefore, this does overstate the number of homes affected. And we also know that developers can access nutrient mitigation in Somerset for the period of the 1st of April 2021 to the 31st of March of 2025, 5747 dwellings have been permitted within the Somerset Levels and Moors catchment area, and there are phosphate credits available to mitigate a further 2900 dwellings, so that demonstrates that there is already mitigation available and that this is not blocking such development.

The NRF will now deliver on the government's manifesto pledge to address nutrient neutrality in a way that supports development in a more efficient and streamlined way, but with better environmental outcomes. We want the NRF model to be available to support development, which impacts Ramsar sites as well as SBAs and Triple S's, whilst also driving the recovery. As the noble Lady Baroness Pinnock put it perfectly. These internationally important sites and these amendments actually prevent the NRF being used to help development in circumstances such as those in Somerset.

Finally, this amendment would also have unintended consequences for the whole of part three of the bill. Part two of schedule six makes a number of crucial, consequential amendments to ensure that the NRF is operable from amending the period of validity of species licences, to removing the ability of planning conditions to be deemed discharged. Removing schedule six, therefore, does not have the targeted effect that some may think it has, and with that explanation, I hope that the noble Lord feels able to withdraw his amendment.
19:31
Lord Roborough Portrait Lord Roborough (Conservative)
-
-
My Lords, I'm grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken in this very short debate. The support of my noble friend on the front bench and to the noble Baroness, the Minister for her very well thought through and considered reply. I have to say, I'm not convinced. The fundamental principle of the habitat regulations is that they're supposed to apply to EU designated sites, and should these Ramsar sites be deserving of that protection, then surely it's up to Natural England to advise the government that's the case and put in place those protections.

And without that, it's really not clear why we alone amongst the European major European economies, should be choosing to hamper our building in this way. And I'm very grateful for the detailed response to which houses are being held up. These are still material numbers of houses and the effect of the sea. I'm sorry, C.B. fry. Judgement alone was to release 650 houses, and it may be over a 12 year period of time. This is still a lot of houses and the country needs those houses.

This bill is supposed to deliver those houses. So we on our benches cannot sit on our hands and watch this happen, given the government are determined to plough ahead with this. I'm forced to ask to test the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

opinion of the House. My Lords the question is that this amendment be agreed to. As many of that opinion will say,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

many of that opinion will say, content. Not content. The question will be decided by

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question will be decided by division. I will advise the House division. I will advise the House when voting is open. Voting is now
19:33
None Portrait Division
-



**** Possible New Speaker ****

So. Until Until we Until we get.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords. The question is that this amendment be agreed to as many of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

amendment be agreed to as many of that opinion will say. Content contrary, not content. Not content. The contents will go to the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The contents will go to the right by the throne. The knock

**** Possible New Speaker ****

OK. So. So. That's So. That's that. So. That's that. Is So. That's that. Is correct. So. That's that. Is correct. So. That's that. Is correct.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Oh. So. Lord Young. Question is that.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Question is that.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

This amendment be agreed to? Detrunk, Detrunk, not. Detrunk, not. Detrunk, not. Sorry. Detrunk, not. Sorry. Sorry. Sorry. Sorry. Sorry. Planning Sorry. Sorry. Planning Inspectorate.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My My Lords, My Lords, there My Lords, there have My Lords, there have voted

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, there have voted contents 162, not contents 178. So contents 162, not contents 178. So The not contents have it. Lords The not contents have it. Lords Government Amendment 209 move. Formally, the question is that Formally, the question is that amendment 209 be agreed to. As many of that opinion will say content the contrary not content. The contents have it. Amendments. contents have it. Amendments. Government amendments 210 to 229 moved En bloc.

The question is that amendments 210 to 229 be agreed to. En bloc as many of that opinion En bloc as many of that opinion will say, content contrary not content, the contents have it. Amendment 230 Lord Roborough not moved. Amendment. Amendment. moved. Amendment. Amendment. Government amendment 231 move. Formally, the question is that amendment 231 be agreed to as a amendment 231 be agreed to as a matter of that opinion, will say content. And contrary not content, the contents have it. Amendment 231 A Lord Roborough not moved.

We now come to the second group. Amendment 232 Lord Lansley.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, this this amendment 232 relates to the question of
19:45
Lord Lansley Portrait Lord Lansley (Conservative)
-
-
232 relates to the question of mayoral development corporations. Noble Lords during the committee will recall a debate about this precise point. If to remind noble Lords in the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill presently. In the other place, the government has proposed that the powers that are available to the Mayor of London in relation to the establishment of a mayoral Development Corporation should be provided to all of the mayors of established authorities. I think that's correct.

But the noble Lords will also recall that I had previously tabled an amendment to this effect back in July. I think it was. So I was pleased to see that the government was proceeding in exactly the same direction, but disappointed that this has been included in the English devolution Bill, rather than here in the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, where we have a part, part for which we've now reached devoted to the question of development corporations and where it was certainly my understanding and intention that we would debate and hopefully adopt the measure of giving all the mayors access to the same powers.

Now. So what I did in as a simple way of bringing that forward was to take the schedule, which is schedule 17 of the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill, and transpose it into what would become a new schedule to this bill. So I will, I think, anticipate that it is not the government's intention to disagree with the content of amendment 232 since they wrote it. But however they appear to be set upon doing is resisting the idea that it should be included now in this Bill, and therefore, on the basis of our anticipation of Royal Assent being reached only in a matter of weeks rather than months, that it would be brought into force rapidly.

Now, as it happens, since the committee stage, the Committee on English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill has had the opportunity to consider clause 36 and schedule 17 of the devolution Bill and have not amended it. So there's no requirement for us to think of it having been changed. I suspect, based on the discussion in that committee stage, it will not be returned to in substance, that report. So I don't anticipate that the English devolution Bill, when we see it, will have any different text than what we see here now.

So I do put it once more to Ministers and I won't press it, because what would be the point? It's their bill. It's their language, it's their schedule that they can have now, in my view. And why would they not? It seems to me most mayors, certainly the ones I've spoken to or their representatives, would like to have the powers sooner rather than later. Quite early in the new year, probably before the point at which the the English Devolution Bill has received Royal Assent, we we will be discussing the question of which new towns will be mayoral development corporations, as opposed to government development corporations or locally led ones.

Precisely the issues, I think, which are the subject of this part of this bill. So I put it to the note to noble Lords that it would be better to take this provision, include it now, and bring it into

**** Possible New Speaker ****

force at an earlier stage. I beg, I beg to move. Amendment 232. Amendment proposed after schedule six, insert the following

**** Possible New Speaker ****

schedule six, insert the following new schedule as printed in the Marshall List. Oh my lord, on these benches we

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Oh my lord, on these benches we have much sympathy with the core principle behind this this principle behind this this amendment of the noble Lord Lansley regarding development, Corporation, mayoral Development Corporation. Now part four of this bill, the purpose of it is to create more purpose of it is to create more flexible and perhaps a more robust framework for development framework for development corporations. The existing way corporations. The existing way development corporations work have limitations in regard to some of
19:49
Baroness Pinnock Portrait Baroness Pinnock (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
limitations in regard to some of the development that the all of us, I think are seeking, which is, you know, in terms of transport infrastructure for, for example, now the noble Lord landfill is also helpfully reminded us that the selfsame wording is in the devolution and Empowerment Bill, which is currently going through it's its terms in the other end of this, this building. So we will be coming back to it. Those of us who will have the joy of doing debating that particular bill when it comes here.

The main concern that we have is that of the decision being vested in the hands of the mayor, and rather narrow representations of leaders of the constituent authorities. This will not come as a surprise to the noble Baroness Minister. You know, this is an erosion of meaningful local planning influence, reducing local authorities to mere consultees whose considered objections can be whose considered objections can be dismissed. So what this is what this could do is grant substantial planning control over designated areas and placing the decision making at the mayoral level and its minimal approach to democratic engagement.

And consultation. So. But while mechanisms exist for arrangements concerning the discharge of planning functions, this shift inherently concentrates strategic planning functions away from the local level. So amendment 232 is a way forward in potentially accelerating growth plans, but it's achieved at the expense of local Democratic involvement and, crucially, loses a strong voice from those residents directly affected. In a nutshell, this is an interesting and important proposal,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

but it bypasses local democracy. My Lords, my noble friend Lord
19:52
Lord Jamieson Portrait Lord Jamieson (Conservative)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, my noble friend Lord Langley's expertise on development corporations is, as is as ever, formidable, and the concerns he raises deserve full and careful consideration. This amendment speaks to the wider question surrounding government's devolution agenda, particularly the potential to give metro mayors the tools they need to deliver housing projects, attract private investment and cut through the bureaucratic fragmentation that so often stifles local ambitions. In many ways, my Lords, this amendment builds upon the principle set out in the Levelling Up and Regeneration Act and the work we have done collectively to champion place based solutions to the challenges this country face.

As my noble friend says, equality for mayors. My Lords, I am entirely sympathetic to the intention behind this amendment. It is clearly defined and purpose driven. However, to sensibly empower metro mayors or development corporations. Further, the government must provide clarity on their plans for local government reorganisation. Without this clarity, we risk legislating into a vacuum, creating overlapping authorities and confusion where coherence is needed. On these benches, we strongly support greater local oversight and a faster route to regeneration.

But my Lords, the real obstacle remains the government's opaque approach to LGR. Until there is a clear framework for how local government structures will interact with devolved authorities. Combined counties progress will be piecemeal. At best. The government must work this out and quickly. We are all

**** Possible New Speaker ****

waiting for clarity. My Lords, amendment 232, tabled by the noble Lord Lord Lansley, seeks to standardise and extend powers in respect of mayoral development corporations to mayors
19:55
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage Portrait Baroness Taylor of Stevenage, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Housing, Communities and Local Government) (Labour)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

development corporations to mayors of all strategic authorities outside of London, and I. Understand why he's brought the amendment forward. The government

**** Possible New Speaker ****

amendment forward. The government is bringing. Forward equivalent provisions via the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill. In

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Community Empowerment Bill. In clause 36 and schedule. 17, and I do understand. inclusion.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

inclusion. Of this amendment. Would expedite. The. Legislative change. I welcome the enthusiasm. It's essential.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

It's essential. That all mayors have powers to establish and oversee mayoral. Development corporations, which

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Development corporations, which are a key tool to drive large scale development and regeneration in their regions. Nonetheless, the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

their regions. Nonetheless, the amendment won't save significant time. The government's. Committed to ensuring the English. Devolution and Community

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill reaches Royal Assent in spring. 2026, at which point.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

There will be no delay. The relevant provisions will commence on the day the act is passed, providing relevant. Mayors with.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The powers to establish development corporations. The amendment will also have minimal impact because, except for the impact because, except for the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Combined Authority, all mayoral and I can understand why the noble Lord might be particularly interested in that one. All mayoral strategic authorities currently have powers to establish and oversee Mdcs, Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Combined Authority, as well as any new mayoral strategic authorities, will automatically receive Mayoral Development Corporation powers following Royal Assent of the English Devolution Bill.

Finally, it's appropriate that Parliament scrutinises provisions providing mayors with Mayoral Development Corporation powers. I think that reflects the comments of the noble lady Baroness Pinnock, as part of the wider package of powers being granted to mayors through devolution framework in the English Devolution Bill. And therefore, while I understand the reason the Noble Lords brought the amendment forward, I hope he will consider withdrawing his amendment.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm grateful to noble Lords contributing to this short debate, and I'm particularly grateful to my and I'm particularly grateful to my noble friend for his kind remarks, and I heartily endorse what he said about the importance of us trying
19:56
Lord Lansley Portrait Lord Lansley (Conservative)
-
-
about the importance of us trying to resolve the relationship between the processes of local government reorganisation and the progress that the rapid progress that we want to achieve in implementing planning reform and getting on with building the houses and the developments that we're looking for, I should say I should previously referenced my registered interest as Chair of the Cambridgeshire Development Forum and the noble Lady. The minister is absolutely right. The Cambridgeshire and Peterborough mayor should have access to the development corporation powers, even though actually the Development corporation.

The government's apparent intention, as stated last week, I think it was, was that they Cambridge Growth Company will be turned into a development corporation in the Cambridge area. But we have yet to know on what designated area and with what powers. But that's a that's for another day. I'm, I'm encouraged by the Minister's assertion that the time the delay will be so limited. Let's hope the English Devolution Community Empowerment Bill doesn't get it all bogged down in the new year, because we want to be sure that those powers are available to mayors when they come forward to take up the new town.

Potential designation I was wrong when I said. All established mayors of established strategic authorities since the the amendment. I know it's my amendment, but I just checked and it doesn't say that. It says all mayors of strategic authorities. I think the question whether they should be established strategic authorities is one we might have a look at when we get to look at the English devolution bill. But for the present and looking forward to returning to these interesting issues, perhaps just in the new year, I beg leave to withdraw.

Amendment 232.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Is it your Lordships pleasure this amendment be withdrawn? Amendment is by leave withdrawn. Amendment 233 Lord Roborough not moved, not moved and amendment 234 moved, not moved and amendment 234 not moved. We now come to Group three, amendment 235 Lord Lansley.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

three, amendment 235 Lord Lansley. My Lords. So I met this group happily. Not only my amendments, happily. Not only my amendments, but also that of my noble friend Lord Fuller 238 is about the Lord Fuller 238 is about the question of the designation of new towns. And of course, the purpose towns. And of course, the purpose of the amendment 236, which is the substantive one in my name, is to provide for additional parliamentary scrutiny of the designation of new town development corporations.

Those are those which are controlled by the government, because it is particularly those because it is particularly those under section one of the section under section one of the section one, one of the New Towns Act, whereas elsewhere in the New Towns Act there have been subsequently Act there have been subsequently been inserted, for example, locally led new towns, this provision wouldn't apply to them, it would wouldn't apply to them, it would only apply to those which are controlled by the government. And of course, the point is that there are very substantial implications in a new town controlled by the government and designating the area and indeed, for that matter, the powers that are to be given to that development corporation and therefore, by extension, taken away from a local planning authority and vested into a development corporation, is a is a highly significant issue.

The super affirmative procedure which this amendment the new clause would introduce, is one which, as the parliamentary guide would tell us, is intended to be reserved for highly significant statutory instruments. I think this fits that bill. We're talking about what could potentially be the transfer of powers away from a Democratic control for decades, potentially for relatively large areas. What we've seen, for example, in the New Town Task Force report recently, are the proposals for a dozen new town sites, some of which are pretty substantial.

For example, if you look at the area described as Brabazon, West West of England innovation arc, it is three substantial areas to the north of Bristol. If all of the planning control in that area were to be taken out of the hands of local authorities for what might be decades, I think it would make a very big impact in that area. And I think the scrutiny of that by Parliament at the outset is important. What the super affirmative procedure does, in short, is it allows a 60 day period, the which can be used by each House of Parliament to conduct a committee's scrutiny of the proposal.

The draft statutory instrument and reporting to the House can give rise to a debate before the point at which the draft is is laid for approval. So I hope that it will commend itself. This in in perhaps at a better hour and with more opportunity. We would want to talk about the new towns designation quite a bit. I do hope that the Minister, in replying to this short debate, might say that it will be the government's intention in the New Year to have a substantive debate on the New Towns programme.

The Built Environment Committee very recently published a report themselves, which I thought contributed to what we've already read in the New Towns Task Force and the government's interim response. The government has established a strategic environmental assessment for the programme as a whole, which is, as I understand it, is an essential preliminary to a consultation on the sites that the government are going to propose, not least because the Environmental Assessment for Plans and Programmes Regulations 2004 make that necessary, or would prejudice, potentially prejudice the the decisions that the government makes initially because they would not necessarily have had the environmental effects incorporated into the initial decisions that ought to be made.

So that means probably in the new year, we are looking at the government's proposals for consultation, and I hope that actually the Minister can say that it will be their intention that we in Parliament should be consulted and that we have a debate about the New Towns programme itself. Just to say, in brief, there are things, for example, like the way the built Environment Committee had proposed that the new towns taskforce should be turned into a new towns agency, not just the the unit in the ministry working with Homes England, but actually something which has long a long term existence with an identity of its own to support the new towns programmes.

In addition to that, it does seem to me that there are issues which it is really important for us to clarify before we get into the detailed question of which, which new towns are going to be amongst the first to get building on the ground, for example, from my point of view, it seems to me that the question of the relationship between the homes that are expected to be built in a in a new town, a new town development corporation, and the housing need and requirements in that area is one which the new towns taskforce themselves said needed to be clarified.

I think the Built Environment Committee said this should be clarified. It's just that the government hasn't done it yet. From my point of view, I would say clearly the the the homes that are being built in a new town should form part of the housing requirement of a of a of a relevant local planning authority. What I think that local planning authority must accept as a consequence of that is that they shouldn't rely simply on the standard method, but that there should be an addition to the standard method figure for that local planning authority to take account of the fact that they are contributing additional homes as part of the New Towns programme.

So it's a it is a it's a it's a complicated analysis in each area of what, how many of the new homes to be built should be added to their standard method. But you have to look at it at the moment and say there are places like Clues Hill and Enfield and Brabazon north of Bristol, which are to be potentially part of a new town designation. But where there are homes that are already part of the local plan.

So it would be, I think, a an outrage if those homes were taken out of the of the housing requirement of that local planning authority, and, and they were exposed to the risk of not having a five year housing land supply in their area. That's just one example. Another example, which I won't dwell on because my Noble friend Lord Fuller will want to talk about it, is the question of the upfront funding and the financing of development corporations. Clearly in Cambridge, not part of the New Towns programme, but nonetheless going to be one of the government's priority new new towns.

We had the announcement of £400 million of funding for infrastructure, which was extremely welcome. The question is, of course, after the budget, will other new towns have upfront funding for infrastructure, which clearly, in the view of the new Towns taskforce, is an essential component of what is required for the New Towns programme. Additionally, of course, they have referenced the possibility of loans to support the provision of early infrastructure in these new towns and of tax increment financing as a long term mechanism for funding.

But I'll leave the question of further funding to to my noble friend who I know will want to talk about that to his amendment 238. The final thing I want to just mention is the reason why I think we have to have this important scrutiny is because of the experience. My experience of the the importance of early engagement, which is not just local engagement, but should be engagement in quite what are now potentially quite wide communities and with a feeling that the their parliamentary representation has an opportunity to be heard about the designation of these new towns and the programme with which they should be engaged as a Member of Parliament.

Of course, I was responsible for Cambourne, which when I started out as an MP, had no homes and now is well, I shall be there again on Sunday. I think it's probably approaching 6000 homes and of the establishment of Northstowe, which was meant to have 6000 homes by 2016, in fact had none, but now actually is having homes built. But it does tell us a great deal. Both of them told us a great deal about the relative importance of early infrastructure and of early community engagement.

And I think a a process by which Parliament is thoroughly consulted about the New Towns programme at an early stage and in detail, when the statutory instruments have been drafted to designate a new town, would substantially assist the process of giving reassurance to the communities who are going to be most affected. I beg to move amendment two, three, five amendment.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Proposed clause 94. Page 124. Line 33 leave out and

**** Possible New Speaker ****

and insert two. I rise to speak to my amendment

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I rise to speak to my amendment 238 and I welcome the broad thrust of empowering and reinvigorating the development corporation's contemplated by the bill. In fact,
20:08
Lord Fuller Portrait Lord Fuller (Conservative)
-
-
contemplated by the bill. In fact, I think it's the best part of the bill. Now, clause 96 seeks to the achievement of sustainable development and the mitigation of and adaptation to climate change. But there'll be no sustainable development without sustainable financing of the proposals that the development corporations bring forward. Now, since the committee stage, we've had the New Towns Task Force, which published its report, and only this afternoon at Question Time, the noble Lord Lord Wilson of Sedgefield gave warm words to the principle of private investment in local infrastructure, perhaps by development corporations.

So the magnitude of the task ahead of us is nothing short of generational, and the state alone won't be able to build these new settlements by itself. The councils won't. You've heard in the previous group that the mayors won't will not quickly anyway, and only by harnessing the power of the financial markets and other private sector actors at home and abroad, including perhaps private households, will the promise of building these places become a reality? So my amendment, supported by my noble friends in the frontbench, recognises this simple truth.

It's time to bring the development corporations up to date. 50 years since Milton Keynes and 80 years since Stevenage was designated under the first New Towns Act. So I approach this subject in the knowledge that local authorities may be reorganised, that mayors may be created and the day to day financial pressures they both face have never been greater. Now, in a former time, the development corporations would hold out their hand to perhaps central government or local councils for funding. And of course, that route may be still open in some part.

But the we know well that's capped. And at a time when Nestlé can borrow money cheaper than our government, the isn't necessarily the cheapest, best value or most available source of long term infrastructure finance for the generational opportunities that my noble friend Lord Lansley has so ably identified, building new towns is the work of generations. It's beyond political cycles, and relying on national and local politicians will not be enough. In a world where a new secondary school costs 40 million and a flyover 100.

So we must hope the development corporations in the single minded pursuit of sustainable development, and we must help them get the money right. And that means giving them the powers to exploit the distinction between funding and financing. Now funding is just simply writing the cheque, but finance is putting that deal together, and it's no surprise that it's the financiers in the City of London are the most highly paid professions because they've got the hardest tasks of putting those deals together. It's not easy to finance difficult prospects, but to get Britain building, we're going to have to grasp that nettle.

Now, I'm not going to dwell too much on the significance of governance in development corporations, but I'll make the final factual observation that strong governance and strong governance established by statute, which is why I've made this amendment, leads to higher covenant strength, the ability to take a higher credit rating, and the willingness of institutional investors to pony up the cash early on for infrastructure at lower prices. That's why my amendment is so important. We need to make it easy for the development corporations to raise the funds for the pension funds to put their shoulders to the wheel, helped by the the covenant strength that comes from being a statutory body.

And the development corporations must be empowered to engage in all manner of financial instruments, including the issue of bonds, shares or similar, and we should contemplate other sources of finance as well. And in my view, that extends into entering into joint ventures with landowners on a territory whose land could be incorporated at the heart of financing as an in-kind contribution, so they don't enjoy the upfront benefit. They have a return that's sustained over the long term period that may be good for them.

It's certainly good for the taxpayer, and it enables us to get the infrastructure built up front more cheaply. It shouldn't just be the default position. The development corporation just goes to CPO powers to pony up a premium price 10% more than the market value, and and sustain all the unpleasantness of the process. There must be a better way. My amendment path finds that opportunity. So a committee, the noble Lady, rather complacently in my view, said the amendment was unnecessary because corporations could always borrow from the pool, and that was that.

The bond markets are suggesting there may be limits to that approach, which is why we need more flexibility. So I want to place finance in the widest possible context. And without central government necessarily acting as a banker in the traditional manner, the development corporations can be empowered. So whilst I accept development, corporations can plan for an area and have regard to all manner of desirable outcomes, ultimately those plans or outcomes will stand or fall, whether the money can be raised and the finance deals put together.

And that's what my amendment seeks to achieve at the best value, the greatest certainty with the cheapness, the value that comes from statutory provision. My Lords I stand briefly to talk to my Noble friend Lord Lansley amendment 236, and it does give me an opportunity to pay tribute to my noble friend and the work that he does in this House. I also declare an interest as chairman of the Greater Cheshire Development Forum. My Lords, new towns.
20:14
Lord Evans of Rainow Portrait Lord Evans of Rainow (Conservative)
-
-
The new town of Adlington. I have to say to you, it was a wee bit of a shock as Lord Ranger is not far away. It's in the Peak District and as you look out from the Peak District to look at the Cheshire Plain, Adlington is in the foothills. It is greenbelt my lord. So it is a bit of a shock for myself, but it was also a shock for the local community. It's not every day that between 14 and 20,000 houses are now set to be built in England's green and pleasant land of east Cheshire, but also to the Macclesfield MP, Tim Rocker.

It was a real shock for him as he was married on his honeymoon at the time, but he was quick off the mark and he put together the inevitable petition to petition Parliament against this proposal. It really does fly in the face of democratic community and empowerment. A coach and horses in through local local government. And there are three outstanding local parish councils in that area. Poynton Parish Council, Bollington Parish Council and Pott Shrigley Parish Council. And if you go on to their website, you can see clearly and a lot of what they have to say has been articulated here today.

A lack of consultation and a lack of accountability. Now Cheshire East Council is is struggling in in many ways one of the things they do have is their local plan. So you'd expect the local authorities, sorry, the local town councils to point out the fact that there is no, no, no planning, no, no town plan. And they would like to help them to to do it in an open and transparent way. So there was no engagement with local people.

There was no engagement whatsoever. There was no Fall run. So you Lordships House can appreciate the shock. There is no local plan. There is no mayor until 2027. So who is it that's going to put this new town together that will put forth between 14 and 20,000 homes. Now there are several issues. There are issues in Cheshire East like there are in communities throughout the country now in Cheshire. It is a prosperous community. Cheshire East is particularly prosperous, with pharmaceuticals, good quality manufacturing and employment.

But there is a housing shortage for young people. There is an export net export of young people leaving Cheshire East as they go to university and do not return, and one of the biggest reasons for that, the lack of affordable housing, it is simply unaffordable in terms of infrastructure. What sort of energy, how will we get the energy for 14 to 20,000 homes? Water supply is is becoming a particular issue in many shire counties in the north, west and north east of the country, drainage and so on and so forth.

So there are a huge amount of areas that the local parish councils pick up on because they have that local knowledge, they have that local knowledge, but they've had no consultation whatsoever whatsoever. This is an opportunity, though, to put some of those things, those things in place to to reinvent that part of Cheshire. There's a fantastic business opportunities, but there is already large developments. I'm looking at the Bishop of Manchester. He may be aware of the Woodford Garden City now.

The Woodford Garden City is part of the Greater Manchester Development Area, and there are approximately 10,000 homes going in there. And that's the site of a former aerodrome that used to make Lancaster bombers and the nuclear deterrent. And that is a very, very good development. But on brownfield, the Adlington New Town is all on Greenfield. And so there's a marked difference. But if you look at that area from the air, you can see the old airfield being developed. And then you look at the green belt of Cheshire, it'll be an expansion of the urban spread from Greater Manchester into east Cheshire.

So to summarise, my Lord, there has been no local plan. There is no mayor, there has been no consultation. So the people of Cheshire East, this this wonderful, excellent community, the local politicians there do think that the government really does need to think again. They're not against any development, but they they would like some consultation and to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

rethink this proposal. Lords I've noted what the noble

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Lords I've noted what the noble Lord Evans has just said. I can assure you, unlike my predecessor, I've no intention of trying to petition for parts of the Diocese of Chester to become parts of the Diocese of Manchester just because of the urban sprawl extending of the urban sprawl extending itself, but actually rise to speak in favour of Lord Fellowes amendment. I've served on a number amendment. I've served on a number of large institutional investors on their boards. One of them, the Church Commissioners, had a particular interest in one of the particular interest in one of the major landowners in the country.

And I can well see how for an institutional investor who wants to
20:19
20:20
Baroness Thornhill Portrait Baroness Thornhill (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
in this group and to say, as a general principle, we are in favour of any amendments that are genuinely about devolution and not just decentralisation. There is, as we all are aware, a big and significant difference, but we are aware that does. This does bring issues of governance and accountability, that are fairly new to much of the sector at this level, with the difference in governance arrangements and in geography and my Lords, we also support the government's ambition and political will to build new towns to meet our challenging housing need.

But and it's a big but, we nevertheless feel that something as significant and important and as impacting as designated a large amount of land for a new town should be subject to the super affirmative procedure. Everyone's voices deserve to be heard. And I do understand there is a difference between being heard and being listened to, however challenging and difficult that might be, the process is actually important. As Lord Lansley outlined increased scrutiny and the opportunity for revision are essential.

In our view, we have to get this right, both for the people and for Parliament, and thus we too would welcome a debate on the New Towns agenda and on the sites already designated. Turning to amendment 238, it seems to us to be an inevitable consequence of the new Development Corporation's ambitions and roles and responsibility. And if devolution is to really mean something, it must also mean fiscal devolution, and especially as it is very unlikely in the present economic climate that any new major developments are going to be totally government funded.

It therefore makes sense to cast the financial net as wide as possible. But and again, it's a big but given some local government history on these and related matters, we assume that the Treasury will be concerned about rising debt, potential poor financial controls, and with the discredited PFI funding in also in the background, concerned with potential poor value for money, we are concerned that there should be the necessary protections and processes for good government transparency and accountability.

And I wonder if the government may envisage a more proactive role in this regard for the National Audit Office before investment decisions are made. And finally, a key question which my noble Lord, my noble friend Lord Shipley raised at committee stage, who picks up the tab if there is a loss on a project or several projects, or if a mayoral development corporation is running generally at a loss, is it the council taxpayer or the or the government? There was no answer at committee stage, and it would seem likely that it would be the government, but if so, it would be reasonable for them to be involved at all stages of project delivery, which makes amendment 238 insufficient without explaining what controls would be in place.

But we would still support 238 because it gives a sense of the direction that I believe we should go in, even if the detail is not yet in place. And I look forward to the noble Ladies reply.
20:24
Baroness Scott of Bybrook Portrait Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Conservative)
-
-
My Lords, amendments to two, three five and 236, tabled by my noble friend Lord Lord Lansley. All I can say is that we support all the intentions of these amendments so ably introduced, as always by my noble friend Lord Lansley, and I don't think there's anything more that I can add to what he's already said, apart from asking the noble Baroness, the Minister, that I. I think these are important questions that have been tabled to her do need answers tonight, and I moving on to remarks on amendment 238, tabled by my noble friend Lord, the Law Lords.

Fuller, which I have co-signed alongside my noble friend Lord Jamieson ensuring that development corporations have access to sufficient finance. My Lords, will be critical, as we've heard, if we are truly to deliver high quality new towns and new developments we would all like to see. Having access to a range of finance resources is a key component to this. Empowering development corporations to seek finance from the widest possible range of sources. This amendment would allow them to do precisely that, to access funding not only from the Public Works Loan Board, but also from private capital, sovereign wealth funds, pension funds and through value in-kind contributions as part of joint ventures.

Crucially, my Lords, it would also give them the ability to issue bonds, either individually or collectively with other development corporations. So why does this matter? Well, my Lords, I would suggest for three key reasons. Firstly, it enables collaboration development. Corporations could work collectively across areas, pooling capacity and scale to unlock investment in major regeneration and infrastructure projects that would other wise be out of their reach. Secondly, my Lords, it opens the door for local pension funds, particularly the Local Government Pension scheme, to invest directly in their communities.

And this builds on the government's own commitment to mobilise CPS capital for local growth. It would mean that people's savings are working to deliver tangible, long term benefits in the very places where they live and work. Thirdly, it aligns with the government's broader ambitions on devolution and local growth. Page 29 of the English Devolution White Paper makes clear that strategic authorities will have a duty to deliver on economic development and regeneration. Local authorities will be required to produce local growth plans and LPs.

Administrating authorities are expected to identify local investment opportunities and put them forward to their asset pools. My Lords, this amendment would therefore help the government achieve precisely what they have set out to do to channel more of the nation's long term capital into productive, place based investment. It would empower development corporations to be proactive, to be innovative, and to be financially self-sustaining, drawing on both public and private sources of finance to deliver growth, regeneration and Lords my Lords

**** Possible New Speaker ****

prosperity for local communities. My Lords, I thank all noble
20:28
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage Portrait Baroness Taylor of Stevenage, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Housing, Communities and Local Government) (Labour)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in that short but interesting debate. And amendments two, three five. And 236.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

And 236. Tabled by the. Noble Lord Lord Lansley seek. To change the parliamentary procedure for designating areas to procedure for designating areas to be developed as a new town by the New Town Development Corporations. From the affirmative procedure to the affirmative. There would also require that the Secretary of State reconsult if a proposal for an area to be developed by a new town development corporation is changed. Following an earlier consultation, the government agrees that proposals to establish development corporations should be subject to consultation and to proportionate parliamentary scrutiny, but this is already the case.

The New Towns Act 1981 already requires that the Secretary of State consults with relevant local authorities prior to designating an area to be developed by New Town Development Corporation by regulations, consultations for and decisions to designate are also subject to public law principles. Further consultation with therefore already be considered should the proposal fundamentally change. I would just comment to the noble Lord Evans on his points about Abington. He may have looked at the report of the New Towns task force, which sets out very clearly the principles under which new towns must make provision for infrastructure, including energy, water and all the facilities that make communities work and be successful.

And as I've said, the there is consultation set out in law for those decisions to designate designation by regulations is also already subject to the affirmative procedure, ensuring a high degree of parliamentary scrutiny of both houses. As these regulations neither amend or repeal an Act of Parliament, which is the. It's the usual process for super affirmative process. The government doesn't believe they require the high level of scrutiny of that super affirmative procedure. The noble Lords amendments would also have the unintended consequence of adding significant time to the process of designating areas as new towns.

The super affirmative procedure would add a minimum of two months, and then the duty to reconsult could add significantly longer, depending on the number of consultations required. I was very grateful to the Built Environment Select Committee, and particularly to Lord Gascoigne for the very thorough way he looked at the subject of new towns. His work has been very, very helpful and I will give further thought to the request for further discussions within your Lordships House on all the issues arising from this new generation of new towns.

I think it's a helpful suggestion, and I think both the noble Earl, Lord Lansley and Baroness Thornhill have suggested this. I'll take that back to the team and look at parliamentary schedules to see when a further discussion on that might be possible. In relation to existing housing targets being taken into consideration for new towns. The government is working on our response to the full response to the New Towns taskforce response. Sorry task force report and I hope that may well be able to offer more insight into how housing targets will be taken into account as we move forward with the New Towns programme.

In the meantime, I turn to amendment 238, tabled by the noble Lord Lord Fuller. At present, most types of development corporation have powers to borrow, including through private finance, subject to the consent of the oversight authority. Mayoral Development Corporation outside London are the exception. They cannot borrow directly, although the parent mayoral strategic authority can borrow and lend to its mayoral development corporation. Mayoral development corporations within London can borrow as functional bodies of the GLA. The noble Lords amendment would change this, giving all mayoral development corporations powers to borrow.

It achieves this by placing a duty on all mayoral development corporations to fund and finance development proposals, with the option of doing so through private finance. I welcome the intent of the noble Lords amendment. It is, of course, and we agree, crucial that development corporations are sustainably funded. However, requiring mayoral development corporations to fund and finance development directly would unnecessarily constrain their use. In some cases, mayoral development corporations may not need to directly fund development to achieve their purposes, as for example, has been demonstrated by the Stockport Mayoral Development Corporation, which has successfully brought forward very significant regeneration by primarily paying a strategic and coordinating role.

The issue of borrowing and raising private finance directly, and indeed the noble Baroness Lady Boycott mentioned the issue of local government pension scheme. We had a question on that this morning in Question time, and I do I do agree that there is there it's an avenue worth exploring about how Local Government Pension scheme can help with these types of investment. All of that will come as part of a wider funding toolkit. All of that requires careful consideration to make sure that we properly balance the benefits and risks, including the possibility that mayoral development corporations could accrue significant debt and liabilities and issue raised by the noble Baroness Lady Thornhill.

We must also consider how the proposed borrowing powers would interact with mayoral strategic authority borrowing. We will need more time than is available on this bill, but I can commit that the Department will consider these changes in the future for the reasons I have given. I would kindly ask noble Lords to withdraw their amendments.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Lords I most grateful to all of those noble Lords who contributed and indeed the Right Reverend and indeed the Right Reverend prelate in contributing to this as the noble Lady, the Minister said short, but I thought very
20:34
Lord Lansley Portrait Lord Lansley (Conservative)
-
-
interesting debate, but I think a preliminary to the further debate that I hope we will have, not least perhaps, if we can contrive that we have an early debate on the Built Environment Committee's report in the New Year, at a time when perhaps we can incorporate the government's full response to the taskforce report and what the government's actual proposals for new towns will be. I think we we learnt from my noble friend Lord Evans of Rainow that if that if there is that range of issues to be considered in relation to one of the new town proposals, we can see there's going to be a lot of contributions to be expected when we get to a dozen such proposals, not even then, including Cambridge, from my from my own point of view, which is beyond the task force's report, I thought I thought what the noble Lady of the minister had to say was encouraging from the point of view of getting parliamentary debate taking place without impeding the programme or delaying the programme in any way.

And I hope when we have that debate, we'll come back to some of the important issues that Noble friend Lord Fuller raised. But of course, he made some important points, in my view, about the capacity for financing this and that tax increment financing and the ability to borrow against the future development value. It will be a key part of that. But for my part, in relation to parliamentary debate on the New Towns programme, I was grateful for the noble Lady, the Minister's response and I beg leave to withdraw amendment 235.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Is it your Lordships pleasure that this amendment be withdrawn? that this amendment be withdrawn? It is by leave withdrawn. Noble Lords. Can I just make gently remind people when noble Lord it's part of the companion the guidance that members pressing or withdrawing an amendment should withdrawing an amendment should normally be brief, and should not respond to all the points made during the debate, nor revisit during the debate, nor revisit points made when moving or pressing an amendment. Speeches appeared to be getting longer at this point, be getting longer at this point, and I would respectfully urge noble Lords to be brief so we can continue to make progress and get continue to make progress and get to the votes.

Amendment 236 Lord to the votes. Amendment 236 Lord Lansley not moved after clause 95,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Lansley not moved after clause 95, amendment 237 Baroness Willis of Summertown. So, my Lords, I will be brief, but I rise to speak to my amendment two three, seven in my name, and I'm very grateful to the noble I'm very grateful to the noble Baronesses Lady O'Loan, Lord Stone, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer and Lord Gascoigne for their support. Lord Gascoigne for their support. So amendment 237 is on a similar theme to my earlier amendment, which was related to the delivery
20:36
Baroness Willis of Summertown Portrait Baroness Willis of Summertown (Crossbench)
-
-
which was related to the delivery of green and blue spaces in spatial development strategy. So I won't repeat the arguments that I made previously, other than to say that the provision of accessible green and blue space in urban areas has been identified by many, many, many different organisations as a critical component that can support health and wellbeing in urban populations. So this amendment is dealing with the same issue. But this time, the statutory requirement for provision of accessible green and blue spaces into the objects of the development corporation responsible for delivering new towns.

And the aim of this amendment is to ensure that we don't miss the opportunity in new towns in in the way that we then create this blue and green space within them. Now, this point was emphasised most recently by the New Towns Task Force report, which was published in in September 25th, which stated that new towns provide a rare opportunity to plan holistically and that they should have easily accessible green spaces and recreational facilities. So the government responded to this report saying it is committed to ensuring that all new towns are thriving and sustainable places, and will consider how best to ensure expectations are set and managed at a national level.

But similar to state based spatial development strategies in the NPPF, I imagine the government will respond to say that the new town development corporations are sufficiently equipped to deal with provision of blue green spaces, but I want to give three counterpoints here. Relate to this. First, exactly the same as the NPPF. This is only guidance. It's toothless unless it is written into mandatory, legally binding law. The second is that there's no clear, mandatory, legally binding standard for equality of access to blue green space.

And what have we seen over the last five years we've seen? Yes, we've had more green spaces being created, but more and more green spaces are being created in the rich areas. And in relation to the the poorer areas, we have to take this seriously or inequality of access to green space will get worse and worse. And third, and this is the really important point, the recommendation of the new town task force was that new towns could be delivered by the introduction of special development orders.

So what are these? Well, special development orders would be mean. The Secretary of State could determine the planning permission for New Town and grant it directly through this special development order, with the potential to override the provisions of local plans and the NPPF. So there we don't we don't even have the NPPF or the, the, the local plans anymore to ensure blue green space in cities and the the equality of access to them. So I believe this is a fairly simple amendment.

It won't cost anything, but I hope that we can find a way to move forwards and that the Minister will accept my amendment and and accept that it does offer this reasonable and non burdensome way to implement what the government recognises is a really important issue to hardwire blue and green space into new towns so that they really can deliver these critical spaces for health

**** Possible New Speaker ****

and wellbeing for everyone in those cities. I beg to move. Thank you.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you. After the amendment proposed after clause 95, insert the after clause 95, insert the following new clause the words as

**** Possible New Speaker ****

printed in the Marshall List. This agreement between ourselves and the Liberal Democrats have and the Liberal Democrats have never known that in my life. Can I support Baroness Willis amendment support Baroness Willis amendment to which I put my name and briefly.
20:41
Baroness Young of Old Scone Portrait Baroness Young of Old Scone (Labour)
-
-
to which I put my name and briefly. Talk about the opportunity that the new towns offer for really ensuring that they are beacons for providing green and blue space close to where people live, and especially for deprived communities. The minister, with her depth of experience, has seen green and blue spaces and placemaking in Stevenage and not that far away. The historical examples of Letchworth Garden City and others, and indeed more recently, Milton Keynes, which you know indubitably, is full of green spaces and blue spaces.

Now, I'm sure the noble Lady has, the Minister, as Baroness Willis has said, will restate her faith in the NPPF requirements. The Baroness Willis has raised a question about that. And I'm sure she'll also refer to the New Towns Task Force report and the very strong emphasis it put on placemaking principles and green and blue open space. And there is no doubt that new town development corporations are already equipped with sufficient legal powers to provide blue and green spaces.

But my Lords powers are one thing, but commitment is another, which would make me want to see some provision of this sort on the face of this bill to ensure that in that real push for new towns, in order to provide housing and businesses and places to live, that the new Towns programme represents is also a push for accessible green space, especially for more deprived communities. I would like our new towns in respect of this green and blue open space to be praised by future generations in the way that the Victorian model towns were praised in the way that we praised the garden cities, in the ways that some of us grudgingly praise Milton Keynes and, dare I say it, poundbury.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Added my name to this amendment and I have the honour to serve on and I have the honour to serve on your Lordships built Environment Committee. I think it's no
20:43
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer Portrait Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
Committee. I think it's no coincidence that two of the people who've added their name to this amendment actually are on the Built Environment Committee, and the second being Lord Gascoigne is actually the Chair of that committee. One of the issues that we've come across, as we've made our inquiry into new towns, which the first module of which was published very recently, as was the New Towns Task Force report. But the issue is that we have identified there is a lack of vision, and there is actually not a vision in the new towns.

Task forces report really about blue and green space. When we talk about new towns, obviously it's integral that houses are part of the new town. That goes without saying. Well, the fact is it should be integral that green and blue space is part of that new town. And that should go without saying. And last week we had a fascinating debate in your Lordships House on Swifts. And should they have swift bricks and noble Lord Lord Krebs taught me a lot of things about perhaps why swift bricks were less important, because they couldn't be positioned in the right place.

But the fact is, if those swifts don't have any food because there's no green space and no blue space to produce the insects, all of the debate we were having about swift bricks is completely meaningless. And that goes for every single species. But it's not just the species. And I won't repeat all the arguments we made in committee. And last week. But on the other amendment for concerning green and blue space being in the NPPF, I'd simply say that it's equally essential for all those reasons for human health, human wellbeing, for children.

For all those reasons, the green and blue space must be as integral into the vision of development corporations as the houses

**** Possible New Speaker ****

themselves. My Lords sir, I just want to say Baroness Willis.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Baroness Willis. Amendment seems to be to be amazingly modest. If I'd written it, probably be far more complicated. Have no chance of actually being passed by this House. But I think passed by this House. But I think that is it's something that really needs to be in this bill. What we
20:46
20:47
20:48
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage Portrait Baroness Taylor of Stevenage, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Housing, Communities and Local Government) (Labour)
-
-
remains that national policy is the best mechanism. Development corporations are subject to the National Planning Policy Framework, which sets clear policies for green infrastructure. As noted at committee, we've seen this work well in practice. The Ebbsfleet Development Corporation has provided almost 15 hectares of parks in recent years, and this year is aiming to provide around ten hectares of new parks and open spaces. And I'm going to repeat again something that I've said many times during our debates on the Planning and Infrastructure Bill.

The NPPF is not a statutory document in itself because it needs to be flexible. We brought in a new version of the NPPF last December, and we will be publishing another one shortly. So it's very important we have that flexibility in the NPPF, however, and I am going to say this again, it sits within a statutory framework of planning, which means it does carry the weight of that statutory framework. The government expects development corporations to work within the framework of national policy.

Taken as a whole, it would be inappropriate to single out blue and green infrastructure in primary legislation, and it is unmanageable to include all the relevant policies within the objectives of Development Corporation. At this level of granularity, I understand that a driving concern behind the noble Baronesses amendment is to ensure the government's programme of new towns includes accessible green and blue spaces. However, her amendment would not guarantee this new town development corporations are only one possible vehicle for delivering new towns, urban development corporations and mayoral development corporations are also under consideration, as well as public private partnerships where this is right for the place.

So I would also say to her that there is a we've heard before from the noble Baroness Lady Hayman, in her role as Defra minister, that there is a programme being drawn up of access to green and blue spaces as well, which is coming along very soon. I must say I fundamentally disagree with the noble Baroness Lady Miller's contention that there is no vision for new towns from this government. The Independent New Towns Task Force recommended, alongside its overview, there were ten key placemaking principles, including that New Town should have easily accessible green spaces.

The initial government response set out that we support the placemaking approach recommended by the taskforce. Final selection of placemaking principles will be subject to environmental assessment and consultation. As many noble lords have mentioned. But this government is committed that new towns are well designed and have the infrastructure communities need, including green spaces. Implementation will of course be key. The task force recommended that government provide guidance on the implementation of placemaking principles and established an Independent Place Review panel to help ensure placemaking principles are translated into local policies, master plans and development proposals.

My officials are developing policy ahead of a full government response to the taskforce Task force report next year. I would very much welcome further engagement with the noble Baroness on this issue for new towns to better inform our final position. That said, I would kindly ask the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment. So, my Lords, I thank everyone for their really thoughtful contributions to this debate. I appreciate the the noble Lady the Minister's remarks, but I Lady the Minister's remarks, but I still have a very big problem here.

Every time we come back to the NPPF and every time their recommendations and guidance and unfortunately, when economic costs come in, particularly with come in, particularly with developers, those recommendations and guidance disappear. And we see and guidance disappear. And we see it time and time again. So at some point, we as a country have to actually be able to say, these are actually be able to say, these are so important, these spaces, they should be on the front of a bill. They should be there because They should be there because without them, we will have no green spaces left in cities.

So I while I spaces left in cities. So I while I appreciate this response, I, I do actually wish to test the opinion actually wish to test the opinion of the House on this matter.
20:52
20:59
None Portrait Division
-



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yes.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The The question The question is The question is that The question is that amendment There There have There have voted contents 107, not contents 136. The contents 107, not contents 136. The

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendment Amendment 238 Amendment 238 already Amendment 238 already debated Lord Fuller.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Lord Fuller. My Lords, I do think that the parts of the development corporation parts of this bill are corporation parts of this bill are the parts of the the best parts of it, and my intention is to make the best of it and to support it. I best of it and to support it. I came here with an open mind, not really knowing what I was going to press for, amendment or not, but it press for, amendment or not, but it seems to me that in her winding, the minister made two things which I'm uncomfortable with and in due course, and wish to test the opinion of the House.

The first was there is an apartheid in this country insofar as development

**** Possible New Speaker ****

corporations are concerned. Yeah. Noble Lord has made his speech.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Noble Lord has made his speech. We earlier. We do not need to rehearse what is being said during the debate. And I just spoke on the debate. And I just spoke on this issue at the beginning of this particular debate. So if you could move, let us know whether he's

**** Possible New Speaker ****

move, let us know whether he's going to move it to the vote or not. Yeah. I'm getting there. I just wanted to give the two reasons. First,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

what the the first was. The other day.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The first was that well, look, you're only delaying it. The, the first one that the development
21:05
21:14
21:17
Lord Lucas Portrait Lord Lucas (Conservative)
-
-
what is happening. There are two main routes through which this information has to flow. One is one should be a central database of all such announcements run by the government, so that all the professionals can immediately go where they need to. Need to go. Look at it every day, see what's happening, be completely up to date without having to faff around. The other is that they ought to go in publications which ordinary members of the public read so that they can say, oh, what's going on? I need to take an interest in this.

And it's that section which particularly concerns me, because the rules as to where these advertisements can be put were set down in 1881 and need updating now. The noble Lord, the Minister has very kindly promised me a meeting which has yet to be arranged with her department and DCMS. I look forward to that very much. But this does need doing. There are a number of other amendments in this group which I will listen to the presentations for with interest. The only one that I have a particular interest in is amendment 250, which seems to me to be a an undesirable bit of retrospective legislation designed to enable the All England Lawn Tennis Club not to have to negotiate fairly with the people.

It's disadvantaging as a result of its plans. I very much hope that the government will reject it. But I declare in saying so my interest in that I'm a resident of Eastbourne, which has been disadvantaged by the All England Lawn Tennis Club's plans, and I have numerous friends and relations who are Wombles.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I noble Lord is moving his amendment. An amendment proposed amendment. An amendment proposed towards 100 page 141, line 23. It ended so that the words on the marshalled list.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

marshalled list. My Lords, I would like to speak to amendment 238. A in this. Group, which.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Group, which. Is in the same terms. As an amendment, I. Raised and withdrew at.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Raised and withdrew at. Committee stage, then reserving. The. Right to return. Later. I have decided to bring it.
21:19
Lord Meston Portrait Lord Meston (Crossbench)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

I have decided to bring it. Back for further consideration, and. Will seek to reinforce. The arguments. For the amendment.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

For the amendment. This takes us into the largely unexplored part five of the bill, unexplored part five of the bill, and concerns the scope of exceptions to home loss payments in what is now clause 105, the compulsory acquisition of property, particularly a dwelling, is a drastic step for which clear and proper justification should be required. Normally, the person displaced from a property which is his or her dwelling receives the market value of the property, together with compensation by a statutory home loss payment, which provides some modest recognition that the person concerned is being compelled to leave his or her home.

However, in clause 105, a proposed new section of the 1973 act stipulates exceptions to the right to a home loss payment when the property has been allowed to get into disrepair, or there have been other failures to comply with notices or orders which have been served. Homeowners caught by those exceptions will be denied any home loss payment. Of course, the assessed amount which the individual receives on compulsory purchase will always already reflect the lack of repair, deprivation of the home loss payment would be, therefore, in addition to the reduced price reflecting a poor state of repair, repairs or improvements to a home may not always get done for a variety of reasons.

They may well be situations in which denial of home loss payments would be justified when there has been a significant culpable failure to comply with statutory obligations to maintain, repair or safeguard a property wholly or in part. But the proposed list of unqualified exceptions in the bill as it is drafted could operate unduly, harshly and punitively, taking no account of individual circumstances or of any underlying reason for non-compliance with the notice or order, which would automatically trigger forfeiture of the home loss payment.

The bill does not allow for the exercise of any discretion in depriving the home owner of that payment. In her helpful response to the amendment at the committee stage, the Minister did say that it would be for individual local authorities to determine whether it is appropriate to serve an improvement notice or order under the provisions listed in the 1973 act, taking into account personal circumstances of the owner. I'm sure that is correct, but the situation contemplated by my amendment is that arising at a later stage, after the order or notice has been served when the home owner to be displaced may reasonably want to show why personal circumstances do not then allow him or her to comply with the notice or order.

My Lords, I wish to stress as quickly as I can three points. The amendment would not place any obligation on the local authority to investigate the reasons for non-compliance in any way, unless and until the person concerned tried to show that the omissions were not deliberate and that the cause of non-compliance is either that the required work could not have been carried out because of that person's ill health or infirmity, or that it could not have been afforded because of financial difficulty, such as an inability to obtain or afford funding.

The burden of proving any of that would remain on the person to be displaced, and would require would require credible evidence. The only obligation on the local authority at that stage would be to look at the realities of the course for non-compliance. Secondly, in these cases, the property being compulsorily acquired is a home and the displaced homeowner will almost certainly need the home loss payment to help find a replacement home. All this amendment seeks to do is is obtain some modification of the blanket application of exclusion from such payments in an attempt to make the proposed new clause fairer and more reasonable.

When there has been what might be called a no fault non-compliance. Thirdly, of course, it is important to consider the financial implications for local authorities, but compulsory acquisition of homes in disrepair, where notices have not been complied with is rare, and if the amendment is accepted in a number of those cases in which the claimant could show genuine inability to comply with the required work because of ill health or lack of finance will be rarer still. This amendment would allow those people some opportunity to show those reasons and to receive the payment which the bill would otherwise take away from them.

If the government are not minded to look at this again and reconsider the amendment or something like it, I would at least hope that there would be an indication that guidance would allow such circumstances to be considered if it was possible for that to happen, I suggest that unnecessary appeals

**** Possible New Speaker ****

could be avoided. My Lords, I rise to move my

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I rise to move my amendment 242 and speak to my amendment 243. The purpose of these amendments is simply to eliminate amendments is simply to eliminate the ability of the government to ignore hope value when assessing value on compulsory purchase orders. value on compulsory purchase orders. My Lords, the noble Baroness the Minister has kindly laid out in writing that this will only happen writing that this will only happen in limited circumstances and by implication is of little concern. My Lords, that is wrong.

At My Lords, that is wrong. At committee stage the noble Lords Lord Cromwell put it far more simply and elegantly than I when he
21:26
Lord Roborough Portrait Lord Roborough (Conservative)
-
-
simply and elegantly than I when he said that hope value is actually market value. He is right. Other government departments accept this. When land is valued for Inheritance Tax or or non-financial transfers. Hope value is explicit value. So why should another government department be entitled to disregard it? Under this government's family farm death tax, greater Inheritance Tax will be paid based on this hope value of land that might lift it in certain circumstances, from around 10,000 per acre to as much as 50,000 per acre.

What happens if the government then turns around two years later and compulsorily purchased this land at £10,000 per acre, because it wants to disregard hope value? This is surely absurd. That hope value has not disappeared. The government should pay for it. My Lords, this is a power of confiscation. And as my noble friend Lord Sandhurst is probing with amendment 251 and I have also raised at Second Reading and again at committee stage. This is in breach of the European Convention on Human Rights.

The noble Baroness the Minister's previous responses that the allows for CPO is right, but it does not allow them at less than market value. His Majesty's Government appears to put the ECHR on a pedestal, and I'm curious whether that is only when it suits them. CPO powers are, of course, essential to a modern government carrying out its duties, but it cannot be a tyranny of the majority. The rights of the individual have to be respected. Could the noble Baroness, the minister, assure us that should she reject my amendments, that CPO valuations will include all elements of market value that are attributed to that land under historic valuation parameters? As the Red book? I believe valuations actually already incorporate.

And in moving this amendment, I also refer the House to my declaration of interests as a landowner, amongst other things.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Lords I rise to speak to amendment 250, which is tabled in my name, and also those of the
21:28
Lord Banner Portrait Lord Banner (Conservative)
-
-
my name, and also those of the noble Lords, Lord Pannick and Grabiner who are unable to be here this evening, but who continue to support it. And Lord O'Donnell. This amendment would address the wide reaching consequences for persons who acquire former open space land. In light of a Supreme Court decision in 2003, the King, on the application of Day and Shropshire Council 2023 Uksc eight, given this amendment has been misunderstood by some and mischaracterised by others, I do need to explain a little bit about what it is about and what it's not about.

Open spaces held by a local authority under the Public Health Act 1875 or the Open Spaces Act 1906, are subject to a statutory trust in favour of the public being given the right to go on to the land for the purpose of recreation. Section one, two, three. Subsection two A of the Local Government Act 1972 provides that the local authority may not dispose of any land consisting or forming part of an open space, unless before they do so, they advertise their intention to do so in a local newspaper for two weeks, and consider any objections received in response to the advertisement.

Section 1232B provides that the sale of the land post advertisement then proceeds free of the statutory trust. Now, if a local resident or a community group considers that the disposal of land is unlawful for any reason, including, but not limited to a failure to comply with the requirement to advertise they have a remedy, they can bring a claim for judicial review in the High Court of the local authority's decision, and if they have good reason for bringing the claim late, for example, they weren't aware of the decision at the time it was made.

They can draw the court's attention to that and support of an application for a discretionary extension of time in public law. The normal position is that if a public bodies decision has not been successfully challenged by way of judicial review, that decision is treated as having all the effects in law of a valid decision in day. However, the Supreme Court held that when even when the decision to dispose of open space land has not been challenged, indeed may be many years or even decades in the past, a historic failure to comply with the advertising advertising requirement means the statutory trust continues to exist, and therefore continues to frustrate the beneficial repurposing or redevelopment of the land in question.

And that is the case. Crucially, even if the land was sold in good faith by the authority to a bona fide purchaser who was completely unaware of any procedural irregularity, and even if there remains no dispute that the land was surplus to requirements when it was sold, the effect of this is deeply unsatisfactory and a blocker to growth. It means that land, which has been sold on the basis of an unchallenged decision, that it's in the public interest to dispose of it land which may now have lawful planning permission for beneficial repurposing, nonetheless is permanently banned by the statutory trust and cannot be put to its intended beneficial reuse.

Given the advertising can't be done retrospectively, the land is potentially blighted forever, and this sits uncomfortably with the public law principle that unchallenged public decisions should be treated as valid, and it's equally uncomfortable with the property law principle that a bona fide purchaser, without notice of equitable interest, takes land unencumbered by those interests, and this issue is causing huge uncertainty in relation to land purchase in good faith from authorities. Sometimes decades ago, the evidence about whether the land in question has been properly advertised prior to sale may no longer readily be available, particularly in historic cases, and this is holding up many developments across the country which already have planning permission.

One high profile, but I stress only one of many. Example is the current proposal to expand the All England Lawn Tennis Club's internationally renowned facilities at Wimbledon to include a adjacent former private golf club site, the planning permission for which was recently upheld by the High Court. The claims that it's subject to a statutory trust in light of the day judgement are holding up development and with it the benefits that the planning decision that has been upheld by the High Court said it would deliver.

But it's not just about Wimbledon and it's very important to appreciate this. There are other instances, for example, in Bristol, Winchester, Shrewsbury or Shrewsbury, depending on your preference for pronouncing it, never, never knew which one it was. But instances across the country of developments in the public interest being held up due to this issue. Amendment 250 would deal with this by providing the bona fide purchasers of former open space land, and their successors in the title are free from the burden of a statutory trust.

Yes, it has retrospective effect, but only in response to the de judgement, which itself retrospectively changed the understanding of how statutory trusts operate. And it is far from unprecedented for Parliament to legislate with retrospective effect, either in response to a court judgement see, for example, the Compensation Act 2006, which reversed the effect of Barker and Corus 2006 to appeal cases 572. In relation to mesothelioma claims, or for Parliament to legislate retrospectively to deal with an important problem, a recent example being the Building Safety Act 2022, the retrospective effect of which has been upheld by the courts.

The amendment would not remove the local authority's duty to advertise before disposing of open space land. It would not remove any of the other legal safeguards on the decision making process relating to such disposal, such as the need for land to be surplus to requirements. It would also not interfere with the public's right to challenge a decision by way of judicial review. Within the usual three month window for bringing a JR, or subject to an extension of time where there is a sufficiently compelling case for that to be granted.

Nor would it alter the onerous restrictions in the National Planning Policy framework in relation to the redevelopment of open space land. The planning policy protections on open space land would remain entirely unchanged. Nor would the amendment apply to transactions which weren't made in good faith. What it would do, however, is ensure that where there has been no challenge to disposal and where the transaction was made in good faith, the purchase is not subject to the deleterious uncertainty and potentially permanent burdens which I've outlined.

Now, I understand the government accepts the case for a legislative solution in response. Today, as part of a wider consideration of the statutory protections of open space, but that it intends to bring forward that solution in another bill in the near future. The obvious candidate, I would suggest being the English devolution bill. That's encouraging to hear. I must confess, I'm a little bit disappointed that the government hasn't grasped the nettle now, just as it hasn't grasped nettle in relation to my amendment in relation to the hillside judgement.

It does seem to me to be ironic, as the Home Builders Federation and the Land Planning and Development Federation observed in a letter to The Chancellor last week that in relation to those two Supreme Court decisions which add to planning regulation, the acknowledged need for a solution is left to a later bill. But in relation to last week's Supreme Court decision in CG fry, which reduces planning regulation, the government has immediately amended this bill so as to reverse it straight away.

I didn't speak in the debate on amendment two because I was leading counsel in fry, and I didn't vote in it either. But it does seem to me that the government will live to regret its decision to extend the Habitats Regulations to Ramsar sites, to which the parent EU directive does not apply. All that said, I am very keen to continue working with the noble Lady of the Minister and Minister Pennycook and her officials, and I'm genuinely grateful for the engagement that's been had on this issue so as to ensure a swift and effective resolution of this issue as possible.

And with that in mind, and depending on what the Minister says in winding up this debate, it may be that the reassurances she provides mean I do not need to move the amendment now, but I do really encourage as much pace as possible in dealing with this issue.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords. I've added my. Name to amendment 250. Because I believe.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

It is a. Necessary and proportionate measure to remove a legal blockage to sustainable growth, a blockage
21:36
Lord O'Donnell Portrait Lord O'Donnell (Crossbench)
-
-
to sustainable growth, a blockage that is holding back both our national well-being and our economic prosperity. I should begin by declaring my relevant interests on the well-being side. I am a member unpaid of the board of the Worldwide Wellbeing Movement and co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on wellbeing. On the economic side, as a professional economist with decades of experience at the Treasury and now as unpaid president, the Institute for Fiscal Studies, I naturally view this issue through the twin lenses of economic growth and fiscal sustainability.

Regrettably, and also, of course, I'm a member of the committee of the All England Lawn Tennis Club, and that's obviously where I have experience that others, I hope can can learn from. Regrettably, the decision that this House made in April that we must exclude our non-financial interests from the register, has led to a degree of misunderstanding and in some quarters, to unwarranted personal attacks on me. Hence my need to put these matters on the record at my first opportunity. This is the first time I have spoken on this issue.

I should also note that I asked the registrar's office on the 6th of March, could I include. I wanted to carry on including my non-financial interests in the register, because I think they're really important. And I was told this was not possible. Ridiculous, right? So I'm stuck with this. So let me get back to the the the point of the amendment and I will stick to Lord Banner mentioned all the cases and Lord Pannick and the rest of it have got all the legal arguments.

I won't even try to rival their expertise. I'm an economist, that's what. That's what drives me on. Who cares about wellbeing? So this amendment responds, as was said to the unintended consequences of the of the Supreme Court decision in the day case. In essence, that judgement created a new and retrospective uncertainty over land ownership, affecting potentially innumerable development sites across the country. This is the important thing to get across. This is important for economic growth of the country.

The Wimbledon example is an important one, but it's only one amongst a number. So, and the minister is very aware of the long list of projects, because I've sent it to her that are now held back by this legal shadow, because the problem is itself retrospective. The remedy must necessarily also be retrospective. If we are to restore the legal clarity that the market and our communities so badly need. Now let me go to my area of expertise. The real world effects, best illustrated by me by the experience of that much loved British institution, Wimbledon.

I declare again, I've been a long standing member of its main committee and put it in my register for many, many years until that April. Change the day. Judgement has created significant delay and uncertainty to to Wimbledon's ability to transform the land that has, for more than a century been a private members golf club. Now, I stress there are lots of other examples, but in the Wimbledon example, the expansion has already got planning permission from the Greater London Authority.

It has been upheld by the High Court. Yet progress is now halted because of the uncertainty surrounding the day case. But this is about far more than economics. Wimbledon is a jewel in the crown of British sport. The other Grand Slams are investing heavily in their facilities, and the fan experience for Wimbledon to maintain its place at the pinnacle of world tennis, it must be allowed to evolve as they are. This expansion is crucial to that future, and it is not only about elite sport, it's also about national well-being.

The proposed development would turn qualifying week into a festival in its own right, offering three weeks of world class tennis and community celebration rather than two. It would harness the experience for the thousands who camp out each year in the queue. Remember, Wimbledon is not a profit maximising organisation. 90% of our surplus goes back into the LTA, the other 10% goes into improving Wimbledon every year. So allow fans to have a better experience and to capitalise on one of the country's finest examples of soft power by extending the celebration of Britishness that the nation holds so, so dear.

Yet, perhaps most importantly of all, and I stress this to my colleagues, to my right, the benefits extend to the environment and the local community. This is not an act of overdevelopment, but of restoration, of environmental enhancement and the opening up of new green space. Let me be specific. The project would convert 27 acres of private land into publicly accessible parkland, a 50% increase in green space for local residents. It would restore the historic Capability Brown Wimbledon Park Lake, which is terribly silted up at the minute, creating a circular boardwalk and reviving a landscape feature of national heritage.

It would develop and deliver a substantial biodiversity net gain with the planting of at least 1500 new trees and the creation of which habitats for wildlife. These arguments were made at the GLA. Planning and the environmental case won the day. So as someone who believes in green spaces, massively believes in well-being, I'm afraid I have to disagree with those who think that somehow this development is going to do the opposite of that. It's not. It makes things better.

So I urge the government to swiftly find a way to support this amendment. It's a modest and necessary measure to restore certainty and enable sustainable growth, strengthen our national well-being, and help deliver the kind of forward looking future development that future generations will thank us for. I honestly don't understand why the government, which accepts that the current situation needs to be changed by legislation, why they can't bring forward at Third Reading their own wording. Right, taking account of the, you know, any issues they may have which can solve these problems.

Believe me, I do have experience of these matters. There are over 50 brilliant, excellent draughtsmen in the OPC. Sorry. The Office of Parliamentary Counsel. Every department has some additional draughters. It is not beyond the wit of man to do this reasonably quickly when I'm told that, oh, we might do this in some future legislation, I'm thinking I remember the words of my late. Alas, late, my successor as Cabinet secretary, the late Jeremy Heywood, who, when faced with issues like this, would say to me, Gus, we need to get a grip.

And he was right. So please, can we get a grip? Can we get on with it and solve this problem which will enhance national wellbeing, improve the environment

**** Possible New Speaker ****

and stimulate economic growth? Thank you. Take up your time.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Take up your time. To the House. At this stage in the evening, I want to speak the evening, I want to speak against amendment 250, in the name of the noble Lords banner, Lord Grabiner and Lord O'Donnell. And I do agree with the noble Lord O'Donnell in one respect, and that O'Donnell in one respect, and that is, I absolutely agree with the backward step that the Register of Interests now represents in that non-financial interests absolutely ought to continue to be highlighted.

ought to continue to be highlighted. And I think we've just had a prime example of that tonight, if I may
21:44
Baroness Young of Old Scone Portrait Baroness Young of Old Scone (Labour)
-
-
say so. I was slightly nervous about saying anything against such an illustrious Line-Up as the noble Lord banner has lined up, but I think my understanding of the situation is not that as a noble Lord Banner tried to persuade me that that we're all misunderstanding the position. I don't think we are misunderstanding position. I think there is a real need for this to be gripped, but this is not the way to do it, because this amendment has caused substantial concern that it erodes the protection of green space and removes long standing public rights on green spaces where the land is sold by local authority, with or without consultation.

And I think for the noble Lord Lord Banner to say that a judicial review is the way forward is frankly misrepresents the position of many local communities who are absolutely incapable of bringing a judicial review, either by degree of organisation or financially. So this is an important problem, but the amendment is the wrong answer, and I would support the Minister in having further discussions and not rushing to grab the nearest passing parliamentary draughtsman, who can write a better amendment to the one that we've got.

We've got to remember history in this issue to some extent, because up until 1980, local authorities had to get parliamentary approval to make these sales, you know, so it was a big concession to go to the point where public consultation was granted rather than the need for a parliamentary decision. And here we are talking now about sweeping that away. So I think that is just not to be swept without further discussion. We've really got to make sure that the community's ability to challenge the intention to repurpose land remains, and we must make sure that the signals are right for local authorities who may be, would you believe, short of funds and looking to dispose of recreational land.

So I would urge the Baroness, the noble lady, the minister, Baroness Taylor, who at committee stage said that the government will require engagement with the sector. I wasn't quite sure what sector she meant. I do hope that that includes the open spaces sector, and could I urge her to make sure that any future considerations of this issue are do not make local authority disposal of these sites easier and do not reduce the democratic input through

**** Possible New Speaker ****

public consultation on any sales. OK. I rise with pleasure. To follow and agree with the
21:47
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle Portrait Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (Green Party)
-
-
noble Lady Baroness young, particularly on her point about judicial reviews. I've been to visited more local communities than I can count where they've desperately been trying to bake, bake cakes, and collect pencils and and pounds here. And they're struggling to try and stand up a judicial review and simply been unable to do it. But I rise without any nervousness at all to oppose amendment 250, because I rise, bringing voices from the community, something I often seek to bring into your Lordships House, as represented by both the Wandsworth and Merton Green parties and Merton Friends of the Earth, who are strongly opposed to the development by the All England Lawn Tennis Club and opposed to the kind of changes that this amendment brings forward.

Also, of course, it's strongly opposed by the Open Spaces Society. And I just want to add make two specific points. The noble Lord Lord Banner talked about beneficial repurposing and oh, it's fine if it's beneficial repurposing. Well, beneficial repurposing, I'm afraid, is very often in the eye of the beholder. And there can be many different perspectives on what beneficial repurposing is. And the other contextual point I would just wish to add and now these are figures from 2018 which will undoubtedly be out of date.

But what has been described as the new enclosure from the late 1970s to 2019 has seen 10% of public land. What was public land in Britain transferred into private hands? That's 2 million hectares of land. And this is probably not large in terms of scale, but it would be yet more loss of public good for private profit, not for the people who have already lost so much. And I just finally note the the strong vote for the noble Lady Baroness Willis amendment recently on protecting blue and green spaces.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

That's what the House is surely strongly showing it wants to do. Yeah.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yeah. My Lords, I would like to speak briefly to amendment two five. Oh, I know that there are many noble I know that there are many noble lords who are much better versed in the law around this than I am. However, I would just like to touch However, I would just like to touch on the point about land held in trust for enjoyment by the public, in situations where such a purchase
21:50
21:51
Lord Lansley Portrait Lord Lansley (Conservative)
-
-
follow up briefly because I think in this debate we're getting a more comprehensive view, if I may say so, of the problem and also potentially of the solution, it seems to me not least, for example, that noble Lady Baroness Young of Old Scone was referred to the fact that, of course, it was in 1980 that the Local Government Planning and Land Act brought in the provisions that are now in the Local Government Act, 1972. I mean, last time round we were we were being told about these ancient legislation of, you know, the Public Health Act of 1875 and the open spaces, the fact that they are ancient pieces of legislation, neither here nor there.

The thing we're dealing with was in inserted in 1980, which is why the amendment refers to 1980. So we have to have to say two things one. For the future, what should happen in the future? Well, in future when when land to the public have some right of enjoyment, access public rights if if they are to be disposed of by a local authority, the local authority should consult. And actually, what the legislation requires is not too onerous. It's advertised for two weeks and consider any objections raised.

This is hardly too much. That's for the future. And clearly the public benefit should be incorporated into whatever decisions are made as a consequence of that. But of course, we've had about 45 years when the local authorities thought, because of what is in tooby of sections one, two, two and one, two, three of the Local Government Act, that if they didn't do that, not only was the sale still valid, but the trusts relating to that legislation were extinguished and they were wrong about that.

So we just have to put them back in that situation. So essentially what we have to do is we have to look back and say, in all these decisions that were made over that period, where they operated on what turned out to be a false basis, they have to be they have to take into account the public benefit that might have been derived from the trust, and they have to find some other way of doing it. And noble Lord Lord O'Donnell has explained to us how in the particular instance, but only one instance, it is the intention of the All England Lawn Tennis Club to ensure that there is significant public benefit continuing to be provided by way of access to open space and public enjoyment.

But that is exactly where we need to go to. But I do think that the legislation does need to reflect both the requirement for consultation, and that there may be some continuing necessity for the public benefit, either to be enjoyed in that open

**** Possible New Speaker ****

space or by some alternative means. Can I just agree very briefly with what Lord Lansley just said? Philanthropists in the past gave areas of green space, and there areas of green space, and there have been scandals where councils have sold them off for money, and we then all complain that there are
21:54
21:55
Baroness Pinnock Portrait Baroness Pinnock (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
and fairly disparate at that. So I'm going to focus briefly, first of all, on the amendments in the name of the noble Lord Lucas, because he raised those issues about the publication of Public Notices Committee, which I had some sympathy at that time with, with what he proposed and continue to do what he proposed and continue to do so. The sad demise of the printed local newspaper means fewer and fewer people are going to have access to the public notices, which actually partly reference to amendment 250, because where would people read those? The notice about Wimbledon Park or any other site of that sort? So the noble Lord Lucas, I say I'm sympathetic with, with the the suggestions he makes in his amendment.

And then I move on to the other amendments, 242 and 243 in the name of the noble Lord Roborough. And I do remember the long debates we had during the levelling up bill on this very issue. I do recall at that time it was the low noble Lord Rovers government who passed the, the, the, the levelling up bill to become an act obviously and included in it the very issue which he now wishes the very issue which he now wishes to undo.

So you know. It's very important for the country. I mean, we're listening to arguments about growth and economic development, but actually for many parts of the country, without access to land at affordable prices for the public good, with those sort of developments such as community health centres and so on, will never be never come to come to fruition. So I we have those arguments at the levelling up during the levelling up bill. And for me, they they are still important issues that we ought to respect.

So yeah, I'm afraid for the bill Lord Roborough it's a big cross. I can't I can't support those amendments. Which leads us on to amendment 250. I always think it's worth looking through the other lens of a of an issue of development or not development, whether it be for the public good or public well-being, economic
Feed Live - Click to view video
Return to start of debate - Return to top of page