Leasehold and Freehold Reform Bill (First sitting)

Barry Gardiner Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 16th January 2024 Public Bill Committees

[Richard Fuller]

There is nothing that leaps out at this stage.

Mr Martin Boyd: Nothing leaps out.

[Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)]

Q Mr Boyd, you just spoke about the accounting of funds. At the moment, there is no requirement to show any separation between sinking or reserve funds and the normal service charges for managing the property. Many leaseholders have suggested that that is a problem, and that they are not clear what is happening with their sinking fund. Sometimes they believe that the moneys that were there for future capital works on the property are being raided. Would it be a good idea for the Bill to contain something that enabled leaseholders to see precisely what was happening to those reserve or sinking funds?

Mr Martin Boyd: There were proposals in sections 152 to 156 of the 2002 Act to help to improve protection for leaseholders’ funds. Currently, we are left with a set of voluntary codes. One is applied by the Association of Residential Managing Agents—the Property Institute, as it is now called—and sets out that managing agents should hold separate bank accounts for each of the sites that they manage. The Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors’ code does not require that. I am aware from experience of my and other sites that, in the recent period of higher inflation, some managing agents used consolidation accounts, accrued the interest in the service charge funds to themselves and passed very little on to the leaseholders. So yes, I think it would be very helpful if we had greater transparency and protection.

[Barry Gardiner]

Q Indeed. You nicely lead me to my other question, which concerns something else that was in the 2002 Act but was never brought into effect: the provision that, if the landlord had not complied with the rules around service charges and the charges were unfair, leaseholders should be able to withhold their service charge. I have no idea why that was never brought into effect, but would it be a good idea? The Bill sets out extensive obligations that have to be followed in relation to service charges. If those are not followed, should leaseholders have the right to withhold the service charge?

Mr Martin Boyd: I can tell you why it did not move forward. One of the reasons it did not move forward is that, when there was a consultation, the organisation that I now chair argued very strongly against the implementation of that section. That was one of the things that annoyed me when I found out about it over a decade ago. It is not something that we would argue for now.

[Barry Gardiner]

Q So you would agree that it would be a good provision to insert into the Bill.

Mr Martin Boyd: It was a very good provision, yes.

[Rachel Maclean (Redditch) (Con)]

Q Mr Boyd, it is good to see you. You have talked about commonhold. Would you mind just being quite succinct and clear on your view about commonhold? There are proposals from various groups who are active in the sector to make it mandatory to sell all new leasehold flats as commonhold. Would that be a good idea, and if not, why not?

Mr Martin Boyd: I am proud to say that it was LKP that restarted the whole commonhold project in 2014. At the time, we were told, “The market doesn’t want commonhold.” The market very clearly told us that it did want commonhold; it was just that the legislation had problems in 2002. One of our trustees, who is now unfortunately no longer with us, was part of a very big commonhold project in Milton Keynes that had to be converted back to leasehold when they found problems with the law.

I think the Government have been making it very clear for several years that they accept that leasehold’s time is really over. I do not see any reason why we cannot move to a mandatory commonhold system quite quickly. What the developers had always said to us—I think they are possibly right—is that they worry that the Government might get the legislation wrong again, and they would therefore want a bedding-in period where they could test the market to ensure that commonhold was working, and they would agree to a sunset clause. They had fundamentally opposed that in 2002, and we managed to get them in 2014 to agree that, if commonhold could be shown to work, they would agree to a sunset clause that would say, “You cannot build leasehold properties after x date in the future.” I think that that is a viable system.

--- Later in debate ---

[Barry Gardiner]

Q Mr Spender, I want to ask you about what I find to be one of the more complicated aspects of the Bill: the leaseback arrangements. Nominee purchasers can require a landlord to take a leaseback on certain units. Those are the units that, in an enfranchisement process, are not participating in the enfranchisement. You might have a block of 100 units, and 30 of them do not go in with the leaseholders who want to enfranchise. At the moment, they are then, in perpetuity, leaseholders, are they not? They cannot ever enfranchise because the others have already enfranchised. Should there not be a provision in the Bill to enable those locked-in leaseholders—if they have the money in future, because many times it will be because they did not have the money available at the time to participate—to buy their share of the enfranchisement?

Liam Spender: I agree; you have summarised it very well. To borrow a loose analogy from company law, there is something called a tag-along right. If someone comes along and buys a certain proportion of shares in a company, the other shareholders can exercise the right to tag along to join the purchase. That could be adapted to those who do not participate in an initial enfranchisement to address exactly the issue that you raise.

[Barry Gardiner]

Q Grand. If I can pursue that area, at the moment, the lease is granted to the demoted freeholder—so they become the head leaseholder, perhaps, and the other leaseholders are now subject to the head leaseholder. Their contract was always with the previous freeholder, who is now the head leaseholder. Should there not be some provision in the Bill that requires those minority leaseholders, who are still in a relationship with the former freeholder, to actually pay their service charge to the new freeholder? But there is not, is there?

Liam Spender: I think the provisions introduce a degree of complexity into buildings because, exactly as you say, you are creating a new class of landlord. That could be solved by—

[Barry Gardiner]

Q But the specific question I want to probe with you is whether there is any provision in the Bill to require the minority leaseholders who did not enfranchise to pay their service charge to the new freeholder, namely the majority who enfranchised. I cannot see where that contractual obligation lies in the Bill. All I can see is that they will continue to have a relationship with the previous freeholder.

Liam Spender: That is right: there is no statutory mechanism to transfer to the newly enfranchised freeholders.

[Barry Gardiner]

Q So you think the Committee should look at that very carefully.

Liam Spender: The Bill creates a lot of new areas of complexity, and that is certainly one that would merit detailed attention.

[The Chair]

Well, gentlemen, I think that is it. Thank you very much.

Examination of Witnesses

Katie Kendrick, Jo Derbyshire and Cath Williams gave evidence.

--- Later in debate ---

[Richard Fuller]

Q On the change in pension funds and investments, you may have different views about how important that is and my colleague asked you that question. However, putting yourself in the place of the people who own the freehold—some may be large overseas entities, some may be members of the peerage of the realm and there may be others—what is your view and what assessment have you made of the impact on them?

Jo Derbyshire: From my perspective, it is just about how all investment carries risk. This is no different. This is about rebalancing the scales in terms of leaseholders and freeholders. For me, it is about fairness for leaseholders. That is what the Law Commission was tasked with a few years ago, it is what we have been fighting for over the last however many years and that is what this does.

[Barry Gardiner]

Q I apologise because I came in slightly late today, Chair, so I do not know if people have declared their interest. I should say that I am a freeholder; I am not a leaseholder. I have been a leaseholder in the past, but always with a share of the freehold.

Ms Kendrick, you said that there were things that the Law Commission report had talked about that have not been included in the Bill. One of those is in relation to shared services. Often, in a mixed development, if there is a commercial element to the block of flats, with flats above, you will find that there is a common plant room or a common car park. I welcome the provisions in the Bill that say that you can go from 25% commercial to 50%; that is a good move. However, the Law Commission actually said something specific about whether you should be allowed, if there are shared services such as the car park or the plant room, to be able to take over control, because the flats—the leaseholders—would only have control over the plant room as it related to their block. Is that a provision that you think should be introduced? Otherwise, it makes a mockery, to a certain extent, of increasing from 25% to 50% if you are still going to be precluded from gaining control of your block because of the plant room or shared services.

Katie Kendrick: Yes, there are clever ways in which they exclude people from being able to do that. We welcome the increase to 50%, but they are very creative when they design these buildings, with the underground car parks and stuff, as to what they can do to exclude the leaseholders from taking back control of their blocks. It is all about trying to have control over people’s homes. We should be able to control our homes—what is spent. No one is saying that you should not have to pay service charges, but it is about being in control of who provides those services. At the moment, leaseholders have no control. They just pay the bills.

[Barry Gardiner]

Q And the residents having the right to manage that themselves.

Katie Kendrick: Absolutely, yes.

[Barry Gardiner]

Q If commonhold will not be in the Bill, would you support a principle that all future leasehold flats should have to be sold with a share of the freehold?

Katie Kendrick: Absolutely.

[Barry Gardiner]

Q And that any residents’ association should be able to have the management of the block?

Katie Kendrick: Absolutely. If they are saying that commonhold is not ready to rock and roll, to have a share of freehold to mandate, a share of freehold for new flats moving forward would be a good step closer.

[Andy Carter]

Q I hope you do not mind if I start by congratulating you on the work you have done with the National Leasehold Campaign. I know that my constituents in Warrington South have greatly valued the assistance and knowledge you have managed to secure through bringing people together. Thank you for the work you have done there. May we just go back a little bit? Can you tell the Committee what sort of problems leaseholders have when they go to buy their freehold?

Katie Kendrick: All three of us have now successfully bought our freehold. Yes, we are still here.

Jo Derbyshire: There are a number of things. The first is that most leaseholders do not understand the difference between the informal way and the statutory way to do that. The more unscrupulous freeholders will write to leaseholders with a “Get it while it’s hot” type of offer, which can be quite poor value for money. So, there is understanding the process in the first place. Then, regardless of which way you go—if you go the statutory way, currently you pay your own fees and the freeholder’s fees. There is an element of gamesmanship that goes on at the moment, which is why the online calculator is so important. Your valuer and the freeholder’s valuer will argue about the rate used to calculate the amount and then you will try and have some kind of an agreement. It is not a straightforward process at all. Cath will tell you what happened with her transfer, because they leave things in the transfer documents.

Cath Williams: Yes, they did. In my case, it took 15 months and £15,000 to get my freehold.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matthew Pennycook]

Q Some of them will not have a choice, will they?

Katie Kendrick: No, some people do not have a choice. People’s lives are literally on hold, and have been for many years, waiting for the outcome of the legislation. If we need further legislation to enact the Bill, people cannot sell. Housing and flat sales are falling through every single day because of the lease terms and service charges. It is horrendous. It will grind the buying and selling process to a halt.

[Barry Gardiner]

Q I want to ask you about this whole business of people being unable to sell, and, in effect, the interaction between what the Government have tried to tackle in the Building Safety Act 2022 and what we have in this Bill.

Under the Building Safety Act, the provision is to appoint a designated person—an agent—to deal with the safety of the building. Often it will be the developer who is responsible for the remediation of a building that has fire safety defects and so on, which the Government are quite rightly trying to address, but they will argue that it is not possible to do that unless they have control over the management of the block as a whole. Therefore, there is a conflict between the Building Safety Act and the provisions in this Bill to help leaseholders gain the right to manage.

You might have just enfranchised and got the right to manage your own block, yet there is now an appointed person who will be told by the court that they have the right to manage the block. Very often, it will be the person you have just liberated yourself from. You will have just enfranchised yourself from that freeholder, only to find that they are now back in control. Do you feel there is a way in which the Committee should try to remediate and address that problem when it is looking at the Bill, and do you have any ideas as to how we should go about it?

Cath Williams: First of all, the situation that flat leaseholders are in at the moment, where they have building safety issues and leasehold issues, is so complex. It is horrendous. We hear daily in the National Leasehold Campaign about these poor leaseholders. It is really heartbreaking.

[Barry Gardiner]

It is awful.

Cath Williams: People are at breaking point.

[Barry Gardiner]

People have committed suicide, have they not?

Cath Williams: People have committed suicide, yes. That is worth noting.

They ask for advice. We have never been flat leaseholders; that is the first thing, but there is a lot of support in the group to try to help people navigate their way through the Building Safety Act first of all, and now we have this Bill as well. In principle, I think they would really welcome some sort of cohesion between the two. I don’t know what that would be; it is really hard.

Katie Kendrick: It is really difficult because we are encouraging people to take control, but by doing that they are liable for more of the building’s safety. The two Bills have to work together.

[Barry Gardiner]

Q There is a real tension here, is there not?

Katie Kendrick: There is.

[Barry Gardiner]

Q You have talked extensively about ground rent and, Ms Derbyshire, your situation with it doubling. We all know the story about the inventor of chess, who asked for a grain of rice on the first square as his reward as long as it doubled until the last square, and then there was not enough rice in the world to provide it. This is clearly inequitable. You said that you welcome the provision in the Bill to be able to get rid of ground rent—to take it down to a peppercorn. Given that we have the consultation at the moment, would it not better if the Government just did that rather than you having to pay for it, which is what is recommended in the Bill? You should not have to pay to get out of a situation that is unjust. It was unjust in the first place, and it would be much better if the Government simply moved the consultation onwards and got rid of it.

Cath Williams: Yes.

Jo Derbyshire: The Leasehold Reform (Ground Rent) Act 2022 has essentially created a two-tier system where you have new builds without ground rent. As Cath mentioned, we are concerned that clause 21 and schedule 7 of the Bill seem to say a qualifying lease for buying out to a peppercorn rent must have a term of 150 years. We have seen lots of examples in the National Leasehold Campaign of new build properties—flats in particular—where the lease is 99, 125 or 150 years from the start, so a whole swathe of properties would be automatically excluded.

However, for us, because ground rent is a charge for no service, peppercorn is the answer. We also fear that, in terms of the timetable for legislation and getting this through, the sector will fight intensively and try to tie this up in the courts for years. It has nothing to lose; why wouldn’t it?

[Andy Carter]

Q Katie, can I just go back to your earlier point about how lots of sales are falling through? Can you just explain why that is? What is causing sales to fall through on leasehold properties?

Katie Kendrick: Because an escalating ground rent worries mortgage lenders and buyers are unable to get mortgages because of an escalating ground rent. Where that is because of the £250 assured shorthold tenancy issue, my understanding is that that will be sorted through the Renters (Reform) Bill, so that will close that loophole, but lenders do not like—for most leases now, the doubling has half-heartedly been addressed and a lot of leases are now on RPI—the retail price index.

However, with RPI being the way that it is—it has been really high in the last couple of years—some of those ground rents are coming up to their review periods and are actually doubling. Therefore, RPI, as Jo said many years ago, is not the answer. Converting to RPI is not the answer because an escalating ground rent is still unmortgageable, and it takes it over the 0.1% of property value, which, again, mortgage lenders will not lend on.

Therefore, a lot of mortgage lenders are asking leaseholders to go to the freeholder and ask them to do a cap on ground rent, which is then costing the leaseholder more money to get a deed of variation from their freeholder. That is if the freeholder agrees at all, because the freeholder does not have to agree to do a deed of variation to cap the ground rent. That is coming at a massive cost if someone wants to sell, but without that people are losing three, four or five sales, and people have given up because their properties are literally unsellable.

Cath Williams: There is a house on my estate where sales have fallen through twice already. It is a townhouse; it is worth about £220,000. The ground rent currently—it is on an RPI lease—is £400, which takes it over the 0.1% of property value. Two sets of buyers have had problems getting a lender to lend in that situation.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rachel Maclean]

Q I just want to clarify your understanding of something that Mr Gardiner said earlier. I might need to put this to the Minister later, but Mr Gardiner said that if the new provisions on ground rent go through and ground rent goes to peppercorn or zero—I might be misquoting him.

[Barry Gardiner]

You have been spot on so far.

[Rachel Maclean]

You mentioned that in the new Bill leaseholders will have to pay to get their ground rent to zero. Can you set out what that provision is? Where is that in the Bill?

Cath Williams: I don’t think we know. That was one of our questions. There is a process in the Bill about how a leaseholder can acquire the peppercorn ground rent, but who pays for that is not clear. I think that was raised before. I do not think leaseholders should pay, because it should not have been there in the first place.

Katie Kendrick: Or there should be a prescribed cost—“apply for your peppercorn now”—with a simple process. Otherwise it will be exploited, and lawyer will charge different amounts to convert. You can see what will happen, so it needs to be streamlined. Whatever we go for, it needs to be streamlined.

Cath Williams: And we need an online system that cuts out everybody in the middle, so that there is no confusion or discussion about what it should cost.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dehenna Davison]

Q What would you consider a reasonable time? I mean, 24 hours would be great, but—

Amanda Gourlay: Twenty-four hours would be great, but that would probably sow total panic at the receiving end—I know that it would if I received that and I was doing something else. It will depend very much on the nature of the property. There are some very complex developments over in the east end of London. On the other hand, there are Victorian houses that are only two or three flats, and that should be much more straightforward.

I am aware that people have been able to pay for, say, a seven-day or five-day service, and there has been an uplift in the price for that. I am not the best person to ask about what the price should be. What I would say is that if a managing agent to whom this request would normally go is keeping their records up to date, one would hope that with the progress we have in software nowadays, that should very much just be the pressing of a button.

On work that is going to be carried out in the future, I have heard talk about, for example, mandatory planned maintenance plans. I have not seen those in the Bill. If a building or property is being well managed, one would expect there to be a plan for the next five or 10 years—what is needed to be done in terms of decorating, lift replacement and so on. Again, if that is in place, I would anticipate that it should be relatively straightforward to produce the information. I cannot give a specific answer; what I would say is that if we are all keeping our records up to date, that should be a relatively speedy process.

[Barry Gardiner]

Q I understand that you were involved in the Canary Riverside judgment just before Christmas.

Amanda Gourlay: That is correct—yes. Forgive me; I was involved in Canary Riverside between 2016 and 2017. My involvement finished in June 2017.

[Barry Gardiner]

Q Thank you. But you are aware of the judgment that came through just before Christmas in the case.

Amanda Gourlay: I am not sure that I am—no.

[Barry Gardiner]

Q Were you involved in relation to the uncovering of the £1.6 million commission for insurance?

Amanda Gourlay: No, I was not involved in that element of it.

[Barry Gardiner]

Q In that case, I am probably better putting those questions to a later witness.

In relation to that case, and on the accountable person provisions and section 24 amendments in the Building Safety Act—this relates to a question I asked earlier—the tribunal decided in the Canary Riverside case that the section 24 manager cannot be the accountable person, and that risks the section 24 management order failing, and the failed freeholder coming back to take control of the leaseholders and their service charge moneys. The implications of that decision really are quite dramatic. It means that the lifeline of the section 24 court-appointed manager provision from the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987 has been removed from leaseholders, particularly those who cannot afford to buy their freehold or do not qualify for the right to manage. How should we address that problem in the structure of the Bill?

Amanda Gourlay: I do not think you need to do that in the structure of the Bill. Casting my mind back to the Building Safety Act, which is now in second place to the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Bill in my mind, my understanding is that there is provision for a special measures manager in that Act. If that were brought into force, one would have a recourse. I am very happy to open my computer and look at the Act, but I do seem to recall that there is provision for a special measures manager to take over the building safety or the accountable person role in a manner of speaking. I say that in the loosest terms, without having checked the law.

[Barry Gardiner]

Q I am sure Ms Maclean will have details from her past life. Thank you for that—it is extremely helpful. You referred to clauses 27 and 28 and said that the word “arising” was one that troubled you. Could you point us to which clause that is in, so that we can be clear about it? You will have heard the question I put to another witness about making provision in the Bill, as there had been, although it was never brought into play, in the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002, for leaseholders to be able to withhold their service charges if all that is set out in proposed new sections 21D and 21E has not been complied with?

Amanda Gourlay: There is always a concern looking forward as to how things might play out. I will deal your question on “arising” first, then come to your other point. Clause 28(2) inserts proposed new section 21D, “Service charge accounts”. Subsection (2)(a)(i) talks about the variable service charges “arising in the period”.

[Barry Gardiner]

Ah, “arising in the period”. Gotcha.

Amanda Gourlay: Turning to the second part of your question, one of the very big difficulties with the reform of leasehold is that good and bad—to put it in very binary terms—do not sit on one side or the other. While it seems to me that in an appropriate situation it would be entirely reasonable for a leaseholder to be able to withhold their service charges, there may equally be leaseholders who consider that this is an opportunity not to pay, for different reasons. There is always that risk. If one does not pay one’s service charge and is obliged to do so—for example, by going to tribunal and the tribunal says that actually £2,000 is payable—one is at risk of legal costs, which I am sure we will come on to in relation to the risk of forfeiture.

[Barry Gardiner]

Q I was thinking not so much about where there is a dispute over reasonableness but more about whether the process that is set out in proposed new section 21D had been followed—for example, someone had not laid the accounts within six months and had not gone through all the set requirements in the Bill. Rather than it being a dispute about substance, the charge would be withheld on the basis of a failure of process by the freeholder.

Amanda Gourlay: Yes, and I understood your question that way. I think my concern is that if there is a minor breach, is that simply a situation where we withhold service charges entirely? The question is the nature of the breach and whether it is or is not a breach. In principle, I would agree that it would be a sensible form of enforcement, because it is the absolute. It is the most draconian form of enforcement. One should always bear in mind, however, that if a third-party management company—a residents management company—is obliged to insure a building and has absolutely no wherewithal to insure it, there is that risk. Things may need to be done that simply cannot wait but, in principle, I see no reason why that should not be a remedy for failure to follow the process.

[Barry Gardiner]

Q Although I said at the outset that I would not pursue the insurance costs with you, I think we can probably agree that the £1.6 million commission that was ruled illegal will take out the idea of commission—but that will move to fees instead. Given what you said about “arising”, do you have similar fears that fees for work charged might also open that up to a multitude of sins in the Bill?

Amanda Gourlay: Do you mean generally, or in relation to insurance?

[Barry Gardiner]

In relation to insurance—because it will no longer be possible to charge commission, but it will be possible to charge a fee.

Amanda Gourlay: That is always a risk. In fact, that is a risk across the whole Bill where more obligations are imposed on a landlord. If the costs of those obligations are recoverable under the terms of the lease as part of the management, it is almost inevitable that charges will go up. They will have to: I am going to have to do more work, so I would like to be paid more.” The only control of those that we have at the moment is under section 19 of the Leasehold Reform Act 1967, which is whether the costs are reasonable in amount for the standard of work that is provided. One would hope that there would be degrees of transparency, but of course there is no obligation to account necessarily for the fees, save for the limitation of administration charges and the obligation to publish a schedule of fees of administration charges.

Again, however—I am sorry that I am providing such long answers—where it comes to publishing a schedule of administration charges, that is quite straightforward for most cases, but clearly if someone wants to carry out a significant change to a flat on the 15th floor of a building, the costs will be difficult to quantify in advance. There is still wriggle room, I think, in the administration charge limitations for costs to be higher.

[Barry Gardiner]

Finally, proposed new section 21E of the 1985 Act talks about annual reports, while proposed new section 21D sets out the basis of the accounts and when they must be presented. What is your understanding of the difference between the report—as set out,

“before the report date for an accounting period, provide the tenant with a report”—

and the accounts, which have to be presented at the end of the sixth month after the period? Is there any requirement in the Bill as drafted to ensure that the information available in the accounts is greater or more detailed—indeed, in any way different—from the report?

Amanda Gourlay: That is a question with which I have battled for a number of hours. The conclusion I reached was that proposed new section 21D very plainly envisages the involvement of a chartered accountant—a qualified accountant; proposed new section 21E is different because it would appear to be more narrative, a more general description of the information that has to be provided.

If you look at the Bill, subsection 21E(3), which entitles the appropriate authority to make provision about information to be contained in the report, is extremely broad. It refers only to

“matters which…are likely to be of interest to a tenant”.

That is a very wide scope. The information in effect has to be provided within a month of the service charge year-end, whereas the service charge accounts must be provided within six months.

While I am on that point, proposed new section 21E is enforceable under the enforcement provision, which I think is clause 30; rather peculiarly, however, proposed new section 21D is not. I invite the Committee to consider whether that new section 21D should be brought within the scope of clause 30.

[Barry Gardiner]

Thank you. That is extremely helpful.

[Matthew Pennycook]

Q I just wanted to follow up on something, so that I am clear in my own mind in relation to Mr Gardiner’s question about the provisions in the 2002 Act that have not been brought into force, and it directly relates to what you have just said about proposed new section 21D.

In some senses, many of the new requirements in this section are covered by the enforcement measures in clause 30. Is proposed new section 21D the only example, or are there other examples, of where that power in the 2002 Act might be considered necessary for a leaseholder to use, because the enforcement provisions do not cover the full gamut, if you like? I suppose that I am trying to get to where the enforcement clause is lacking. Is Mr Gardiner correct in specifying that there are circumstances in which you would want to withhold because the non-payable enforcement clauses do not bite in the relevant way?

Amanda Gourlay: I am instinctively nervous about withholding, even if it is simply a question of process.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rachel Maclean]

Q Have you ever acted for freeholders against leaseholders? Have you ever found that the leaseholders have been egregious, rather than the other way round?

Amanda Gourlay: I believe I have acted for freeholders against leaseholders on occasion.

[Barry Gardiner]

Q You referenced the damages under proposed new section 25A of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, which “may not exceed £5,000”. The tribunal does not have to award £5,000; it is a ceiling, rather than a floor. Often a single leaseholder will go to the tribunal and get an award, but they are representative of problems that all the other leaseholders have. Rather than saying that damages under the proposed new section may not exceed £5,000, would it make sense to say that damages to each leaseholder may not exceed £5,000?

Amanda Gourlay: That would make sense, but damages are not an appropriate remedy in this particular situation. It is very rare that a leaseholder will suffer financial loss. It is more about encouraging good behaviour.

[Barry Gardiner]

Q Thank you. Will you send me a full report on the details that you did not get a chance to share?

Amanda Gourlay: I will, yes. I had no intention of making a speech, and I am sorry if I trespassed on people’s patience.

[The Chair]

That is fine. Do not worry.

Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned.—(Mr Mohindra.)

Safe Asylum Routes: Afghan Refugees

Barry Gardiner Excerpts

Tuesday 17th October 2023 Westminster Hall

[Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered safe asylum routes for Afghan refugees.

It was a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms McVey. I declare a non-pecuniary interest: my daughter is the chief executive of the child refugee charity, Safe Passage.

I do not know what the Minister’s majority was at the last election, and I do not know what his strategy is for the next one, but I am sure that he does the math. So let us do the math on the Government’s promises to the people of Afghanistan. When the Government announced the ACRS—the Afghan citizens resettlement scheme—they said that they would provide safe passage for 20,000 people over the next four years at a rate of about 5,000 a year. Although the scheme was launched in January 2022, it effectively backdated itself to August ’21 and the Government said that they were going to count towards their quota all the people who had already been evacuated under Operation Pitting. That was pathway 1.

Since the first year, the number of Afghans arriving under the scheme has plummeted. Pathway 2 allocated 2,000 places. In the last full year to June, just 66 people had been resettled under pathway 2. Pathway 3 allocated 1,500 places, but only 41 were resettled under this pathway. According to my maths, that makes 5,000 promised, 3,500 allocated and 107 actually resettled. If the Minister’s election agent managed to get just 2% of the electorate and just 3% of the actual turnout to vote for him, I think he would sack that election agent because he certainly would not be sitting here.

In June last year, when pathway 3 of ACRS was launched, the Government said that they would prioritise certain groups over the next 12 months, so can the Minister tell the House how many of those 41 individuals were from those priority groups? How many had worked for the British Council? How many had worked for the GardaWorld contractors? How many were Chevening alumni, to whom this Government promised safe passage?

The Government also promised to extend the eligibility for this pathway to wider vulnerable groups in the second year, beginning in June 2023. It was mooted that that might include religious minorities and LGBTQ individuals, who face particular threat from the Taliban. Three and a half months into the second year, can the Minister tell the House why he has still not published the criteria for the wider eligibility? It is very difficult for someone to apply for a scheme when they do not know what the criteria are. In practice, it means that we recognise that there are many families that are unsafe and to whom we may have an obligation, but they still have no route to come to the UK safely. When will the Minister make a firm commitment to broadening the scope of pathway 3 and publish plans for the next stage?

If the Minister thought his majority was shaky when I compared it to the resettlement scheme, he ought to get even more jittery when I talk about the Afghan relocations and assistance policy. ARAP, according to data published by the Ministry of Defence, has received more than 141,000 applications. I will not embarrass the Minister by asking him to tell the House precisely how many Afghans managed to come to the UK and build a new life under the ARAP scheme in the 12 months to June this year. I will just tell him: it was 73—not 730, and not 7,300 out of the 141,000 applications. That at least would have been 5%. The Minister would not have lost his deposit. It was not 5%, not 0.5%, but 0.05%.

We should remember that we set up the ARAP scheme to honour our debt to Afghans who worked with our UK forces on the frontline: the interpreters, the people that the Taliban regard as traitors, who risked their lives working alongside us then and whose lives continue to be in mortal danger now. Some of them have been waiting for more than two years, regularly contacting the MOD to show their documentation, and having to flee into exile in another country to escape the Taliban, who are hounding them down. What can possibly be delaying the processing of those applications? The Minister knows that many category 1 applicants are currently in Pakistan, but the Pakistan Government are threatening to deport them back to Afghanistan. What plans does the Minister have to expedite those applications?

Let me digress, because I want to give the Minister a moment of relief. I want to praise the Government for the way in which they have handled the Ukrainian resettlement scheme. It has been swift and efficient and our country should feel proud of the support that we have given.

We managed to achieve that for our fleeing European neighbours, so why have we not been able to do the same for the Afghans to whom we owe such a debt of honour? The answer is simple. We had 540 Government staff working on the Homes for Ukraine scheme. A freedom of information request by the Afghan Pro Bono Initiative revealed that the number of full-time staff handling the ARAP scheme was just 36—do the math, Minister. Why are there 36 times as many people processing Ukrainian applications as there are Afghan ones? Category 1 of ARAP is for people who served alongside British forces and who are

“at high and imminent risk”.

They urgently need to be brought to safety, yet the Minister knows that only five people received a positive category 1 decision in the whole period between April 2021 and January 2023. That is one every four months.

Will the Minister update the House and say how many positive category 1 decisions have now been made? Will he also reflect on the prioritisation of staffing resources and explain why there is less allocated to those we deem to be in serious and imminent danger of retaliation and persecution in Afghanistan because of their allegiance to us than there is to the general refugees from Ukraine, for whom I have every sympathy, who are fleeing their country in a time of war? Let me be clear: I do not want the Ukrainians to get fewer resources; I want the Afghans to get as many. Will the Minister commit this afternoon to increasing the number of caseworkers on the ARAP scheme?

I turn to the issue of family reunion. When Afghans were evacuated to safety in the UK in August 2021, many families were separated. Those who were subsequently resettled under ACRS pathway 1 were promised that their family members would also be resettled under the scheme. In April last year, the Home Office stated that further information would be “made available soon”. I do not know what counts for “soon” on whichever planet the Home Office is on, but let me tell the Minister that here in Blighty, it ain’t 17 and a half months. The problem with pathway 1 is that it sounds great: “You have been granted indefinite leave to remain. You’re safe.” The problem is that even though someone thought they were a refugee, ILR does not confer access to refugee family reunion. Anyone applying under this route can simply be told that their application is rejected as invalid.

Families who have been separated in the most tragic circumstances, including parents who have not seen their children for more than two years, are waiting on the Government to simply do what they said they would do: publish a new mechanism to reunite them with their loved ones. Will the Minister commit this afternoon to a date when he will publish further information on how Afghans resettled under ACRS pathway 1 can bring their loved ones to safety?

I believe the Minister will have been briefed by his excellent officials that I am likely to bring up a specific case in the context of family reunion. It is the case of my constituent Mr Sayed Hassani, which I have spoken about before in the Chamber. Mr Hassani’s wife, four daughters, two sons and sister were called forward as part of Operation Pitting back in August 2021, but they were unable to board the plane as scheduled because of the explosion at Kabul airport.

The five women are living under constant fear. I say five because last year my constituent sent me a photograph of his 15-year-old daughter in her coffin. She had committed suicide for fear of being taken by the Taliban and raped in a forced marriage. But her three sisters, her brothers and their mother are still there with her aunt. The boys and one of the daughters were born after their father became a British citizen, and they therefore have a right to British citizenship and a British passport. The three other women have had to put themselves at enormous risk by travelling across the border to Pakistan, where they were eventually able to get their biometric data done. Mr Hassani just needs his family safe and together again. I have the details of the case and would like to give them directly to the Minister after the debate for his urgent attention.

I welcome the unsafe journey policy that the Government introduced to mitigate the fact that there is no visa application centre in Kabul, but it is not working, Minister. The standard of proof is too high, and many women and unaccompanied children face horrendous dangers when trying to leave Afghanistan and cross the border, simply to prove that they really are who they say they are. Will Minister commit this afternoon to reviewing the criteria of the unsafe journey policy and make sure that we are not putting some of the most vulnerable people at even greater risk?

We need safe and effective routes for people from Afghanistan. The thing about safe routes is that they undermine the business model of people traffickers. In 2019, before the UK pulled out of Afghanistan, just 69 Afghans crossed the English channel in small boats. In the first eight months of this year, the number of Afghans crossing the channel in small boats was 4,800—one in every five people crossing the channel. If the Government really do want to cut the number of small boat arrivals in the UK, they know how to do it. It is in the title of this debate: create safe asylum routes for Afghan refugees.

--- Later in debate ---

[Robert Jenrick]

I can assure my hon. Friend, and indeed all right hon. and hon. Members here, that we are considering that with great urgency. Those who are in Pakistan are supported by the British Government, or by partner organisations such as the International Organisation for Migration, which will provide them with accommodation, food and support. I appreciate, however, that those conditions are not desirable, and the recent statements by the Pakistan Government are concerning. That is why we are looking again at what more we might be able to do. I will give way one more time.

[Barry Gardiner]

I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. On pathway 1, regarding those who had been separated during Operation Pitting, he said that a spouse and a dependent child would be able to come to the UK. Where there is a non-dependent child, or more than one—I think he said one—dependent child, is the Minister really now saying that those smaller families in Afghanistan who had been called under Operation Pitting, that perhaps because of the explosion were not able to get to the UK in safety, are now going to be divided yet further and separated yet further? Surely, that cannot be what he meant.

[Robert Jenrick]

No, I think the hon. Gentleman misheard me. I am happy to restate for the record that, once in operation, this will allow eligible individuals to refer one spouse or partner, and dependent children, for resettlement. There is no suggestion of splitting up children from their parents.

[Barry Gardiner]

And a non-dependent child?

--- Later in debate ---

[Barry Gardiner]

Will the Minister give way?

[Robert Jenrick]

I will give way to the hon. Gentleman, as I know he is very keen, and this was his debate. Then I must wrap up.

[Barry Gardiner]

Will the Minister address the mismatch in staffing resource? It seems disproportionate that there were 540 staff working on the Ukraine scheme and there are 36 on the Afghan scheme. I do not want in any way to downplay the Ukraine scheme—it has been a great success. However, we need to see similar priority given to the Afghans.

[Robert Jenrick]

I would be happy to take away the hon. Gentleman’s comment and consider it. In my experience, the challenges he has described in this debate are not primarily related to the number of caseworkers dealing with individual cases. The biggest challenge facing the UK on this issue is the availability of accommodation. The more homes we are able to bring forward—whether that be by the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities procuring homes under the schemes they have available, the Ministry of Defence bringing forward service family accommodation, or each of our own local authorities bringing forward accommodation—the more families we will be able to bring into the UK with ease. The alternatives are for individuals to wait in Pakistan, to come to the United Kingdom of their own volition, having had their case decided by the Home Office, which is happening at significant pace, or to come and spend time in contingency accommodation. Our recent experience with that was not positive and I would be loth to return to it, although we do not rule it out.

I will bring my remarks to a close by thanking the hon. Member for Brent North for securing the debate, and all those who have contributed. I appreciate that 30 minutes is too short to address all the questions hon. Members have on this issue. The Government believe that the UK has a generous offer to those affected by events in Afghanistan, and we are delivering on that offer. That is most clearly demonstrated by the fact that 24,600 people are now beginning their new lives here, and that more will follow. We remain committed to our Afghan schemes, but we need to deliver those commitments in an orderly manner. That is the duty of a Government, and it is also what the public expects. We can only welcome, support and accommodate individuals arriving under our safe and legal routes as part of a sustainable and well-managed immigration scheme in partnership with others, in particular the local authorities who have to support those individuals and their families.

Finally, I call on all Members to support our Afghan schemes, work with their local councils, and support the work we are doing under the Illegal Migration Act 2023 to consult with local authorities on their capacity to take further individuals. That consultation will be published soon.

Question put and agreed to.

Illegal Migration Bill

Barry Gardiner Excerpts

Tuesday 7th March 2023 Commons Chamber

[Suella Braverman]

Getting into a flimsy dinghy wearing a thin polystyrene excuse for a life jacket, paying thousands of pounds, breaking our laws and putting one’s life at risk is not the way to come to the United Kingdom. That is what this Bill is all about.

[Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)]

The Home Secretary will be aware that the bulk of the 500,000 people she says have come through safe and legal routes are from Ukraine and Hong Kong. Regarding Afghanistan, she will also know that, in the whole of the last year, since the new safe route was put in place, only 22 individuals from Afghanistan have been accepted through that route. Is it any surprise to the Home Secretary, then, that 8,500 Afghans made a small boat crossing to the UK last year? Having rendered meaningless any safe and legal route from Afghanistan, where does the Home Secretary believe she derives the moral authority to criminalise those 8,500 people simply because of their mode of travel?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

Order. It is really important, if we are going to get everybody in, that the questions are very short, as the answers have been. It is really important for colleagues to remember that.

Oral Answers to Questions

Barry Gardiner Excerpts

Monday 14th November 2022 Commons Chamber

[Chris Philp]

The Metropolitan police already have more uniformed officers than at any point in their history, and in the current financial year they have had a funding increase of £170 million on last year, so I think my right hon. Friend asks a very reasonable question.

[Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)]

In the London Borough of Brent, 320 hours of safer neighbourhoods teams’ police time has been abstracted in the past three months. The figures are not routinely made public, but it is important for communities to have access to that information because they need to know that their safer neighbourhoods teams are there to act for them. Will the Home Secretary undertake to publish abstraction figures as a matter of routine?

[Chris Philp]

Such operational matters are for the police, but I share the hon. Gentleman’s concern about the level of abstraction owing to the unjustified Just Stop Oil protests. In October and early November, about 11,000 Metropolitan police officer shifts were lost as a result of having to police those outrageous and unnecessary protests. That is a matter of concern, and that is why it is so important that we see an end to these protests as soon as possible.

Metropolitan Police Service

Barry Gardiner Excerpts

Wednesday 29th June 2022 Commons Chamber

[Kit Malthouse]

My hon. Friend makes a strong point about our shared responsibility to support not only the police officers who do a brilliant job every day, but those who they seek to protect, and I agree. As I said earlier, if Sadiq Khan is not primarily responsible, I am not sure why he stood for election or why crime even featured on his election literature—I ask myself whether it will at the next election. He is absolutely the primary point of responsibility and he must step forward to take that mantle.

[Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)]

The Minister’s statement was unworthy of this House, and even of the Minister. The danger is that it takes the focus of the debate away from the failings of the Metropolitan police and puts it on to personal and political responsibility.

The Metropolitan police has been failing primarily in two areas. The first, as the hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Laura Trott) ably and rightly highlighted, is violence against women and girls, on which issue I have been working closely with my borough commander Sara Leach. Secondly, it has systematically failed on racism. I am fed up of people coming into my surgery because they are black and have been badly and violently treated or have had spurious prosecutions made against them by police officers. Mina Smallman’s two daughters were murdered in my constituency. It took two years for the Metropolitan police to get off its payroll the police officers who took photographs of them and circulated them to their colleagues and other people. That is a disgrace. I want to know not what anybody else is doing, but what the Minister will do to sort out racism and misogyny in the force.

HM Passport Office Backlogs

Barry Gardiner Excerpts

Thursday 12th May 2022 Commons Chamber

[Tom Pursglove]

We do, of course, encourage people, as standard, to apply in good time for passports to be processed and to be available. The point I again make is that after 10 weeks of proof of travel, within two weeks the upgrade is free, but if the hon. Lady could provide me with the details of the specific case in question I will happily make sure it is looked at as quickly as possible for her.

[Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)]

I would like to stress to the Minister that this is not just an issue of people wanting to go on holiday. In my constituency—as you know, Mr Speaker, being so diverse as it is—people have families all across the world whom they have not seen since the pandemic. I have one elderly couple who applied before the new year, back in December. They applied, in fact, before Christmas. They were told that their passport was ready on 24 January, but that they had to send the old passport back in order to get it. By the end of March they still had not had it, by which time they had missed a niece’s wedding and, sadly, a sister’s funeral. It was only after multiple interventions that we eventually got the passport sorted at the end of last month. That is unacceptable—absolutely unacceptable.

The Minister said that 500 new staff were in place and 700 were coming, but what we really want to know is when will the Department be able to return to the three-week standard time that we all expected previously? That is the key issue and that is what our constituents need to know. He said 10 weeks from the end of June. We are way beyond the summer holidays by then. The backlog will have accumulated and those people will have lost the opportunity to go abroad. The key thing is when do we get back to that three-week period?

[Tom Pursglove]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, who, as ever, puts his case forcefully but entirely respectfully. When there are compassionate or compelling circumstances, steps can be taken to expedite applications where appropriate. Some of the sorts of circumstances that he mentioned would potentially be eligible in that scenario. I cannot, of course, provide an explanation on the Floor of the House for his particular case, but I will take his wider point away. On the three-week target, I will ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay (Kevin Foster), who is responsible for passports, to write to the hon. Gentleman to set out the position and let him know his thoughts on that point.

Metropolitan Police: Strip-search of Schoolgirl

Barry Gardiner Excerpts

Monday 21st March 2022 Commons Chamber

[Kit Malthouse]

I completely agree with the hon. Lady that there are implications for safeguarding, and I know but will reassure myself that my ministerial colleagues at the Department for Education are taking it as seriously as we are. As I say, from a policing point of view we have to wait for the IOPC to come to a conclusion, but on the overall safeguarding, the panel obviously did its work, the review has produced a report and I will make sure that Ministers at the appropriate Department are taking action as well.

[Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)]

The bad apple defence or the isolated incident excuse will no longer wash. Our constituents are no longer able to trust the police, including constituents such as Teresa Akpeki, whose brother was the victim of a hit-and-run accident. The police, when they attended the body—this was an NHS worker collecting samples—did not reach into his pocket to find his ID card, but phoned the Home Office to find out whether he was an illegal immigrant, because he was black. The Minister now needs to launch an inquiry into the way in which the Metropolitan police is dealing with ethnic communities, and if he fails to do that, the confidence of our communities in the police up and down this country is going to be rock bottom.

[Kit Malthouse]

As I outlined earlier, there are already two inquiries into the culture of the Metropolitan police in all its aspects—by Dame Louise Casey, who I know will do a thorough job, and following that, part 2 of the Angiolini review—but I would ask the hon. Gentleman to take care. There are 30,000-odd police officers in the Metropolitan police, the vast majority of whom are doing an extraordinary job and doing amazing things on a daily basis to keep us all safe from harm, and they deserve our thanks for doing that. They will be as outraged as we are at this event, and we need to learn the lessons on their behalf as well as on behalf of the Londoners we serve.

Foreign Interference: Intelligence and Security

Barry Gardiner Excerpts

Monday 17th January 2022 Commons Chamber

[Priti Patel]

My right hon. Friend speaks a great deal of sense on this issue. He has highlighted and spoken clearly about the direct threat, which we have seen, in this House alone, when it comes to undermining our democracy. I am very conscious that a number of our parliamentarians have been sanctioned by the Chinese Government for rightly speaking out—we live in a free country and an open democracy, and we are privileged to do so—against abusive actions of the particular Government at hand. It is right that we constantly review all our threats from adversaries, which manifest themselves in different ways. I can give him my complete assurance that I will be working with my colleagues across Government to make sure that that absolutely happens.

[Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)]

Through you, Mr Speaker, may I please thank Members from all across the House for the kind messages that I have received over the past few days? I welcome the Home Secretary’s statement and the work of the security services in protecting Parliament. Will the measures she has announced help MPs to get extra support when making the required checks about the true source of any donations? She will know that the security services told me that their alert was based on specific intelligence of illegal funding, which did not relate to the donations that paid for my office staff. Those ceased in 2020. Is she able to tell the House what steps she is taking to ascertain where the tainted money ended up?

[Priti Patel]

First, I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will continue to work with the intelligence and security services and co-operate with them at the highest level with regards to the alert that has been published and also to the areas that he has referred to. It is a fact that, across this House, we will come together to do everything possible to protect the integrity of our democracy and all hon. Members from such malign interference and threats. I also look forward to working with you, Mr Speaker, to close down some of the permissive loopholes that have been so publicly exposed in the last few days.

Afghanistan Policy

Barry Gardiner Excerpts

Monday 13th September 2021 Commons Chamber

[Victoria Atkins]

That is precisely why I am working with Afghan civil society to ensure that we integrate people in a way that reflects the values we cherish so carefully as a country, while of course acknowledging the contribution they will make.

[Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)]

The Minister spoke about the ways the scheme will prioritise those who have assisted UK efforts, but what does “prioritisation” actually mean? Those who will be admitted on to the list of 5,000 in the first year need to know whether they are being prioritised, as that may affect their decision to travel to the border, or the way that people respond in Afghanistan, as well as those refugees outside it. The Minister will know that the criteria she set out would probably just about meet the 4,500 relatives of my constituents, every one of whom would qualify on that basis—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

Order. I know the hon. Gentleman has been waiting a long time, but we cannot have this. Members are meant to ask a question, and the Minister gives an answer. Not everyone has to ask all the questions that can be asked on this subject, just a question.

[Barry Gardiner]

My question is about what prioritisation means, who will be notified about it, how it will be determined, and whether there is any pre-filling of the lists, as is being rumoured in Whitehall.

[Victoria Atkins]

As I said, some of those evacuated during Op Pitting and who would be considered under the criteria of the scheme will form part of that scheme, but there are two other avenues through which people can be invited to take part, and I have referred to those in previous answers.

Covert Human Intelligence Sources (Criminal Conduct) Bill

Barry Gardiner Excerpts

Committee stage & 3rd reading & 3rd reading: House of Commons & Committee: 1st sitting & Committee: 1st sitting: House of Commons & Report stage & Report stage: House of Commons
Thursday 15th October 2020 Commons Chamber

Our new clause 1 would ensure that innocent victims are able to seek adequate redress from the Investigatory Powers Tribunal. Given the chorus of concerns about this, I urge the Minister to engage with us on the issue and take our amendment seriously. All victims deserve an unimpeded pass to attaining justice, which is why we need to get this right. I reiterate our party’s support for many of the campaigns referenced today, including about Orgreave, the murder of Pat Finucane, the Cammell Laird shipyard workers, the Shrewsbury 24, the Hillsborough families and the spycops women.

[Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)]

May I caution my hon. Friend? The excellence of his speech and the amendments should be an argument that says, “Without these, this Bill cannot be supported.” If he is not careful, his argument will encourage Labour Members to go through the No Lobby and vote against the Bill, should the Government not relent and accept these excellent amendments.

[Conor McGinn]

I always take seriously the advice of a senior and distinguished Member of the House. I am confident that, given the amendments that we have tabled today, as the Bill makes further progress through the House, our colleagues in the other place will be cognisant and take note of that. That is why we are asking the Government to listen carefully to what we propose in our amendments.

In that vein, I give my strong support to new clause 5, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Bell Ribeiro-Addy). It seeks to ensure that a CCA cannot be applied to a trade union and, specifically, to blacklisted workers. Of course, it was the previous Labour Government who made blacklisting illegal in 2010.

On the issue of oversight and accountability, I wish briefly to mention new clause 3, which was tabled by the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis) and members of the Intelligence and Security Committee. With the additional scrutiny, oversight and accountability that are at the heart of the right hon. Gentleman’s sensible proposal, the Secretary of State would be compelled, at the end of each relevant 12-month period, to make a report to the ISC that contains key information on both the number of CCAs authorised and the categories of the conduct authorised. That seems to me to be an eminently reasonable and sensible proposal.

On new clause 2, given the nature of some of the networks that the Bill looks to disrupt, there are clear concerns about its impact on communities and vulnerable individuals throughout our country. One important example is the gendered impact of actions taken by covert human intelligence sources. The Minister must commit, today, that the Government will seek to uphold the highest possible standards on gender impact.

New clause 8 was tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy). I have some experience of campaigning with her and know how formidable she can be on these issues. Her new clause raises another crucial point, which is the need to safeguard the welfare of children, vulnerable individuals and victims of modern slavery and trafficking. It would achieve that by ensuring that a CCA is authorised for a child or vulnerable adult only in certain exceptional circumstances, and by ensuring that an appropriate adult is present at meetings between the source and those representing the investigating authority.

As outlined in new clause 2, we propose to compel the Secretary of State to prepare and publish an annual equality impact assessment on the use of criminal conduct authorisations in covert operations involving women, children and black, Asian and minority ethnic communities. A motion should then be put to the House within three months of the assessment being published.

In conclusion, the Opposition are committed to working in the national interest to keep people, their families, our communities and the country safe. I entirely understand that some colleagues on both sides of the Chamber have an interpretation of what the Bill does that is different from mine and have arrived at a different view. I think they are wrong, but that does not mean that I do not respect the arguments they put forward. That is particularly the case in relation to my hon. Friend—and my actual friend—the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Dan Carden). He will know that I once resigned on a point of principle. I hold him and his family in high esteem. The decision he took today to make the points he made was a difficult one. He has my respect, continuing friendship and affection.

This is uncomfortable territory for the whole House. Many of the issues raised by the Bill are felt deeply personally. All I would say, gently, is that those who oppose the Bill in its entirety do not have the monopoly on principles, nor are they the sole moral arbiters when it comes to forming a view on the measures in the Bill. The position reached by the Leader of the Opposition—who literally wrote the book on human rights—and me is a principled one and comes after careful consideration and detailed discussion of the Bill.

It is also our view that we have a duty, as legislators, to meet our responsibility and acknowledge that it is not just the Government who have to make difficult decisions. We want to be in government so we have to take difficult decisions, too. When we are in government, we will return to the Bill based on the principles that I have outlined. That is why we have taken the approach that we have taken: to acknowledge the importance of putting CHIS activities on a statutory footing; to robustly and responsibly scrutinise the way in which that is done; and to place national security, human rights and support for victims at the centre of our attempts to improve the safeguards in the Bill. We will continue to do that as it progresses through Parliament and are confident that the other place will assist us in that task if our amendments are not made today.

--- Later in debate ---

[James Brokenshire]

My right hon. Friend makes a very powerful and important point about the issues at stake here. That is why we judge that there is, of course, a need for robust oversight to give confidence and to ensure that the powers available here are done in the right way, and we judge that the proposals in the amendments do not achieve that and actually have an impact on the operational effectiveness of what is needed.

[Barry Gardiner]

The Minister will know that many of us are concerned about new section 29B(5)(b) and (c) in clause 1(5). He has rightly stressed the importance of clarity, but it seems to many of us that the clarity around the words “preventing disorder” and around what constitutes “the economic well-being of the United Kingdom”, such that a criminal conduct authorisation can be given, is very vague indeed. He rightly insists on clarity, so could we have it here, please?