Northern Ireland Troubles
Will the Secretary of State set out how many of the proposed six protections for veterans will also be available to former paramilitaries?
Showing every spoken contribution, including 5,750 under 12 words. Hide short remarks
- Hansard source
- Hansard source
Mental Health Bill [Lords]
When we last debated the Bill on Second Reading, I said that protecting someone’s freedom for their own safety is not a licence to own their life, but a duty to help them find it again. That principle still guides us today, because good intentions alone do not mend a troubled system. Compassion without competence is not care; it is sentiment without substance. On Second Reading, I spoke of bridges and rough roads, and of how resilience and recovery depend on the strength of the structures that carry people through their hardest times. Tonight, we return to that bridge. The question before us is not whether we believe in reform—after all, there is cross-party agreement on that—but whether the Government have built the foundations to make it stand. Warm words are plentiful, but the reality is that too many people are still falling through the gaps: detentions are still present, community services are stretched, and families are left navigating a maze of bureaucracy while waiting for help that may never come. We all know that reform cannot be delivered on aspiration alone. It requires a delivery plan, a workforce and a system capable of learning from its own mistakes. We know the chapter on delivery is missing from the 10-year NHS plan and there is further risk tonight that we miss another opportunity. After all, the principles in the Bill are the right ones. They are even on the face of the Bill—choice and autonomy, least restriction, therapeutic benefit, and treating the person as an individual—but those principles need power behind them and that power lies in delivery. This Report stage is our chance to turn those words into commitments. New clause 31 requires the Government to publish a fully costed delivery plan within 18 months of the Act passing into law, setting out how integrated care boards and local authorities will deliver adequate community services. Crucially, the plan must be developed through consultation with those who know best. That is vital, because although we support the many aims of the Bill, the Government already have a pretty dismal record of announcing reforms without any credible plan to deliver them. Let us take the ongoing NHS reorganisation. In March, Ministers made a surprise announcement of the abolition of NHS England and its absorption into the Department of Health and Social Care, yet six months on they cannot say what it will cost, how many staff will be lost or how it will be paid for. The Health Service Journal reports growing confusion inside the system and warnings from NHS leaders that the lack of clarity risks paralysing decision making. Written questions to the Government simply receive the answer “some upfront cost in the millions” yet independent estimates say the cost is over £1 billion. Even the chief executive, Sir Jim Mackey, points out that the Treasury must agree funding for integrated care board redundancies within weeks or the NHS will have to turn to a plan B. The same chaos is playing out across integrated care boards, with local leaders warning that there is already destabilisation due to the 50% reductions. If Ministers cannot manage their own top-down reorganisation, why should anyone believe they can deliver a more ambitious overhaul of mental health services without a clear costed plan, especially when waiting lists have risen in the last three consecutive months? This Labour Government have already cut the proportion of spending on mental health. As Dr Lade Smith CBE, the president of the Royal College of Psychiatrists, said at the time: “It is illogical that the share of NHS funding for mental health services is being reduced at a time of soaring need and significant staff shortages.” Going on, she said that: “The proportion of NHS funding allocated to mental health services will decrease”, which will “equate to these vital services missing out on an estimated £300 million or more that they would have received if their share…had been maintained.”
- Hansard source
Mental Health Bill [Lords]
The Chair of the Health and Social Care Committee is absolutely right. A simple answer from the Minister today, on Report, would go a long way to alleviating those fears from the mental health sector. I look forward to his response on that. Amendment 40 would add a simple but important requirement that each care and treatment plan must include an assessment of the levels of risk to public safety posed by the patient in the community. The purpose of the Bill is right; the Government want to make the system more compassionate, therapeutic, patient-centred and modernised, and we strongly agree with that ambition. However, modernisation must go hand in hand with public confidence, and the public and patients themselves must know that every plan for treatment and discharge is rooted not only in care, but in safety. In Committee, I argued that the framework still omits one dimension, which is public safety. As far as I can see, there is still no explicit requirement in the Bill for clinicians to assess and record the level of risk posed to the public.
- Hansard source
Mental Health Bill [Lords]
I thank my hon. Friend for raising that tragic case. Those are the kind of cases that this amendment seeks to deal with. We have only to look at the tragic cases of Nicola Edgington and Valdo Calocane to see how escalating risk happens, with huge consequences for the families, patients and victims. When I raised this matter in Committee, the Minister gave a very thoughtful answer. He said that: “if any risk at all to public safety is perceived, that must be documented… It is a basic expectation of the professional management of a particular patient that any risk identified to public safety and protection must be in there.” I welcome that. With amendment 40, I am simply asking, if that is indeed the Government’s position, why not make it clear in the Bill? The Minister conceded in Committee that “I take the hon. Gentleman’s point on whether or not it should be in the Bill. I will come back to him on that, because I would be rather surprised if it were not made very clear somewhere that that is a basic expectation; if it were not, that would obviously need to be looked at, but I am reasonably confident that it is.” ––[Official Report, Mental Health Public Bill Committee, 12 June 2025; c. 171.] Unfortunately, expected in practice is not the same as required in law. We know from past reviews that there is a gap in the risk assessment and that communication can be too inconsistent. Putting such a requirement in statute would not be bureaucracy; it would simply clarify that. The Minister may argue that it already exists in professional codes, in the Mental Health Act code of practice or even in risk management frameworks, but the statutory duty does not. Our amendment would put that duty squarely in the Bill. Talking of safety, I will turn to new clause 29, which would ensure that no child is placed on an adult mental health ward except in truly exceptional circumstances, and only when it is demonstrably in their best interests. The Government argue that guidance already covers that, but this guidance has no teeth; it can be ignored or inconsistently applied. Again, guidance without legal backing is too easily ignored. That was why the Joint Committee on Human Rights argued in its letter that this part of the Bill needs strengthening. The Minister also said that placing these safeguards in legislation would remove flexibility for clinicians in emergencies, but new clause 29 does allow for exceptional circumstances; it simply requires that they are justified, recorded and subject to oversight. Research from University College London found that there has been a 65% increase in the number of children and young people admitted to adult wards for mental health disorders, and this increase is sharpest among teenage girls with eating disorders. They are the most vulnerable, and they are the ones who bear the brunt of this.
- Hansard source
Mental Health Bill [Lords]
My hon. Friend is absolutely right that that support needs to be there. Fortunately, it is not the budget that is reducing but the proportion of funding, and it shows the priorities of this Government when it comes to mental health. I am concerned that without new clause 29, a child may be harmed or traumatised and placed in an adult ward without proper justification—and it will be little comfort for the family to hear that guidance was breached. Amendment 41 stands up for the simple but vital principle that when a child is detained under the Mental Health Act, the person legally recognised to act for them—their nominated person—should hold parental responsibility. Only where there are legitimate safeguarding concerns should that be set aside. At first glance, this may seem technical, but it speaks to something profound about how the law views childhood, family and the balance between protection and autonomy. The Government are right to use the Bill to modernise the old “nearest relative” system, which was too rigid, too bound by bloodline and at times blind to the complexities of family life. Under the Bill, however, a child under 16 deemed competent could nominate any adult—that could be a 19-year-old boyfriend or peer or someone exercising control—and once nominated, that person gets full control. It is a legal authority. We need to ensure that protection is there for the person if there is a breakdown on the family side. [Interruption.] I see that Madam Deputy Speaker is encouraging me to wind up, so I will solidify my comments into a more erudite approach. The point is that in law this principle is already clear in the Children Act 1989, which defined it as the foundation stone of what families should look like. With this amendment, I believe we have solved the concerns the Minister had at Committee stage about the state of a family in the modern era. In any other walk of life the legal framework exists, so why would we weaken it when it comes to mental health? We discussed the issues with A&E and the grey area there in Committee, and I was grateful to the Minister for meeting beforehand to discuss them. I know that he took on my comments about solving the practicalities, and I hope he will look at them seriously. For this House, there is no greater moral burden than deciding for someone who cannot decide for themselves—where care ends and where control begins. That is exactly what the House is addressing with this Bill: how to protect without diminishing, how to act with compassion without surrendering precision, and how to empower without imposing. Involuntary care must never be the reflex of a system, be it under pressure or out of principle. The House agrees on this position; the challenge is delivery. Compassion demands more than good intentions. It demands delivery, discipline and detail. With this Bill, the Opposition lays the challenge of delivery. It must be not just a pledge but a plan. The public will judge us all not just on how kindly this House speaks, but on how faithfully it serves those who depend on us most.
- Hansard source
Mental Health Bill [Lords]
We did not discuss this specifically in Committee, but I would be interested to know about the interaction between the independent mental health advocates, which are being expanded and which we all agreed with in Committee, and a new liaison service. I worry about the duplication. Will the hon. Member explain how that crossover would work in practice?
- Hansard source
Mental Health Bill [Lords]
My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. The only protections that I can see in schedule 2 are an age requirement, a stipulation not to be disqualified by a previous court order, and the presence of a witness. There is therefore no pre-emptive way of protecting people, which is why amendment 41 is so important.
- Hansard source
International Rail Services: Ashford
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Desmond. I thank the hon. Member for Hastings and Rye (Helena Dollimore) for securing this important debate and the work that she has done to bring us all together in Parliament to campaign on this issue. I am of course pleased to speak in favour of the return of international rail services to Ashford International. Many of my constituents have made it clear to me just how much they would like to see the station resume international services. I pay particular tribute to the local organisation, Bexhill Rail Action Group, which has done great work over the past few years to ensure that that remains on the agenda in my constituency. Ashford International station was a fundamental part of international rail services from the UK mainland to the European continent from 1996 to 2020. Before services were halted in 2020, Ashford International’s typical service was three trains a day to Paris, one train to Brussels, a service to Disneyland Paris four to five days a week and seasonal services to the French Alps and the south of France. Sadly, as the hon. Member outlined, Eurostar announced in 2020 the suspension of services, citing low passenger numbers; and with the additional impact from a reduction in passenger numbers due to covid-19 and the later cited covid-related debt, Eurostar has annually rejected calls for resumption of the services. Yet the present situation is improved. In 2024, Eurostar successfully refinanced its existing €963 million bank debt, and by the end of that year it had reduced its total bank debt to €650 million. Eurostar stated that the successful refinancing was thanks to “strong cash generation” as the business recovered from covid-19, and several new loans and credit lines. There has also been talk of massive expansion in London. Recently, Eurostar and London St Pancras Highspeed signed a letter of intent to expand services from St Pancras station, with the aim of delivering an uplift of 2,700 passengers per hour in the next three to four years. The long-term aims of that expansion include plans to launch a direct service from London to Germany and Switzerland, adding 50 new trains at a cost of well over £1 billion. That is great news for the UK, but given that scale of investment, why is Ashford International not also playing a role in the network’s expansion? For my constituents and those living in south-east England more broadly, the resumption of international services to Ashford would mean significantly less money and time spent getting to St Pancras. Bexhill Rail Action Group has provided a great overview of the cost differentials. If international services from Ashford were accessed using Bexhill train station, people would need to pay only £18 for a peak return ticket on Southern railway. In one hour, they would be at the station, exactly where they needed to be to catch the train to Paris or Europe more widely. In contrast, the current situation means that train tickets to St Pancras can cost £60 to £100 for a return, depending on the time of day. Furthermore, the quickest route to St Pancras means that passengers have to change trains at Ashford on to the High Speed 1 service. That takes them to St Pancras, where they have to double back on themselves, passing through Ashford once again. Hon. Members will understand the frustration for those living in the south-east when the reality of using Eurostar for a day trip to Paris has become so additionally expensive and inconvenient compared with the original options. Making Sussex and Kent more accessible to Europe would also bring other benefits. My constituency and the surrounding area are home to several important tourist destinations, including Battle abbey, which is as much a part of the history of Europe as of the UK. We have a growing wine and vineyard tourist economy, which again, if it were made more accessible, would benefit local jobs. Currently, a family arriving in the UK from the continent have no choice but to arrive in London. Once there, it is much more difficult for them to travel back out to the tourist economy of the south-east. If there were a service available from Ashford accessing everything the south-east has to offer, including our beaches, towns, vineyards, historical sites and so on, it would be much more convenient for European tourists to travel straight there and would bring great economic benefits to the region. In 2022, international visitors to the south-east spent £2.3 billion, averaging £639 per visitor. The Good Growth Foundation has provided estimates on the additional income that would come to the south-east should international services be restored. The conservative estimate is that it would bring an additional £126 million in annual visitor spending, but it could be as high as £350 million, depending on the level of services introduced. The Rail Minister, Lord Hendy, has made it clear that the Government support the expansion of international services to more stations, including Ashford. The hon. Member for Hastings and Rye did a great job of pitching the challenge to the Government to make good on their pledges to increase competition, increase investment in our railways and deliver economic growth. If Eurostar is not willing to expand its network of international stations in the UK, we should encourage and support other operators on that line to do just that. Whichever way international services are resumed at Ashford, it is clear to me that the benefits would be substantial for the south-east and therefore for the country as a whole. Greater accessibility for local residents to international services through location and costs can only increase the use of those services. Meanwhile, easier access from the continent to all that the south-east has to offer will promote local investment, encourage job creation and boost the regional economy and overall growth. My message is: let us get back on track.
- Hansard source
Criminal Courts: Independent Review
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this afternoon, Mr Efford. I begin by warmly congratulating my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Sir Jeremy Wright) on securing this important debate. He set out with characteristic thoughtfulness the context for today’s discussion: the pressures facing our criminal courts and the enormous impact on victims, as a number of Members pointed out, and the far-reaching recommendations in Sir Brian Leveson’s independent review of the criminal courts. My right hon. and learned Friend is absolutely right to say that the House should have a meaningful opportunity to examine the principles at stake and the implications of the reforms. Turning to the Leveson review, I acknowledge the serious intent with which Sir Brian approached the task. His report contains thoughtful proposals: consistency in the use of out-of-court disposals; updating legal aid to better recognise work done at plea and trial preparation hearings, as has been pointed out; and changes to permission to appeal, giving more options for defendants to elect to have a judge-led trial. But several recommendations raised profound constitutional and practical concerns. Sir Brian proposes removing the right to elect to have a jury trial for some 220 offences and allowing more judge-only trials in the Crown court. He also recommends raising the sentence discount for an early guilty plea from one third to 40%. At the heart of this debate is a simple but serious problem. The approach to the problem is being tackled the wrong way round. Sir Brian Leveson’s part 1 report focuses on radical reform proposals, as I have discussed, to do with jury trials, discounts for guilty pleas and creating a new Crown court bench division. Yet the efficiency review, part 2 of Sir Brian’s work, which will look at technology, workforce capacity, case progression and the better use of the court estate, has not even been published. We are being asked to consider endorsing fundamental structural change, including the curtailing of a centuries-old constitutional right, without seeing the full picture. The Government will struggle to build support for changes that should only be considered as a last resort, when they have not even set out the full range of options before us, and we cannot consider such a Bill in isolation. The proposals for early discounts for guilty pleas would sit alongside plans to let offenders serve only one third of their custodial sentences. What a mockery of justice that would make. In fact, the vast majority of what Sir Brian himself identifies as necessary to address the backlog can be achieved without altering the constitutional foundations of our courts. He is clear that we should focus on maximising sitting days, using the existing judiciary and estate to their full potential, and improving case management. Those who have experience of Government—such as the sponsoring Member of this debate, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kenilworth and Southam—will recognise that there is a real risk that, in setting out to create a whole new Crown court bench division, as proposed in part 1, we would divert both ministerial and judicial energy away from the urgent task of improving and expanding the capacity that we already have. The Chair of the Justice Committee, the hon. Member for Hammersmith and Chiswick (Andy Slaughter), has highlighted that it will require some 6,000 more magistrates, a point also echoed by the hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tristan Osborne). Establishing new structures consumes time, money and management focus that should instead be directed towards using every courtroom and sitting day available to reduce the backlog that is paralysing the system. The backlog in the Crown court is now up 10% from when this Government took office just over a year ago. It has increased by 2% since March alone, when it first passed 75,000. Since Labour entered office in July 2024, the backlog has grown by more than 7,400 cases. The former Justice Secretary, the right hon. Member for Birmingham Ladywood (Shabana Mahmood), claimed that she had taken every possible measure to tackle the backlog, but the facts tell a very different story. In August 2024, the judiciary confirmed that they could sit for up to 113,000 days in 2024-25, yet the then Justice Secretary chose not to fund that capacity. Instead, she initially supported only an additional 500 sitting days in September and then a further 2,000 in December—a drip by drip increase in capacity. The Government deliberately decided not to fund the courts to sit at full capacity, leaving 4,500 potential sitting days on the table. The Lady Chief Justice took the extraordinary step of telling the Justice Committee that the initial decision to limit Crown court sitting days had, “frankly had a drastic effect across the board” causing the “most distressing time” for victims and staff alike. Even after facing this public criticism, the former Justice Secretary’s response was inadequate. In March 2025, the Ministry of Justice announced that the total would rise to 110,000 sitting days, still below the full 113,000 available. So much for every possible measure. Sir Brian’s report is clear: the most important step is to add 20,000 extra sitting days per year, reaching 130,000. That would mean tens of thousands more victims finally receiving justice in a timely manner. It requires commitment across the system, but above all, leadership from Government. Instead of focusing on efficiency and capacity, Ministers risk being sidetracked by structural reform. Part 2 of the review will show how to achieve efficiencies through technology, leadership and better use of the estate. Yet the Government seem intent on pressing ahead with reforms that water down key rights before those recommendations are even known. Whatever the Government might say, the Conservatives in office had to tackle the single biggest barrier to the delivery of justice when the pandemic hit. Labour Members would be taking the public for fools if they think they can convince them—given their record in government so far—that it would all have been different under them. Prior to the pandemic, we actually got the backlog down lower than the level it had been during Labour’s previous period in office. We inherited a backlog of 47,000 cases and got that down to 39,000 before the pandemic hit. During the pandemic we kept jury trials running, a decision that the Labour Opposition supported at the time. We opened and extended 20 Nightingale courts, appointed 1,000 additional judges and raised the judicial retirement age. We also allocated £220 million for the modernisation and repair of court buildings and, crucially, removed the cap on Crown court sitting days—something Labour has still not done in its period in office. In just 15 months under Labour, we have seen drift and indecision. Despite inheriting a recovery plan, Ministers have allowed the backlog to worsen, as I have outlined. Even Sir Brian acknowledges that curtailing jury trials would only at best have a limited effect on the backlog, as highlighted by my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Sir Ashley Fox) and other Members, and in fact represents just 0.2% of the Department’s budget. That is a negligible return for an erosion of centuries of civic participation in justice. The better course is clear: make full use of existing court capacity, build greater capacity, employ modern case management tools and strengthen the legal profession’s ability to progress cases swiftly, not rewrite our constitutional settlement. We will continue to make that case as any legislation is brought before this House.
- Hansard source
Criminal Courts: Independent Review
Will the Minister give way?
- Hansard source
Criminal Courts: Independent Review
Just for information, I have read the whole report and it does not do the Minister justice, given her usual, sensible approach, to suggest that the fact I and many other hon. Members, including some in her own party, do not agree with her means that we have not read the report.
- Hansard source
Middle East
The Hamas leadership are making it clear that their fighters, many of whom will have been involved on 7 October, will not disband but will merge into the nascent army of a Palestinian state—a state which the Prime Minister unwisely and prematurely recognised. Is he comfortable with that?
- Hansard source
Northern Ireland Troubles
The young men sent out to do the state’s business during the troubles are now old men, often sick, often disabled. Some of them are my constituents. They will be listening carefully to the Secretary of State and will be hearing honeyed words. They will be reading those words in this framework document, even as the protections given by the legacy Act are stripped away from them and they listen for the metaphorical knock on the door as activist, left, liberal human rights lawyers construct, open and reopen cases that will do them in in their failing years. Is that what the Secretary of State wants? Is this not a beanfeast for lawyers? Is it any wonder that no veterans groups have come out to support the framework that he has announced today?
- Hansard source
English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill (Third sitting)
I echo the Minister’s welcome, Sir John. It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair. We will refer to a good deal of evidence on all parts of the Bill, but it is important to set out briefly—in terms equivalent to those used by the Minister—the concerns that the Opposition continue to have about the significant democratic deficit that arises from the measures in the Bill; the risk of losing the efficiency and local insight that come from many of our local government structures; and, in the context of a country that already has fewer elected representatives per voter than any other developed democracy in the world, the impact of stripping out, by some estimates, up to 90% of elected representation. I therefore echo your comments, Sir John, on the importance of scrutiny of the Bill. Local authorities are the means by which our voters, our residents, exercise control over what happens in their neighbourhoods and communities. It is critical that the legislation gets that right.
- Hansard source
English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill (Third sitting)
The Opposition have some sympathy with the amendment, but we spent time reflecting on its implications and appropriateness for the Bill. I suspect that, to a degree, the Minister and I agree on this point. If we reflect on the legislative framework around our local authorities from their earliest origins, the relief of poverty and addressing inequalities—the duties that the amendment refers to—have been enshrined. It goes back as far as the Poor Laws, but in more recent years the National Assistance Act 1948 compelled all local authorities to support those destitute in their areas, and the Localism Act 2011 gives scope for local authorities to use their economic powers through activities such as procurement in ways that specifically benefit the local area. The Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023, which was much debated and broadly had cross-party support, is reflected in a lot of this Bill. It was specifically about local authorities using their powers to support the economy of their local area. Just a short time ago, some of the members of the Committee were in this room debating the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, in which the Government set out a vision—contested to some extent—about how those measures affecting local authorities will address persistent issues of inequality. We recognise that sometimes that is about legislation, but sometimes it is about Government action. Mention has been made of food banks, which were rolled out under the last Labour Government as a means of addressing persistent issues of poverty. I remember them being opened during my time as a local authority councillor, and Gordon Brown visiting and saying, “This is an example of how we expect local authorities to address some of these persistent issues.” Local authorities already have these duties at both the strategic and the micro level. I question whether it is necessary to add an amendment that, in essence, reflects existing duties throughout all the different tiers of local government in England.
- Hansard source
English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill (Third sitting)
We know there will be quite a degree of debate on this in due course. We sympathise with the objectives of the amendment, and we all share the concern that local people should be the ones who initiate change in the structures that govern their local areas, not the Secretary of State or the man in Whitehall who knows best. Therefore we have sympathy with the objective, and we shall return to that debate later on with some of the amendments around the structures.
- Hansard source
English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill (Third sitting)
There is, perhaps, a risk of the Committee being inadvertently misled, in that all these points are being described as locally led. The Committee needs to be clear: local authorities were told that they needed to submit the proposals or the Government would take powers to direct them to do it. It was a gun to their heads. It was not the case that local authorities came forward proactively. During the 14-year era under the previous Government, it was clear that proposals that did come forward for reorganisation would be entertained by Government, and a number of those were taken forward, but compulsion was not the case. It is only since the Government told local authorities that they either had to come forward or would be directed to do so that we have seen the proposals, so it is not the case that they are locally led. The Committee needs to be clear on that.
- Hansard source
English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill (Third sitting)
I shall speak to the amendments standing in my name. There is a degree of overlap between the points made so far and the subject matter of my amendments: all of them revolve around the issue of localism and consent. As has been clearly expressed, I have a degree of sympathy for the points that have just been made, particularly those about the role of parish and district councils in agreeing to and steering this devolution process. When we had our witness session just a few weeks ago, we heard from Councillor Sam Chapman-Allen of the District Councils’ Network and from Justin Griggs, the head of policy and communications at the National Association of Local Councils, which represents the parish councils and parish meetings of England. Both of them emphasised in their evidence the need for and the importance of that local voice. I reflect on legislation passed recently—particularly the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022, which strengthened the powers that our communities sought for local authorities to deal with unauthorised encampments. One of the things we missed was the opportunity to enable parish councils and parish meetings to use those powers. That is a really concrete example of where our constituents would have benefited. We know there are both sins of omission and sins of commission. I suspect it is a sin of omission that the Government have failed to use the opportunity of this legislation to complete the devolution work that they talk about, and to ask, “What role will those elected bodies at the town and parish level be able to play in the context of this new devolved world?” It speaks to something that I know the Opposition have real concern about: a form of institutionalised disrespect for local leaders that is built into this process. There is wholesale abolition of the local voice at scale, and proposals that the Secretary of State will direct, rather than consent. Sir John, you will perhaps call to mind Lord Porter, formerly Gary Porter of South Holland, as one of those many local leaders whose approach and insight really shaped the nature of that local community. Reflecting on my time in local government, I had the opportunity to serve with people with very senior public and private sector leadership experience who steered the strategy of the local authority to deliver for local residents. To be told that the Government’s view is that they are to be mere community convenors, and they are not to have a role in that strategic leadership, is frankly insulting to the work that so many of our local leaders do. The value of that was spelled out very clearly in our evidence session. I was particularly struck by Councillor Bev Craig, the Labour group lead and LGA vice-chair at the Local Government Association, who talked about how the Greater Manchester model worked because of that local leadership and the power of those individuals to come to the table and drive forward devolution, efficiency and service quality. The amendments broadly fall into two categories that I have made today. The bulk of them are entirely about removing the ability of the Secretary of State to dictate to local areas—as was threatened by the Government when this devolution process started—what that devolution arrangement would look like, without the consent of those local areas. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hamble Valley has spelled out, of the many proposals that have come forward, we have not seen a single one embracing what the Government have set out, but a number of rival proposals for that reorganisation. It is very clear that there is not any significant degree of local consent. There is a threat, and there is some money on the table to bail local authorities out, but they can have it only if they do what the Government want. If local authorities do not do it now, the Government will take powers to make them do it to their own agenda later on. That is the very opposite of localism. When we put the Localism Act 2011 through Parliament, it was broadly supported by all local leaders and Members of Parliament, and that was because we recognised the value it added at all levels. This process, however—the centralising element of the Bill—says that it will be a man or woman in Whitehall who decides: they will tell us what is in the interest of our community.
- Hansard source
English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill (Third sitting)
The short answer to the hon. Gentleman’s question is yes. I have spent a good deal of my time in local government. One of the key issues that we learned from the process, and one of the reasons why former Secretary of State Eric Pickles said that he had a pearl-handled revolver in his desk—for anyone who came to him to suggest forcing local government reorganisation on England—was the need to get things right with local consent. There are times, which I think we can all see in the local government landscape at the moment, when, because of geography or failure of leadership, we know it is necessary for Government to intervene, and Governments of all parties have done so. Northamptonshire was an example of such a place. Individual local authorities within it had not failed, but there had been a collective failure of the public service in that area. The Government therefore felt compelled to intervene to remedy that, as opposed to imposing an alternative vision for how they thought the local area should be governed. New clause 23 stands in my name. It seeks to enshrine in the legislation the principle of consent. We have the very opposite of what we have been told as a Committee, that this is all locally led. Clearly, the Government are already using the levers in their power to compel local authorities down a certain route. Under the force of such compulsion, local authorities feel that that is what they have to do, because it is the only way to address some of their reasonable and justifiable concerns. The timetable, the process and all those things come at the same time as a wholesale reorganisation of planning and infrastructure, which is stripping away the local powers and voices that are so critical to ensuring that the infrastructure and new housing that we all want are delivered. The view of the Opposition, therefore, is that we need to enshrine in this legislation not powers for Whitehall but powers for people—powers for people to shape through their local leaders the community structures of service that deliver for them and the taxes that they pay. People are represented to exercise such powers. Enshrining the consent of local authorities is a small step in that direction.
- Hansard source
English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill (Third sitting)
During the evidence sessions, we heard senior local government leaders describe “inconsistent and…unhelpful messaging” on the building blocks of the new authorities—I quote what I wrote down. When we heard from those who are intended to be part of the investment agenda, they described no “meaningful consultation” from the Government on the proposals. How does the Minister square that with the idea that this is strategic and locally led?
- Hansard source
English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill (Third sitting)
I had the privilege of spending 24 years in local government, divided equally across the previous Labour, Conservative and coalition Governments. I do not think that local government felt at any point in those 24 years that it was well funded and there was plenty of money to go around. In every single one of those years, irrespective of who was in government, our starting point when setting council tax was, “How are we going to meet a very substantial savings target?”
- Hansard source
English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill (Third sitting)
We return to the theme that areas can have devolution provided it is in the form that Whitehall dictates. It remains a significant concern to the Opposition that we are proceeding in this manner, but that point is made and I suggest that we move on. Question put and agreed to. Clause 4 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill. Schedule 1 Establishment, expansion and functions of combined authorities and CCAs Amendment proposed: 266, in schedule 1, page 79, line 15, leave out subparagraph (b).—(David Simmonds.) This amendment, and Amendments 267 to 273, remove the ability of the Secretary of State to create, or make certain changes to the governance or composition of, combined authorities without consent of the councils involved. Question put, That the amendment be made.
- Hansard source
English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill (Third sitting)
I have a couple of questions for the Minister. It feels as though these amendments are intended to bring some welcome consistency and clarity. The Committee will know that local government finance is largely regulated by the Local Government Finance Act 1992, but that older legislation on council tax fixing and budget setting all essentially states that a local authority’s budget must balance in-year. A local authority is not the same as central Government—it cannot borrow to fund its day-to-day expenditure. However, one implication of the Secretary of State’s allocation of all these new powers to mayors or combined authorities is that they may choose to incur expenditure that imposes a liability on an individual local authority without seeking that authority’s consent. For example, there would be a legislative conflict if the mayoral combined authority decided to increase spending, or to increase rights to services for social care, which a local authority has to pay for, without giving the local authority the opportunity to include that in its budget. Will the Minister give us clarity, first, on accounting standards? The legislation mentions that local authorities should refer to guidance from the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy. CIPFA is not the only accepted accounting standard in the public sector, although it is generally a reliable one. Given our previous discussions and the evidence we have heard about access to local audit and financial advice, can the Minister confirm that accounting standards other than CIPFA will be accepted, if a local authority relies on them? Or will they have to be reframed within CIPFA? That will let the Committee and member authorities know exactly where they stand. Secondly, while this is a fairly catch-all provision, there will be areas—we have seen this in Greater Manchester most recently—where central Government fund the investment and set-up of a new transport network but the ongoing running costs must be met by trading that service to local residents, and a large deficit emerges; essentially, the service runs at a significant loss. Especially if the underlying authority is a transport authority that issues freedom passes, that can have a significant financial impact. Essentially, council tax payers of one authority subsidise the costs of service delivery by a mayor. We see significant elements of that in London under Mayor Khan. I think that was one reason why the Labour leader of Manchester city council spoke about how Manchester works and London does not. It would be helpful to have clarity—if necessary, in writing to the Committee—about how those trade-offs will be managed effectively, so that the capital costs of mayoral projects are not subsidised by the revenue or capital budgets of individual local authorities. Particularly with larger projects, mayoral authorities do not always have to meet the same tight financial requirements, especially in respect of things like education. It would be useful to know how that will be managed so that local authorities do not suddenly go bust because something emerges from the financial accounting arrangements between the new structures.
- Hansard source
English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill (Third sitting)
I am grateful to the Minister for undertaking to provide that clarity in writing. She said that there are differences between a mayoral authority and a combined authority without a mayor. We have seen a good case study in the Mayor of London’s decision that he wished to be seen to fund free school meals in primary schools, but the budget that is provided is less than the cost. School budgets, which are determined by the Department for Education, are subsidising the shortfall in the money provided by the mayor. We see posters on the tube saying that the mayor is funding this, but in fact the amount he provides is less than the cost. Probably all London MPs have had representations from schools that have said, “We are having to make staff redundant because of this shortfall. It’s a significant burden. It is causing a real cost.” That is an example of where accounting and legal decision making sit across several different authorities. Although it is not the only ringfenced local authority grant, it would be helpful to have clarity about how the dedicated schools grant will be managed in a mayoral combined authority, so that we do not see a repeat of what happened in London with school budgets being raided to cover up a shortfall in a mayoral policy proposal.
- Hansard source
English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill (Third sitting)
The Opposition have listened attentively to the points made by the hon. Member for Camborne and Redruth and by my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight East (Joe Robertson). My hon. Friend the Member for Hamble Valley may speak later to the amendments in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight East, but they both relate to the need to recognise in local government structures the heritage of the parts of England that are affected. From all the evidence that we have heard, and from many Members’ contributions, we know just how important it is that people feel that the name of their local authority area—that most basic of things—has a connection to them. On top of that are layers of geographical and economic considerations, as well as the trouble of learning it, all of which have an impact. That is why we and others are so keen to support measures to ensure that historical names are not lost in any of the Government’s proposed devolution measures, and that that heritage is fully recognised in any structures that follow.
- Hansard source
English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill (Third sitting)
I know that the hon. Gentleman is not the only person with an interest, and that there are other amendments on the same topic. He mentions that he is satisfied with the Government’s assurances. We have not directly sought those assurances; would he be willing to set out for the Committee the nature of them, so that we can all understand what has been committed to and can be well informed when we come to make voting decisions later on?
- Hansard source
English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill (Fourth sitting)
In our consideration of the issue, the Minister is asking the Committee to give a great deal of weight to the meetings she has described having had with various local leaders and Members with particular concerns about the impact on their local areas in terms of national identity, heritage and geography. Will she share with the Committee a little more detail on the substance of those discussions, so that before we vote we can understand what exact assurances may have been given to local leaders and what their understanding of them is, so that we are all completely clear?
- Hansard source
English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill (Fourth sitting)
I thank the Minister for that introduction. It is the implementation of this that is the subject of political contention, but a great deal has been said, and a vote has been taken. There is nothing further we can do on those issues at this stage, but I expect they will be the subject of great debate in the remaining stages of the Bill. Question put and agreed to. Clause 5 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 6 Combined authorities and CCAs: decision-making and validity of proceedings Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
- Hansard source
English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill (Fourth sitting)
The Opposition support the amendment; the principle of having a simple majority is sound. In oral evidence, we heard about why Manchester works and London does not, and there is a logic to implementing those measures consistently across the country. We support introducing that consistency. There is a broader question, however. I understand what the Minister and the Government are trying to achieve; it would clearly be frustrating if one authority was effectively acting as a blocker. However, I asked the Minister earlier to give us some assurances about the treatment applied when financial impacts occur that affect one or more of the constituent authorities in a combined authority area. There will be cases—we have seen them in planning, for example—where an authority argues that to deliver its housing target, a site in another local authority’s area must be developed, because it does not have sufficient developable land to hit the target that it has been given; legally, it is not that authority’s decision. There will be other examples. I am mindful of some of the Government’s amendments that introduce a lot more scope into this Bill for mayors and combined authorities to undertake their housing responsibilities. One of the main routes for funding is through borrowing against the housing revenue account, which is ringfenced. Each individual local authority has a legal duty to balance that account and the power to borrow against it; it also holds all of the legal housing duties and responsibilities. The purpose of the measures is to make mayors the vehicle for the delivery of asylum accommodation, as opposed to asylum hotels, as is the case now to some degree. Yesterday, on the Floor of the House, another Minister in the Department alluded to this in his response to a question about asylum accommodation. Those decisions will have a significant impact on the legal obligations of the authorities that sit beneath the mayoral authority. There is a risk that being outvoted in a decision made at combined authority level would put an individual constituent authority in breach of its legal obligations to balance its dedicated schools grant, its housing revenue account or some other element of its council tax account. Will the Minister, either now or in writing, set out what arrangements will apply in the likely situation of a conflict between the legal obligations on a constituent authority to balance the budget and the strategic decisions put forward by the combined authority? How will the conflict be resolved without undue detriment to the constituent authority in particular, which is the one that will find itself in court?
- Hansard source
English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill (Fourth sitting)
Let me give a concrete example: the long-standing proposal for Heathrow expansion airport. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has set out her absolute determination to ensure that happens, because it is part of her Government’s growth agenda. It is likely to be directed under these powers and in the purview of the Mayor of London, who will ultimately have some planning role in the decision making. However, as well as being the planning authority, the London borough of Hillingdon, within which Heathrow sits entirely, has legal duties in respect of air quality. It is already breaching those duties, which it has no means of fulfilling, simply because of that external factor. If the Treasury and the Mayor of London were say to the combined authority, “In pursuit of the growth agenda with which we have been tasked, we are determined to see this expansion take place,” immediately that local authority would be put in significant legal jeopardy. To give an indication of the scale, when the Localism Act 2011 was debated and there was also interaction with European Union standards, it equated to an annual fine of £150 million to be paid by the legally responsible local authority. That is a significant jeopardy, and it is by no means the only one—in the case of special educational needs and disabilities obligations, for example, there are significant duties to pay compensation in the event of failure. We can all envisage situations where a mayor decides that, for the good of everybody, they want an individual place to take a hit, but through the judicial review process that places that individual local authority at significant moral and financial risk. If the Minister sets out how those very significant and real risks will be addressed, I will be grateful.
- Hansard source
English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill (Fourth sitting)
I draw the Committee’s attention to a topic to which we will return throughout our proceedings: the extent to which the devolution legislation is about the powers of the Secretary of State to designate this or direct that. Ironically, we are embarked on a course of action that started with us hearing about how it was going to be locally led, despite all evidence to the contrary, yet as we proceed, we have clause after clause and paragraph after paragraph referring to new powers for the Government to make local authorities do this or to direct them to do that. It is clearly not in the spirit of devolution.
- Hansard source
English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill (Fourth sitting)
The Opposition have some sympathy with the points that have been made in the debate. It is an area in which there is scope to move towards a degree of consensus. I think that we all recognise that part of the underlying thinking behind the mayoral combined authority is that it brings a new element of leadership, and from those models where they are established, such as in London, we can identify some of the issues. As we heard at the start of the Committee, there is clear evidence about accountability. One of the issues that persists in London is that there are a number of advisers—whether they are commissioners or not is a moot point—who undertake sometimes quite highly paid roles on behalf of the mayor, but they are not visibly accountable to the GLA, the boroughs or anybody else. That begins to undermine public confidence, and it clearly creates a sense of distance between those who are elected and those who they are there to serve. While I agree that there is no reason why somebody who is elected should not occupy those roles, one of the issues with the proposed amendment is that there is clearly a risk of constraining them—in particular, in relation to the wording of the proposed amendment. When we consider some of the statutory roles that might be occupied—directors of children’s services, statutory directors of social care, monitoring officers, section 151 officers and others who have legal duties—there is a risk that by defining it as narrowly as the amendment does, we create some concerns about the interaction between those who are part of the professional officer corps that serves local government and those who are political appointees. I do not think that that is intentional; it is simply a risk that arises from the way in which it is drafted. We will not be supporting the amendment, but I am mindful of the comments that have been made by those on the Government Benches about the need to ensure that those who occupy the roles are fit to do so, and that they are publicly accountable, because they will be public servants and they need to be answerable to effective scrutiny measures for the work that they do.
- Hansard source
English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill (Fourth sitting)
Will the hon. Member give way?
- Hansard source
English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill (Fourth sitting)
I am listening attentively to what the hon. Lady described. We heard in evidence from Councillor Sam Chapman-Allen of the District Councils’ Network that under these proposals, shire England stands to lose 90% of its elected representation, which the hon. Lady referred to. There is not anything really concrete in the Bill that sets out what scrutiny should look like—what those minimum standards should be. There are elements about conduct and things like that, but that is very basic. Does the hon. Lady have a view about what a good model should look like, so that local residents can exercise their control over what happens in their neighbourhood effectively?
- Hansard source
English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill (Fourth sitting)
I beg to move amendment 293, in schedule 3, page 112, line 16, at end insert— “(2A) The relevant remuneration panel may not recommend allowances which exceed the amount paid in salary to a person employed at director level within the relevant authority.”. This amendment ensures that Commissioners cannot be paid more than Directors working for the authority.
- Hansard source
English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill (Fourth sitting)
These amendments concern the remuneration of commissioners and have two purposes. There is a long-established principle within the arrangements for the remuneration of elected officials in local government that an independent panel, which is able to take evidence from the public and other good sources in the local area, will make a recommendation to the local authority about what the scheme of allowances payable should be. That brings a degree of transparency. Councils are currently required to consider the recommendations and to update their scheme from time to time, including voting to renew it each year. That has certain elements. One is whether commissioners—in this case, those who are appointed and are part of a mayoral combined authority—should be eligible for the local government pension scheme. We heard an announcement from the Secretary of State on this issue, and it is the view of the shadow team that it is a sensible step. Changing the local government pension scheme from a final salary scheme to an average salary scheme was led by councillors, and it was instrumental in convincing a very large body of appointed officials to move over to that scheme, saving the taxpayer millions of pounds. However, it is also important that those appointed as commissioners are considered for eligibility and that each mayor is transparent about the recommendations and advice they have undertaken around that. The second point to consider is around remuneration. We often hear it cited that there are people in the civil service, the NHS and local government who are paid more than the Prime Minister, which is used as a benchmark for excessive pay. Whether or not we agree with that—personally, I do not, as I recognise that there is a professional salary structure for these roles, in which those people will participate for the whole of their careers, that is very different from the context for politicians—it is none the less important to recognise that those who are appointed into mayoral roles should be subject to some degree of constraint. As is the case with local government, it seems reasonable that we do not see elected officials appointed on a very significantly higher salary than senior professionals who are advising in the same field. The amendments aim to bring a degree of transparency and rigour to that, and to ensure that, in the potential circumstance where a mayor chooses to stretch the limits of their powers of appointment, shall we say, there is some degree of constraint so that the public can see that the taxpayer pound is being carefully husbanded.
- Hansard source
English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill (Fourth sitting)
I understand the issue that the hon. Member is highlighting. One thing that emerged from the debate about councillor pensions was that they were essentially taken away by a decision of Parliament, without the process of legislation. One of the risks here is that statutory guidance, robust as it can be and coming with a duty to “have regard”, can be changed quite quickly. Therefore, if this is not clearly set out on the face of the Bill, the ability of this Parliament and of local communities, as we are observing, to exercise the degree of accountability and scrutiny that they might wish is undermined. That is why we have proposed these amendments.
- Hansard source
English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill (Fourth sitting)
I have listened intently to what the Minister has said. I think the risk is that, if things are delegated to statutory guidance, what emerges later on will not meet the expectations set out in the debate. I will therefore push for a vote on these amendments. Question put, That the amendment be made.
- Hansard source
English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill (Fourth sitting)
I draw the Minister’s attention to the existing arrangements for independent remuneration panels. She has referenced the proposals for how this kind of situation will be handled. However, we can envisage circumstances such as those that we heard about in Greater Manchester, where the mayoral commissioners are effectively drawn from the leadership of those local authorities. There is a degree of ambiguity in proposed new sections 52A(6) and 113E(6), which refer to allowances paid “in respect of the same special responsibilities”. For example, I think of a situation where someone is a cabinet member with responsibility for transport in a constituent authority and also undertakes a strategic transport role as part of the combined authority. We as politicians would recognise that those are two different things, in the same way that a Minister undertaking duties in the Government is paid separately from their role as a Member of Parliament because those two things are distinct. Transparency and clarity are important to retaining public confidence. Clearly, we do not want to create a situation where there is a degree of dispute, such as where a mayoral combined authority expects the constituent council to pay, or vice versa, and where an individual who wishes to take up those duties is inhibited from doing so. It would be helpful if the Minister could set out how the statutory guidance will address that issue so the Committee can be confident that we will not see this act as a barrier to participation in the governance of these new authorities.
- Hansard source
English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill (Fourth sitting)
The Opposition have significant concerns about the import of amendments 82, 76 and 79. We have made a number of references to some interactions with different elements of local government finance, but clearly the measures will open the door to very substantial tax rises through the vehicle of the mayoral precept. Worse than that, they open it up to being used for any purpose, in effect. In the sometimes tense relationship between central and local government, there are disputes about who should pick up the tab—for example, the ongoing debate about asylum costs. That is very much having an effect in my local authority, which has the highest number of asylum seekers per capita of any in the country. Such individuals are only a cost to the local authority, as a result of central Government policy. The Bill opens up the scope for mayors to directly tax people for the purposes of environmental legislation, or social care, which consumes around 70% of the budgets of local authorities, or any other function that authorities may choose to undertake—making Manchester a nuclear-free zone, or whatever it may be—despite the fact that those are not functions that mayors undertake by statute. I am sure we all agree that there should be an opportunity for politicians to speak up, but there needs to be some limit on it.