Showing every spoken contribution, including 5,804 under 12 words. Hide short remarks
In their response to my question about sickfluencers, the Government said that relevant legislation is already in place. If that is the case, how many convictions have there been under that legislation? We could infer from that number whether or not the system is working and what we need to do. My suspicion is that we need these measures to be able to hold people to account.
On that point, will the Minister give way?
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Murrison. I congratulate the hon. Member for Birmingham Northfield (Laurence Turner) on securing the debate, and thank him for being willing to share his personal experiences. His doing so has been incredibly valuable. Similarly, I thank the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Josh Babarinde). The criminal injuries compensation scheme is one of the most important parts of our justice system. It does not simply punish wrongdoing but, crucially, offers some measure of direct justice—some attempt to right a wrong for those whose lives have been changed by violence and abuse, as incomplete as that attempt may often be. In 2020, the previous Conservative Government published the findings of a comprehensive review of the scheme as part of a wider review of a first ever cross-Government victims strategy. It found that overall the scheme was operating well. The Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority was dealing with more than 30,000 applications a year and had a high satisfaction rating of 95% from applicants who had been in contact in the preceding period. Those levels of satisfaction had been broadly maintained. Today’s debate has already highlighted that, within broad levels of satisfaction, there can often be serious and consistent individual failings, which it is important we do not take for granted. However, the review also recognised that changes and improvements could be made, and a consultation was launched on a number of areas to make the scheme simpler, more transparent and easier for victims to understand and engage with. Those included the approach to classifying and compensating for disabling mental injuries, overhauling how brain injury is represented and reforming the groupings of other injury types. The review also proposed changes to bereavement awards. Members may be aware that there was a need to launch a further, targeted consultation on the unspent convictions rule to ensure that it was fully and comprehensively reviewed for possible reform. Under that rule, an applicant’s compensation award could be reduced or withheld depending on the sentence imposed for an unspent offence they had committed. The Supreme Court has previously found that the unspent convictions rule was lawful and that the rationale underlying it was legally sound. The judgment also rejected the notion that vulnerability that leads to later offending should require any special exemption from the rule, on the basis that the criminal justice system should already include measures to allow any vulnerability of victims to be taken into account at the time of their prosecution and sentencing. Following that judgment, there was further impetus to consider change, as the Government rightly sought to respond to the final publication of the independent inquiry into child sexual abuse, which made further recommendations regarding the scheme, as a number of Members have touched on. The 2023 consultation focused on time limits and the scope of the scheme. It considered the inclusion of online abuse in the definition of a crime of violence. It also looked at whether children who suffered abuse should have longer to apply for compensation. It also raised the question of whether non-contact offences should be brought within the eligibility criteria. The variety of consultations and additional areas for reform reflects what has been a rapidly evolving area of political and public concern. That has created a greater and greater focus on groups of victims, as our understanding of the nature and impact of sexual abuse, particularly historical sexual abuse, domestic abuse and online harms has broadened. Across the consultations, hundreds of responses were received and difficult questions were explored in detail. However, before a final response could be published, the 2024 general election was called. Last month, the current Government sought to move forward to resolve those pieces of work and to progress on the basis of this extensive background. However, they have also decided to make no changes at this time to the scheme’s scope or time limits or to the unspent convictions rule, and it is important for the Minister today to clearly explain why. I recognise the concerns about singling out particular categories of offending and about the unintended consequences of such changes. However, concerns arise when the guidelines that do exist that attempt to allow for exceptionality do not operate as well as they should. If the Government choose not to make formal changes to the rules, there is an even greater emphasis, as the hon. Member for Birmingham Northfield said, on ensuring that the guidelines that do exist that operationalise the exceptionality clauses function as they should. On unspent convictions, the Government have laid out their reasons for not making changes—again, that is on the grounds of not wanting to create unintended consequences for victims. However, a proposal for reform was put forward that would have allowed the Government to maintain an overall bar on people seeking compensation despite their offending, by considering whether lower-level offences, such as community offences, could be removed from the disbarring applications, or where there could be a significant gap between the injury suffered and the nature of the indexed offence. That would be universal, rather than singling out particular types of offending. I would be interested to hear why the Government did not take forward that suggestion. I would also like the Minister to explain further the Government’s failure to provide a comprehensive response to the 2020 consultation, which suggested many reforms. The Government have said, to quote directly from the Minister’s foreword to the Government response: “I have decided not to publish a substantive response to the 2020 consultation as the victim support landscape has changed substantially since 2020. I am concluding that consultation by writing to the Justice Select Committee notifying it of my decision.”
I think I have clearly laid out the timetable and the sequence of events, particularly in terms of the courts requiring a further consultation, and the sensible decision to respond further to the inquiry consultation. I am interested in actually getting a response; I appreciate that the hon. Member seeks to make a party political point, but that is fine. It is slightly disappointing not to see a comprehensive response, notwithstanding the hon. Member’s concerns, as I think that the 2020 consultation and the many proposals in it—some of which were implemented on an interim basis—were important. Does that mean that the Government have now entirely rejected some of the other changes I have outlined, or will the letter set out in more detail which changes will or will not be taken forward, and the reasons why? It is important for the Government to do that. Although the scheme may be working well overall, we should continue to consider where challenges remain operationally. We know that the experience of applicants varies regionally. For example, in Birmingham, which includes the constituency of the hon. Member for Birmingham Northfield, the average time for a compensation decision was over 490 days in 2022. While there has been some improvement, wait times are far too long for some individuals, even if the majority receive their compensation in a timely manner. We have heard from a number of Members today about individual cases and their personal experiences. It is important that we hold the Government to account in terms of ensuring that as many people as possible, and as great a ratio of applicants to the scheme as possible, receive an adequate service. The true measure of our commitment to victims is not the volume of our pronouncements, but the effectiveness of the systems we create to maintain them. I want to finish by saying that the criminal injuries compensation scheme has always been about more than money: it is about recognising harm and restoring dignity. The Conservative Government took that responsibility seriously. We listened, we consulted and we left a clear foundation for action. Now it is for the current Government to build on that foundation, and we will hold them to account, simply because victims deserve nothing less.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Furniss. I, too, congratulate the hon. Member for Clapham and Brixton Hill (Bell Ribeiro-Addy) on securing this important debate today. As she said in her opening speech, the UK enjoys some of the best outcomes in the world when it comes to maternity health, but there is always more work to be done to improve our outcomes further. I hope we can all agree that equal access to the best care, for all across our society, should always be our target. That should be based on excellence across the board as standard. We are considering Black Maternal Health Awareness Week, which is part of National Minority Health Month, and I welcome the opportunity to discuss this topic and exchange views with colleagues from across the House. Colleagues will know that as a clinician myself, I am always guided by data when assessing current healthcare practices and new policy proposals. A 2023 report by the maternal, newborn and infant clinical outcome review programme found that in the period from 2019 to 2021, 241 UK women died during pregnancy or up to six weeks after the end of pregnancy. That equates to a rate of 11.7 women per 100,000 giving birth. Each of those cases represents a tragedy for the woman and baby involved and their family and loved ones, and we must do all we can to prevent them. The data does, as has been mentioned, also show that women from black backgrounds face a mortality rate much higher than the average; it is equal to 37.2 per 100,000. Women from Asian backgrounds also face a higher rate, at 17.6 per 100,000. Clearly, those figures present a pretty stark picture, but we must exercise care in the interventions that we make, and balance our desire to solve the problem with ensuring that we do that in a way that resolves the problem without risking creating others. At the outset, it is crucial to ask what the Government are doing to understand the specific causes of these outcome disparities, because if we understand the causes, we will be better able to manage and treat them. The Kirkup and Ockenden reports have already been mentioned. What are the Government doing to ensure that those recommendations are fully implemented, and to develop a strategy to ensure that all women have the opportunity for a safe pregnancy and birth? What kinds of data held by the NHS and the Department of Health and Social Care might cast light on other demographic, economic or geographical patterns that contribute to these numbers, which we may be able to help to resolve? We know that the most significant factor in predicting death during the maternity period is a pre-existing medical condition, and we know that disparities exist in the incidence of some pre-existing conditions that are relevant between some ethnic groups in the wider population. For example, a 2018 research paper in the American Journal of Kidney Diseases found that rates of heart disease were 20% higher among the black community than those from white backgrounds, and rates of stroke were a remarkable 40% higher. Do the Government know how the rates of pre-existing conditions among ethnic groups are influencing the figures on maternal health, and how are they going to work to reduce the risks of such conditions among these groups to try to improve the care not just during maternity, but during the whole of black ladies’ or ethnic minority ladies’ lives? Maternal mortality itself arises from a number of conditions and causes. In the period from 2019 to 2021, for example, 14% of maternal deaths were attributed to cardiac disease, 14% to blood clots, 10% to sepsis and 9% to epilepsy or stroke. What are the Government doing to understand the prevalence of those conditions among ethnic groups, how the conditions can be prevented, how they can be identified in black women—indeed, in all women—how they can be better treated to save lives, how they can be better managed to save lives, and what research can be done to ensure that they are, if possible, prevented? Socioeconomic deprivation has also been mentioned, and it is important to consider the impact of deprivation. In the period from 2019 to 2021, 12% of women who died during pregnancy or in the year afterwards were at severe and multiple disadvantage. That included, in particular, women who had suffered mental health conditions or domestic abuse, or had a history of substance abuse. How do the Government understand these factors and their influence on mortality rates, and what are they doing to help to resolve those issues? Closer to home, in February 2022 the NHS Race and Health Observatory published “Ethnic Inequalities in Healthcare: A Rapid Evidence Review”. The authors of that report noted: “Tackling poorer care and outcomes among ethnic minority women and babies continues to be a focus within the…NHS England and NHS Improvement Maternity Transformation Programme Equity Strategy, which includes pledges to improve equity for mothers and babies and race equality for staff.” The Government’s abolition of NHS England risks placing that ongoing programme of work, like many others, in jeopardy. Will the Minister tell us the current status of the maternity transformation programme and the implementation of the equity strategy under the NHSE and DHSC reorganisation? How is that work being prioritised, given the many other demands on the Department’s time and resources—not least from the reorganisation—that might previously have been spent on improving care? The previous Government improved the number of midwives per baby and made progress towards the national maternity safety ambition of halving the 2010 rate of stillbirths, neonatal maternal deaths and brain injuries in newborn babies. When will the Government set out their ambition for the next decade? The Labour Government promised more than 1,000 new midwives in their manifesto last year. Will the Minister update us on how many of those 1,000 midwives are now working for the NHS? The Minister for Care recently stated that the 41 maternal mental health services are now live and will be active in every integrated care system by the end of 2025-26. How will the Government ensure that access to those services can continue when ICSs face such high cuts in funding? Colleagues have mentioned the possible influence of systemic racism or unconscious bias in maternal outcomes. The NHS has an employed population of 1 million, and it is likely that some bad apples will be found within that overwhelmingly brilliant staff cohort, but I dispute that the NHS overall is a racist organisation. I work in the NHS—I should declare that interest—and I have not seen evidence of structural racism. The Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists reported that, as of 2024, 45% of obstetric and gynaeco-logical doctors identify as of a black, Asian or minority ethnic background, and 26% of births were to women of black or other minority ethnic backgrounds. Figures for midwives are harder to assert, because they are collated with nursing staff, but the proportion among nurses is 22%.
I understand the hon. Lady’s point. I do not dispute that some women, men, boys or children have awful experiences at the hands of bad apples. That will happen within any organisation of that size—the NHS employs more than 1 million people. That is wrong and should be rooted out; it is absolutely clear that that should stop. However, I work in the national health service, and I think the vast majority of people who go to work in it do so to care for the patients in front of them as best they possibly can. Care should be provided on the basis of clinical need and should not be affected by the ability to pay or by any other socioeconomic, ethnic or other demographic data. Although I accept the point that some individuals will have experienced poor care, which is reprehensible, I do not think that is the majority situation by quite some margin. I think most people receive extremely good care in the NHS, and care that is delivered on the basis of their clinical need, not the colour of their skin.
That is not what I said.
I think we can both agree that any examples of racism are reprehensible and should be rooted out and that, in the examples given, people are speaking truthfully of their perceptions and what they have experienced. No one is denying the experiences of individuals or groups who have experienced poor care and that that poor care should stop. I just do not think that that suggests the NHS itself is a racist organisation, because I do not believe that it is. That is our point of difference. I think the staff who work in the NHS are overwhelmingly not racist. They want to care for people on the basis of clinical need to the very best of their ability, regardless of any ethnic minority status.
I think we have both made our positions clear. I accept that some people will have received poor care and that the people who delivered that poor care need to be hauled over the coals. They need to be called out for what they have done and we must ensure that such care does not happen again. But I do not accept that the NHS is a racist organisation. Another issue is language barriers. It is well recognised that it is difficult for people who have a language barrier to access health services. Can the Minister tell us what the Government are doing to help with that? In recent years in my medical career I have seen improvements in the delivery of language services, but when I was a more junior doctor an appointment needed to be booked in advance and an interpreter had to attend in person. Sometimes they were available and sometimes they were not. Sometimes other members of staff or family members would be used to interpret, which is a poor standard of care, relatively speaking.
I did the junior part of my medical career in Nottinghamshire. I am describing what happened in the junior part of my career, which is about 20 years ago now. My experience 20 years ago was that it was very difficult to get interpreters, and that the people used to interpret were not proper interpreters and not the appropriate people. That should not be happening. The service is still not perfect, but over time we have seen translation services improve. Many hospitals have instituted new iPad systems where one can choose a country of origin or the language that the person speaks, and a dial-up system of interpreters working from home is used to provide an interpreting system. That is much better—it is more available to the patient than the services we had in the past, which required someone in person—but it is still not perfect. We still see areas across the country where those services and that interpretation are unavailable to people. How will the Minister ensure that women who have difficulties with the English language are able to access interpreters when they need them—not just for appointments, but for out-of-hours emergencies? That is when interpreters are most difficult to obtain, particularly for languages spoken by fewer people in the United Kingdom. I want to ask about the Government’s plans. The previous Government instituted a three-year plan, which comes to an end next year. When will the Government produce the plan? They talked about their 10-year NHS plan, which they said they would produce in the spring. I believe we are in the spring now—if we look outside, it is a beautiful day; the flowers are out and the lambs have been born. Where is the plan that the Government promised? What targets are they going to set, and when, to improve maternity care for all women, and specifically for black women?
Will the Minister give way on that point?
I thank the Minister for giving way. I think we all agree that racism is wrong and must be weeded out wherever it happens. Could she say, in answer to the question posed by the hon. Member for Clapham and Brixton Hill (Bell Ribeiro-Addy) at the beginning of her speech, whether she believes that the NHS is structurally racist?
I thank the Minister for giving way again. I confess that I thought I heard the hon. Member for Clapham and Brixton Hill say “structural”. However, if the word she used was “systemic”, does the Minister think the NHS is systemically racist?
The Minister talks about the importance of setting an achievable target and working on how it will be delivered, but the Government have now been at this for 10 months, and it was a manifesto commitment. Will she at least commit to a date by which it is likely to be set? Nothing will happen until there is a target and a plan. The Government are spending time deciding when to make a target, and all the while women are waiting.
I thank the hon. Lady for giving way in such an important debate. I entirely share her frustrations about progress with these boats. This issue affects many of my constituents not just in Weybridge, but across my constituency. I am sure that she will come on to this point. Given the nature of rivers, does she agree that a positive step forward would be working with me, my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Lincoln Jopp), the hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mr Reynolds) and the Minister to try to get a group together so that rather than pushing the boats on, we can tackle the issue once and for all?
I have had countless meetings with the EA linked with Elmbridge and in trying to deal with this problem, particularly in Desborough cut and Weybridge. Does the Minister think that the EA has sufficient powers in statute to be able to tackle this issue? She just mentioned discretionary powers. Do we need to change the law so that this can be dealt with once and for all?
Thank you. Contributions are always more powerful when they are rooted in personal experience, as we have heard today. Question put and agreed to. Resolved, That this House has considered compensation for criminal injuries.
Tessa Munt will move the motion and then the Minister will respond. I remind other Members that they may make a speech only with prior permission from the Member in charge of the debate and the Minister. As is the convention for 30-minute debates, there will not be an opportunity for the Member in charge to wind up.
When will the Government decide whether to support the UK-Morocco power project?
Does the Minister agree that there is no context at all in which it would be acceptable to utter the remarks attributed to this group? Does he hope, as I do, that the criminal justice system pursues them with the utmost rigour, without any thought to mitigations such as so-called artistic licence? Does he share my disappointment as a south-west MP that, as of this afternoon, Glastonbury is still listing this outfit for a performance on Saturday 28 June?
The Foreign Secretary rightly said in his statement yesterday that Hamas have no future in any of the possible ways forward for Palestine and for Gaza. That is a statement of the obvious, but what is the Government’s strategy for Palestine? In particular, given that the Minister avoided the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Witham (Priti Patel), what discussions has he had with the Americans, because it seems to me that the Trump plan for Gaza, in particular, is very different from any conceivable plan that the UK Government might have?
The Minister said that powers exist, but, plainly, they are not working, because we know that “sickfluencers” are doing their deeds and people are responding to them, particularly in the mental health sphere, where many of the claims are made. Indeed, we know that officials, or those acting on behalf of officials, are looking out for buzzwords, because, if there is a buzzword in there somewhere, they can bank the case and move on to the next one. Therefore, something plainly needs to be done to stop this. Will he look again at the Opposition’s new clauses 8 and 21, which would ensure that “sickfluencers” are targeted specifically, and say what, in the Government’s amended terms, they would do to deal with this particular group that are contributing significantly to the failure identified by my right hon. Friend the Member for Goole and Pocklington (David Davis) in relation to the amount of money that we are able to claim back from the huge sum that is lost to fraud every year?
The Minister is presumably keen to determine how much money is lost to fraud in Scotland, and I imagine he will require the Scottish Government to report back to the UK Government on their progress in clamping down on benefit fraud, but the same should apply in the rest of the country. That, of course, is the purpose of new clause 13, which would require an annual report on the amount of money recovered through the processes that he has outlined. Will he accept new clause 13? Will he also assure me on the point about the Scottish Government’s reporting of fraud?
I agree very much with the Minister’s point about not introducing excessive complexity. A key issue, though, that this element of the Bill highlights is where there are complex interactions—with legal obligations that are placed on local authorities, for example. I think of my experience with Heathrow airport, where air quality duties are an absolute obligation on the local authority. Parliament can decide to derogate from that, but that does not remove the possibility of the local authority being judicially reviewed, having failed to oppose the Government’s position on a national planning policy statement. When there are such obligations on other affected public bodies but the decision has been taken from them and is being made instead by Parliament, how will the Government ensure that those public bodies will not find themselves held liable and find that the whole process is effectively derailed—because although parliamentary decisions cannot be judicially reviewed, the involvement of that public body in decisions can be?
I rise in support of my hon. Friend the shadow Minister to press the Government on this point. I think the key issue for all of us is what remedy is available where there are concerns about the impact of a decision taken using these new provisions. In the evidence sessions, there was much mockery of a so-called fish disco at a new nuclear power station. However, the local constituency MP, the local authority or fishing and wildlife organisations would be very concerned about the impact of that development on wildlife, particularly at a location with significant numbers of protected species, some of which are unique in Europe. When the detail of a project emerges and an issue of that nature needs to be addressed, and there is feedback from Parliament, if we have inserted provisions that allow the Secretary of State to say, “I am going to ignore that now,” we lose the opportunity to ensure appropriate remedies and measures to address the impact of that detail, either in planning terms or on the local environment. I recall a judicial review brought by the local authority where I served as a councillor in respect of a scheme that had been agreed with the Secretary of State. The Secretary of State had written to the local authority and said, “This is what it is going to be. This is the process that is going to be followed.” That Secretary of State was then replaced with another, who said, “I am not going to follow it. Although my predecessor wrote to you last year to tell you this is how it was going to be, I am not going to do it.” The local authority said that was clearly unsatisfactory, because of the impact at community level. The test that was required to be met for a judicial review to succeed was that we had to be able to demonstrate that the Minister was—what the judge said has always stuck in my mind—“out of her mind” when she told Parliament at the Dispatch Box what she was going to do, on the basis that parliamentary sovereignty was so great. If Parliament had approved the Minister’s actions, regardless of whether they were a flagrant breach of an agreement previously entered into with another part of the public sector, provided they had said that at the Dispatch Box and unless we could prove that the Minister had actually been out of their mind at that point, the decision would stand and would not be subject to judicial review. It could not even be considered, because parliamentary sovereignty has such a high test. I think the shadow Minister is right to raise the need to get this right. We are all talking about the importance of getting infrastructure and major developments through, and we can understand the desire to drive that forward, but we would not wish to find ourselves in a situation where a key point of detail, which has a significant community impact but which emerges only once some of those detailed elements of a major project are in the public domain, cannot be taken account of and is irrelevant or disregarded in the planning process. It is absolutely critical that we have that level of safeguard to ensure that constituents are assured that the concerns that they might perfectly reasonably have will be properly addressed.
Sucking fish into a nuclear reactor—what could possibly go wrong? That seems a good example of how, when the details of a project are analysed, there is a requirement for such measures. However, we have also looked at the issue of battery storage in connection with improving grid capacity, and the point has been made that ongoing appraisals of the nature of battery storage ensure that local authorities granting planning consent have fulfilled all their relevant environmental and health and safety duties when doing so. It seems to me that, if a parliamentary Select Committee had looked at and taken into consideration such projects, it would be valuable for the Secretary of State to be required to respond, rather than being able to set that aside and having to seek to unpick the whole decision later as a result of judicial reviews brought because of the failure of a local authority to carry out its statutory obligations.
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that there is another risk? Ministers may set out that, in order for a particular project to be expedited, it needs to meet a series of tests. I think again of airport expansion; numerous Ministers have said at the Dispatch Box that a whole set of different tests on air quality and finance would need to be met before it could be approved. If we effectively set aside elements of parliamentary feedback, then Ministers, having announced that such tests would need to be met, could, in effect, retrospectively set aside that requirement in order to enable major infrastructure projects to go ahead, without having satisfied the kind of environmental and community concerns that the hon. Gentleman describes?
How does the Minister propose that this measure will address boundary issues? It is not uncommon for a significant construction project to be located in one local authority while the access road, as he described, is in another local authority. Particularly where a section 106 benefit is derived from a development that is taking place, the consenting authority will undertake those negotiations, so clearly it will be necessary to have taken that into account. Can he indicate how such an approach will be built in, so that everyone has an assurance that that will be fully dealt with?
May I press the Minister a little further on that? I am thinking of the Southall gasworks site, a very large housing development on a former gasworks site in London. The only possible access route to facilitate the development involved constructing a bridge from the London borough of Hillingdon, where none of that development took place, into the borough of Ealing. Clearly, one of the issues there is that the large scale of housing being delivered is of benefit to Ealing, since it goes against its housing target. The section 106 yield also goes to Ealing as it is the consenting planning authority. However, the loss is that an access road has to be driven through a nature reserve and leisure facility in the neighbouring local authority. I am just keen to understand how the clause will be used. When the decisions sit with two separate local authorities in normal due process, one of which has a lot more at stake and the other a lot more to lose, how will the Secretary of State be able to balance them so that local residents—constituents—can be assured that their concerns are taken into account?
It would be helpful if, when the Minister produces that response, he could also set out for the Committee how the processes in place will ensure consistency of decision making. As he described, some local authorities may be more pro in a particular area, or less so. There is a need to ensure transparency that a given nature of development and a given scale will be dealt with in a consistent manner. Can the Minister tell us whether any consideration has been given to any time constraints? I am just mindful of the fact that one issue that certainly occurs in local authorities and potentially in central Government is that if the end of a Parliament, a general election, is coming up, there is a risk of developers thinking, “At this point, I’m more likely to get the Minister to sign things off if I go down this route or that route,” regardless of the merits, on a planning basis, of the individual projects that are being put forward. Can we be assured that that will be properly addressed so that we do not see development being constrained by an imminent election or, indeed, advanced without due process because of an imminent election?
May I press the Minister a little more on that point? I understand and thank him for the clarity that he has brought. As he set out, one purpose of the change is to ensure greater certainty for investors and applicants about the process. We are all very aware that planning issues can often become quite significant local political issues as well. How will the regime avoid a situation where, with an election in the not-too-distant future, there is a political trade-off that involves a Government, a Minister or a candidate saying, “If we win the election, we are going to push it down this route” in order to try to produce outcome A, versus “We think we should push it down an alternative route” in order to produce a different outcome through the planning process? How can we make sure that it is sufficiently insulated from that political turmoil to ensure certainty?
I have a lot of sympathy with the comments made by the hon. Members for Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme and for North Herefordshire. I appreciate that the clause was tabled quite late, and the evidence that we heard last week was mixed. The National Infrastructure Commission gave us its views on the impact of pre-application consultation, and local authority representatives who are responsible for that section of the planning system’s decision making said that they have quite significant concerns. The Opposition have sympathy with what the Government are trying to achieve, but it seems to me that, as the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington outlined, we need to look at alternatives. It may be that a regime of deemed consent is a mechanism we could use to speed up elements of the process, or perhaps altering how we set out the requirements of pre-app consultation. I know that you have extensive experience in local government, Mrs Hobhouse, and you will be aware that, as a matter of law, Parliament has set numerous obligations on local authorities in respect of the quasi-judicial process that they follow in planning, and numerous other obligations in respect of what they do for their communities. The pre-application process is a means drawing out, before a major application is made, how the impacts may play out. I can draw a good recent example from personal experience. The Chancellor, at the Dispatch Box, said that Heathrow expansion, and airport expansion more generally, would be enabled because sustainable aviation fuel would reduce emissions. It is true that sustainable aviation fuel mandates reduce the overall lifetime emissions from a given quantity of aviation fuel, but they do not reduce the level of pollution at the tailpipe of the aircraft at all. So when we look at Heathrow airport, it does not matter whether the fuel burned there is sustainable aviation fuel or conventional aviation fuel; emissions within the locality, which are what give rise to the legal obligations on the local authority regarding air quality, remain the same. It is not a solution. When a developer proposes to create a solar farm, a battery storage area or a nuclear power station—or any kind of major infrastructure—the pre-application process gives the local authority an opportunity to begin to understand which of its legal obligations may be engaged by the application. I am conscious of the experience that the hon. Member for Barking described, illustrating the need to streamline the process as much as possible, but clearly, as several hon. Members have said, the major risk of that is that a developer comes along and sets out an ambition for a development, and residents are consulted and their response is, “In general—in principle—that sounds okay, but what will the impact on us be? Do we understand that from what the developer is putting forward?”
I understand the point the hon. Member makes, but part of me thinks, “Well, they would say that, wouldn’t they?” For a business whose profits come from expediting the grant of planning consent as much as possible, removing potential obstacles to that is important. However, as has been outlined in many of the examples that we have debated, there can be crucial points of detail that either would make all the difference to the level of consent and support in the local community for a project, or would engage other legal obligations that Parliament has placed on the local authorities, either to carry out an impact assessment—an evaluation of what that will mean—or, in some cases, to engage with that process to oppose the development taking place, because it contradicts other legal obligations placed on the authority by Parliament in respect of environment, health or whatever it may be. Clearly, we need to ensure that there is a functional process.
My hon. Friend puts it probably more bluntly than I have, but he is absolutely spot on. I know he has an enormous amount of experience in local government negotiating around exactly these kinds of points.
I think that most of us who have been on a planning committee, as the Minister has, probably recognise that, if anything, to satisfy the concerns of our constituents we should be going further with the consultation on small applications, rather than reducing it in larger ways. We are debating developments that will have an enormous community impact, and there are often important points of detail that influence the level of consent. We have had multiple debates in this and the previous Parliament about the loss of high-quality agricultural land to solar farms, for example. It is quite likely that a community, if it fully understands exactly how a developer will mitigate that impact, will come around to supporting such a development; but if the community is simply faced with, “Here is the planning application. We have made it already. Take it or leave it,” there is a risk from not allowing the opportunity for the level of consent to be built up. That will in turn encourage, and in the case of local authorities’ statutory obligations, force, the exploration of other legal routes of objection to prevent the application proceeding. While I understand what the Minister is saying, like the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington, we will use the opportunity given by the provisions being tabled relatively late in the day to explore alternative methods by which concerns can be addressed. It seems to us fundamental that if a major application is made, those who are affected by it should have the opportunity in advance to learn what it means for them, their community and their home, and should not simply be told that the planning application has been made. There is a world of difference between a planning application that means, “Your house is going to be demolished in order for something to proceed,” and a planning application that indicates a much less significant impact. It is those kinds of issues that need to be teased out; that is what the pre-application discussions and consultations are there for. We encourage the Government to think about a different, more nuanced way to address fully the concerns that have been expressed cross-party, although in slightly different ways.
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair this afternoon, Mr Twigg. We touched on the issue of remedy earlier today. A local authority, for example, may have a statutory obligation placed on it by a piece of legislation, which means that it has an obligation to take an interest in a particular development, including potentially judicially reviewing that application, if the impact runs contrary to its other statutory obligations. We are well aware of issues relating to air quality, but there are also organisations such as ClientEarth, which many of us will have heard of. Essentially, their stock in trade is to look for opportunities to address broader issues around, for example, climate change and environmental impact by using what, in some cases, are arguably loopholes, but in many cases, are essentially contradictions in legislation. The Minister talked earlier about a shift from having statutory pre-application processes to having guidance that would need to be followed. Clearly, one of the issues is that guidance can be challenged, and bodies that have a responsibility to follow the guidance can be challenged as to whether they have fulfilled their obligation to the letter. Opposition Members certainly have concerns about the implications of removing the right to judicial review. We share the view that we need to ensure that those processes—those applications—are not frivolous and that they are not being used simply because the cost of responding to judicial review, and the delay that is involved, is a tool to create delay, impose costs and therefore deter development, which we all agree should take place. Conversely, however, we do not wish to see a situation where a public body or a local resident—a constituent—who has a genuine right to be heard and a genuine concern arising out of law is constrained from bringing the matter forward and seeking a remedy. We also do not want a situation where, for example, a decision by Government, which is then taken through this process and restricted from judicial review, results in a third party, such as a local authority or NHS body, being judicially reviewed for its failure to stop that from proceeding—for its failure to bring a judicial review under other responsibilities that it has. I would be grateful if the Minister could address that. Statutory consultees already have many legal obligations and duties relating to issues such as water quality, air quality and nature. They are obliged to go to the utmost of their powers to fulfil those obligations. Clearly, they may well be held in default if a development proceeds by virtue of the fact that they have not had the opportunity to appropriately challenge it in law. It would be helpful if the Minister set out how that will be fully addressed.
I have a couple of questions. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hamble Valley has set out, we are broadly supportive of the direction of travel around energy in the Bill. One of the things we are all conscious of with the move to renewables being the main source of power in the grid—something that the UK has achieved faster than most other countries, with a bigger drop compared with the 1990 baseline than any other developed economy —is that it makes the grid more complex. Unlike oil, gas and nuclear, which can be delivered in an entirely predictable manner, renewables are generally much less predictable. There are times when the wind does not blow and the sun does not shine, and we cannot therefore put that element into the grid. We need to find alternative methods so we need to be able to shift greater amounts of power around to meet the growing energy needs. As the Minister has outlined, the regime that is envisaged will, for a limited period of time, give greater powers to the Government to determine who gets connected and in which order. First, will the Minister set out how he and the Government intend to feed back to Parliament what we learn from that process, to inform the future shape of our energy grid? Secondly, what recourse will there be for those at a certain point in the queue who anticipate that their development, whatever it may be, will be served by a particular project and connected at a particular point, if the Government decide otherwise because the reordering of the queue is, in the Minister’s view, necessary? We all understand why that may happen, but if someone is about to invest in a major new carbon capture and storage facility—the sort of major infrastructure project that the Bill is designed to support—and they expect it to be powered by a wind farm but are then told they have been moved much further down the queue than they expected, that will affect the delivery of that project. It would be helpful to understand the process whereby those affected by the reordering of the queue are able to challenge the decision, if necessary, and certainly to engage with the Government, or with constituency MPs, who may seek to advocate for them, so that the reordering can be revisited if necessary.
A general point arises here, which we also debated on the Renters’ Rights Bill Committee. The different systems in Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland and England—most of the legislation we are dealing with here is for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland—give rise to a risk of inconsistency. The shadow Minister spoke of the importance of community benefit. That is designed to secure community support. If there is a view that Ministers in Scotland might choose to spend such revenue on other things to the detriment of community benefit, that may also undermine consent. I completely agree with what the Minister is saying about creating the necessary power, but will he commit to further discussions with his colleagues in the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government so that we can ensure—not just in this Bill, but in future legislation—that where we expect a community benefit to derive from something that we decide on, it will be a consistent benefit across the UK?
This is a small “p” political point rather than a party political point, but it undermines confidence in devolution when we hear that a devolved body—a local authority, regional government or whatever it may be—has been given a power and has not used it, or central Government have said, “We have allocated additional funds for potholes,” but the council has spent it on social care, as we have seen recently. It undermines the confidence in those central messages that what is promised will be delivered. I urge the Minister, on behalf of my hon. Friend, to please come back to the Committee with that assurance. For those listening to this debate who expect that the funds raised will be spent on the purpose that the Minister has told the Committee they are intended for, that assurance needs to be there.
We broadly support the content of clause 20, but I have one question for the Minister. I am mindful of his comments about the process of EU retained law, and it is absolutely right that we are looking to update that. However, a lot of the new powers set out for Scottish Ministers are the kind of thing that, in England, we would expect to be the subject of a pre-application consultation. One might ask the promoter of a project to come in and discuss those exact things with the local authority, the strategic planning authority if there is one, or the mayoral authority or the combined authority, so that the application process can be streamlined as much as possible. Earlier on, we said that we would amend legislation through the Bill to remove that process in England. Given the intention to effectively introduce a top-quality process for applications to be considered in Scotland, does the Minister agree that there is an element of contradiction in that, in the same piece of legislation, we are seeking to remove many of the equivalent processes in England?