The comments made by James Cleverly, the Foreign Secretary, on 18 October 2022.
I’ve ordered the summoning of the Chinese Chargé d’Affaires to demand an explanation for the shocking scenes outside the Chinese Consulate-General in Manchester on Sunday.
Peaceful protest is a fundamental right in the UK and the Chinese Government must respect that.
The comments made by Ed Miliband, the Shadow Business Secretary, on 18 October 2022.
Labour will ban fracking for good. The Conservatives are u-turning on their manifesto and seeking to impose fracking on communities across the country.
The statement made by Simon Clarke, the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, on Twitter on 19 October 2022.
Really good performance from Liz Truss at PMQs. While Sir Keir tried to crack jokes, she landed the key point: mistakes have been made but this is a world where interest rates are rising everywhere as central banks combat the inflation caused by Putin’s horrific war.
The speech made by Stephen Kinnock, the Labour MP for Aberavon, in the House of Commons on 18 October 2022.
I congratulate the right hon. Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire (Stephen Crabb) on securing this vital debate.
If the last 12 months have taught us anything, it is that if we are to better protect ourselves from rocketing energy costs, as a country we must become more resilient and less exposed to fluctuating global energy prices. The good news is that the UK is well placed to do that, but we need a UK Government who will grasp the nettle and realise our potential.
A Labour Government will turn the UK into a green growth superpower through our green prosperity plan, by creating GB Energy, a new publicly owned clean energy generation company that will harness the power of the UK’s sun, wind and waves. We will establish the UK as a clean energy superpower, delivering a zero-carbon electricity system by 2030 and guaranteeing long-term energy security. It is only through a publicly owned company that we can ensure that communities and people across the country feel the benefits of the power created on our own shores through cheaper bills, good local jobs and putting money back into the public purse.
To achieve clean power by 2030, we will need to quadruple offshore wind. Floating offshore wind will be crucial in helping us achieve that goal. The Celtic sea will be a vital next step in that journey. The deployment of 24 GW of floating offshore wind in the Celtic sea presents a major opportunity to establish manufacturing and logistical support in south Wales. Port Talbot is ideally placed to be the hub for that activity, and a catalyst for the growth of FLOW in the region. Unlocking the Celtic sea’s potential requires ports that are capable of constructing foundation substructures, component storage and turbine integration, and continuous maintenance of those turbines.
Port Talbot’s deep sea harbour, with the land around it fully available for development, makes it the only port with capacity to combine FLOW fabrication, assembly, staging and flotation. The harbour is sheltered from high winds by a natural bay, and the space, size and water depth means that it can easily accommodate the substructure construction for the largest turbines in sufficient quantity to meet long-term Celtic sea demand.
Port Talbot also has the key infrastructure to support that groundbreaking technology. We are centrally located and have excellent transport links, with easy access to the M4 and the rail network. We also have world-class steelworks and the existing manufacturing supply chains, which bring with them the vital workforce skills and labour pool, including port workers, heavy industry workers, and maintenance and servicing workers, to support the quality manufacturing and assembly jobs essential for FLOW to become a reality.
Local businesses already in the manufacturing supply chains are keen to bring their transferable skills to the table and be part of this new, cutting-edge technology. Such is the scale of the FLOW project that there is significant potential to attract new industries in the supply chain, to create thousands of skilled jobs and to open up a world of opportunity for my Aberavon communities and those well beyond.
In short, Port Talbot has the capacity to deliver this scale of growth. It is a daunting project, but we have the basic infrastructure right there; it just needs to be mobilised. We have the critical mass and established manufacturing base needed to make a success of this future industry, but it is not just Port Talbot that would benefit. The benefits would be felt right across south Wales and beyond. The Swansea Bay economy has the ability both to absorb the initial demand and to translate it into new economic activity, and the sheer scale of what we are talking about would require additional resources to support Port Talbot, with the ports of Swansea and, as the right hon. Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire so eloquently pointed out, Milford Haven having the capacity to carry out vital supporting activities right through the supply chain, including integration, maintenance, and assembly of mooring and cabling components. This has to be a team effort if it is going to work.
A south Wales freeport centred around Port Talbot and Milford Haven has huge potential to support FLOW manufacturing, assembly, installation and associated supply chains, and those opportunities can be distributed between the ports of Port Talbot and Milford Haven, which complement each other and offer the prospect of establishing the energy and manufacturing coast in south Wales at the necessary scale. Freeport status for Port Talbot and Milford Haven would help to create an environment to attract inward investment for the manufacturing of components for FLOW and the development of wider industrial manufacturing. The proposed new port infrastructure at Port Talbot will be an attractive site for the co-location of manufacturing for offshore wind components, improving the logistics of the supply chain. Port Talbot will also offer access to new export markets as well as the industrialised economy of south Wales.
The ability to offer the benefits of freeport status for development land in close proximity to the newly constructed port infrastructure will provide significant advantages for potential investors seeking to establish new manufacturing capacity in the UK, but also across Europe. I have had extensive discussions with Associated British Ports, which stands ready to invest over £500 million in new and upgraded infrastructure to enable the manufacturing, assembly and launch of floating foundation substructures and the import, storage and integration of wind turbine components in Port Talbot. These plans would be transformative for my Aberavon constituency and the surrounding area, but support from the UK Government will be a crucial precondition for drawing in private sector investment so that the FLOW project can get off the ground. FLOWMIS co-funding would demonstrate the UK Government’s clear long-term commitment to developing the site and the sector, giving confidence to allow investors and other funding providers to back the project and unlock sizeable private sector investment potential.
There is no time to waste. As the right hon. Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire pointed out, other European countries, such as Ireland, France, Spain and Portugal, are also looking at investing in FLOW, so we must act now if we are to secure first mover advantage. We missed the boat with onshore and offshore wind in the past; other countries stole a march on us, and now they benefit from energy produced here. The largest onshore wind farm, which also happens to be in my Aberavon constituency, is paying for schools and hospitals in Stockholm. The Chinese Communist party has a stake in our nuclear industry, and millions pay their bills to an energy company that is owned in France. Such countries, rather than the local communities where the energy is actually being generated, also benefit from the manufacturing jobs that go with these industries. It is simply scandalous, which is why I am lobbying the Crown Estate to ensure that when it grants the lease for the Celtic sea, local benefits are maximised and we grasp the opportunity to build a homegrown manufacturing base to underpin these local industries. The manufacturing supply chain must stay in south Wales.
Worryingly, the Crown Estate’s announcement last week on the seabed licences lacked detail on the supply chain and the local content commitment that developers will have to give when bidding for seabed licences for FLOW development in the Celtic sea, and I urge the Minister to raise the issue with the Crown Estate as a matter of urgency. Under the current criteria, there is a real risk that the opportunity will yet again be missed to maximise prospects for local jobs and supply chains. The Crown Estate must therefore provide more detail on the local content commitment that developers will have to give as part of the bidding process.
The future of our country is in our air, sea and skies, and mother nature has truly given us a gift in Wales. We were the cradle of the first industrial revolution, and now Wales can be the cradle of the green industrial revolution, with Port Talbot at the forefront. Investing in Port Talbot as the hub for this game-changing form of renewable energy would turn south Wales into a green power superpower in the generation of renewable energy. I therefore urge the UK Government and all other key stakeholders to come together to ensure we grasp this opportunity with both hands.
The speech made by Stephen Crabb, the Conservative MP for Preseli Pembrokeshire, in the House of Commons on 18 October 2022.
I beg to move,
That this House has considered delivery of floating offshore wind projects.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Christopher, and I am grateful to have secured time for a debate on the delivery of floating offshore wind power, which is one of the most interesting and exciting energy developments in play. It is good to see colleagues from across the United Kingdom and I look forward to hearing their contributions. I put on record my thanks to RenewableUK, the Crown Estate and many of the developers for reaching out ahead of the debate to provide briefing and insight.
This is a timely moment to discuss the role of floating offshore wind in the UK’s energy mix and to consider what further steps the Government need to take to facilitate the emergence of that new industry. The twin challenges of net zero and energy security mean that the strategic imperative around this home-grown clean energy solution is becoming ever stronger.
Floating offshore wind—or FLOW, to use the shorthand—harnesses the power of wind by using turbines based on floating structures rather than fixed. It offers an opportunity to deploy enormous turbines in larger, deeper, more exposed offshore areas where the overall wind potential is higher and therefore more energy can be generated.
There is a high level of expectation that floating wind is going to become an increasingly important part of our energy mix. The Government have set a target of 5 GW of FLOW to be installed by 2030, and Offshore Renewable Energy Catapult estimates that we could have up to 95 GW of floating wind in UK waters by 2050. At that point, the majority of the wind turbines in UK waters would be floating, not fixed to the seabed as they are today.
The UK is already home to the largest floating wind farm in the world—Kincardine, off the coast of Aberdeen in the North sea—which is using the highest-capacity turbines ever installed on floating platforms. The success of Kincardine should give both industry and Government confidence that the technology works and is scalable, and that it can be replicated elsewhere.
Floating wind will be critical to achieving the Government’s energy security targets, and if we do not choose to industrialise FLOW we will have to generate at least 15 GW of power by 2035 using other means. Indeed, it is difficult to see how the overall expansion of offshore wind envisioned by the Government’s targets would be technically possible without doing floating wind in a very big way. That industrialisation of floating offshore wind will create the pathway for cost reduction, as has been proven with fixed-bottom offshore wind.
Floating wind offers a huge opportunity for the world to harness offshore wind power, not just those limited regions with shallow sandbanks close to shore. Globally, the UK Government have set the most ambitious targets for developing floating offshore wind, but other countries are catching up fast. Spain has announced a target of 1 GW to 3 GW of FLOW by 2030. Similarly, France, Norway, Japan, Ireland and parts of the United States have set clear and ambitious targets. The world will therefore develop floating wind for sure. The UK is well positioned as the leading marketplace for investors, but if those targets are not followed through, I fear that the UK is likely to be left behind as other countries move to seize on the new technology.
Along with parts of the North sea, the Celtic sea—located off the coasts of south-west Wales, Devon, Cornwall and southern Ireland—is one of those areas with the greatest potential to deploy FLOW. It is attracting enormous interest from developers and investors, and I am delighted that my hon. Friend the Member for North Devon (Selaine Saxby), chair of the all-party parliamentary group for the Celtic sea, is here today. I look forward to hearing her remarks.
Floating offshore wind in the Celtic sea represents a multibillion pound economic development and investment opportunity for Wales, the south-west of England and the whole UK. The area has excellent wind resource infrastructure and local industry for potential supply chain development. The Crown Estate’s Celtic sea leasing programme aims to deliver 4 GW of new floating offshore wind by 2035. It could provide power for almost 4 million homes, and the project will kick start an innovative new industry in the area, with the Celtic sea assessed to have the economic potential to accommodate up to an additional 20 GW by 2045. Just last week, the Crown Estate announced that it is seeking to accelerate the leasing process for that first stage of development, recognising the importance of bringing floating wind onstream as soon as possible, and will be looking to launch the tender process in the middle of next year.
For us in west Wales—I represent a Welsh constituency —floating offshore wind represents a hugely exciting and valuable prospect. It is another stage in the evolution of Milford Haven port in my constituency. Shared with my right hon. Friend the Member for Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire (Simon Hart), Milford Haven is one of the UK’s most important energy ports, beginning in the late 18th century when whale oil was imported for use in streetlamps. The late 20th century brought oil refining and trade in petroleum products, and the early 2000s brought liquefied natural gas imports. Strategically, Milford Haven plays an incredibly important role in our energy mix, and I believe that the coming decades at Milford Haven will be about floating offshore wind and hydrogen.
Early analysis by Cardiff Business School suggests that floating offshore wind, hydrogen and sustainable fuels investment could add an additional 3,000 Welsh jobs to the 5,000 already supported by the Milford Haven waterway. Floating offshore wind will facilitate the transition to a vital new green energy era, supporting the continued evolution of that major hub for another 50 years. On the Milford Haven waterway, we already have a number of very active projects: we have Blue Gem Wind, a joint venture between Simply Blue and TotalEnergies, which is looking to establish the first demonstrator projects in the Celtic sea. We have DP Energy, a joint venture involving EDF, and RWE—which has a major gas-fired power station on the Milford Haven waterway—is looking at floating offshore wind opportunities, in conjunction with exploring the possibilities of producing hydrogen and moving its entire operation in Pembrokeshire to a lower carbon future.
Simon Hart (Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire) (Con)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that the much-rumoured and long-awaited freeport status for places such as Milford Haven—even in conjunction with Neath Port Talbot or similar—would accelerate all of the exciting initiatives he has referred to?
Stephen Crabb
I will mention freeport opportunities a bit later, but my right hon. Friend is exactly right. So often when people talk about freeports, it is in the context of an answer looking for a question; what we have in Milford Haven—together with Port Talbot, I might say—is a solution. It is something that will help facilitate a new industry, and if we can use the freeport process to help support that—I am looking towards the Minister—then that would be excellent indeed.
Stephen Kinnock (Aberavon) (Lab)
The right hon. Gentleman is making an excellent speech, and I congratulate him on securing the debate. Building on his point about freeports, one of the key advantages of our freeport bid is that it is in synergy with the floating offshore wind opportunity. That will deliver a huge amount of added value through the manufacturing opportunities and long-term sustainable job opportunities that will come out of it, so the freeport offer is a strategic offer, not just transactional.
Stephen Crabb
As is typical, the hon. Member has gone right to the heart of the matter. Floating offshore wind is going to happen in a big way in UK waters— I absolutely believe that. The challenge that we need to get our heads around is how much real economic value and content can be captured and secured for the UK. The hon. Gentleman is exactly right that a collaborative bid between Port Talbot and the port of Milford Haven provides a potential framework to allow that industrialisation and capturing of domestic content to happen.
FLOW presents an important economic opportunity for the whole of the UK—for ports, industry and energy infrastructure, and by driving up investment and regional and national growth, as well as increasing the numbers of skilled jobs and career opportunities. The levelling-up opportunities are enormous: tens of thousands of people are already working in the offshore wind industry and supply chain in places such as Hull and Hartlepool. That is the kind of domestic content and supply chain opportunity that we want to deliver for Wales and the whole of the Celtic sea region. With large-scale projects in the Celtic sea perhaps five to 10 years away, there is an opportunity now for the development of the appropriate infrastructure and supply chain capability, which will deliver significant local opportunities in the region and, in turn, drive regional economic growth.
While we are talking about Port Talbot, I should say that I was excited to see RWE recently announce a new partnership with Tata Steel in the constituency of the hon. Member for Aberavon (Stephen Kinnock). That will explore how steel manufactured in south Wales could be used for floating wind projects, which is exactly the kind of innovative thinking that we need to achieve everything to which we aspire.
I hope to have outlined the scale of the vision and opportunity in front of us. It is ambitious and exciting, and in my view it is achievable. There is enormous private sector interest. However, along with the scale of the opportunity, there is an enormous delivery challenge. Ensuring that we have the appropriate offshore and onshore capabilities to deliver this is a big and complicated challenge. The 5 GW by 2030 target is ambitious. The industry is confident that it can respond to the challenge, but it will require a lot of work. Think about the sheer scale of what we are talking about: hundreds and hundreds of enormous new turbines being manufactured and towed out to sea. We have also to think about all of the onshore infrastructure around the turbine: the port infrastructure, new grid capacity, new grid connections, all the supply chain work that we have talked about, the financial architecture around it—contracts for difference—and, of course, the planning regimes in which the projects operate.
Projects cannot happen without the underpinning physical infrastructure—grid and ports—and the right policy architecture. Creating the right frameworks will require a lot of collaboration between the public and private sectors.
Stephen Kinnock
The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right about all of the wraparound and complexity. One thing he may have mentioned—I may have missed it—is maintenance and servicing. Once the structures are in place, they require regular maintenance and servicing, which in itself is a huge employment-generating opportunity.
Stephen Crabb
The hon. Gentleman is exactly right about the operations and maintenance role. That is not just a job creator; they are valuable jobs. There is real economic value in those support services.
I come back to the delivery challenges around this big, complicated opportunity. The first challenge relates to leadership and co-ordination. As with the early development of fixed-bottom offshore wind, the support of the UK Government will be crucial in driving forward the political, regulatory and financial support frameworks that are needed to maximise the flow opportunities. I welcome recent positive statements by the Government, but there needs to be much more visible engagement from Ministers when it comes specifically to the Celtic sea opportunity. I have been impressed by the leadership that the Crown Estate has shown, and the work that it is doing to create robust frameworks around the tender process and environmental protections. However, there is a role for UK Government, over and above what the Crown Estate is doing, to push forward the Celtic sea programme. That role starts with setting credible, ambitious targets. We are in a relatively strong position when it comes to the UK’s clear pipeline of offshore projects, which is backed up by a firm commitment from Government. That is critical in increasing investor confidence in the UK market, but Ministers should be going further, perhaps by setting supplementary, longer-term targets to strengthen signals to investors and developers. Ministers should be clear about the UK’s intentions to scale up the sector rapidly in the coming 10 years.
The next area of challenge is getting the right financial architecture in place: a market environment that encourages price competition and industrial development. The contracts for difference have been incredibly effective at reducing the costs of renewable energy projects by reducing wholesale price risk, but the weakness of the structure of the CfD auction scheme is that it considers only the price of projects, and not wider industrial and economic considerations or future cost reductions. The Government should look to reform the CfD system to create a premium or incentive that recognises projects that make substantial commitments to industrial and economic development in the UK and to innovation in the UK. The aim of these reforms should be focused on fostering a market environment in which investment, innovation and economies of scale are incentivised. Consideration should also be given to what form of support can be provided to combined FLOW and hydrogen production projects, which cannot really be assessed alongside conventional FLOW from a cost perspective. I mentioned the work that RWE is doing in Pembroke, looking at the role of floating offshore wind to support hydrogen development, and there probably needs to be a different way of looking at that in terms of price support.
At the heart of the infrastructure challenge are ports. Floating offshore wind will require a lot of port infrastructure. No port close to the Celtic sea is currently ready to handle the key activities for deploying floating offshore wind, but we have a window of opportunity now to address this and ensure that the economic value of deploying these vast structures can be captured for the UK. The FLOWMIS—floating offshore wind manufacturing investment scheme—funding that the Government are making available will help. As far as I am aware, the Government have not yet announced how that money will be used, but a good chunk, if not the lion’s share, should be devoted to supporting the development of the Celtic sea industry.
Given the targets that we are looking to achieve and the scale of activity that will be required, there will be enormous opportunities for all ports across south-west England, Wales and Northern Ireland. There is a clear starting point, and we have already discussed it: the ports of Milford Haven and Port Talbot. Independent reports from the likes of ORE Catapult and FLOW developers have identified Pembroke Dock in the port of Milford Haven and Associated British Ports at Port Talbot as potential anchor ports for floating offshore wind. However, without collaboration and significant investment at both ports over the next decade, the vast majority of the potential £4 billion of benefits could simply go overseas. A combined, dual port solution, with close proximity to the Celtic arrays, has enormous potential to accelerate the deployment of floating offshore wind and increase prospects for UK Government generation goals.
Stephen Kinnock
The right hon. Gentleman is being very generous in giving way, and I thank him for that. He is right that port infrastructure is vital, but another key part of our infrastructure is the national grid. Does he agree that there are real concerns about the capability of the national grid to deliver the power that we need from offshore wind, and that the UK Government need to get round the table with National Grid and Ofgem to make that happen?
Stephen Crabb
I swear I have not shared a copy of my speech with the hon. Gentleman, but he anticipates the next section extremely well. I will just finish this point about the freeport bid. I am not expecting the Minister to comment—it is a live bidding process—but as I said on the Floor of the House yesterday in Levelling Up, Housing and Communities questions, I hope that Ministers will look closely at what is coming forward from Milford Haven, Pembroke Dock within that port, ABP at Port Talbot and the two relevant local authorities, because it is genuinely exciting and represents something different. We should not get hung up on freeport labels; it is about doing something innovative and collaborative that can help to unleash the full economic potential of this opportunity.
Let me get on to grids, before I bring my remarks to a close. The hon. Member for Aberavon (Stephen Kinnock) is exactly right: potentially even more challenging than delivering port upgrades is achieving a serious step change in the way we increase grid capacity and make available new grid connections here in the UK. The planning and consenting processes are ridiculously slow and difficult—they are not fit for purpose. We on the Welsh Affairs Committee in recent months have been taking evidence on the grid infrastructure in Wales. Our report on that will be coming out soon, so I will not pre-empt that. I was pleased in the evidence we took to hear about steps that are being taken by Government to reduce the offshore wind consenting times, but the truth is that we need to see far more urgent action from Government to address grid capacity. The danger is that developers will increase their capabilities and be able to construct and deploy large-scale renewable energy infrastructure way ahead of the planning process, and that cannot be acceptable. We need more anticipatory investment so that new grid networks are built in time for those major new sources of generation and for demand. We could talk about other planning challenges: in the Welsh context, we have the devolved body Natural Resources Wales. Developers are concerned that Natural Resources Wales should be fully equipped to be able to handle the volume and complexity of the planning jobs that they will be asked to do, to assess the impact on seabeds and things like that.
Floating offshore wind represents a major, exciting opportunity for the UK to tackle a number of critical issues: wholesale prices, energy security, job generation, levelling up and net zero. It is an exciting package. Floating offshore wind presents a compelling answer to all those challenges. The key challenges for us to consider are the risks and potential difficulties around delivery, and achieving the scale of offshore and onshore capabilities and systems that will be required just a few years from now. I look forward to hearing from colleagues and the Minister.
![PRESS RELEASE : Environment is yet another casualty of Russia’s war – UK statement to the OSCE [October 2022]](https://www.ukpol.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/fco.png)
The press release issued by the Foreign Office on 19 October 2022.
Nick Ryder (FCDO) highlights the appalling environmental damage caused by Russia’s war in Ukraine, and efforts needed to rebuild Ukraine and its environment.
Thank you Mr Chair. Good morning from London. I would like to thank the Secretary General and the three panellists for their interventions. It is right that the OSCE continues to focus on this topic. Climate change remains an existential threat to our shared environment.
Mr Chair, as Mr Fedorenko, the Ukrainian Deputy Minister of Environmental Protection and Natural Resources has so eloquently set out, the environment is yet another casualty of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. We have seen appalling environmental damage to Ukraine, such as degradation and pollution of land and water, which will take decades to remedy. Russia’s reckless attacks on nuclear facilities risk a catastrophe that could cause continent-wide contamination.
Russia is weaponising energy to support its illegal war and we cannot let it succeed. Energy should never be used as a tool of political coercion. Many countries have now recognised Russia as an unreliable supplier and are limiting their consumption of Russian hydrocarbons which are helping to fund Putin’s war machine. This is why the UK plans to phase out imports of Russian oil by the end of this year. Reducing our collective dependence on Putin’s oil and gas has a practical as well as moral imperative.
Russian forces have destroyed city after city in Ukraine. Helping to rebuild the country and its natural environment will be one of the great tasks for our generation. The UK and our allies will continue to make substantial financial and economic support available to Ukraine to strengthen the resilience of its economy. The UK calls upon the international community to put the principles of environmental protection and sustainable, low carbon development at the heart of this reconstruction effort.
Mr Chair, the brutal attacks in Ukraine have shown the environmental damage that militaries can do. But even militaries at peace can have significant environmental impact. In the UK for example, defence accounts for 50% of central government emissions. In future, our armed forces will embrace the green energy transition, trialling new types of vehicles, fuels standards, and energy storage. Our defence ministry’s Climate Change and Sustainability Strategic Approach report sets out how we will do this.
Mr. Chair, I wish to conclude by highlighting again the importance of this topic. As we have seen in our own region, including recently in Central Asia, climate-related disruptions risk straining existing international security arrangements, creating new geostrategic flashpoints, and raising the potential for further inter-state military competition and conflict.
Finally, we once again call on Russia to cease all hostilities and immediately, completely and unconditionally withdraw all of its troops and military equipment from all of Ukraine. Wars not only damage the environment but they also divert attention and resources away from addressing existential climate challenges and break down the cooperation needed to address them.
The speech made by Lee Rowley, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, in the House of Commons on 18 October 2022.
I congratulate the hon. Member for North Shropshire (Helen Morgan) on securing the debate, on making her case so cogently and, in particular, on talking about the constituents on whose individual circumstances, as she outlined, this issue has had such an impact.
I thank the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) for his contribution, as ever, to an Adjournment debate, and for highlighting the elements of the Northern Ireland approach, which is something for us all to consider. I also thank the right hon. Member for Warley (John Spellar) for the information that he provided. He has written to the Department as well; I am looking at that correspondence and will get back to him as soon as I am able to do so.
As has been clear tonight, the hon. Lady speaks for many Members on both sides of the House in arguing for better protection for people in unfinished housing developments. I cannot comment on individual cases because I do not have all the details in front of me, and obviously there are two sides to every story and different circumstances in each case. However, I would say to people who have been adversely affected by inappropriate practices, whether in North Shropshire or elsewhere, that that is not acceptable; I am sorry they have had that experience, and I hope they can seek redress and correction in any way that is available to them.
I think everyone in the House would agree that we need more homes, but we need them in the right places and we need them when they are constructed. That is often a controversial and difficult process, but when they are constructed, we need them to be of a standard that enables people to live in them. They have to work, and they have to work within the local community that those people are seeking to join. The debate is timely in enabling us to highlight the latter point, because in a minority of instances that might not be the case.
For too many people, at least initially, the dream of home ownership does not live up to their hopes, because they are forced into resolving faults in their new build homes that are not of their making. The delays in getting those issues resolved often leave homeowners out of pocket, in financial stress or, as the hon. Lady suggested, having to engage in lengthy battles with developers to put things right—if the developer concerned is still in place. As a constituency MP, I have had some experience of that in North East Derbyshire, albeit with a developer who did in the end put things right—but it took a while for that to be done, which caused many residents in a number of villages, but one in particular, a significant amount of stress. So on a personal level, from a constituency perspective, I understand the point that the hon. Lady has made.
The Government are unequivocal in stating that all new housing developments should be finished on time and to a standard that buyers expect. If things go wrong, as they sometimes do—we all know that processes are not perfect; the developer sometimes has problems and challenges and we should be reasonable in expecting that—the buyer should be treated fairly and promptly. I would like to say a little bit about the action we are taking to make sure that this is the norm in all new housing developments, wherever they are in the country. This breaks roughly into three different elements. The first is the length of time that it can often take for houses to be developed in the first place. The second involves the infrastructure commitments that the hon. Lady has highlighted, and the third relates to the quality of work in the developments when they are concluded and people begin to live in them. There are often concerns about the quality at that point.
Jim Shannon
I thank the Minister for his helpful response, and again I want to use it to be constructive. Back home there are many developers who sign up to the Master Builders Association agreement. As members of that organisation, they are accountable for the finish of the houses. If at the end the houses are not finished to the standard they should be, the owner has the right to take a complaint to the Master Builders Association, which will ensure that the work is completed to standard. I ask in a constructive way: is that something that could be done here?
Lee Rowley
The hon. Gentleman makes an important point, and I would be interested in hearing more. He will appreciate that I am seven weeks into post and I am still learning, but I would be genuinely interested in understanding the Northern Irish approach, given the information that he has highlighted this evening. Where there are things that are done well, we should be willing as a Government to look at those to see where we can take best practice and apply it on a broader level. I want to understand in more detail what is happening in Northern Ireland, and I will be happy to do that separately with him and his colleagues, if that would be helpful. I would be keen to understand the particular difference that he thinks comes from the Northern Irish approach, and I am always happy to find out more about particular instances and whether they would work on a broader scale, should that be helpful.
Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
Could I perhaps look at the issue the other way round? As in Northern Ireland, housing and planning are entirely devolved to the Scottish Parliament, yet as a Member of this place, I get stuff about housing all the time. Looking at it the other way around, as and when His Majesty’s Government develop clever ways of doing things with housing, taking on board the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire, I would be grateful if those new methods could at least be offered to the Scottish Government in case they could glean something that might improve the housing issues north of the border.
Lee Rowley
The United Kingdom Government are always keen to indicate to the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Government where we might be able to work together and where we think that elements of policy might work for Scotland as well as they work elsewhere in the Union. Occasionally, the Scottish Government are not that keen to listen to His Majesty’s Government, but perhaps, given the hopeful outbreak of consensus on the desire to make progress, that will not occur on this particular subject. I am happy to consider the point that the hon. Gentleman rightly and properly makes.
John Spellar
I think we need to look at two separate, although related, problems. One is about the individual build quality of the houses. The other is about the infrastructure of the estate, which is certainly a problem that I and neighbouring Members of Parliament in the west midlands conurbation are finding. We have to find a way through that. In addition, if a developer goes bankrupt, the titles revert to the Crown Estate, so does not the Crown Estate have an opportunity to play a proactive role here? At the moment it seems to be playing a fairly passive role.
Lee Rowley
I will come to those two points, because I agree there are different elements that we need to consider and unpack. I would be happy to discuss the second point with the right hon. Gentleman in more detail, should he wish.
On completing new housing developments—I accept the hon. Member for North Shropshire made a broader point about further down the chain—the Government are clear that developments should be built out as soon as possible once planning permission is granted. The frustration of local communities where that does not occur is completely understandable. We expect developers and local authorities to work closely together to make this happen.
The Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill, which is in Committee today, will increase transparency on build-out, helping councils and residents to better understand what they can expect from development proposals and putting in place sanctions should the homebuilder fall short. Of course, there are examples where developers will need to vary their approach to building and constructing properties, and of course timeframes will both elongate and reduce as part of that process, but in general we are keen to see that when development is granted permission, often through difficult and sometimes controversial processes, and the clock starts ticking, the development should get moving and conclude as soon as possible.
The hon. Member for North Shropshire rightly highlighted infrastructure. Taking roads as an example—she mentioned a number of examples—when a new development is granted planning permission, councils can currently use section 106 planning obligations, as she indicated, to secure a commitment from developers to construct roads to a standard capable of being adopted by the local highway authority. It is up to developers and local planning authorities to agree on specifics such as timescales and funding, which may include the provision of a bond. This is currently a local decision and, notwithstanding the difficulty she rightly highlighted—she made a constructive suggestion on potential compulsion in this area—there are going to be different circumstances in different instances.
I encourage councils to use bonds where they think it is appropriate. Equally, I do not know whether we want to be so prescriptive as to mandate that from the centre, as there may be instances where it is neither appropriate nor necessary. Hundreds of thousands of houses are built each year in very different parts of the country, so we have to have regard to the fact there are different circumstances. None the less, I accept the premise of what the hon. Lady indicates and, where good practice exists—she indicated the good practice in Oxfordshire, and it also happens in Derbyshire—I encourage councils to use it, where appropriate and reasonable.
Helen Morgan
If compulsion is not appropriate, what about disseminating best practice to all councils in England to encourage them to use this mechanism, where appropriate, to avoid the situation that my hon. Friend the Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone) and I have described? That would be a positive way forward to prevent this happening in future.
Lee Rowley
Within the bounds of localism, and without an individual Minister directing councils to do so, I think it is reasonable to indicate that, where possible, reasonable and proportionate, and where councils think it is appropriate, they should consider using bonds, which are a helpful lever and tool to be used where possible, while accepting that individual local authorities may have different reasons and different views on either using them or not using them. Ultimately, I will leave it to the discretion of individual local authorities to determine the appropriateness of that utility.
Returning to the point about roads, the Government believe it should be made clear to potential purchasers what the arrangements are for the maintenance of roads. Section 38 agreements facilitate the adoption of such roads as highways maintained by the public purse. It is certainly possible for local authorities to adopt streets and roads. Ultimately, though, that is a decision that is taken in relation to how these estates are created and how local authorities want to approach ensuring that they have highways that are at a standard that they can then maintain.
Although I recognise, as has been indicated, that this does not work in a number of instances, if we can balance the appropriateness of localism—of making sure that local areas have the ability to vary how they approach this—while also ensuring that there is a general usage of the tools that are available, I hope that will be reasonable and proportionate.
The other element of the discussion is effectively around the quality of what is delivered at the end of the process when people move in—or by the time they move in. The Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities has also provided local planning authorities with tools to enforce requirements with strong penalties for non-compliance. Again, we encourage councils to use them where possible, and, again, through the Levelling Up and Regeneration Bill we are seeking to strengthen those measures.
I should add that when residents have a complaint about the local planning and highways authority that has not been adequately resolved, they may be able to complain to the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman. I know that, in at least one incident, as the hon. Lady said, the residents of North Shropshire tried to do that. Obviously, the ombudsman is independent, but it is worth reiterating that it is there to redress issues, and I hope that anybody watching this debate who has a similar concern will consider its usage should that be appropriate.
On the matter of delays to completion, warranties and the actual quality of new homes themselves, I know of the problems that new home buyers face regularly and we do not underestimate the detrimental impact that this has. Most new-build home contracts typically have a “short-stop” date, which is an estimated completion date, and a “long-stop” date, which is the date by which a home must be completed in the contract. The rights and responsibilities of the homebuyer and developer should be set out in that contract, including the circumstances in which a deposit and other money is returned.
There are other routes to redress, which we are strengthening, and I will come to those in a moment, because they offer alternatives that the hon. Lady may wish to consider. The status quo currently is that most new-build homes are issued with a 10-year new-build warranty. Home buyers may also be able to complain to the Financial Ombudsman Service about their insurance cover.
Within the first two years of most warranties home buyers may be able to seek to resolve issues with their new homes through that warranty provider. If the new home is covered by one of the consumer codes, they may also be able to help resolve the issues that residents unfortunately face.
Even with those options available to home buyers, we recognise that the system is not in a perfect place. That is why the Government have committed to taking further steps to improve consumer redress. Through the Building Safety Act 2022, we have included a provision that contains a statutory new homes ombudsman scheme, which will place greater accountability on developers and make it easier and simpler for new home buyers to seek redress when things go wrong, which perhaps will move us closer to the Northern Ireland model in terms of outcomes.
In the meantime, and as we consider the next steps for the statutory scheme, the independent New Homes Quality Board has progressed work to set up the voluntary New Homes Ombudsman Service, which will launch shortly. My second visit was to see the launch of a New Homes Quality Board and to see the first developers to be brought onto that scheme. I went to Solihull a couple of weeks ago, and I am grateful to the chief executive for meeting me. It is an important step forward. The scheme is voluntary at the moment, but, equally, that voluntarism gives the opportunity for home buyers to see the different ways in which developers are engaging with that system, and I hope that most developers will in the end engage with that system.
The hon. Lady talked about leasehold at the end of her speech and I just want to dwell on that for a few seconds. We acknowledge that there are practices that are not where they need to be within the leasehold sector, and the Government and previous Ministers have given commitments that we will reform leasehold. We remain of the view that that is what should be done. Although I cannot give the hon. Lady the date she seeks, I am personally committed to trying to take the matter forward and I hope I will be able, with my colleagues, to give further information in fairly short order on the process for that.
In conclusion, this is an important area of policy, and I am grateful to the hon. Lady and all those who have contributed to the debate tonight for the opportunity to talk about it. It is important to note that there are processes already in place that homeowners should use if they are in the unfortunate place described by some people in North Shropshire, which I know is also the case elsewhere. They should seek to use those and seek to—
House adjourned without Question put (Standing Order No. 9(7)).
The speech made by Helen Morgan, the Liberal Democrat MP for North Shropshire, in the House of Commons on 18 October 2022.
I thank the Minister for his attendance and response this evening. I secured this debate following a number of instances in my constituency in which the buyers of new homes have been left to pick up the pieces when critical infrastructure is not completed by the developer.
Let me tell the House first about The Brambles in Whitchurch. That is a development of 14 houses, built by developer Sherwood Homes Ltd in 2016 on land that had already been granted planning permission for development by Shropshire Council. It was a condition of the planning permission that the road, footpath and drainage should all be complete before the occupation of any houses occurred. However, despite those things never happening, building completion certificates were issued for all the properties and they were subsequently sold and inhabited. Unfortunately for the residents, the drainage system failed, leading on some days to raw sewage backing up in their gardens. Sherwood Homes Ltd had not taken out the section 104 agreement required in the planning permission, and not only was the arrangement dysfunctional, but the connection to the Welsh Water sewerage network was illegal, and neither were the road, lighting and footpath completed to an acceptable standard.
In October 2019, a creditor of Sherwood Homes Ltd, which appears to have shared some of the same directors, petitioned for it to be wound up and an order for insolvency was made by the court in December 2019. As a result, Shropshire Council could not take planning enforcement action against Sherwood Homes Ltd, and the residents of The Brambles, who are the successors in title to the private company established to manage the development, have been the subject of the enforcement process. They have been required to accept five-figure charges on their properties in order to rectify the issue of connecting the drainage to Welsh Water’s network. Indeed, the saga has also cost the rest of Shropshire’s taxpayers a considerable amount of time, as council officers have expended time and effort to attempt to rectify the situation.
Shropshire Council believes that the developer’s failure to complete the necessary works before the first house was occupied should have been established by conveyancing solicitors, and the lessons to be learned from this episode are, “buyer beware.” It may be right, but few residents have been able to establish that principle with their solicitors and would not have the resources to begin legal proceedings against them. I believe that some of the home buyers took up the offer of conveyancing services facilitated by the very developer who left them high and dry, raising serious concerns over a potential conflict of interest.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I commend the hon. Lady for securing the debate. Back home in Northern Ireland—I say this to inform the Minister as well—we have a very clear system whereby each developer must put a bond on the property. Therefore, should there be any difficulty in relation to the footpaths and roads not being finished, or if the streetlights are not done and the sewerage fails, that bond can be used for those repairs. Does the hon. Lady feel that the methodology used in Northern Ireland may settle the problems that she refers to, and that the Government and the Minister should look at that option?
Helen Morgan
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that sensible intervention; I will make a very similar suggestion in my speech.
The leader of the council declined my request to undertake a case review of the sequence of events that led to the situation at The Brambles to understand whether the council could have prevented the situation at any point as it evolved. As the law stands, it would appear that she is right. The Building Safety Act 2022 does not cover issues relating beyond the house itself, and the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman declined to consider the case, arguing that:
“Caselaw has established that where a council issues a completion certificate and the work is later found to be substandard, liability for any defects rests with those who commissioned the work and those who carried it out. We cannot therefore hold the Council responsible for substandard work by the developer and we could not achieve any worthwhile outcome for”—
my constituent by investigating the complaint.
This is a very serious case—the most serious case I have seen in North Shropshire—but there are numerous instances in which roads have not been completed to a standard suitable for adoption, streetlights are not installed, shared areas are not landscaped as per planning permission and, in some cases, even the plot sizes vary from the original plan.
I can provide further examples. A development at Isherwoods Way in Wem has been without streetlights and a surfaced road for 10 years; although the situation is about to be resolved, it is not quite there yet. On the west side of my constituency, a site that I cannot name because legal proceedings are under way features an unadopted sewerage system that has not been completed to the required standard. A development in Ellesmere was left without an adopted road and open space when the developing company collapsed. The situation is only being resolved now that the development has been purchased by a major national house builder. The developer of another site in Wem has applied for insolvency despite the road being unadopted, the open spaces not having been landscaped and concerns having been expressed by residents about the water drainage system.
The cost to residents of these sites is not only financial. Untold distress and emotional strain have been caused and an enormous amount of precious time has been spent on resolving the situation. At a recent constituency surgery, one resident told me, “I’m a truck driver. I don’t have time to become an expert on planning control.” His neighbour, a construction worker, described the strain of worrying about everything that could go wrong with the drainage system, and about the cost involved in digging up the road to rectify the faults.
John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)
I have a similar problem in Cranford Street in Smethwick. I find it utterly deplorable that Severn Trent, which is making hundreds of millions and whose chief executive is paid millions, will not take over any responsibility for the sewage that is backing up into people’s homes. People have bought the home of their dreams and are now finding that it has turned into a nightmare.
Helen Morgan
I thank the right hon. Member for his intervention. I have had some productive discussions with Severn Trent on the issue and am about to propose a solution that I hope will help to rectify the situation.
It has become apparent that residents are tied into an impossible situation. They no longer want to live in their homes, but realistically they cannot sell them until the defects are rectified. There are also wider financial ramifications because if any resident defaults on their mortgage, a bank will not be able to sell the property to recover its investment.
The other common theme emerging from all these developments is that homebuyers will be expected to contribute to the costs of maintaining shared areas via a management company to which the title for the shared areas has passed. These companies typically pass on the management cost to the residents at zero profit. However, the ones that I have investigated then subcontract the work to a profit-making company. I am sure that the House will not be surprised to learn that in many such arrangements the subcontractor is related in some way to the original developer.
The companies can charge uncapped amounts indefinitely to the homebuyer, in what is known as a fleecehold—I am aware that several hon. Members have raised the plight of fleeceholders on previous occasions. The management company can be used not only to pass on to the homebuyer the financial responsibility for completing the development, but to extort money for years to come, often for substandard management services. I am aware that the Government have indicated that they will legislate to control such management charges. I urge the Minister not only to commit to a date for such legislation, but to ensure that protections are included to cover previously unfinished developments.
To tackle the issue up front, however, I propose a different course of action. I believe that it is possible for a water company or a local council to obtain a financial bond when a section 104 or section 106 agreement is put in place, such that when critical infrastructure is not completed, funds are still available to complete the work. In addition, there are mechanisms such as section 38 agreements incorporating financial bonds that can be used to ensure that roads are of an adoptable standard. Having spoken to colleagues, I believe that some councils, such as Oxfordshire County Council, use financial bonds for that purpose and to avoid the distressing situations that I have described. I have not been able to establish why that is not standard practice for all councils.
I urge the Minister to consider using the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill to require councils to take a step involving a financial bond before planning conditions are discharged, so that unsuspecting homebuyers are not left with unmanageable costs if their developer goes bust before the site is completed. The principle has already been established in the Government: National Highways requires a bond from local authorities if they propose works affecting the strategic road network, so that significant disruption is avoided if the works are not completed. I am concerned to learn that the changes proposed to the Bill would reduce councils’ ability to use section 106 agreements for smaller developments and would remove current powers to protect homeowners.
The rationale for planning deregulation is that it will enable house building targets to be met by removing barriers to completion, but I would argue that, certainly in the case of North Shropshire, it is not necessary. The evidence does not show that planning regulations are behind slow rates of house building. Shropshire’s local plan contains a target of 30,500 new homes by 2038, but there are already 18,000 planning applications on which consideration has not yet commenced. The current build rate of just under 1,900 houses a year does not suggest that planning permission is the issue holding things up.
I appreciate that requiring a financial bond from new house builders might deter smaller companies from entering the market, but first I question whether homebuyers and council tax payers should be taking on the risk posed by a financially unviable housebuilder; and secondly, it should be possible to find an alternative, such as an investment bond, to combat that risk.
I am extremely concerned about the fact that councils lack the tools they need to ensure that the buyers of new-build homes do not fall victim to rogue developers, and the fact that the effectiveness of the tools they do have may be reduced by the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill. I hope that the Minister will agree to consider making the use of financial bonds as part of section 106 or similar agreements a required practice for councils and water companies, to protect both homebuyers and councils’ own taxpayers from high-risk housing developers.
If the Minister rejects such a solution, however, will he agree to meet me and other stakeholders, such as the Local Government Association, to formulate a practical mechanism to prevent the distress and financial hardship caused by unfinished housing developments? Homebuyers, councils and the wider community need to be confident that they will not be left to the pick up the pieces when a developer fails to deliver. The owners of The Brambles are victims of a rogue developer, and we should act to ensure that their experience is not repeated elsewhere.
The speech made by Allan Dorans, the SNP MP for Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock, in the House of Commons on 18 October 2022.
Good evening, Madam Deputy Speaker. I declare an interest in this matter as a member of both the Committee on Standards and the Committee on Privileges, appointed by this House in May 2021. I regard it as a privilege to serve on those Committees.
I start by agreeing with my friend the hon. Member for Warrington South (Andy Carter) about the lay members. The Committee on Standards consists of 14 members, seven of whom are MPs and seven of whom are lay members appointed by the House of Commons Commission following an extensive and comprehensive open recruitment process. All seven lay members have extensive knowledge and experience of public life at a senior level and bring a fresh non-political and unbiased perspective to the work of the Committee. I commend and thank them for their commitment and contribution not only to the report we are debating tonight but to the other work undertaken by the Committee on Standards. The lay members are invaluable in enabling the Committee to reach decisions that more accurately reflect the mood, consideration, interpretation and judgment of the country as a whole, rather than the narrow conclusions that might be reached by elected Members, with conflicting pressures and interests of their own in their Westminster role and in this echo chamber in which we operate.
The Committee’s recommendations followed our code of conduct review that started in 2020. The Committee took an extensive range of written and oral evidence and commissioned a survey of Members to draw up balanced and informed recommendations, and we were greatly assisted by independent advice from Sir Ernest Ryder, former Lord Justice of Appeal and Senior President of Tribunals for the United Kingdom. Sir Ernest carried out a review of fairness and natural justice in the House’s standards system, and the Committee published his review in March 2022.
Sir Ernest concluded that the inquisitorial process for code of conduct cases is fair and compliant with article 6 of the European convention on human rights—the right to a fair trial. Two of Sir Ernest’s principal recommendations were to create a single code of procedure, to be approved by the House, and to introduce a formal appeal system. The motions before the House today would implement those two central recommendations.
The Committee recommended that the Independent Expert Panel, which was established by the House in June 2020 to hear appeals and determine serious sanctions in bullying, harassment or sexual misconduct cases, should be the appeal body. If today’s motions are agreed, there will be an additional step in the process of investigating and adjudicating on breaches. The independent Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards will continue to investigate allegations of breaches of the code. If the commissioner’s opinion is that the MP has breached the code and it cannot be rectified using her own powers, she will refer the case to the Committee for a decision; this is what already happens.
Once the Committee has published its report, the MP will then have 10 working days to lodge an appeal, if they wish to do so. The grounds are in line with the appeals grounds in Independent Complaints and Grievance Scheme cases. The Independent Expert Panel would then publish the final outcome unless, in the case of a successful appeal, a case is remitted back to the Committee or Commissioner for fresh investigation or decision.
The Committee published its proposed procedural protocol in July 2022, which brings together material from the Commissioner’s information note, the current chapter 4 of the guide to the rules, and parts of the Committee’s own internal guidance into a single document that we hope is accessible and easy to understand. The protocol also sets out the new process for appeals.
I welcome the Government bringing forward today’s motions and I hope that the new protocol and appeals process will give hon. Members and the public confidence in the integrity and fairness of our standards system. I also sincerely hope that the Government will bring forward motions before too long to allow the House to debate and decide on the proposed new code of conduct and guide to the rules, and the important changes that the Committee is suggesting.
The SNP and I support the reform of practices to ensure that hon. Members of this Parliament have a fair process when allegations have been made against them. We also welcome the motion and proposals to ensure that standards in this House are strengthened, and we look forward to engaging on the proposed reforms. We also welcome the Government bringing forward the motions to implement the Committee’s recommendations on appeals and to approve the proposed new procedural protocol.
In addition, we recommend that consideration be given to training and awareness among hon. Members to provide them with information on the proposed changes. An incredible amount of work has been undertaken by the Committee on Standards regarding the motions being brought before the House today. I also lend my support and that of the SNP to the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for North East Fife (Wendy Chamberlain).
The speech made by Chris Bryant, the Labour MP for Rhondda, in the House of Commons on 18 October 2022.
I start by being slightly pernickety, which is to say that I am not a right hon. Gentleman. I do not know whether the Lord President of the Council can do anything about that, but I note that she referred to me as such, for which I am grateful.
On a serious point, historically, we will probably be considered the standards Parliament, because standards have been such a prominent part of the politics of this whole Parliament. As a colleague of 649 of my closest friends, I feel quite painfully the fact that, in this Parliament, 16 Members have already been suspended for a day or more, or have withdrawn from the House before any investigation was completed. That puts this Parliament as having suspended more people than any Parliament in many decades. That, I suspect, is partly because we have put in place the ICGS, which is dealing with work that would previously have been swept under the carpet. Even in my own time in the House, these issues would have simply been dealt with by the Whips and somebody would have been either quietly paid off or told not to complain. I am really glad that that culture is changing, that people feel able to complain when they feel bullied or sexually harassed and that behaviours that were thought to be acceptable 15 or 20 years ago are no longer considered so in the House. We may have more of this before the end of this Parliament, and we just need to bear cognisance of that. Even if we look only at the code of conduct cases, we have ended up suspending more in this Parliament than for a very long time.
I had some very wealthy relatives. When I was young, they taught me that if a person ever inherited money, it was because it had been held in trust. As Members of Parliament, we inherit our seats—not normally hereditary seats, but in some cases they are—and we inherit the reputation of the House that came from previous generations. It is important for us to hold that in trust and pass it on to the next generation of Members of Parliament burnished rather than tarnished. We will have to do a job of work throughout the rest of this Parliament to be able to do that effectively.
The system, I believe, also has to be fair to Members of Parliament. It is phenomenally complex and sometimes, in addition, complicated. An individual Member will be subject to rules of their own party, the ICGS rules, the code of conduct, the Electoral Commission, and the law of the land, and sometimes it is difficult for them to have all those things in their mind. That is why it is so important that the system for Members of Parliament is completely fair, embodies natural justice, and makes sure that the individual complainant—if there is a complainant—and the Member themselves are given an opportunity to put their case and for it to be heard fully. The court of public opinion is not often a fair place. It often jumps to conclusions and decides things far too rapidly. My worry is that, sometimes, our processes happen far too slowly, and that is not justice for either the complainant or the Member, especially as politics has a shelf life—we have elections, for example—and sometimes cases keep going for years, which is not fair on anybody’s mental health either.
Ever since I joined the Committee, I have always wanted us to have some formal process of appeal. I have argued that the system that we have had heretofore provides a sort of form of appeal: if the Commissioner finds against the Member, the Member is allowed a very full opportunity to make their case to the Committee in oral or written evidence. To be honest, it is better that we have a much clearer definition of the roles of the Commissioner and the Committee. That is what Sir Ernest Ryder has provided us with. He gave us a clean bill of health on how we have been operating in the past. He was quite clear in saying that there is not only one way of having a fair trial or hearing; there are many different ways. It might be an inquisitorial system such as we have, but it might be a confrontational system, or an adversarial system, as we have in a court of law. Of course, Committees of the House of Commons are not a court of law; they are fundamentally different. If we went down an adversarial route, the costs would increase dramatically and the length of proceedings would be very different. We have also always had a fundamental principle in the House that a Member speaks for themselves; if they cannot, then I would argue they have slightly lost the plot.
Andy Carter (Warrington South) (Con)
I want to put on record my thanks to the lay members on the Committee. It is a unique Select Committee in Parliament and lay members—members of the public who are selected—play an important part. I am sure the hon. Gentleman will agree with me that the Committee is much stronger for having lay members sitting there alongside parliamentarians.
Chris Bryant
Indeed; that was the next point I was going to make. The hon. Gentleman is very good at doing that in Committee, incidentally, and persuading me of the view that I already hold, but that may just mean that we proceed very much on a consensual basis in the Committee and there is no partisan divide at all. Nor is there a divide between the lay members and the Member members.
There was a point at which people were arguing that MPs should not be involved at all in any of these processes, but I think that is wrong in relation to code of conduct cases. We often end up having a discussion about what casework really involves, or what an all-party parliamentary group does, and I think we make better decisions thereby. However, I do not think we could do that without the lay members and without their having a vote. The balance between the two, the seven lay members and the seven Members, is a good one, and it is sometimes a genuinely fascinating debate, with people offering different perspectives.
On the motions before the House, first, I hope that introducing a procedural protocol that lays out all the processes and what a Member can expect if they have to go through an investigation that ends up going all the way to the Committee will be helpful to all Members. We have laid all that out.
There has been some criticism in the past about whether the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards, who is an adviser to the Committee, should be present when the Committee is considering a memorandum and producing a report on an individual Member. We have decided that from now on—and we are already operating this—the Commissioner will not be present. If we have questions for the Commissioner, we will send them in writing and receive answers in writing, and that will also be available to the Member under consideration.
Secondly, as the Leader of the House has already said, we are introducing an appeal through the Independent Expert Panel. That is a formalised process, and some people may find that that process is stricter than the previous system, because Members cannot appeal just to have a regurgitation of the facts or the argument; there are clear reasons why someone might be able to proceed to appeal, and the appellate body, the IEP, might decide, “I’m sorry, that doesn’t really count. You just want to rehearse the arguments all over again.” Members may find that this is a stricter process, but it closely parallels the situation in many tribunal systems and Sir Ernest Ryder, who had responsibility for the tribunals system in England and Wales, has helped us to get to that position.
There is one other thing that the Leader of the House did not mention, but which I am grateful that the Government have included in the motions. Let us say that the Commissioner recommends that a Member has breached the rules and the Committee decides that there has been a breach of the rules and wants to impose a sanction. We will publish our report, in the way we have done, with the Member concerned getting an embargoed copy an hour before it is published. They will then have a period of time in which to decide whether to appeal. If they do, that goes to the Independent Expert Panel. However, at the end of that process, if the IEP upholds the Committee’s decision and the sanction, the motion should be put to the House forthwith—that is to say, without debate and without amendment, exactly like any other recommendation from the Independent Expert Panel in relation to independent complaints and grievance scheme issues. That makes for perfect clarity and simplicity.
I am grateful, in a way, that the Government have corrected our homework in two regards. The first is in relation to Members’ being allowed to inform their own staff. I think the Government have made that perfectly sensible amendment, which was a sin of omission of ours rather than a sin of commission. The Leader of the House referred to the issue of members of the Committee recusing themselves, which is mentioned in the report and has been raised by some Members. If a member of the Committee has attended only one of the sessions at which an individual case is considered, should they be able to take part in the final decisions? There is nothing in Standing Orders that allows a Committee to prevent a member from taking part; in the end, it is a matter for the member’s own conscience. Broadly speaking, in most of our minds, someone who had not attended the individual Member’s oral evidence would not be able to give them a fair hearing. It is not in the motion—we are relaxed about that—but I wanted to give the House an indication of where we are going on that issue.
I thank both Sir Ernest Ryder and Sir Stephen Irwin. I feel a bit surrounded by knights of the realm sometimes, but it is good to have a new knight of the realm on the Committee—the hon. Member for Broxbourne (Sir Charles Walker), who joined us today. I am grateful to the hon. Member for North East Fife (Wendy Chamberlain); her measure is perfectly sensible. The trouble with conventions and gentlemen’s agreements is that if there is no longer a gentleman on the other side of the agreement, it is no longer an agreement, so it makes perfect sense to put that on the face of the Bill.
The Leader of the House referred to some other issues. Obviously, I would have preferred it if we were dealing with the whole of our report. She referred to how she wants to achieve consensus. We on the Committee think that we have done so, we are open to discussion, but there are some issues I want to raise.
First, we want to ban the provision of paid parliamentary advice, including providing or agreeing to
“provide services as a Parliamentary strategist, adviser or consultant”.
That is self-evident. I think everybody supports it and I would like to make that the rule—it is not yet the rule.
We also think that Members who have second jobs, especially if they are ongoing, should have a contract saying what they and cannot do, because sometimes people will put in a contract, “You will provide contacts with Government on our behalf.” Well, Members cannot do that as that is, expressly, paid lobbying. We think they should be able to provide a contract; the Government disagree.
We want to clarify the serious wrong exemption, which Owen Paterson tried very aggressively and assertively to use as his excuse last year. It just did not wash, but it needs to be clearer for Members.
We want to clarify the paid lobbying rules, which would help out hon. Members a bit, because they are not clear in some areas. At the moment we draw a distinction between a Member “initiating” or “participating” in an approach to or a meeting with a Minister or an official. That is a completely false distinction and we need to get rid of it.
The one big difference I have with the Leader of the House is in relation to the registration of ministerial interests. I know the previous Leader of the House used the line about the constitutional principle of the separation of powers a lot. That is complete and utter baloney. It is nonsense. That phrase has carried on from the previous Leader of the House but one, now I think about it. We do not have a separation of powers. By definition, Ministers are Members of this House. My anxiety is that ministerial offices quite often get the rules about the House wrong, and sometimes Ministers or Members leave staff to do the registration when it is the responsibility of Members. I hope we can get to a better place on that.
It is a fundamental principle that a member of public should be able to look online for a Member—whether they are Minister now, were a Minister a month or six months ago, or have not been a Minister at all this year—and see all the facts about their registrable financial interests, so as to be able to judge whether that Member was acting “without fear or favour”, or was acting with some other consideration in mind. It is, in a sense, even more important for a Minister than it is for others. If two Members, one an ordinary Member of Parliament and one a Minister, go to an air show, with the hospitality, the accommodation and so on paid for by an arms company—it might come to £3,500—it is probably more important for us to know that the Minister was given that hospitality, because it is the Minister who might be making decisions on procurement from that company. Transparency and equality between all Members is really important, and all the information needs to be searchable and findable. We need to do more work on that.
The Government need an adviser on the ministerial code, and I hope that that will come as soon possible. I am very fond of Lord Geidt, who is a magnificent man. I think he felt crushed by the events of the last of years. If we are to hold in trust the reputation of Parliament and of the whole of politics, we must get someone in place as soon as possible.
Like the hon. Member for Warrington South (Andy Carter), I thank the lay members of the Committee. I shall mention only two fully by name, because they have just left: Jane Burgess and Arun Midha have served out their time, and we are recruiting new lay members at the moment. We are one down, and we will need another three next year. Paul, Rita, Mehmuda, Vicky, Michael and Tammy do a magnificent job, and I am enormously grateful to all of them.