House of Commons
(3 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Prayers
(3 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Oral Answers to Questions
(3 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Jack Lopresti (Filton and Bradley Stoke) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Kwasi Kwarteng)
Thank you very much, Mr Speaker.
We announced at the spending review an investment of £14.6 billion in R&D for 2021-22. This will no doubt cement our status as a science superpower here in the UK. We are taking forward the ambitious commitments in the R&D road map, which was published only last year, and we are of course continuing co-operation with the EU through association with the Horizon Europe programme.
Jack Lopresti [V]
Apprentices have played a key role throughout this pandemic, including working on the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine, which is helping the country overcome this virus. Can my right hon. Friend confirm that, in National Apprenticeship Week, he will be working with and encouraging more R&D-based businesses to provide apprenticeship opportunities so that more young people can gain the skills they need to progress in this field?
Kwasi Kwarteng
Absolutely. I thank my hon. Friend for the great work he is doing as co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on apprenticeships. He will know that apprenticeships are a key part of this Government’s plan for jobs as we build back better from the pandemic, and that is why we are offering employers cash payments of up to £2,000 when they hire a new apprentice, until 31 March this year.
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab) [V]
We are all grateful to Britain’s world-leading scientists for blazing a trail of hope in this terrible pandemic, but how are Government protecting science’s future? Medical charity research is predicted to fall by over £4 billion after Government refused support. University research has only been offered loans to cover losses from international students, while 90% of UK researchers are excluded from support, even though the virus prevents them from finishing their research. Postgraduate research students from the nine doctoral training programmes have written to demand action, given the escalating scale of the crisis, and there is a massive reduction in funding for early career researchers. Why are Government not protecting the future of the science that is protecting us?
Kwasi Kwarteng
The hon. Lady seems to be living in a parallel universe. If we look at the vaccine roll-out—we have seen 12.3 million, or nearly 12.3 million, people vaccinated as of this morning—we can see that the strength of the UK science base is really impressive. It is looked on throughout the world as something to aspire to. We are a world-leading science power—a science superpower. I have already mentioned the £14.6 billion that we have committed to R&D, and this is an area where we are confident and world-beating.
David Mundell (Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Paul Scully)
Post offices and postmasters have played an absolutely key role in our communities, especially at this particular time, and I am pleased to report that, of the 25 CJ Lang branches due to close—while discussions continue—CJ Lang has agreed to keep 18 open. Post Office Ltd is actively working on alternative arrangements to ensure continuity of services for affected locations.
David Mundell
My constituents in Eastriggs, Thornhill, Gretna and the Georgetown area of Dumfries will be pleased to hear that their local post offices are not to close at this time, particularly during a pandemic. Can the Minister reassure me, however, that in the negotiations or discussions that are to take place between the Post Office and CJ Lang—or SPAR, as it is known locally—the Post Office will have the flexibility to look at new models of operation of a post office in such a retailer so that that model can meet the needs of the retailer, the needs of the Post Office and, most importantly, the needs of the post office customer?
Paul Scully
My right hon. Friend has been a big champion for post offices in his constituency and across Scotland, including the world’s oldest post office in Sanquhar. I am glad to report that, yes, the Post Office does want to be flexible in delivering postal services across the country, including different models, according to demand.
Navendu Mishra (Stockport) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Amanda Solloway)
Using threats of firing and rehiring as a negotiating tactic is completely unacceptable. That is why this Government have asked ACAS to look into this matter. It is talking to businesses and employee representatives to gather evidence of how fire and rehire has been used in practice.
Navendu Mishra [V]
I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
GoNorthWest bus workers, many of them my constituents, are balloting for industrial action against shameful fire and rehire tactics that would see 10% cuts to wages and jobs and sickness protection policies shredded, all in the middle of a pandemic. With British Airways recently forced to back down from similar threats against cargo staff after targeted strikes by Unite the union, does the Minister agree that Government inaction against this exploitative legal loophole has meant that industrial action and trade union organising are working people’s only defence against disreputable employers?
Amanda Solloway
This Government have an unprecedented record in looking after employee rights, and we expect all employers to treat employees fairly in a spirit of partnership.
Jason McCartney (Colne Valley) (Con)
David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)
Selaine Saxby (North Devon) (Con)
Allan Dorans (Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock) (SNP)
Joy Morrissey (Beaconsfield) (Con)
Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)
The Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Kwasi Kwarteng)
It is well known that we spent over £280 billion on an unprecedented package of support for businesses, including the job retention scheme, support grants and Government-backed loans. I speak regularly with my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer on all the support measures available for businesses, including in the next stage when we try to lead and help them through the pandemic and towards recovery.
Jason McCartney [V]
Hundreds of my local hospitality businesses are extremely grateful for the Government support grants they have received. As the success of the vaccine roll-out allows those businesses to start planning reopening, will my right hon. Friend continue to speak with the Chancellor about helping hospitality businesses, including the wedding industry, as they get back on their feet, perhaps by extending help with VAT and business rates?
Kwasi Kwarteng
As my hon. Friend knows, we speak all the time not only to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer but to the sector; indeed, ministerial colleagues spoke to the sector just yesterday and I have dipped in on roundtables as well. We are very concerned about this; we fully recognise the great efforts my hon. Friend is making on behalf of his constituents, but we are in regular contact with our colleagues in the Treasury.
David Linden
Almost 24,000 retail, hospitality and leisure businesses in Scotland are currently supported by 100% rates relief. That support has been extended until the end of July, but the Scottish Government want to go further and Scottish businesses need us to go further. However, due to borrowing constraints placed on Scotland’s Parliament, the funding necessary to extend further can only come from the UK Government, so does the Secretary of State agree that his Government should step up and fund this relief for another year?
Kwasi Kwarteng
What I do agree with is the fact that we have extended an unprecedented range of support and measures. I am in regular contact with my right hon. Friend the Chancellor; he has taken a nimble approach, and I look forward to engaging with him on what further support we can supply.
Selaine Saxby [V]
The hospitality supply chain has remained open despite a significant loss of earnings to continue supplying the NHS and schools that have to be open. Here in North Devon, Philip Dennis and Savona delivered to people’s homes and operated pop-up click and collect venues when many vulnerable households struggled for supermarkets slots. However, these companies are not eligible for the same support as the hospitality businesses they normally service; will my right hon. Friend ensure that they have the support they need so they are still trading when our hospitality sector reopens?
Kwasi Kwarteng
As my hon. Friend knows, in January the Chancellor announced an additional £500 million in grant funding to local authorities for the additional restrictions; this discretionary funding enables local authorities to support businesses, including, as she pointed out, those in supply chains that have been adversely impacted by restrictions but are ineligible for other measures. This funding comes on top of the £1.1 billion allocated in November 2020.
Allan Dorans [V]
If the furlough scheme is not extended beyond April, Scotland, like the rest of the UK, will face mass unemployment, with the consequent damage to businesses, communities, families and the mental health of hundreds of thousands of people. Will the Secretary of State therefore urge the Chancellor to take urgent action to ensure that this is avoided by extending furlough?
Kwasi Kwarteng
I am absolutely mindful of the immense pressures our businesses right across the UK are suffering under at the moment. I am in regular contact with my right hon. Friend the Chancellor, who has acted in an unprecedented way; as I have said, he has put £280 billion into the economy to help our struggling businesses. But of course we are looking at the situation as it evolves, and we are very keen to help our economy through this.
Joy Morrissey [V]
May I congratulate my right hon. Friend again on his new position and on behalf of the 3,700 businesses across Beaconsfield that have benefited from the £200 million-worth of Government-backed loans since the start of the pandemic? Will he join me in paying tribute to Buckinghamshire Council for its excellent work in ensuring that businesses are supported during the pandemic, and confirm that he will continue to offer all the support he can to protect jobs and keep businesses afloat so that we can look to not only restart our economy but build back better from the pandemic?
Kwasi Kwarteng
Throughout this crisis, as I am sure my hon. Friend is aware, the Government have stood by businesses, as she mentioned, and worked tirelessly to protect people’s jobs and livelihoods across the entirety of our country. As we emerge from the pandemic, we will ensure that we seize the initiative, as she put it, to build back better, greener and faster from this pandemic.
Patrick Grady
Does the Secretary of State not accept that, if people who are excluded from support packages are forced to wind up their businesses and move to universal credit or social security, that is more costly to the Government and damaging to the economy in the long run? Surely it is better to bring the excluded in from the cold now than to pay the long-term costs of exclusion in the future.
Kwasi Kwarteng
I fully appreciate—this is our key message as a Government—that jobs and employment are a No. 1 priority. That is exactly why my right hon. Friend the Chancellor extended the furlough scheme. I am in constant conversation with him about how better to provide support for our economy under this distress.
Edward Miliband (Doncaster North) (Lab)
Businesses are facing a £50 billion bombshell in less than two months as Government support packages are due to end, and there is still no clarity about the future. The Secretary of State must realise that the Budget is too late. Businesses are making decisions now about their future and that of their workers. The CBI director general said a week ago:
“Businesses are currently completely in the dark when planning for the weeks and months ahead and this is hindering investment.”
The Secretary of State’s job is to stand up for our businesses, so can he explain to them why, yet again, they are being left completely in the dark?
Kwasi Kwarteng
What I will explain is the fact that, in four weeks in the job, I have seen 200 business leaders. I meet the BROs—the business representative organisations —constantly, and I am in constant dialogue with them to ensure that the Government provide the support. We have provided £280 billion so far, which is beyond any precedent that we have seen. We are in constant conversation not only with our stakeholders but with the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
Edward Miliband
Excuses are no substitute for a plan. Businesses need clarity and certainty, and they are not getting it from the Government. Let me turn to another critical issue facing them. We want them to succeed in our new trading relationship with the EU, but according to Make UK, 60% of manufacturers are experiencing disruption, the fashion industry says it faces “decimation”, and hauliers are warning of a permanent reduction in trade. What personal, tangible action is the Business Secretary taking to get a grip and deal with the mountains of red tape now facing our businesses?
Kwasi Kwarteng
Of course, Mr Speaker, you will remember that, ahead of the Brexit deal, we were told that there was never going to be a deal and that we were going to crash out with no deal. We were told all sorts of scare stories about what would happen with Brexit. I fully accept that there are issues on the border, and I fully accept that many of the business leaders I have spoken to have raised issues, but I think the situation is far better with a deal—ask Nissan in Sunderland—than was the case, certainly, only three months ago.
Stephen Flynn (Aberdeen South) (SNP) [V]
I have been listening closely, and so far the Secretary of State has failed to give a long-term commitment to the furlough scheme, he has failed to provide any certainty whatsoever on business rates, and he has failed to back support for the excluded. As was just referred to, businesses are not just dealing with the damage caused by the pandemic; they are also facing the chaos of Brexit. Exports from the UK to the EU are reportedly down by 68%, and just 10,000 out of 50,000 customs agents are in place. Can the Secretary of State confirm just how bad things need to be before his Government set aside their dogma and instead ask the EU for a grace period in order to protect Scottish businesses?
Kwasi Kwarteng
I remind the hon. Gentleman that the Brexit debate is over; he, for his own purposes, wants to rekindle this. The business leaders I have spoken to have been extremely grateful for the fact that we got a deal, which he and others opposed—they also predicted that we would not get one. We are moving forward with an active plan and active engagement with the economy. Some £280 billion has been proffered so far. That is a picture that he fails to recognise.
Stephen Flynn
It is probably helpful to advise the Secretary of State that in Scotland the Brexit debate is far from over—in fact, we are just getting started. But I will take it from his answer that there will not be any grace period for Scottish businesses. However, there is one area where I hope he can provide some positive news: in relation to the North sea transition deal. The perfect storm of the pandemic and price crashes has seen 12,000 jobs associated with the North sea go already—and sadly, more are expected to follow. Can the Secretary of State confirm that he still expects the deal to be signed by the end of March, as his predecessor stated in the House? Will he agree to meet me and my colleagues in the city to discuss this hugely important matter?
Kwasi Kwarteng
The hon. Gentleman is quite right. He will be courteous enough to acknowledge that, as Energy Minister, I was directly involved in the conversations ahead of the North sea transition deal. I was very much in favour of bringing forward the completion of the deal. I am hopeful that we can manage to reach a really good deal, in which the sector accepts the need for decarbonisation very quickly.
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD) [V]
The UK is a key player in supporting the research happening in developing countries that will be essential to putting an end to the pandemic and allowing our businesses to recover. Is the Secretary of State aware of the devastating blow that overseas development aid cuts will be to businesses and could be to our position as a global science leader, sending a message that the UK is not a reliable partner in long-term science advancement and business across the world?
Kwasi Kwarteng
I do not accept that any change in overseas development aid money will undermine our position as a global science superpower. As I said earlier, the science community around the world has been extremely impressed with how we are proceeding with the vaccine roll-out and the great innovation that takes place in this country.
Rachel Hopkins (Luton South) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Paul Scully)
As part of the Government’s unprecedented package of business support, worth £285 billion, hospitality businesses have access to the coronavirus job support scheme, grants, loans, reduced VAT, a business rates holiday and a moratorium on commercial evictions. We keep those and all support under review.
Rachel Hopkins [V]
I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
It is Heart Unions Week, and I am pleased that Unite the union has published a hospitality and tourism recovery plan that outlines how the Government could safeguard jobs, protect working standards and rescue the sector. Does the Minister agree that it is important that the Government should work closely with trade unions and hospitality businesses to create a sector recovery strategy and that extending the job retention scheme, introducing rapid testing for hospitality staff and creating a hospitality commission to retrain workers would provide the sector with certainty to help bounce back better?
Paul Scully
I thank the hon. Lady. We work with the sector and also with trade unions; I am in constant discussions with them about their various sectors. Yes, it is important that we work together with the hospitality sector on reopening it, allowing it to recover and growing its resilience. I am talking not just about the support; given the 12.3 million vaccinations that have gone out to date, we will soon be able to reopen the hospitality sector and allow it to bounce back.
John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Amanda Solloway)
My hon. Friend will be aware of the great support that the Government have already given. The Government continue to offer unprecedented support through packages for businesses worth more than £280 billion. That includes loan schemes, grant funding, tax deferrals, the self-employment income scheme and, of course, the coronavirus job retention scheme. All have been designed to be accessible to businesses in most sectors and across the UK.
John Lamont
I am grateful for that response. As the Minister will know, the damaging tariffs from the US-EU trade dispute are punishing textile mills in my borders constituency. Textile bosses tell me in no uncertain terms that these tariffs are going to cost us jobs and investment. Will the Minister agree to meet me and representatives from the textile sector in my constituency to discuss opportunities to support them during this difficult time?
Amanda Solloway
My hon. Friend has been a huge champion for Scottish textiles, and we are working hard to de-escalate the dispute and get punitive tariffs removed. Either I or the Secretary of State would be very happy to meet him and representatives from the textile sector in his constituency. I know that the Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Scully)—the Minister for small business—continues to engage with stakeholders from across the retail and consumer goods sector.
Tonia Antoniazzi (Gower) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Paul Scully)
We keep the safer workplaces guidance under continuous review. Public Health England and the Health and Safety Executive advise that the guidance remains robust on the basis of current scientific advice.
Tonia Antoniazzi [V]
The answer that the Minister has given does not reflect the situation facing a lot of my constituents who work at the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency in Swansea. If the Government themselves cannot put in place suitable infrastructure to protect employees and substantially change their practices at the DVLA, how can they expect other companies to do so? Will he commit to speaking to his Secretary of State about the issue?
Paul Scully
I regularly speak to the Secretary of State about such issues. In the event of a workplace outbreak, businesses should follow the advice outlined in their action card guidance, and that includes departments such as the DVLA. The guidance is designed by the Department of Health and Social Care for specific out- break situations, and businesses should contact their local PHE health protection team if necessary.
Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough) (Lab) [V]
“The effects are non-permanent or reversible, non-progressive and disability is temporary”.
Those are the words of the Minister for Employment in justifying why covid-19 has not been categorised as a “serious” workplace risk. Some 112,000 British citizens are dead, tens of thousands are experiencing long covid, and many more have permanent damage to vital organs, but only 0.1% of complaints result in an enforcement notice. This is serious, and re-categorisation is urgently needed. The UK continues to suffer the highest covid death toll in the world, but with such a disregard for workplace safety, is it any wonder?
Paul Scully
We work with Public Health England and with the Health and Safety Executive to ensure that we have the best safer workplace guidance, and if there are specific examples where that is not working, I would be happy to take that on board, but with 12.3 million first-dose vaccinations undertaken to date, hopefully we can get through this period and have even safer workplaces as the economy comes back to normal.
Andy Carter (Warrington South) (Con)
Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)
The Minister for Business, Energy and Clean Growth (Anne-Marie Trevelyan)
We are matching the UK’s world-leading net zero ambition with world-leading action. The Prime Minister’s 10-point plan for a green industrial revolution will accelerate our path to net zero with £12 billion of Government investment, including a commitment to power every home in the UK with offshore wind by 2030. In December, we published the energy White Paper and we will publish our net zero strategy ahead of COP26.
Andy Carter [V]
I thank the Minister for her statement. Could she expand on some of the points she makes, particularly the support that small businesses in towns such as Warrington might expect to receive to reduce their carbon emissions and contribute to net zero targets at a time when many are concerned about the costs of day-to-day business in the light of covid?
Anne-Marie Trevelyan
We recognise the challenges that SMEs are facing and we want to work with businesses to build that green recovery, so we are offering up to £6 million with a boost in SMEs’ access to energy efficiency competitions to develop green solutions. Through the SME net zero working group, we are hearing from businesses how we can go even further to support them. Financial savings are available to businesses taking steps to achieve net zero, and I would encourage SMEs to sign up to the Race to Zero campaign.
Henry Smith [V]
A year ago, the UK airline industry committed to net zero carbon by 2050. What support and assistance has the Department been providing to this important sector, which is suffering loss at the moment, so that it can contribute in the future?
Anne-Marie Trevelyan
The Government are backing the airline sector to achieve net zero, committing £3.9 billion, with industry, to fund aerospace research and development from 2013 to 2026. This includes the FlyZero project, to study in depth the potential for zero emission aircraft. We are also investing £125 million in the future flight challenge, to enable the use of new forms of green and autonomous aircraft.
Stephen Kinnock (Aberavon) (Lab)
The Minister for Business, Energy and Clean Growth (Anne-Marie Trevelyan)
First, I wish to offer my sympathies to all the families affected in the Skewen floods. My officials have been updated by the Coal Authority on the flooding in Skewen on a regular basis and on the work that it and local partners are doing to support the community, remediate the site and allow people to return safely to their homes. I will be meeting people from the Coal Authority shortly to discuss its work and the investments it is making to reduce the risk of this ever happening again.
Stephen Kinnock [V]
My constituents in Skewen have been devastated and traumatised by the flooding that ripped through their homes on 21 January. The disused mine workings that caused this incident are the responsibility of the Coal Authority and, ultimately, of the UK Government. Will the right hon. Lady therefore ensure that the Government fill the gaps not covered by insurance and provide financial support to those who are not insured? Does she agree that not a single Skewen resident should be left out of pocket by this terrible flooding?
Anne-Marie Trevelyan
The hon. Gentleman is a wonderful advocate for his constituents, and I hope very much to be able to visit Skewen with him and talk personally to those affected. The Coal Authority does not have liability for flooding; flooding, whether from a river, stream or groundwater, is mainly dealt with through insurance, and I know that the Welsh Government emergency grant equivalent of the Bellwin scheme for those affected by flooding in England provides a higher sum. So I look forward to working with him and to hearing directly from his constituents as soon as we can arrange this.
Chris Grayling (Epsom and Ewell) (Con)
The Minister for Business, Energy and Clean Growth (Anne-Marie Trevelyan)
The UK has expertise and assets to support both green and blue hydrogen. Our twin-track approach to enable both routes, in line with our 2030 5 GW ambition, will drive cost-effective supply volumes in the 2020s, while scaling up green hydrogen.
Chris Grayling [V]
My right hon. Friend is right to talk about both forms of hydrogen. Ideally, of course, we would all be using entirely green hydrogen—as she knows, there are problems with the renewable transport fuel obligation, which I hope she will be able to sort out—but blue hydrogen is going to be part of what we need in the coming decades. What steps is she taking to ensure that we provide the right support for the carbon capture that must, by definition, go alongside the production of blue hydrogen so that it is genuinely a net zero fuel?
Anne-Marie Trevelyan
We are committed to making the UK a global leader in developing carbon capture and hydrogen production, so we are supporting both through new commercial frameworks and financial support, via our £1 billion for a carbon capture and storage infrastructure fund and £240 million for our net zero hydrogen fund.
Dr Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test) (Lab)
I welcome the Prime Minister’s 10-point plan announcement of the proposal to develop 5 GW of low-carbon hydrogen production capacity by 2030 and, as the Minister has mentioned, the £240 million net zero hydrogen fund to support that. Is it her intention to deploy that fund to support the production of green hydrogen and not to use any part of it to support production capacity consisting of grey or blue hydrogen?
Anne-Marie Trevelyan
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his support for the 10-point plan, which I think the whole House believes is the right way forward. The £240 million net zero hydrogen fund is, of course, only one element of this, and we are supporting innovation, heat trials, standards, business models and a revenue mechanism to stimulate that private sector investment which is so important. This is going to put the UK firmly at the front of the pack. We will be setting out much more detailed work later in the year when I publish the hydrogen strategy.
Mick Whitley (Birkenhead) (Lab)
Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Amanda Solloway)
As I made clear to the hon. Member for Stockport (Navendu Mishra), the use of threats of firing and rehiring as a negotiation tactic is completely unacceptable. We expect all employers to treat employees fairly and in the spirit of partnership. Laws are in place to ensure fair treatment in respect of employment contracts and redundancy matters.
Mick Whitley [V]
Heathrow firefighters, engineers, campus security, baggage handlers, terminal operators and more are taking strike action today against disgraceful fire and rehire abuses by management that have resulted in pay cuts of up to 25% for thousands. Ministers may call these tactics unacceptable, but with greedy bosses and shareholders using covid as a cover for long-held plans to slash wages, what steps are they actually taking to stop Heathrow exploiting its workers in this way?
Amanda Solloway
As previously mentioned, the Department has engaged ACAS to hold discussions to generate valuable evidence about the use of fire and rehire. The Government will communicate our response to the evidence in due course.
Andrew Gwynne [V]
Warm words from the Minister, but fire and rehire is an outrageous tactic that is sadly growing in popularity. The latest large company to jump on the bandwagon is Tesco, where staff at the Livingston depot are facing pay cuts of between £4,000 and £13,000 a year—this while profits are soaring thanks to these same essential workers who have worked tirelessly throughout the pandemic to keep families fed. When will the Government do what it takes to stop Tesco and other rogue bosses ripping off their workers? Or will they just wring their hands and wait for a report that they will simply ignore? We want action, Minister.
Amanda Solloway
Having worked for a retailer—Sainsbury’s—for 13 years, I would like to acknowledge the hard work that we know all the people in retail do. However, I reiterate that the Department engaged ACAS to hold discussions in order to generate valuable evidence on the use of fire and rehire.
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Kwasi Kwarteng)
Since becoming Secretary of State, I have met a number of representatives of our highly successful automotive sector to discuss future opportunities for the UK and to emphasise our Government’s commitment to the continued growth of the sector.
Justin Madders
As the Secretary of State will know, a decision is due soon on whether a new vehicle will be built at Vauxhall Motors in Ellesmere Port. Does he agree that if the Government are truly ambitious about investment in the post-Brexit world, securing green growth and the levelling-up agenda, they will do everything in their power to make sure that we get the right decision for the Ellesmere Port plant?
Kwasi Kwarteng
I recognise the importance of the Ellesmere Port plant locally and fully appreciate the work that the hon. Gentleman has done to keep it open. I want to see its future secured. We are committed to ensuring that the UK continues to be one of the best global locations for automotive manufacturing. I am happy to meet the hon. Gentleman, should he wish, and I have met representatives from Vauxhall as well.
Mrs Pauline Latham (Mid Derbyshire) (Con)
Imran Ahmad Khan (Wakefield) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Paul Scully)
Our recent report on workplace support is clear that employers’ policies can play a significant role in helping victims of domestic abuse. We will work with employers to support that role and encourage good practice, which includes employers signing up to the Employers’ Initiative on Domestic Abuse and managers downloading the Bright Sky app by Hestia.
Mrs Latham [V]
Domestic abuse is a heinous crime that destroys lives and families, and it is vital that every part of society works together to prevent it from happening. Will my hon. Friend confirm that his Department is working with businesses to help to build their awareness of domestic abuse and ensure that they notice the warning signs and help workers to access the support that they may need?
Paul Scully
My hon. Friend has been a huge champion of tackling abuse, both here in this country and internationally. As set out in our recent report on workplace support, we will work across Government to raise awareness with businesses and victims’ representatives. From a business point of view, it tackles the £1.9 billion productivity stretch, and employers have a duty of care, just as with bullying, stress and mental health. Clearly, wider awareness can save lives.
Imran Ahmad Khan [V]
Several organisations in Wakefield, including Penny Appeal, have joined the Employers’ Initiative on Domestic Abuse, which empowers businesses to take positive action for their employees affected by domestic abuse. This is a crucial step in providing support at a time when the levels of domestic abuse have sadly risen. Will my hon. Friend kindly outline what additional steps his Department is taking to help businesses supporting victims of domestic abuse?
Paul Scully
The Employers’ Initiative on Domestic Abuse has 500 members so far signed up to it, covering 6 million employees. What we can do is work with other colleagues across the House to make sure that we get more signatories to the initiative and more support for employers, as well as employees, and that we can signpost the support where appropriate.
Sam Tarry (Ilford South) (Lab)
The Minister for Business, Energy and Clean Growth (Anne-Marie Trevelyan)
We have introduced safer working guidance so that workers, including gas and electricity meter readers, can continue to work safely during national restrictions. This guidance is kept under constant review and updated in line with the latest scientific evidence.
Sam Tarry
Meter readers can visit between 50 and 200 properties a day, sometimes more in large cities. A large majority of these meter readers and their unions, such as the GMB, do not believe that it is right to enter those properties and put themselves and others at risk for the sake of someone getting an accurate gas or electric meter bill. Will the Minister listen to meter readers up and down the country and call for an end to internal meter readings during lockdown, to protect both meter readers and householders?
Anne-Marie Trevelyan
There was an extensive series of engagements to support the drafting process for the safer working guidance, with more than 1,000 users responding. The safer working guidance has had 3.3 million views, and the evidence shows that it is working well and supporting those who are doing the incredibly important work of keeping utility services going. My door is always open, and I would be very happy to discuss any concerns with the hon. Gentleman and his constituents.
Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)
Mark Logan (Bolton North East) (Con)
Simon Baynes (Clwyd South) (Con)
The Minister for Business, Energy and Clean Growth (Anne-Marie Trevelyan)
The UK is a major global market for renewables, and we have world-leading ambitions for deployment. We aim to deliver up to double the renewable capacity at the next contracts for difference round at the end of this year, compared with the last round. We are spending £160 million to support new port and manufacturing infrastructure needed to achieve our 40 GW offshore wind ambition, which will secure local jobs and benefits.
Alex Cunningham [V]
We all know how essential it is to provide our industries with renewable energy at an affordable cost, but it is also essential for the transportation of energy through the national grid so that firms in my area such as CF Fertilisers do not face even greater costs. What will the Minister do to ensure that there is a first-class regulatory environment for all energy transportation, including a fair system for shorthaul gas still being considered by Ofgem?
Anne-Marie Trevelyan
We have ambitious targets for future decarbonisation and the systems that will go with it. We will be publishing an industrial decarbonisation strategy in the very near future, which will help to support businesses as we look at all the issues that the hon. Gentleman raises.
Mark Logan [V]
I declare an interest. I have been listening to too many Elon Musk conversations on what is now all the rage, which is the Clubhouse app. What support can be provided to help Bolton to explore green technology opportunities, especially electric vehicles, boosting our local job market and future growth?
Anne-Marie Trevelyan
I am delighted to see my hon. Friend championing the north-west and the opportunities that our green industrial revolution will bring to his area. The north-west is incredibly well placed to benefit from our £1 billion commitment to become a world-leading sector in technology to capture and store harmful emissions away from the atmosphere. We have also launched the green jobs taskforce, which will help us to develop plans for green jobs, including in the new green automotive sector across all regions, and we advise on what support will be needed for people who are in those transitioning industries.
Simon Baynes [V]
Can the Minister comment on the opportunities for companies in Clwyd South and elsewhere in Wales offered by the latest £11 million round of the UK Government’s energy entrepreneurs fund, which is dedicated to driving forward new clean technologies?
Anne-Marie Trevelyan
Wales’s promising clean tech entrepreneurs are urged to bid for the latest £11 million of Government funding, which is going to support between 15 and 20 projects, with successful bidders receiving up to £1 million each. The funding available through the energy entrepreneurs fund is open to all eligible companies across England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, and I look forward to seeing their submissions.
Dame Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Paul Scully)
The Government have invested an additional £14 million to support the Health and Safety Executive’s enforcement of health and safety laws. My Department has provided guidance on safer working in response to covid-19 that helps to inform the HSE’s monitoring and enforcement activities. This guidance is kept under continuous review.
Dame Angela Eagle [V]
Given the emergence of new, more transmissible strains of covid-19, why has the Minister not updated his Department’s workplace guidance with stronger recommendations on ventilation, personal protective equipment and the increasing requirement for effective surface disinfectants to be used, so that everyone can be kept safe at work?
Paul Scully
The HSE and Public Health England continue to look at the guidance, and they believe that it is robust enough for the new variants. It has been very clear, right from the outset, that ventilation is an important weapon in tackling covid.
Saqib Bhatti (Meriden) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Kwasi Kwarteng)
In my first four weeks as Secretary of State, I have met with more than 100 businesses —virtually, of course—up and down the country. I have been hugely impressed by the positivity, determination and sheer grit that our businesses have shown in spite of the immense challenges they are facing. I am pleased that we can now offer lateral flow testing to businesses with 50 or more employees, providing new support to small and medium-sized enterprises across the UK. As we have seen with the vaccine roll-out, it is thanks to our brilliant scientists and our brilliant science base that more than 12 million people have now received their first dose of a covid vaccine.
Saqib Bhatti [V]
In recent years, the Greater Birmingham and Solihull area has seen the setting up of the highest number of start-ups in the country outside London. Will my right hon. Friend set out his plans to support start-ups in my constituency of Meriden, so that they can continue to set up, thrive and survive after covid?
Kwasi Kwarteng
My hon. Friend is utterly committed to supporting growth and entrepreneurship in his area. I am fully aware that he was a director of business support for four years for the Greater Birmingham and Solihull local enterprise partnership. He will know that our Government continue to back growth and recovery across the UK. I think, in his own constituency of Meriden, we have done this through £90.9 million of covid loan scheme support.
Lucy Powell (Manchester Central) (Lab/Co-op) [V]
Well, I have listened to the Secretary of State’s answers so far, and I am afraid that he is all mouth and no trousers. Let’s try again, shall we? Businesses face a £50 billion bombshell in April, yet many in hospitality, retail and services will not even be open by then. Councils are sending out business rates bills as we speak and difficult decisions are being made now. Does the Minister agree personally with Labour’s plan to extend the business rates holiday for at least six months as well as the furlough while public health measures remain, in order to deal with this bombshell before it blows a big hole in our economy?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Paul Scully)
I am glad that the hon. Lady has been listening to the same businesses that I have been listening to for the last year, as they have talked about the cliff edge that they face and their big fixed costs, whether those are business rates, VAT or the rent moratorium, all of which we are recognising. We are continuing our conversations with the Treasury, because it is so important that as we reopen the economy, and look to get customers back to a safe and warm welcome to retail and hospitality, we also have a flexible approach to our financial support in order to tackle this difficult period.
Darren Henry (Broxtowe) (Con)
Kwasi Kwarteng
Local authorities, as my hon. Friend knows, receive funding to support closed businesses through grants of up to £3,000 for each four-week period of closure. In addition, closed businesses can receive up to an extra £9,000 as a one-off payment for the current period of national lockdown. Local authorities, as I am sure he is aware, are also in receipt of discretionary funding, sharing £1.6 billion of the additional restrictions grant.
Dan Carden (Liverpool, Walton) (Lab)
Kwasi Kwarteng
I am very pleased to announce that I and my ministerial colleagues have stated again and again that fire and rehire is completely unacceptable. I was in regular contact with British Gas—Centrica, as it is now called—as Energy Minister, and I have impressed upon it the need to engage with its workforce and treat them with utter integrity and fairness.
Andrea Leadsom (South Northamptonshire) (Con)
Kwasi Kwarteng
I am very pleased to be responding to my right hon. Friend. I very much enjoyed working with her in the Department and I am pleased that she is taking such an interest in our activities. In answer to her question, I would suggest that this is about policy, not regulation. The Government expect lenders to be constructive in their dealings with businesses in difficulty. I am glad to hear that in this instance her constituents are getting the support that they need from the bank, but bank regulations on forbearance are a matter for the independent Financial Conduct Authority.
John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)
Kwasi Kwarteng
As the right hon. Gentleman well knows, my door is always open, and I am very happy to meet him to discuss this issue. I recall that when my right hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells (Greg Clark) was in my place, it was a very delicate situation, but I am happy to discuss with the right hon. Gentleman ideas on how we can ameliorate it.
Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con) [V]
Paul Scully
I have been continuing to have conversations with landlords and tenants to encourage constructive conversations to see what happens after the moratorium. Those tenants who can pay should pay, while landlords should show forbearance for the medium to long term, and that includes local authorities. In government, whether central or local, we should be setting that example.
Carol Monaghan (Glasgow North West) (SNP) [V]
Kwasi Kwarteng
The hon. Lady is absolutely right: we have to look after the interests of our whisky exporters. It is a key interest. I have spoken to Karen Betts I think twice in my first month precisely on that issue, and I am very hopeful that we can get it resolved.
Marco Longhi (Dudley North) (Con) [V]
Kwasi Kwarteng
Dare I say it, that was an excellent question, which goes to the heart of what this whole period has taught us. The fact that we managed to procure, develop and distribute so many vaccines has been a great story for not only our science base, but UK innovation. I am sure that it will be studied in years, even decades, to come. Finally, my hon. Friend is absolutely right to say that the surest way of helping our businesses is to ensure that we can reopen our economy in a safe way.
Julie Elliott (Sunderland Central) (Lab) [V]
Paul Scully
We always keep the guidance under review. There are twice-weekly meetings with BEIS, the HSE and Public Health England to tackle those issues, and we will certainly take away that specific point.
Caroline Ansell (Eastbourne) (Con) [V]
Kwasi Kwarteng
My hon. Friend is right, and I fully appreciate how key the hospitality sector is to her constituency of Eastbourne, which I have visited many times, even before I was elected to this place. The Government have introduced pay as you go measures, as I am sure she is aware, which give borrowers flexibility when repaying their bounce-back loans. In terms of the other measures that she mentions, I am in constant dialogue with the Chancellor. We are looking at the economy and the situation as it evolves daily—minute by minute, almost—and we hope that we can provide the flexible support that we have in the last year.
Dan Jarvis (Barnsley Central) (Lab) [V]
Kwasi Kwarteng
I am absolutely open and prepared to work with the hon. Member. I have visited him in my capacity as Under-Secretary of State in the Department for Exiting the European Union. I think we also met when I was Minister of State. I am very happy to work with him and discuss his ideas about regeneration and growth.
Jeff Smith (Manchester, Withington) (Lab) [V]
Kwasi Kwarteng
I am absolutely aware of that issue. It is almost inevitable that we will be asked by the CCC to include those contributions in our budgets. As COP26 hosts, we will obviously want to hold ourselves to the highest standards, in terms of carbon emissions.
Mr Speaker
I am suspending the House for a few minutes to enable the necessary arrangements for the next business to be made.
Covid-19 Update
(3 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Matt Hancock)
With permission, I would like to make a statement on new measures to keep this country safe from coronavirus. Thanks to our collective efforts, we are turning a corner. Cases of coronavirus have fallen 47% in the last two weeks, and they are falling in all parts of the UK, but we are not there yet. Hospitalisations are falling, but there are still many more people in hospital than at the April or November peaks, and the number of deaths, while falling, is still far too high.
Our vaccination programme is growing every day. We have now vaccinated over 12.2 million people—almost one in four adults in the United Kingdom—including 91.4% of people aged 80 and above, 95.9% of those aged between 75 and 79, and 77.2% of those aged between 70 and 74, who were the most recent groups to have been invited. We have also vaccinated 93.5% of eligible care home residents. We have made such progress in protecting the most vulnerable that we are now asking people who live in England who are aged 70 and over and have not yet had an appointment, to come forward and contact the NHS. You can do that by going online to nhs.uk, or dialling 119, or contacting your local GP practice, so that we can make sure that we reach the remaining people in those groups, even as we expand the offer of a vaccine to younger ages.
These are huge steps forward for us all, and we must protect this hard-fought-for progress by making sure we stay vigilant and secure the nation against new variants of coronavirus that put at risk the great advances that we have made. Coronavirus, just like flu and all other viruses, mutates over time, so responding to new variants as soon as they arise is mission critical to protect ourselves for the long term. We have already built firm foundations, like our genomic sequencing, which allows us to identify new variants, our testing capacity, which allows us to bring in enhanced testing wherever and whenever we find a new variant of concern, and our work to secure vaccines that can be quickly adapted as new strains are identified.
Our strategy to tackle new variants has four parts. First, the lower the case numbers here, the fewer new variants we get, so the work to lower case numbers domestically is crucial. Secondly, as I set out to the House last week, there is enhanced contact tracing, surge testing and genomic sequencing. We are putting that in place wherever a new variant of concern is found in the community, like in Bristol, Liverpool and, as of today, Manchester. Thirdly, there is the work on vaccines to tackle variants, as set out yesterday by Professor Van-Tam. Fourthly, there is health protection at the border, to increase our security against new variants of concern arriving from abroad.
I should like to set out to the House the new system of health measures at the border that will come into force on Monday. The new measures build on the tough action that we have already taken. It is of course illegal to travel abroad without a legally permitted reason to do so, so it is illegal to travel abroad for holidays and other leisure purposes. The minority who are travelling for exceptional purposes will be subject to a specific compliance regime and end-to-end checks throughout the journey here. Every passenger must demonstrate a negative test result 72 hours before they travel to the UK, and every passenger must quarantine for 10 days. Arriving in this country involves a two-week process for all. We have already banned travellers altogether from the 33 most concerning countries on our red list, where the risk of a new variant is greatest, unless they are resident here. But even with those tough measures in place, we must strengthen our defences yet further.
I appreciate what a significant challenge this is. We have been working to get this right across Government and with airport operators, passenger carriers and operational partners, including Border Force and the police—I thank them all for their work so far—and we have been taking advice from our Australian colleagues, both at ministerial level and from their leading authorities on quarantine. The message is, “Everyone has a part to play in making our borders safe.” I know this is a very difficult time for both airlines and ports, and I am grateful to them for working so closely with us. They have such an important role to play in protecting this country and putting in place a system so that we can securely restart travel when the time is right—the whole team at the borders working together.
Let me set out the three elements of the strengthened end-to-end system for international arrivals coming into force on 15 February. This new system is for England. We are working on similarly tough schemes with the devolved Administrations, and we are working with the Irish Government to put in place a system that works across the common travel area. The three parts are as follows: hotel quarantine, testing and enforcement.
First, we are setting up a new system of hotel quarantine for UK and Irish residents who have been in red list countries in the last 10 days. In short, this means that any returning residents from those countries will have to quarantine in an assigned hotel room for 10 days from the time of arrival. Before they travel, they will have to book through an online platform and pay for a quarantine package, costing £1,750 for an individual travelling alone, which includes the hotel, transport and testing. That booking system will go live on Thursday, when we will also publish the full detailed guidance.
Passengers will only be able to enter the UK through a small number of ports that currently account for the vast majority of passenger arrivals. When they arrive, they will be escorted to a designated hotel, which will be closed to guests who are not quarantining, for 10 days or longer if they test positive for covid-19 during their stay. We have contracted 16 hotels for an initial 4,600 rooms, and we will secure more as they are needed. People will need to remain in their rooms and, of course, will not be allowed to mix with other guests. There will be visible security in place to ensure compliance, alongside necessary support, so that even as we protect public health, we can look after the people in our care.
Secondly, we are strengthening testing. All passengers are already required to take a pre-departure test and cannot travel to this country if it is positive. From Monday, all international arrivals, whether under home quarantine or hotel quarantine, will be required by law to take further PCR tests on day two and day eight of that quarantine. Passengers will have to book those tests through our online portal before they travel. Anyone planning to travel to the UK from Monday needs to book these tests, and the online portal will go live on Thursday. If either of these post-arrival tests comes back positive, they will have to quarantine for a further 10 days from the date of the test and will, of course, be offered any NHS treatment that is necessary.
Any positive result will automatically undergo genomic sequencing to confirm whether they have a variant of concern. Under home quarantining, the existing test to release scheme, which my right hon. Friend the Transport Secretary has built so effectively, can still be used from day five, but that would be in addition to the two mandatory tests. The combination of enhanced testing and sequencing has been a powerful weapon throughout this pandemic, and we will be bringing it to bear so that we can find positive cases, break the chains of transmission and prevent new cases and new variants from putting us at risk.
Thirdly, we will be backing this new system with strong enforcement of both home quarantine and hotel quarantine. People who flout these rules are putting us all at risk. Passenger carriers will have a duty in law to make sure that passengers have signed up for these new arrangements before they travel and will be fined if they do not. We will be putting in place tough fines for people who do not comply. That includes a £1,000 penalty for any international arrival who fails to take a mandatory test; a £2,000 penalty for any international arrival who fails to take the second mandatory test, as well as automatically extending their quarantine period to 14 days; and a £5,000 fixed penalty notice, rising to £10,000, for arrivals who fail to quarantine in a designated hotel. We are also coming down hard on people who provide false information on the passenger locator form. Anyone who lies on a passenger locator form and tries to conceal that they have been in a country on the red list in the 10 days before arrival here will face a prison sentence of up to 10 years.
These measures will be put into law this week, and I have been working with the Home Secretary, Border Force and the police to make sure that more resources are being put into enforcing these measures. I make no apologies for the strength of these measures, because we are dealing with one of the strongest threats to our public health that we have faced as a nation. I know that most people have been doing their bit, making huge sacrifices as part of the national effort, and these new enforcement powers will make sure that their hard work and sacrifice is not undermined by a small minority who do not want to follow the rules.
In short, we are strengthening the health protection at the border in three crucial ways: hotel quarantine for UK and Irish residents who have visited a red list country in the past 10 days and home quarantine for all passengers from any other country; a three-test regime for all arrivals; and firm enforcement of pre-departure tests and the passenger locator form. Our fight against this virus has many fronts, and just as we are attacking this virus through our vaccination programme, which protects more people each day, we are buttressing our defences with these vital measures, to protect the progress that together we have worked so hard to accomplish. I commend this statement to the House.
Jonathan Ashworth (Leicester South) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank the Secretary State for advance sight of his statement. I again start by congratulating all involved in the vaccination roll-out. Vaccination needs to reach everyone, and we need to drive up vaccination rates among the over-70s. There have been reports today that over-70s have been ringing up to get an appointment but NHS computer systems are not yet ready to accept appointments over the phone. Will he look into that for us?
What is the plan to drive up vaccination levels in minority ethnic communities? I am sure the Secretary of State is as worried as I am about vaccination rates among diverse communities. I know the Government announced some funding for local authorities to tackle vaccine hesitancy in minority ethnic communities, but a city such as Leicester—my city, and one of the most diverse in the country—was not on the list. Will he rectify that?
At last night’s press conference, the Secretary of State said that the way we deal with new variants is to respond to them as they arise, and that the first line of defence is to identify them and stop spread. However, our first line of defence is surely to do everything we can to stop new variants arising in the first place. That means securing our borders, to isolate new variants as they come in. He announced a detailed package today, but he has not announced comprehensive quarantine controls at the borders. Why are more than half of the countries where the South African variant has been identified not on the so-called red list? According to newspaper reports, he wanted to go further, with more extensive quarantine arrangements. I want that as well, and the British public want that as well, so I will work with him to make that happen, so that we can strengthen our borders and fix any holes in this nation’s defences.
The Secretary of State knows that mutations occur so long as the virus can replicate and transmit, and the greater the spread, the greater the opportunity. We have the South African variant and the so-called Eek—the E484K mutation—and the B.1.1.7 strain has been identified as well. Is it not the cold reality that the virus is now here for some time, and therefore that, for vaccines to succeed in protecting us, we need to do more to protect those vaccines by cutting transmission chains and spread, especially when lockdown eases? Last year the Secretary of State said, in launching Test and Trace, that it would
“help us keep this virus under control while carefully and safely lifting the lockdown nationally.”
But it did not keep the virus under control, did it? How will it be different this time? Will retrospective testing and tracing—the enhanced tracing he outlined for areas where there are variants—be routine everywhere?
Extra testing where there are new variants is of course welcome, but for many who cannot work from home on Zoom calls and laptops, who are poor or low paid, who live in overcrowded housing or who are perhaps care workers currently using up their holiday entitlement when sick so as not to lose wages, a positive test is not only a medical blow but a financial one. Last Tuesday, the Secretary of State boasted of the £500 payment, yet more than 70% of applications for financial support are rejected. By Wednesday, his own head of Test and Trace was pointing out that 20,000 sick people a day do not isolate. Indeed, two months earlier, Dido Harding had already said that people are not self-isolating because they find it very difficult, and that the need to keep earning and feed a family is fundamental, so is it any wonder that infections are falling at a slower rate in the most deprived communities? We need that financial support that his own scientific advisers have called for and that has been shown to work internationally. If he thinks I am wrong, will he tell us why he thinks Dido Harding is wrong?
We know that this virus can be transmitted through aerosols. Has the Secretary of State looked at installing air filtration systems in public buildings such as schools? Given concerns that the new Kent variant may shed more viral load through coughing and sneezing, will he update the guidance on face masks, as Germany has done, with FFP2 masks required on public transport and in shops? Will he ensure that higher-grade PPE for frontline NHS staff becomes the requirement, as the British Medical Association, the Royal College of Nursing and unions have called for?
Finally, next week is Children of Alcoholics Week, a cause very close to my heart. Indeed, I will be running the London marathon again to raise money for an alcoholics charity—[Interruption.] If it is on. I am looking forward to the Secretary of State assuring me that it is going to be on, and perhaps he can run it with me. The number of excess deaths from liver disease is up 11% in the pandemic—a huge increase—and many children are in lockdown in homes under the shadow of alcohol abuse. Will he look at providing more support for those organisations that are helping children through this difficult time of lockdown when dealing with parents with substance misuse problems?
Matt Hancock
I was listening very carefully to the hon. Gentleman, and I think I take that as support for the measures we are bringing in.
On the specific points the hon. Gentleman raises, he is absolutely right that further driving up vaccination rates is critical. I am delighted by the vaccination rates and the uptake of over 90% in all of the groups over the age of 75, and rapidly rising now—above 75% and rising fast—in the 70 to 74s. I agree with him very strongly on the need to keep driving up the uptake of the vaccine. The Minister for Covid Vaccine Deployment, my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Nadhim Zahawi), is leading the efforts across the NHS and local authorities to try to make sure that we can increase vaccination rates further. Nevertheless, the take-up has been absolutely superb so far, and there is still more to do.
I will absolutely look into the points the hon. Gentleman made about Leicester. I know that it is close to his heart and a very important matter.
I will commit to the hon. Gentleman to keep the red list up to date. It is important that we take the measures that are necessary to protect this country. There are countries around the world on a so-called green list that have very low rates of infection and no known variants of concern. I am absolutely in favour of keeping the red list up to date, but I also think it is important that we are proportionate when there are countries that do not have a record of variants of concern. However, we will use the fact that we will sequence every positive test from somebody who comes through the border as a global system of vigilance to make sure that we are always looking for those variants of concern.
The hon. Gentleman raised the issue of financial support. I reiterate that the £500 support is available for anybody on low incomes, so people should come forward for testing in all circumstances. I am absolutely delighted at the level of testing as well. There is now an average of over 650,000 tests a day done in this country, which is obviously a very substantial number.
The hon. Gentleman raised the point about air filtration systems, which are important. I will point him to guidance from the Business Department on air filtration systems and on PPE—we have taken clinical advice and follow the clinical advice on the correct levels of PPE.
Finally, I know that the issue of children of alcoholics is very close to the hon. Gentleman’s heart and to those of many colleagues across the House, so I will absolutely look at how we can ensure that the extra funding we have provided in this space continues to support the vital work not just of those in the NHS, but especially of charities that do so much in this space. The invitation to run the marathon with him is a very interesting one. I am not sure I have enough time for training this year, but it is certainly something I would like to do at some point in the future.
Jeremy Hunt (South West Surrey) (Con) [V]
I strongly support the new measures. The higher the number of new daily cases, the more opportunities for variants and mutations to emerge, including ultimately some that may be immune to the vaccine. So does the Health Secretary agree that the central priority now must be to bring down the number of new daily cases, and as we do that, is he planning to introduce enhanced contact tracing for all new cases, including Japanese-style backward contact tracing and genomic sequencing of every new case?
Matt Hancock
We have the biggest genomic capacity in the world by some margin, and when the number of cases comes down, as our genomic capacity continues to expand—we plan to more than double it in the coming months—I hope to get to the position where we can genomically sequence every positive case, yes, but we are not there yet.
The strategy that I outlined to tackle new variants, of which the border measures are an important part, is itself one part of the four conditions that the Prime Minister set out for when we can lift measures. The other three are the successful roll-out of the vaccine, which is going very well, and the fall in the number of hospitalisations and the fall in the number of deaths, both of which, as I said, are moving in the right direction but are still too high. Therefore, this strategy to tackle new variants is crucial. The number of cases is a factor, because that itself determines the number of new variants. The conclusion of all that is that we must all stick to the rules now, and the more we stick to the rules now, the sooner we can get out of this.
Martyn Day (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (SNP) [V]
The South African variant is a sure warning sign of the risk from other mutant strains that may be out there; combined with the question mark over vaccine efficacy with this variant, it is clear why we need effective border restrictions. Can the Secretary of State tell me why there are 35 countries where the South African and Brazilian variants are present that are not on the quarantine red list? Do the Government have a plan to redress that gap? From a Government obsessed with taking back control over their borders, that omission is surprising.
The Prime Minister has previously said that the UK cannot emulate other island countries, such as New Zealand and Australia, in preventing all unnecessary travel into the country due to the amount of food and medicine that it imports. Today’s change of heart is welcome. Can the Secretary of State confirm how these measures will keep the flow of goods and those transporting them open, while restricting travel not related to the import and export of goods?
Matt Hancock
The measures I have outlined today relate to passenger travel. There is, of course, a testing regime already in place for accompanied freight. There is a difference between this country and Australia and New Zealand, and that is that accompanied freight is a significant proportion of our daily imports, including just-in-time delivery, for instance, of food, whereas for islands that are further away from a continent, unaccompanied freight is a much more significant proportion of their international imports. We have to take these practical considerations into account. As I said, we keep the red list of countries under review, and the extra testing measures that I have outlined today will help us with that vigilance so that we can see where variants of concern are and to what degree they are present in other countries around the world.
Peter Gibson (Darlington) (Con) [V]
I thank my right hon. Friend for his announcement today. The people of Darlington and people right across the north- east have made incredible sacrifices to tackle this virus, and I know that they will welcome the tough measures that he has announced for those who seek to avoid quarantine. Does he agree that it is mass testing, vaccinations, following the rules and tough sanctions for those who break the rules that will help us to tackle this virus?
Matt Hancock
I agree with my hon. Friend that a combination of mass testing, vaccinations and tough enforcement is not only right to deal with this virus but, as he says, fair for people who are doing the right thing. This virus attacks us all as humans. It does not treat people differently just because they are better off and might be able to fly to Dubai for the weekend; it treats us all the same, so we should treat people the same. That is one of the reasons why it is important to bring these measures in with strong enforcement, so that they are both tough and fair on people who are working so hard and sacrificing so much to follow the rules.
Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op) [V]
I simply do not understand the logic being used for the red list. Countries where dangerous variants are present are not included, and multiple back doors are left open. Over the past few days, I have watched passenger flights, including a flight from Peru—on the red list—that is currently en route to the Netherlands, which is not on the red list but has substantial connections to the UK, and flights from southern African red-list countries en route to hubs in Addis Ababa, Nairobi and so on, which again have substantial onward connections to the UK but are not on the red list. We have even heard about UK troops in Kenya testing positive for covid today. Will the Secretary of State publish the epidemiological data that is being used to take decisions about which countries are included, and urgently review some of the very serious inconsistencies?
Matt Hancock
The hon. Gentleman raises important points, which are addressed in what I just announced in two ways. First, anybody who has been in a red-list country in the past 10 days must declare it on a passenger locator form. To fail to do so will be an imprisonable offence. Of course, nobody can come directly from a red-list country anyway because those flights have been stopped. That is a critical part of the enforcement of this system.
In addition, the second point that the hon. Gentleman raises is important. There are some countries where a variant of concern is the dominant variant, including in southern Africa and parts of Brazil. There are other countries where there are very small numbers of variants of concern, in the same way as in this country there are thankfully very small numbers of variants of concern. Absolutely, we publish information on a very broad scale. We have to make judgments about what is on the red list, and we will keep it under review.
Different countries have very different levels of genomic sequencing. There are some countries—even developed countries—that have very low levels of genomic sequencing. We have offered to support all countries around the world, so if they want a sample sequenced, we will do it for them to help with this vigilance. The mandated testing arrangements that we have introduced today will help ensure that we can strengthen the epidemiological data on which the judgments about the red list are taken.
Selaine Saxby (North Devon) (Con) [V]
Cases here in North Devon are now down to just 25 per 100,000. What reassurance can my right hon. Friend give me that when the time comes to unlock, the hard work of the people of North Devon will not be undone by an influx of visitors from either home or abroad with new variants? Are options being looked at for local unlocking to enable schools to reopen and some local businesses to restart, given the very low level of community transmission here?
Matt Hancock
I am delighted to see that there are some parts of the country where the case rate really has come down a long way—down to 25. It is important for us to make sure we get the levels down across the country. We have seen before that when there are areas that are low, there is spread from elsewhere in the country. The experience of last summer was that tourists travelling to go on holiday within the UK did not contribute to an increase in levels. It was when levels elsewhere got much higher that we saw the transmission to other parts of the country. It is those judgments that will inform the road map proposals that the Prime Minister will set out on 22 February. I wish I could say more in more detail to my hon. Friend, but it is for the Prime Minister to set that out later this month.
Karin Smyth (Bristol South) (Lab) [V]
The news of the new mutation is obviously of great concern to the people of Bristol, but local public health officials have rapidly set up new testing centres, including five new collect and drop testing centres today. It is a massive effort locally, and hundreds of people have come forward voluntarily since Sunday to be tested. Will the Secretary of State join me in thanking those local public health officials in Bristol and the people who have come forward? Will he join me in encouraging more people in those postcode areas that have been identified to come forward for surge testing to help us understand this virus better?
Matt Hancock
I agree with every word the hon. Lady has said. This is an incredibly important effort by the people of Bristol, especially those in the postcodes that were identified. I want to thank all the public health officials, at Bristol City Council and more broadly, including those in South Gloucestershire, for the work they are doing to tackle the variant of concern, where it is found. Even though the numbers are small, we want to tackle every case we find and really get this under control. As you can see from this exchange, Mr Speaker, and as everybody in Bristol can see, this is a cross-party, cross-community effort in which everybody has a part to play, and I thank the hon. Lady for her leadership.
Suzanne Webb (Stourbridge) (Con) [V]
I welcome today’s statement and I am very proud of all my constituents across Stourbridge, Cradley and Lye for the way in which they have fully understood and taken on board the fact that we all have our role to play in defeating this virus. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the constant flip-flopping and reliance on hindsight by the Labour party is nothing more than its seeking only to score political points, rather than reinforcing the Government’s message that we all have a part to play to defeat this virus? Those on the Opposition Benches would be well served by following the fine example set by my constituents.
Matt Hancock
What the public want to see, in Stourbridge and across the whole UK, is people working together to defeat this virus. Some of the measures have to be tough, and some are difficult, but it is all done with the goal of getting this country through this as well as we possibly can, so that we can lift as many of these measures as soon as we safely can. That balance between pace and safety is central to the judgments ahead. I want to thank everybody in Stourbridge and say to them that there is no politics in this; the only thing that is important is the safety of the people of Stourbridge.
Rushanara Ali (Bethnal Green and Bow) (Lab) [V]
I am grateful to all those working together—the GPs, Queen Mary University of London, the Royal London Hospital, Tower Hamlets Council, the London Muslim Centre and others—in my constituency to make sure that people get vaccinated. As Members have heard, vaccine take-up is lower among minority communities and some other vulnerable groups. Some 77% of white residents are getting vaccinated, which is great, whereas only just over half of Asian residents and under 46% of black residents in our borough are getting vaccinated. Will the Secretary of State commit to increasing the supply of vaccines to our GP surgeries, as they are saying that this is where they can make a big difference with vaccine take-up? This would make a big difference to the death rates and the dangers that these minority communities face, in my constituency and elsewhere in the country.
Matt Hancock
I want to praise the hon. Lady for the leadership she is showing locally in driving up those vaccination rates. The fewer people who are left unprotected by the jab, the safer we will all be, both individually and in communities in London and across the country. My hon. Friend the Minister for Covid Vaccine Deployment is leading the efforts in this space, and I will make sure he gets in contact so that we can work together to reassure everybody that the vaccine is the right thing for you and the right thing for your community.
Huw Merriman (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)
I welcome the roll-out of the vaccine programme, which has been a great success, and I congratulate the Secretary of State. May I ask for a bit of clarity on the statement? He states:
“Under home quarantining, the existing test to release scheme…can still be used from day five”.
Does that mean that somebody can successfully test negative on day five and is then free to interact in the community for three days, but will still have to take another test at day eight and if they fail that test they will have to quarantine again? Secondly, how long is this likely to last for? Obviously, summer travel is very important for the aviation industry. Is this just to last until we have vaccinated 99% of the mortality risk, which should be done by May? Or is it until we tweak the vaccination, in which case this could really have an impact on the aviation industry?
Matt Hancock
On the first point—the point of clarity—my hon. Friend has stated the position exactly correctly. On the second, we want of course to be able to exit from these arrangements into a system of safe international travel as soon as practicable and as soon as is safe, and Professor Van-Tam last night set out some of the details that we need to see in the effectiveness of the current vaccines on the variants of concern in order to have that assurance. If that is not forthcoming, we will need to vaccinate with a further booster jab in the autumn, on which we are working with the vaccine industry.
These are the uncertainties within which we are operating. Hence, for now, my judgment is that the package that we have announced today is the right one.
Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD) [V]
Many of us have been urging the Government for about 12 months now to take stronger action at our borders, so the measures announced today are very welcome, but Ministers have been consistently slow on this issue. With the ONS estimating today that, tragically, covid deaths in the UK have now surpassed 125,000, how many of those deaths does the Secretary of State believe could have been prevented by imposing much stricter public health measures at our borders since last March?
Matt Hancock
We have had significant measures at the border throughout. The new, stronger measures are necessary because of the arrival around the world of new variants of concern at the same time as the vaccine roll-out is progressing successfully. We do not want the very successful vaccine roll-out to be undermined, so it is reasonable to take a precautionary approach to international travel now, while we assess the effectiveness of the vaccines. We are clear that they have some effectiveness; the question is to what degree. That is being tested right now.
Neil O’Brien (Harborough) (Con) [V]
Given the incredible success of the UK vaccination programme, it would be terrible to put at risk our opening up by importing new variants like those seen in Brazil. Will my right hon. Friend stand ready to further tighten the measures at the border and the enforcement of quarantine, and does he agree that if we want to see rapid opening up, as we all do, we should be supporting strong measures at the border?
Matt Hancock
My hon. Friend is right, first, that we must keep the red list under review; and secondly, crucially, that strong protections at the border are part of defending and safely allowing the domestic opening up. For those of us who want to see that domestic opening up, ensuring that we have protection from variants that might arise from overseas is an important part, until we can get to a position where we can be confident in vaccine efficacy against all variants, not just against the current variants that are here in large numbers in the UK.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP) [V]
May I put on record my thanks to the Secretary of State for all that he and his team are doing on this issue? Northern Ireland is the only part of the United Kingdom with a land border. As the Secretary of State is aware, the Republic of Ireland is enforcing the very apparent border in Northern Ireland, for its safety, on its side. It seems, as I said, that there can be a border when it suits. However, I am eager to understand what steps are being taken to ensure, as I highlighted last week, that officials and Government have access to pertinent travel information for those coming to Dublin, to ensure that the United Kingdom, on the Northern Ireland side, is also safe.
Matt Hancock
I spoke to my Irish opposite number, Minister Donnelly, this morning and he has assured me that that data will be provided appropriately and securely; we have been working together to ensure that that happens for some time.
As I said in my statement, we have been working with the Irish Government to ensure that there are appropriate measures, both in the Republic of Ireland and in the United Kingdom, to ensure that the border on the island of Ireland can be kept completely open, as it must, yet we have adequate protection against arrivals of variants of concern internationally. It is the two countries working together, putting in place similar arrangements both in the Republic and in the United Kingdom, that will allow us to deliver that goal, which I am sure we all share.
Felicity Buchan (Kensington) (Con)
I am increasingly concerned about the effect of lockdown on the mental health of children; I am receiving so many emails from adolescents and teenagers. Will my right hon. Friend assure me that when he feeds into the 22 February road map, the mental health of children, and indeed their parents, is taken into account?
Hywel Williams (Arfon) (PC) [V]
Yesterday, the number of deaths from covid in Wales passed the grim total of 5,000. Our public health leaders say that the Welsh Government’s £500 self-isolation payment is not enough and is indeed an economic driver for people to go to work. Sick pay, on the other hand, is the responsibility of this Government, so will the Secretary of State now commit the Government to increasing the paltry level of sick pay, as suggested, from £96 per week, to enable working people to self-isolate safely?
Matt Hancock
We have put in place the extra £500 for those on low incomes to ensure that everybody can get the financial support that they may need while self-isolating.
Peter Aldous (Waveney) (Con) [V]
I commend my right hon. Friend on his statement. The Norfolk and Waveney clinical commissioning group, local NHS staff and volunteers are to be commended on rising to a challenge which on Sunday resulted in 1,000 people being vaccinated at Kirkley Mill in Lowestoft in very difficult weather conditions. There is a plan to significantly increase the number of daily vaccinations for more sites; so that this can be delivered can my right hon. Friend confirm that there will be a consistent and increased supply of vaccines and that the initial difficulties some have experienced with the national online booking system will be ironed out?
Matt Hancock
Yes, absolutely. I want to thank everybody across Norfolk and Waveney for the work they have been doing to roll out this vaccine. It is a critical part of the country in terms of the covid response, and the work done locally has been absolutely exemplary. I commend my hon. Friend on the part that he has played and the leadership he has shown in Lowestoft in making that happen; the uptake has been superb. I have seen some of the reports locally, and the emotional impact on people of getting vaccinated is absolutely fantastic. I will absolutely take away the points my hon. Friend has made.
Judith Cummins (Bradford South) (Lab) [V]
Despite assurances from the Secretary of State and Ministers, it is now clear that the newly imposed NHS dentistry targets are in fact actively undermining patient access to urgent treatment during the pandemic, as I warned they would. Last week, a whistleblower at the UK’s largest dental chain with over 600 practices, mydentist, sent me an internal memo that advised them to prioritise routine check-ups over treatments in order to meet the new targets. Will the Secretary of State look at this urgently and agree to revise these targets to ensure that they do not undermine patient care, as the system as it stands incentivises routine check-ups above those in severe pain?
Matt Hancock
I want to thank our nation’s dentists, who have worked incredibly hard to get dentistry services going again. It is very important that we support them and that the financial incentives underpin the need to restart as much as is possible.
It is of course challenging to deliver services given that there are so many aerosol-generating procedures, and I will ask the dentistry Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St Edmunds (Jo Churchill), to speak to the hon. Lady and perhaps meet her to discuss these ongoing challenges.
Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con) [V]
I support the introduction of targeted quarantine for passengers coming from high-risk covid-19 variant countries. Will my right hon. Friend also commit to regular reviews and even a sunset clause on these regulations, as we seek later in the year to get our economy restarted and support our aviation sector?
Matt Hancock
I do not underestimate the impact that all these measures have had on Gatwick. My hon. Friend represents so many of those who work at Gatwick, and I understand the impact. I was at Gatwick airport on Friday, and the empty departure hall was really quite a sad sight. These measures are necessary, in my view, and I am glad that he supports them, difficult as they are. We are also acutely cognisant of the economic impact on airports and those who work in them, and I would be happy to keep talking to him about how quickly we can remove these measures safely.
Ms Diane Abbott (Hackney North and Stoke Newington) (Lab) [V]
The whole House has welcomed what the Secretary of State has had to say about the progress in fighting coronavirus, but he will be aware that there is a very real danger that one cohort will be left behind: black and ethnic minority communities. We already know that black people are four times more likely to die from coronavirus, and currently the statistics show that black over-80s are half as likely to be vaccinated as white people. I am conscious that the Minister for Covid Vaccine Deployment is aware of this issue, but will the Secretary of State give the House an undertaking that he will drive forward a whole series of measures to increase vaccine take-up among black and minority ethnic persons? When black and minority ethnic people are on the frontline of the fight against coronavirus as health and social care workers, it would be a tragedy if there was an increased death toll because enough was not being done to encourage take-up of the vaccine.
Matt Hancock
I do not say this lightly, but I agree with every single word that the right hon. Lady said. I want to pay tribute to her, because I have not had the chance in the House to thank all the black MPs who took part in the incredibly moving video to persuade people, who may have understandable concerns, that taking the jab is the right thing to do. She played a pivotal role in that short video, and it is just one small part of the huge effort we need to make, because the fewer people who do not have the protection, the safer we will all be. I am very grateful for her work and her support, and I hope that we can continue to work together to drive uptake among black communities right across this country.
Mr Mark Harper (Forest of Dean) (Con)
Policies are often easy to announce and difficult to end. The chief scientific adviser says that covid is with us forever, and it will presumably continue to mutate into new variants forever. I listened carefully to the answer that the Secretary of State gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Huw Merriman), but I did not hear an answer to this: when is this policy going to end, if ever, because if the virus continues to mutate, surely the risk will be there forever?
Matt Hancock
The risk of mutations absolutely can and will be managed through the evolution of vaccines, in the way that the annual flu jab changes each year and allows us to protect ourselves. While necessary now, these are not measures that can be in place permanently. We need to replace them over time with a system of safe and free international travel; that is where we need to get to. The first task is to vaccinate the population. If we get good news on the impact of vaccination on hospitalisations and deaths for new mutations, we will be in a better place. If we do not get such good news, we will need to use the updated vaccines to protect against the variants of concern.
The scientists inform and advise me that there are, repeatedly and independently around the world, mutations of the same type in the E484K area of the virus, as mentioned by the hon. Member for Leicester South (Jonathan Ashworth). That gives the scientists a good start in where to target the new updated vaccine—if we have to wait until then—but it may be that we get from the existing vaccines enough efficacy against hospitalisation and death that they work perfectly well to hold this virus down. We just do not know that yet; hence, the precautionary principle applies.
Rachel Hopkins (Luton South) (Lab) [V]
It is hugely important that we keep making progress in tackling the virus and in vaccinations. However, last week I heard from the Catch Up With Cancer campaign, the research of which indicates that we would need cancer services to work at 120% capacity for two years to catch up with the existing backlog. I am concerned that the cancer recovery taskforce lacks sufficient resources and scope to achieve the restoration of services and tackle the backlog. Will the Government, in the March Budget, increase the resources available to the taskforce, to expand the overall capabilities of the UK’s cancer services to tackle the backlog?
Matt Hancock
We announced in the spending review significant extra funding to tackle the backlog. I am very proud of cancer services throughout the country, which have kept up the work during this second wave in a quite remarkable way, owing to tenacity, working together, flexibility and, of course, very strong infection prevention and control.
Last week I was at the Royal Marsden Hospital, where they are doing 100% of their normal-time operations. That is not true everywhere—the Royal Marsden has the advantage of being, in essence, a cancer-only site, which makes things easier. The thrust of the hon. Lady’s question is right—we absolutely must catch up on the cancer backlog—but I am optimistic because people have worked so hard in oncology to keep cancer services going. As the number of covid patients comes down, so we must ensure that the backlog is worked through.
Mr William Wragg (Hazel Grove) (Con)
I pay tribute to everybody in Stockport who is part of the massive vaccination effort that is going so well, as it is throughout the rest of country. The original purpose of lockdown was to reduce hospitalisations and keep hospitals from falling over; if that is achieved through a vaccination programme, is it now the Government’s intention to use the level of virus in circulation—the number of cases in the population—to determine when to ease lockdown?
Matt Hancock
No. The Prime Minister has set out the four conditions that need to be met and will be saying more about that on 22 February.
Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab) [V]
I add my congratulations to all those involved in the roll-out of the vaccine, particularly those in my local area who have been working non-stop. Will the Secretary of State say something about international co-operation, particularly in respect of identifying new variants and assisting other countries to stop their transmission? What discussions are taking place with the World Health Organisation and others to ensure that we are keeping track of new variants as much as is practicably possible?
Matt Hancock
That is a critical question, on which I point to three things. First, we have put in place the new variant assessment platform, which uses our genomic capability to be of service to countries that do not have the capability to identify variants and sequence samples, if that is needed.
Secondly, we are working with the World Health Organisation to ensure that its library of variants is as up-to-date as possible. Of course, it is that work from which must flow the assessment of what appropriate updates to any vaccine are necessary, which is how it works with flu. The system is nascent but incredibly important, and I am grateful to the World Health Organisation for its work on that so far. We need to go further.
Thirdly, on the measures put in place today, by testing every international rival—given the nature of the UK, even in these tough times, as an international hub—we will, where we spot positives, be able to sequence them and therefore gather the sequences of coronavirus from around the world. The announcements made today will directly help us to address the question of where variants of concern are arising and therefore help the international efforts to tackle them.
Aaron Bell (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Con) [V]
I thank the Secretary of State for his statement and join him in praising everyone involved in the vaccine roll-out. It is going incredibly well in Newcastle-under-Lyme; in Staffordshire, we have just passed 200,000 vaccinations given.
Brilliant scientists in the UK and around the world have delivered us these vaccines at an unprecedented pace, and I welcome the news that they are now working on new versions of them to fight variants. However, if we were to embrace even faster methods for evaluating the efficacy of vaccines, such as challenge trials, we could speed up the process even further.
Given the enormous economic cost of lockdowns, every month counts. That should prompt the whole world to re- evaluate our standard methodology for approving vaccines. Could my right hon. Friend set out what steps he is taking to allow new varieties of vaccines to be developed as quickly as possible, if they prove to be required?
Matt Hancock
Yes, we do not rule out challenge studies at all. We are working with Oxford University on such an approach. More broadly, I am up for considering anything that can ensure that a vaccine can safely be brought to bear and support this effort as fast as possible.
I would, though, caution against undue pessimism in this space because the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency has done an amazing job of maintaining very strong safety and efficacy requirements while speeding up every process, constantly challenging the critical path to vaccine approval and asking how it can be sped up while maintaining the very high standards that it should expect. It is continuing that work with potential iterations of the vaccine to ensure that the level of assuredness is appropriate and the degree of checks that an iteration needs to go through is appropriate to the degree of difference from the original vaccine.
For instance, for flu, we do not need to go through the full clinical trials process because the underlying platform is known to be safe—we need to demonstrate clinical efficacy. It is that sort of flexible yet rigorous thinking that the MHRA should be very proud of.
Stephanie Peacock (Barnsley East) (Lab)
People are at home with the windows closed and the heating on: those are potential conditions for carbon monoxide poisoning, whose symptoms are very similar to those of covid-19. What are the Government doing to enforce legislation on that issue and make the public aware of that silent killer?
Matt Hancock
The hon. Lady raises an important point, which is taken into account in the work that we are doing to push forward high-quality ventilation, which is good for tackling carbon monoxide poisoning and for trying to reduce the risk of the spread of covid.
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con) [V]
I start by thanking the hard-working Secretary of State for yet again coming to the House and updating us on the covid situation.
In north Northamptonshire, we have a particular problem with covid infections—we just cannot get them down. In Wellingborough, we are 25% above the national average, in Kettering 50% above it and, in Corby, more than double the national average, with the highest infection rate in the country. Has the Secretary of State given any consideration to the mass testing of north Northamptonshire so that we can get infections down, rather as happened in Liverpool?
Matt Hancock
I am aware of and also worried about the continued high rates of infections in north Northants, which has not had a particularly bad pandemic thus far but now, at this point, seems to have a stubbornly high infection rate. I am absolutely up for all measures that might help to get it down, including mass testing. I will take that idea away, work on it with colleagues and return to my hon. Friend and his north Northants colleagues with a proposal.
Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (Ind) [V]
The pandemic has been particularly difficult for those with a weak immune system; I therefore welcome the fact that UK Research and Innovation has provided funding to support research on vaccine responses in groups of immunosuppressed individuals, such as high-risk cancer patients. When does the Secretary of State expect the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation to have enough data to develop a vaccine-protective strategy for immunosuppressed individuals that details whether any specific vaccine is preferred for this cohort?
Matt Hancock
This is a very important consideration. For those for whom the vaccine is clinically inappropriate, clearly the single most important thing is that everybody else gets the vaccine because that is what can best keep them safe. When we say that the vaccine is “good for you and good for others”, that includes those who are clinically unable to take the vaccine to protect themselves, so everybody around them needs to take the vaccine in order to protect them. More broadly, that work is under way. I will ask the deputy chief medical officer to write to the hon. Gentleman to set out the precise clinical details.
Mrs Heather Wheeler (South Derbyshire) (Con) [V]
I thank my right hon. Friend for his statement. As I have so many constituents who work in the aviation industry, this is important information. I am thankful for the now ramped up provision of vaccine centres in South Derbyshire, but how will he ensure that housebound residents receive their jab? There seem to be gaps in communications between primary care networks, district health services and GP surgeries, leaving my constituents unsure.
Matt Hancock
I will look into the specifics of the situation in South Derbyshire and ask the Minister for Vaccine Deployment, the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Nadhim Zahawi), to call my hon. Friend to try to understand precisely the situation in her area. It is absolutely the responsibility of PCNs to deliver vaccines to the housebound. That is working in most parts of the country. I had not heard of any concerns in South Derbyshire, but this is obviously incredibly important because we are talking about some of the most vulnerable people to covid in the country. We must make sure that everybody, including those who are housebound, has the offer of a jab, and that people can get out and make that happen.
Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP) [V]
New border restrictions to safeguard us from covid will mean a reduction in the amount of travel into the UK, which will of course cause further harm to aviation and travel firms. Will the Secretary of State update us on progress and give us more details about the ongoing Cabinet discussions regarding specific support for aviation and travel firms in the light of these additional measures?
Matt Hancock
Yes; we do not underestimate the impact of these measures on the travel and aviation industries. My right hon. Friend the Transport Secretary is leading the discussions, as he has done throughout, because it is incredibly important that people get the right level of support. It goes to the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper), which is that we need to ensure that we go into these measures with a plan for how we come out of them into a set of secure international travel arrangements, so that people can get moving again.
Jonathan Gullis (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Con)
In Stoke-on-Trent, Kidsgrove and Talke I have seen at first hand, while volunteering at the mass vaccination centre in Tunstall, the incredible effort of our local NHS heroes in getting jabs into the arms of up to 1,000 people each day. This is important, as the Royal Stoke University Hospital has been under tremendous pressure in critical care, dealing with capacity 220% above its usual averages. Will my right hon. Friend thank the local health and care heroes across Stoke-on-Trent, Kidsgrove and Talke, and assure us that we will get increased vaccine doses as the supply increases?
Matt Hancock
Yes, absolutely. The effort in Stoke has been absolutely magnificent. I follow it particularly closely because every time I come to this Chamber—it is normally at least once a week—I am grilled by a colleague from Stoke about performance in Stoke. I have been looking at it recently; across Stoke, the hospital, the GPs and the pharmacies have been doing a magnificent job in the vaccination effort. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his leadership locally in promoting uptake of the vaccine.
Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab) [V]
Given the evidence that some of the new variants of covid are much more transmissible, the Royal College of Nursing and the British Medical Association have raised concerns about whether current PPE guidance is adequate. It has been reported that some hospitals are offering staff high-grade PPE, for example FFP3 masks, while others are not, which means unequal levels of protection depending on where staff work. Can the Secretary of State tell us whether the NHS has reviewed the guidance about the standard of PPE to be provided to all staff when treating covid-19 pathway medium and high-risk patients?
Matt Hancock
Yes, I asked for specific advice on this when we saw the increased transmissibility of the B117 strain—the so-called Kent variant. Exactly this question was reviewed. As the right hon. Gentleman would expect of me, I follow clinical advice on PPE guidance and the clinical advice remains unchanged.
Andrew Griffith (Arundel and South Downs) (Con)
I thank my right hon. Friend for coming to the House with his statement today. Will he join me in congratulating the Henfield heroes at Henfield Medical Centre? They have already vaccinated more than 1,000 patients, who very much appreciated not having to travel 40 miles to the previous clinic in Storrington. I am grateful that artificial limits on the number of centres per primary care network have been relaxed in rural areas.
Matt Hancock
I pay tribute to everybody at the Henfield Medical Centre doing this incredible work. It is really uplifting being in a health centre. If Members have not been to a vaccination centre as a Member of this House, I would highly recommend it because it is such an uplifting experience. I am really glad that it is being carried out ever closer to home for people as we expand the number of vaccination sites, of which there are now more than 1,400 across England.
Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab) [V]
The maximum sentence for a person lying on their locator form will be 10 years in prison. What will the minimum sanction be for that offence? The cost of the hotel, including testing and transport, will be £750 for 10 days. Can the Secretary of State give the House an absolute assurance that that represents good value for money to passengers and that there is no undue profiteering?
Matt Hancock
Yes, absolutely. One of the things that we have been doing in our discussions with hotel groups and others is ensuring value for money as much as possible for passengers. Hence we have managed to get the costs down to £1,750 for an individual traveller in a room alone.
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
Will the Secretary of State maintain his war aim of protecting the NHS and eschew those siren voices calling for a desired level of infection in the community? If we depart from a level of hospitalisation with which the NHS can cope effectively, we will lose the proper sense of urgency to lift restrictions that are so devastating and costly to us all.
Matt Hancock
My right hon. Friend is right to raise the issue of the level of hospitalisations as one of the key factors and conditions for exit, as set out by the Prime Minister. The good news is that the number of people in hospital with covid is now falling. It is still higher than either at the April peak or at the November peak. The challenge in terms of the number of cases is that, when cases are very high, you are more likely to get a new variant, but, thankfully, cases are coming down very sharply, too.
Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab) [V]
Yesterday, the Home Secretary told me in Parliament that 100% compliance checks were now taking place at the border. Yet one passenger arriving at Heathrow yesterday from South Africa via Qatar has reported having no checks on her forms or tests and being just sent on her way through passport e-gates. This is a problem that I raised with the Prime Minister almost a month ago. Travellers have reported throughout that the reality is not matching the Government’s rhetoric, so why, when this is so important, does it appear that the most basic checks are still not happening?
Matt Hancock
The Home Secretary is looking into this individual case. The measures that we announced today further strengthen the enforcement to make sure that the rules that are currently in place are enforced more strongly, and indeed that we have brought in a new system of rules to strengthen the safeguards at our border yet further.
Dr Jamie Wallis (Bridgend) (Con) [V]
May I say a huge thank you to everyone on the frontline working hard on the vaccine roll-out in Bridgend and Porthcawl? When it comes to dealing with the transmission of the South African variant, could my right hon. Friend set out what steps he is taking on surge testing so that we can gather more information and effectively monitor any further community transmission?
Matt Hancock
Yes. When we see the community transmission of a variant of concern, we send in extra testing, and sequence all the positives to try to find any other variant of concern nearby. That means going door to door to offer testing, and enhancing contact tracing so that, for anybody who tests positive, we ensure that we test all those they have been in contact with and, in some cases, the contacts of those contacts in turn. That is currently under way in a number of locations, in targeted areas. Of course, I speak regularly with the Welsh Government to ensure that we take the same sort of approach over the border.
Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab) [V]
Vaccine hesitancy is highest among black, Asian and minority ethnic residents, and tackling it is vital to stop the existing covid-19 health inequalities widening and deepening further. My constituency has one of the most ethnically diverse populations in the country yet neither of my local councils, Lambeth and Southwark, was included on the seemingly arbitrary list of councils invited to bid for additional funding to address vaccine hesitancy. Can the Secretary of State explain why, and will he commit to working with the Communities Secretary to look again urgently at that decision?
Matt Hancock
It is the Minister for the vaccine roll-out, my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon, who is leading those efforts. It is obviously an incredibly important subject, because it matters to us all.
Steve Brine (Winchester) (Con)
The Secretary of State said earlier that the virus treats us all the same, which is of course quite right. Sadly, it does not go easy on those who do not take up the offer of a vaccine, so can I ask my right hon. Friend what his thinking will be if, despite all the excellent work going on to support the vaccine hesitant, and there is lots of it, we have fellow citizens not protected? Will he confirm that such a personal decision cannot impact on the ultimate release of our society and our economy?
Matt Hancock
We are not proposing to mandate vaccination, partly for the reasons that my hon. Friend sets out. Anyway, vaccine take-up has been really very high—much higher than expected—which is terrific. In fact, in the latest international surveys that I have seen, the UK has the highest enthusiasm for taking the vaccine—up from about fifth highest a couple of months ago. Our attitude, tone and communications throughout have been purposefully entirely positive about why the vaccine is good for people and for their communities, and how people like them are taking the vaccine. I praise the Government Communication Service, NHS England and local councils, which have worked so hard to drive vaccine take-up as high as it has been.
Vicky Foxcroft (Lewisham, Deptford) (Lab) [V]
To date, Government communication with the 2.2 million people who have been shielding on and off for almost a year has been poor. On their behalf, I ask the Secretary of State a very simple question: will it be safe to stop shielding after they have received their second dose of the vaccine?
Matt Hancock
I am afraid I do not agree with the hon. Lady one bit. We write regularly to those who are shielding and we write to them individually, so I am not going to make a blanket announcement in the Chamber. We will communicate carefully and individually with people who are on the shielded patient list. It is too sensitive to play politics with.
David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con) [V]
I commend my right hon. Friend’s decision to fund the local authorities of Harrow and Hillingdon, which serve my constituency, to reach out to people who may be reluctant to come forward and get their vaccine. In respect of those who are in our country with an uncertain immigration status, but for whom vaccination is vital for both humanitarian and medical reasons, will he consider a similar approach and fund local authorities, which know their communities best, to reach out to those people, to ensure that they are also part of this great British success story?
Matt Hancock
Yes. We are working with GPs, with community parts of the NHS and also with local authorities to do this. As my hon. Friend may have seen, the Home Office has stated that the most important thing is that we vaccinate everybody who is present here, whatever their status or paperwork.
Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)
I am very glad to hear that exchange, because this is a considerable issue in Glasgow, with our large asylum-seeking population. Will the Secretary of State also tell us how his announcements about quarantining will be applied to people who arrive in this country seeking asylum and who probably do not have £1,750 in their back pocket? How will new arrivals be supported in the quarantine process?
Matt Hancock
A new arrival to the UK who has been in a red-list country in the past 10 days and who is not a resident of the United Kingdom or Ireland or a UK citizen will be denied entry and held in hotel quarantine until they can return to the country from which they arrived.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
I am endeavouring to ensure that everyone on the list gets a chance to ask a question, but they will not do so if we do not speed up a bit, because we have a lot more business to come—[Interruption.] No, I do not criticise the Secretary of State. If he is asked complicated questions, he has to give complicated answers, so let us have quick and simple questions, then we can have quick and simple answers.
Jack Brereton (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Con) [V]
May I join my neighbouring north Staffordshire colleagues in thanking our health workers for the amazing job they have been doing in rolling out the vaccine? Will my right hon. Friend join me in encouraging everyone in Stoke-on-Trent who is in priority groups 1 to 4 to get an appointment and get their jab before 15 February?
Matt Hancock
Yes. Stoke-on-Trent has been ably and effectively represented in this discussion, and everybody across Stoke deserves praise for the work that they are doing to drive up the vaccination rate. The higher the vaccination rate, the more quickly and safely we can all come out of this together.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab) [V]
The roll-out of the vaccine programme has been absolutely commendable. Brilliant! Well done! Locally, it has been really encouraging to see the mass vaccination centres working alongside the GP surgeries, but I am really worried that from this Friday onwards all the local mass vaccination centres will have to close because there will not be any more Pfizer vaccine except for the delivery of second doses, which will not start for another fortnight. On top of that, the number of AstraZeneca doses available locally will fall from 24,000 a week to 8,000 a week, so I am really worried that the next cohort of people are not going to get their vaccinations soon. Is there anything the Secretary of State can do to ensure that we get more vaccines locally by this weekend?
Matt Hancock
I am not aware of the closure of any vaccination centres. Of course, it is a matter for the Welsh Government if they are going to close vaccination centres, but I speak to the Welsh Health Minister regularly and this has not been raised as an issue of concern. Supply is of course the rate-limiting factor, as it has been throughout the roll-out. Supply continues, but we have to start ensuring that we have those second jabs ready for people. I am not aware of the issue that the hon. Gentleman has raised. It is certainly not a problem across England, where I am directly responsible for the roll-out. So far, this programme has been going so well across the whole United Kingdom, and we have all been working so hard together to make it happen.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
In warmly welcoming what the Secretary of State has said today, the question that I have to ask, like many people, is why we did not do this over a year ago. After all, we are an island. If we had done what the Australians and New Zealanders have done, perhaps we would not have had to close our schools for all this time. I am saying this to support the Secretary of State when he is locked in Cabinet discussions with people who say that we have to protect the travel industry or the aircraft industry. I would say: let us have tough quarantine regimes, like Australia and New Zealand, and tough, enforced local lockdowns like China. Let us get a grip on this rather than just saying that it is more important to keep the travel industry open than our schools.
Matt Hancock
I am very grateful for my right hon. Friend’s support in the way that he puts it. I have been talking to my Australian counterparts about the approach that they take, not least because their hotel quarantine has now been in place for some time. The central point that he makes is that once we get cases down through both the measures now, and then the vaccine to keep them down, a tough borders policy can help to keep us free domestically. That is a very important part of this consideration.
Kim Johnson (Liverpool, Riverside) (Lab) [V]
I pay tribute to all organisations in Liverpool working on the frontline to manage this pandemic. Does the Secretary of State believe that the Government are following their own guidance in making over 2,000 Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency workers physically attend the workplace for non-essential work processing provisional licence applications when driving lessons are not possible under current restrictions? Does he agree that no one is safe until we are all safe?
Matt Hancock
My right hon. Friend the Transport Secretary has looked into the issue about DVLA that the hon. Lady raises, and Public Health Wales has been involved in advising DVLA, which is of course based in Swansea.
Stephen Hammond (Wimbledon) (Con) [V]
I congratulate all those in the local health service and volunteers rolling out the successful vaccine programme in Wimbledon. I agree that we need effective border security. However, my right hon. Friend said earlier that new variants could emerge anywhere, so could he allay my concern that our efforts might be better spent on ensuring effective, rigorous and enforced home quarantine for all rather than setting up a hotel regime that will only protect against red-list countries?
Matt Hancock
The rigour and the security of both home quarantine and hotel quarantine are important. It is a matter of the degree of risk, and that is why we have attempted to strike the balance that we have. However, what is not in balance is the need for rigorous quarantine both for those coming from red-list countries and those coming from all other countries who quarantine at home. It is important that this takes place, whether it is at home or in a hotel, and hence the stronger enforcement measures.
Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab) [V]
One of my constituents is a long-term in-patient in the spinal injuries unit at Southport Hospital. He is 70 years old and is tetraplegic. Despite there being covid cases on the ward, he has not yet received a vaccine, and staff tell his partner that they have no idea when they will be able to offer one to him. Vulnerable patients in units like this may be there for months or years. What is the Secretary of State doing to ensure that all long-term in-patients, including my constituent, get the vaccine at the same time as they would if they were an out-patient?
Matt Hancock
Yes, that is exactly the principle on which we are proceeding. I pay tribute to the work that the hon. Lady does in this area and in always speaking up for those who are in in-patient care. It is very important that we make sure that there is equal and fair support for all according to clinical need, and that will be addressed in the next phase of the roll-out, once we have ensured that the offer to all those in categories 1 to 4 is achieved by next Monday.
Laura Farris (Newbury) (Con) [V]
I put on record my thanks to everybody working at Newbury racecourse for leading a fantastic vaccination programme for my constituency. I welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement about very high rates of take-up of the vaccine. What has the take-up rate been among those under the age of 70 who have been offered it so far? What conversations has he had with the vaccine Minister about dispelling one of the most persistent myths that has been raised with me by young women—that the vaccine could negatively affect their fertility?
Matt Hancock
There is no evidence at all that the vaccine negatively affects fertility. There are many myths about vaccines, and I am very glad that they have largely been rightly ignored by the British public when they are inaccurate. The way we try to tackle such myths is by putting out as much positive, accurate, objective information from objective sources as possible, both on the NHS website and through the chief medical officer and deputy chief medical officers answering questions whenever possible. I am glad that my hon. Friend has raised that issue. I will ask one of the deputy chief medical officers to write to her, and we will publish that letter to provide the further reassurance that she asks for.
Mr Ben Bradshaw (Exeter) (Lab) [V]
What exactly is the Secretary of State’s exit strategy from this quarantine policy? Is he, for example, planning airport testing, GPS tracking and covid passports, like other European countries, to avoid the total collapse of our vital travel sector?
Matt Hancock
I refer to the answer I gave to my right hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper). Absolutely, testing is a very important part of this, as I set out in the statement.
Joy Morrissey (Beaconsfield) (Con) [V]
I know that my right hon. Friend is committed to securing our borders. Will he therefore consider commissioning and funding airlines and airports directly to run these new Department of Health and Social Care passenger and border restrictions? Airlines and airports such as BA and Heathrow have the experience, market innovation and incentive to deliver safe travel for Britain. Will my right hon. Friend meet me and representatives from the airline industry so that together we can deliver secure borders but a global Britain?
Matt Hancock
That is exactly our goal, and we have been working very hard with the carriers and airport operators to put this new scheme in place. There is further work to do in the days ahead, and no doubt after its initial introduction on Monday. What I would say very directly to my hon. Friend, the airline industry and the airports is that I know this is very difficult and tough. It is absolutely vital that we all work together constructively, positively and with the spirit of innovation that she describes to put in place a robust system that uses all possible technology to ensure that we have the basis of a future safe global travel arrangement. It is about both securing the borders now and ensuring that we can get global travel going for the long term.
Apsana Begum (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab) [V]
Last week, the London director of Public Health England, Professor Kevin Fenton, said that London’s Asian communities have been the hardest hit by the covid-19 second wave. It is being felt deeply in my constituency, and I pay tribute to those on the frontline in my constituency who have been helping to drive up the vaccine uptake, and those serving in our mortuary and funeral services. I am sure the Secretary of State agrees that the Government need to learn quickly from the impact of the first and second waves on minority communities, but that must be informed by evidence, especially to ensure the effectiveness of any strategy to deal with vaccine hesitancy. Will he and his colleagues ensure that data about the vaccine roll-out and mortalities in the second wave is published regularly in a meaningful format and disaggregated by ethnicity?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Order. Before I call the Secretary of State to answer the question, I give notice that we ought to be stopping this statement now, but I have seven more people who wish to get in. Can you please just cut your bits of paper in half and ask a question? It is not fair to everybody else, and the people who are sitting at home are not getting the atmosphere. We have got to do this quickly. We do not need speeches, just questions. If people take more than 20 seconds, I will cut them off.
Dr Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) (Lab)
The jury is still out on whether every vaccine can eliminate every covid variant, but we know that vitamin D builds immunity to all viruses. The Secretary of State promises a four-month free supply for the vulnerable, but how come nobody has heard of it? Will he commit to widely advertising it and its benefit to all Brits?
Matt Hancock
Yes, indeed I have, and I have written to more than a million people about the availability of vitamin D. Indeed, I know that that offer is being taken up, because there are Members of this House who have received their free vitamin D, taken a photograph of it and sent me the photo.
Paul Bristow (Peterborough) (Con) [V]
The ministerial team and our NHS have done a phenomenal job of vaccinating our most vulnerable and our frontline health and social care workers, but my right hon. Friend—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Order. We have had that bit. We just need the question.
Paul Bristow
My right hon. Friend will be aware that autistic people and those with learning disabilities are vulnerable to covid-19, with a death rate 4.1 times higher than the general population. Will the Secretary of State use his influence to make sure that the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation properly considers the right time for autistic people to be prioritised for vaccination?
Matt Hancock
Yes, I will. My hon. Friend rightly raises a very important subject. I will make sure that that is properly taken into account.
Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP) [V]
I thank the Secretary of State for his statement. There will be significant concern among the population of Northern Ireland that entering into the UK could continue through Dublin, putting people in my constituency at additional risk of new variants. Does the Secretary of State agree that this is not behaviour becoming of a good neighbour? In fact, it is quite shameful and irresponsible for the Government of the Irish Republic to refuse to share arrivals data with the UK. Furthermore, if this continues, does he agree that the hard border currently being enforced by the Irish Republic, restricting travel from north to south, will have to be enforced by the Police Service of Northern Ireland to stop entrance into Northern Ireland from across the border, to protect the UK?
Matt Hancock
No, I do not agree with the hon. Lady. I reassure every one of her constituents and all citizens across Northern Ireland that we work closely with the Government in Dublin to ensure that data is shared properly and that both Governments have an appropriate system to safeguard our borders against the challenges that we face while allowing free travel within the common travel area.
Chris Green (Bolton West) (Con)
I welcome my right hon. Friend’s commitment to making a contribution to the roadmap on 22 February on the understanding of the impact on mental health of children and families. Will he commit to publish that in advance, to make sure that parents know that all of their concerns are being addressed and that they have an opportunity to make a contribution to it?
Daisy Cooper (St Albans) (LD) [V]
The head of the Government’s own test and trace system admitted that up to 20,000 people per day who are asked to self-isolate are not doing so. Will the Secretary of State please confirm, after 10 months of being asked for it, when he will come up with a plan to fix the isolation system, so that those who need to self-isolate have the pastoral and financial support they need to do so?
Matt Hancock
We have put in place that support, including £500 for all those on low incomes. Everybody who is asked to self-isolate needs to self-isolate to break the chains of transmission.
Mr Robert Goodwill (Scarborough and Whitby) (Con)
What lessons can we learn from Israel which, uniquely, is ahead of us in this race to protect its people? For example, when we reach group 10—under-50s who have not already been injected—should we prioritise those who have not been exposed to the disease and who are not bursting with antibodies, so that we actually protect more people? Incidentally, the Israelis are also injecting 16 and 17-year-olds. Are there any lessons to be learned from that?
Matt Hancock
I talk to my Israeli counterpart regularly, and I am impressed by the effort that Israel has delivered on to vaccinate its population. I am very happy to look into the detailed points that my right hon. Friend raises.
Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green) [V]
Projections show that some countries in the global south will have to wait until 2023 to achieve widespread vaccination because pharmaceutical monopolies are creating artificial restrictions. Given that no one is safe until everyone is safe, will the Secretary of State use his influence with Cabinet colleagues to ensure that the Government change their position and back proposals from India and South Africa to address pharmaceutical monopolies and help ensure that the world can produce enough vaccines for every country as soon as possible?
Matt Hancock
The hon. Lady would get a better hearing if she started on this subject by congratulating AstraZeneca, the British player in this vaccine race, on the fact that it is rolling out its jab with no profit at all. It is doing that in order to be able to vaccinate as many people around the world as fast as possible, at an affordable cost. That should be our starting point. There would be no vaccines if it was not for the global pharmaceutical industry. I pay tribute to all those working in the pharmaceutical sector. There is no way that we would have these jabs were a policy followed that disparaged the pharmaceutical sector in the way she proposes or in the way the Labour manifesto proposed at last election. Instead, we should come together to support industry, scientists, the NHS and Government. It is a massive team effort.
Dr Luke Evans (Bosworth) (Con) [V]
For phase 2, will the Health Secretary commit to having mental health workers at national vaccine sites?
Matt Hancock
I will absolutely look into the suggestion that my hon. Friend makes, which is all about making sure that we reach out to people at a moment when everybody, or almost everybody, is going through a process together—and I hope it is everybody. It is very interesting proposal, which I will take away and hopefully speak to my hon. Friend about in the days to come.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
There —we did it, and only seven minutes over time. I thank everybody for going relatively fast, and especially the Secretary of State, who has answered 60 questions, which is pretty good going.
Victims of Crime and Anti-social Behaviour, Etc (Rights, Entitlements and Related Matters)
Tuesday 9th February 2021
(3 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Victims of Crime and Anti-social Behaviour, Etc (Rights, Entitlements and Related Matters) Bill 2019-21 View all Victims of Crime and Anti-social Behaviour, Etc (Rights, Entitlements and Related Matters) Bill 2019-21 Debates Read Hansard Text
A Ten Minute Rule Bill is a First Reading of a Private Members Bill, but with the sponsor permitted to make a ten minute speech outlining the reasons for the proposed legislation.
There is little chance of the Bill proceeding further unless there is unanimous consent for the Bill or the Government elects to support the Bill directly.
For more information see: Ten Minute Bills
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Peter Kyle (Hove) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision about the duties and responsibilities of the Victims’ Commissioner and about the Victims’ Code; to make provision about the rights of victims of persistent anti-social behaviour; to require local police forces to prepare victims’ services plans and take steps in connection with victim representative bodies; to establish a duty to report suspected child exploitation by those working in regulated activities; to establish a right of appeal by victims against a decision to cease a criminal investigation; to make provision for reviews of open or reopened homicide cases; to make provision about court procedures relating to vulnerable victims and witnesses; and for connected purposes.
There is agreement across the House that victims of crime should be more empowered and better supported. Indeed, I should recognise that the current Justice Secretary has promised to deliver a Bill of his own. So did his predecessor, and so too did his predecessor’s predecessor. They were promises to Parliament, but promises were also made to the public. The last three Tory manifestos pledged a law for victims. The challenge we face is not getting Government to admit that there is a problem; it is getting them to do something about it.
This is a deadly serious issue with deadly serious consequences for delay. In the time that has passed since the Tories first promised a victims Bill, there have been 1 million sexual offences and 350,000 rapes. Because of the broken promises of this Government, none of those victims of terrible crime benefited from the statutory rights that they have been promised. We know a Bill is on Government’s to-do list, but it is not on their priority list. It is for Labour, which is why we have produced the Bill before us.
The Bill’s origins lie in work undertaken by Claire Waxman, the victims’ commissioner for London, and my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer). Their pioneering legislative work for victims is reflected in today’s Bill.
Confidence in our system of justice is at an all-time low for victims. Trial failures due to victim issues are at an all-time high, trebling since 2015. Victims are increasingly dropping out of criminal proceedings. When they look to the future, they see no justice in sight and no hope of closure, so they give up. To these victims, failed by Government, no justice is better than the agony of false hope. Just as bad is the fact that too many victims say that their experience of the criminal justice system was even more traumatising than the crime itself—surely the most damming indictment imaginable of current policy.
Victims have had codified rights since 2003, which have been reviewed, updated and extended several times, including during the current Session. Government have committed to putting those rights on to a statutory footing. The Labour party agrees that that is important, and clause 6 of part 3 of the Bill does that. But the Bill goes much further, because victims need more than rights: they need the tools to uphold them.
I have never met anybody working in any part of the criminal justice system who does not care about victims. From first responders to High Court judges, people have empathy for victims of crime—they care—but individual empathy all too often fails to translate into organisational recognition of victim needs. People are not the problem; the system is, and perverse incentives run through it like letters in a stick of rock.
By giving powers that matter to victims, modernising our justice system to reflect the value and needs of victims and inserting consequence for failure into the system, this Bill makes victims unignorable. Right now, under this Government, victims and their needs are routinely ignored. A code of rights exists, but what happens if it is ignored? Nothing. If we did what the Government aspire to do, which is to simply put the code into statute, what will happen if the code is ignored? Still, nothing. Laws only matter if there is a consequence for breaking them, and the same must be true for a victims law.
That is why clause 5 of part 3 of the Bill will create a register, held by the Victims’ Commissioner, on to which all individuals named as responsible for a breach of the victims code must be placed. Any part of the criminal justice system seeking to make an appointment in the top decile of salaries must consult the register to see whether any applicants have previously failed to uphold victims’ rights. We do not bar recruitment, but doubtless it will be taken into account. The message is clear: for the first time, there will be consequences for those who ignore victims. For the first time, failing victims will have a career-limiting impact.
For rights to have meaning, people need to know that they exist. Today, all too often, that simply is not the case. Some 80% of people who suffer crime make their way through the criminal justice system totally unaware that there is a code of rights. There is no fixed point in time when a victim is informed of their rights—there should be, but when? Alleged perpetrators are read their essential rights at the point of arrest, but the victim is not informed of their rights at the point of becoming a victim. That imbalance needs addressing. The Bill introduces a requirement that victims must be informed of their essential rights at the “earliest possible opportunity”. The clear expectation of the Bill is that the moment of first response is usually the appropriate time to inform victims that they have the right to information and support and a comprehensive set of legally enforceable rights to support them as victims. Those who think that this is too soon must answer the following question: if the moment of becoming a victim is not the right time for someone to discover that they have legally enforceable rights—that they have power—then when is? After a week, a month or, as it is now for most victims, never?
A powerful code of rights needs a powerful commissioner to hold the system to account. In Dame Vera Baird we have a fearless commissioner, and the Bill seeks to boost further the commissioner’s power and authority. The Labour party does not fear statutory bodies with independence; we believe that they strengthen our democracy. That is why the Bill shifts reporting from Ministers to Parliament, gives the Justice Committee the power of veto over future commissioner appointments and grants extended freedoms to investigate the criminal justice system to ensure code compliance.
The Bill also gives power directly to victims. For them, things will be different. No longer will they need an MP to authorise a victim’s complaint to the parliamentary ombudsman, an inexcusable barrier that partly explains why fewer than 20 victims have lodged complaints over the past three years. That is an insulting number, given the scale of code violations. Persistent victims of antisocial behaviour will for the first time be embraced by the code, which will empower people to stand up against those who play havoc with the civility everyone has the right to expect from their neighbours and from within their community.
Right now, only a minority of victims understand their rights and only a fraction will ever exert them. The system ignores infraction, so over time it has become normalised. With this Bill we modernise our system of justice to take into account the rights and the need of victims. Not only will the measures in this Bill lessen the impact of crime on victims, but they will help improve the quality of justice itself, by delivering victims in their role as witnesses into courtrooms empowered with knowledge, rights and support. It is not radical—we do not tear down old liberties—but it marks the only significant step forward for almost two decades. We insert career-limiting consequences into a system that currently ignores victims with impunity. We empower victims with the knowledge of their rights from the moment they become victims. We make it easier for those rights to be understood and asserted, and more straightforward to appeal should the need arise. We give victims an enforcer with teeth in the shape of a commissioner with the independence, power, and resources to hold our criminal justice system to account on a victim’s behalf. And we provide a criminal justice system that better reflects the aspirations of our society for a justice system that offers dignity and support to those who suffer at the hands of criminals and not one that, as is too often the case today, prolongs the agony.
Question put and agreed to.
Ordered,
That Peter Kyle, Keir Starmer, Angela Rayner, Mr David Lammy, Nick Thomas-Symonds, Rachel Reeves, Valerie Vaz, Mr Nicholas Brown, Jess Phillips, Holly Lynch, Wes Streeting and Yvette Cooper present the Bill.
Peter Kyle accordingly presented the Bill.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed (Bill 256).
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
I will now briefly suspend the House in order that the Chamber can be prepared for the next item of business.
Social Security
(3 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Will Quince)
I beg to move,
That the draft Social Security Benefits Up-rating Order 2021, which was laid before this House on 18 January, be approved.
There is no question but that this has been a challenging time, and the coronavirus outbreak has caused financial hardship and disruption for many across our country. That is why, since the start of the pandemic, we have mobilised our welfare system like never before to provide a comprehensive package of support worth over £7 billion, providing an essential safety net for those who need it.
My Department has risen to the challenge, utilising the speed and agility of the universal credit system to deal with the huge increase in people needing our support. There is little doubt that had we relied on the legacy benefit system, we would have seen queues down the streets outside our jobcentres and long delays, leaving families facing financial disruption without support. Crucially, through our universal credit system, we have managed to pay over 90% of new claimants on time and in full.
That has meant that universal credit and the Government’s investment in the welfare safety net have been there to help catch many of those affected by the pandemic. That has been hugely important for the 3 million more people who have made a benefit claim since March last year. I think it is right once again to publicly thank the thousands of work coaches in jobcentres up and down our country, who have responded at speed and scale to ensure that we have supported people in their hour of need. Now they are working tirelessly to deliver our plan for jobs.
As the House knows, the Chancellor introduced the £20 per week uplift to universal credit and working tax credit as a temporary measure in March 2020 to support those facing the most financial disruption. That additional support increased the universal credit and working tax credit standard allowances by up to £1,040 for a year.
I understand that that subject is the elephant in the room; I know that the House is eager to know about the future of the £20 uplift to universal credit. The uplift sat, and continues to sit, outside today’s annual uprating order and is therefore not directly relevant to today’s proceedings, but I have to say that the Labour party is simply wrong in its use of emotive language that the Government plan to cut universal credit in April. In fact, the only talk of cutting universal credit in April has come from the Opposition parties. I gently say to them that they should be very careful with their use of emotive language and what they say in this House, because scaremongering in this House has real-world consequences, which the Department sees every day in claimant behaviour.
David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)
The Minister will be aware of the cross-party Select Committee on Work and Pensions report published this morning, which speaks of the need to extend and make permanent the universal credit payment. Does he think that his Conservative colleagues on the Committee who authored that report are scaremongering when they talk about the damage that would happen as a result of not continuing that past April?
Will Quince
I will of course study in detail the report from the Select Committee, chaired by the right hon. Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms), and look closely at the recommendations made, but when there is emotive language about things such as cuts to universal credit in April that are frankly not true, that drives adverse claimant behaviour, which we as a Department see day in, day out. For example, we see people who would be eligible for universal credit delaying their claim, so they claim not at the point at which they are eligible but when their money has run out and they have hit crisis. And for example, there are hundreds of thousands of people on legacy benefits who we know would be better off on universal credit, but they do not make a claim. Why? Because of the scaremongering and scares from the Labour party.
Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)
I do not quite understand the point that the Minister is making. As it stands, Government policy is to reduce universal credit by £20 a week from April. Surely it is perfectly legitimate for Members of this House to draw attention to that.
Will Quince
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that intervention, but it was absolutely clear that the uplift of £20 per week was a temporary measure for one year, and we have also been clear that the Chancellor has yet to make a decision and that all options are on the table.
I have said this before, but it is important to stress the point: discussions remain ongoing with Her Majesty’s Treasury and a decision on the future of the £20 universal credit uplift will be taken by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in due course. The Chancellor has been clear that all options are on the table and that he will take into account the assessment of the economic and health situation as the best way to build on the successful support that the Government have put in place and provided for those on low incomes and in need throughout this year, through our plan for jobs and winter support package. My right hon. Friend Chancellor of the Exchequer has an unenviable task—there is no question about that—but I point out to the House that he has a proven track record of stepping up to support the poorest, most vulnerable and most disadvantaged in our country throughout this pandemic. I have no doubt that he will continue to do so. The scaremongering is not helpful.
We must not forget that the more than £7 billion of additional funding to strengthen our welfare safety net was just one part of a much larger package of support measures for individuals, which has dovetailed with DWP-led support. Those measures include the coronavirus job retention scheme; the self-employment income support scheme; increases to the local housing allowance; local council tax assistance; the local welfare assistance scheme; the covid winter grant scheme; the protection for renters; and the support and protection for homeowners. Despite our delivering an unprecedented package of support since March and the crucial support that we continue to roll out through our jobcentre network throughout the country, we know we must continue to maintain the strength of our welfare safety net, particularly to protect those experiencing financial hardship for the months to come.
The Government propose, in the draft order, to spend an extra £2.7 billion in 2021-22 on increasing benefit and pension rates. With this spending we are upholding our commitment to the country’s pensioners by maintaining the triple lock, increasing pensions by 2.5% and therefore spending on pensioner benefits by £2.2 billion; helping the poorest pensioners who rely on pension credit; and ensuring that working-age benefits, including essential support for disabled people and carers, maintain their value in relation to prices by increasing them by 0.5%. That is in addition to the comprehensive support package already in place to support those affected by the pandemic.
The Government remain committed to providing families and pensioners throughout our nation with a helping hand, should they need it. We will do so by once again increasing the levels of benefits for the next financial year. I commend this order to the House.
Seema Malhotra (Feltham and Heston) (Lab/Co-op)
I speak today on behalf of my hon. Friend the Member for Westminster North (Ms Buck), who is unable to be with us.
This country has been tested over the past year and our communities have seen struggle in many ways. The pandemic has also held up a mirror to our country’s resilience and to household resilience. I join the Minister in thanking the work coaches and other civil servants across the country for all that has been done in the DWP to support those in need.
It is right that the uprating order will increase working-age benefits, disability support and the state pension this year, but the Minister will know that the Conservatives froze working-age benefits between 2016 and 2020, and finally increased them by 1.7% last year. However, unemployment support was still at its lowest level in real terms since 1992 prior to the emergency uplift, a policy that has left families struggling to make ends meet.
Labour supports the Government’s decision to honour the triple-lock state pension commitment this year, which will see the basic state pension and the new state pension rise by 2.5%. The Secretary of State has decided to uprate the personal or standard allowances of universal credit, income support, housing benefit, jobseeker’s allowance, employment and support allowance, and disability carer and other working-age benefits in line with prices, but that comes after this decade of cuts. Excluding coronavirus-related increases, the majority of working-age benefits were between 9% and 17% lower last year than they would have been if benefits had been updated by CPI since 2010; that is according to the House of Commons Library.
I want to highlight in my remarks three important omissions from the order. The Minister has referred to the first of them; I think he spent so much time talking about the withdrawal of the uplift because it is a matter of concern to colleagues on both sides of the House—and I do mean both sides of the House. It is disingenuous of him to say that we are scaremongering when all we are doing is highlighting the concern felt by families up and down the country and by many groups that I will also mention in my comments today. He and his Government have yet to say what is happening to this lifeline for families in need—a lifeline through lockdown and as lockdown starts to be lifted. Indeed, there are reports today of the Chancellor and the Prime Minister arguing about what should be happening to the uplift.
The Minister will know of the extra costs that families are facing, including from increased food costs for children at home, the use of small local shops, the need for home schooling materials and increased utility bills. The 0.5% increase on last year’s universal credit level that he has proposed will be academic for those who are set to see a cut—and it is a cut—to their universal credit of £20 a week from April. If the Government are seriously thinking about economic recovery, cutting universal credit is like pulling the rug from under the economy’s feet. This £20 a week is not saved by families; it is spent in shops and businesses across the country, stimulating the economy. And we all agree that this pandemic and the unemployment crisis will not be over by April this year. The reason people want to know about what is happening with the uplift is so that families can plan ahead for what is to come.
The Resolution Foundation has also highlighted the income shock that comes with a move to universal credit, with a third of new claimants reporting a drop in their income of at least 40% compared with a year ago. Citizens Advice has told us that three quarters of the people it is helping who are on uplifted benefits would have a negative budget if the £20 uplift was cut. Trussell Trust research shows that one in five UK claimants reported it very likely that they would be forced to turn to a food bank. The Child Poverty Action Group warned that this move could see another 200,000 children pushed into poverty.
Older people are paying the price, too. The number of those aged 50 to 64 who are out of work has risen by more than 175,000 since the start of the pandemic. This age group is at particular risk of long-term unemployment, and many will be forced to take early retirement before they can afford to do so. Angela in Sunderland told me that she was made redundant four weeks before her partner suffered a life-threatening illness. She became his carer, but the couple, in their 50s, have run out of savings. She is having great difficulty finding work and has drawn on her private pension to cover bills. The cut to universal credit would push Angela and her husband into further financial difficulty, at the worst time. So the Minister and his Government should do the right thing and secure our economy by cancelling the cut to universal credit from April, not least because when Labour forced a vote on the issue he abstained; almost 11,000 people in his constituency as well are on universal credit.
I also want to talk about legacy benefits, because it is discriminatory and unfair that the £20 a week uplift was never extended to those on legacy benefits, many of whom are carers or disabled. There is simply no excuse for it. This injustice has been raised repeatedly by Labour and other parties, and action has been called for by the Chair of the cross-party Work and Pensions Committee, my right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms), who is in the Chamber today. Indeed, a Committee report today highlights a recent survey by the Disability Benefits Consortium of disabled people claiming legacy benefits. It found that two thirds of disabled claimants have had to go without essential items at some point during the pandemic, and almost half report being unable to pay rent and household bills.
The Joseph Rowntree Foundation, along with 50 other organisations, has called on the Government to match the increase in legacy benefits, as part of their “Keep the lifeline” campaign. The Government claim that the legacy systems would take too long to update, but that is not a reason; it is an excuse. We are now nearly 11 months into the pandemic, so what excuse do the Government have now for that blatant unfairness?
The order also fails to uprate the benefits cap, which remains at the same cash level since November 2016. That means that families will not see any inflation-linked increase to underlying benefits that they are entitled to. The Minister knows what that means. December’s figures show that 170,000 families are seeing their benefits reduced by £246 per month on average, and 85% of those families include children. Ending the cap would put much-needed cash in the pockets of Britain’s poorest families, helping them through the crisis without a devastating increase in household debt.
Similar also applies to the local housing allowance, which has been frozen in cash terms for 2021-22, and for which the intention is to carry the freeze forward into subsequent years, as hinted by the Secretary of State in a written statement in December. It means that the Government are refusing to make even the bottom 30% of local rents affordable to private tenants.
In a compassionate society, we need a fair and supportive social security system that helps build resilience, supports people seeking work and helps families through difficult times. A quarter of UK families had less than £100 in savings when the crisis began, and the pandemic has hit families’ incomes hard.
Labour is supporting today’s increase to working-age benefits, disability support and the state pension, but the Minister has heard our views today on the major omissions, and if he will not act today, he must act soon and heed the warnings from those on the frontline. They are working with families who are doing the right thing in very hard times and asking simply that their Government be on their side.
Sir Roger Gale (North Thanet) (Con) [V]
I thank my hon. Friend the Minister for the measured way in which he introduced the order, and I join him in thanking the staff of the Department for Work and Pensions and the jobcentres for the extraordinary way in which they have managed to handle a very difficult situation. I am particularly grateful to those working in the jobcentre in Margate, with whom I am in regular contact, and the regional DWP centre in Chatham. I have found myself working most weekends and sending emails on Sunday, only, to my surprise, to find them responded to almost immediately, which means that those staff have been working all the hours that God sends as well. I am sure that all hon. Members on both sides of the House would like to pay tribute to those people, who have worked so hard on behalf of our constituents.
As my hon. Friend said, some three quarters of a million people have been added to the register since last March. It must be the case that many of those will be ladies and gentlemen who have never found it necessary to claim benefit in their lives before. A lot of those will be small business people—the self-employed, or people who have lost their job because a firm has gone under and they could not be furloughed. Those people have found themselves claiming universal credit and depending on every penny of that money, which in almost all cases, probably, is far less than the amount that they and their family have ever in their lifetime received to live on.
My hon. Friend referred to something that, although it is not strictly speaking part of the social uprating order, is the elephant in the room—or rather, the elephant that is not in the room. When the Chancellor introduced the uplift of £20 last April, he made it very clear that it was temporary and that it was for a year. We can all do the maths; we understand that a year from last April means this April. I agree with my hon. Friend the Minister that it is scaremongering to suggest that somehow that assistance is going to disappear overnight at the end of April, because we all know perfectly well that that is not the intention. As the Minister said, the Chancellor has gone out of his way to throw lifeline after lifeline to people who have been facing serious financial difficulties as a result of the pandemic.
What I am looking for now is further assistance. Many of the three quarters of a million people and others who are currently having to rely on benefits will fairly swiftly drop out of the system because they will rebuild their businesses, get back into employment and back to earning the kinds of income that they need to support their families, and very often to support other families through employment as well, but I am afraid that that is going to take time. The idea that this can be done in three or six months has to be cloud cuckoo land.
I obviously do not expect an answer from the Minister this afternoon, as this is a discussion that will have to be held in Cabinet with the Chancellor of the Exchequer as well as the Department for Work and Pensions, but I believe that, at the very least, we need another year’s extension to the £20 uplift to make it absolutely certain that those who have momentarily lost their feet can find their feet again, get back on those feet, get back into employment and start to rebuild not only their lives but the economic life of the nation. I hope very much that the Minister will take that message away, discuss it with his hon. Friends and seek to ensure that the absolute minimum further period for the uplift will be one year. Thank you very much indeed.
David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)
Before I get to the substance of my remarks on the order before us, I want to take a moment to pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Airdrie and Shotts (Neil Gray), who previously served as Scottish National party work and pensions spokesperson. More than just an exceptional five-a-side football player, he was a passionate advocate of social justice long before he entered this House, and although I am sad that he will soon be leaving this Parliament, I very much hope that Westminster’s loss will be Holyrood’s gain as he seeks to represent the finest town and football club in our national Parliament.
In taking on this role of shadowing the DWP, there are many things on which I will disagree with the United Kingdom Government in terms of policy and ideology, but I am very much on the same page as the Minister in paying tribute to our work coaches and DWP staff, who are the finest in the land, as I see at Shettleston jobcentre in my constituency.
Let me turn to the order before us. To be blunt, after a decade of Tory cuts to social security spending and with millions facing hardship, current social security provision simply does not go far enough to support people in a decent and caring society. These policies are part of a wider austerity agenda that continually attacks the most vulnerable in society. We see it time and again: the two-child limit, and the associated rape clause; and the benefit cap. The list gets bigger, yet the Union dividend for Scotland gets smaller. The structure and support of our social security system says a lot about us as a society and how we treat the most vulnerable when they need that safety net the most. Right now, this Tory Government are failing enormously to guarantee the future certainty of social security payments in the coming months. Ministers must therefore listen to the widespread calls to make the £20 uplift to universal credit and working tax credit permanent, and indeed extend this to the legacy benefits.
The crux of this issue for us in Scotland is that 85% of welfare expenditure and income replacement benefits remain reserved to the United Kingdom Government here in London. As we find ourselves in the middle of a pandemic facing not only a public health crisis but an economic crisis, Scotland should not have to wait and merely hope for the UK Government to reject austerity and help the poorest in our communities. The Joseph Rowntree Foundation highlighted the devastating effect of years of Tory austerity and welfare cuts on many families across Scotland, with levels of destitution rising by 35% between 2017 and 2019. Today’s uprating does not make up for four long years of benefit freezing prior to the pandemic. The proposed uplift also fails to account of the financial hardship that many families are facing as a result of the pandemic. Research by the Trussell Trust found that nearly a quarter of a million parents worry that they will not be will be able to properly feed their children if the £20-a-week boost to universal credit is whipped away in April. I do not think that the Minister would be suggesting that the Trussell Trust is scaremongering.
A case from our citizens advice bureau in the west of Scotland reports a client with a young baby facing financial difficulties as a result of unexplained deductions to her benefits. That client’s deductions are around £50 a month, meaning that any removal of the uplift will push her into more severe hardship. I do not think that the Minister would be suggesting that the citizens advice bureau in the west of Scotland is scaremongering. Indeed, at a national level, Citizens Advice Scotland reports that, without the universal credit uplift, more than seven in 10 people receiving complex debt advice from citizens advice bureaux will be unable to meet their basic living costs. I do not think that the Minister is suggesting that Citizens Advice Scotland is scare- mongering.
Throughout the pandemic, we in the SNP have urged the UK Government to make permanent the £20 uplift to universal credit. However, it is not only the SNP demanding urgent action; these calls are coming from right across the political spectrum. In its report published only this morning, the Work and Pensions Committee said:
“We stand by our recommendation—made in October 2020—that the increase in Universal Credit should be maintained, with annual inflation-based increases.”
It went on to say that
“if the Chancellor cannot yet commit to making the increase permanent, he should at the very least extend it for a further 12 months.”
I do not think the cross-party Work and Pensions Committee, which includes a majority of Conservative MPs, is scaremongering.
A cross-party report published last week by the all-party group on poverty urged the Government to retain the uplift and to suspend the benefit cap. I do not think the all-party group on poverty, co-chaired by the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake), is scaremongering.
The Prime Minister’s assurance that the £20 uplift will remain in place until at least April is simply not good enough. People are now facing a cliff edge in April, because the UK Government have failed to act and, as usual, have let the issue run on until the 11th hour. Analysis by the Scottish Government has made it clear that removing the £20 uplift will have a devastating impact, forcing a further 60,000 people in Scotland, including 20,000 children, into poverty.
This £20 uplift has helped 2.5 million households across the UK during the pandemic, but the effects of the pandemic will be long lasting, with many industries suffering and countless people facing redundancies, so it is clear that this uplift needs to remain. The British Government have a moral duty to ensure that people have enough money to get by, so I argue that making this small increase permanent would be a big step towards doing that.
Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on his appointment to his new post. Is it not the case that lots of families are, for the first time, experiencing what it is like to be on universal credit? There will be a double whammy for those who have come on to universal credit over the course of the past year and then face this cliff edge of the further reduction. It is actually increasing the long-term cost to the Government, society and the economy if people are not properly helped back on their feet from the pandemic.
David Linden
My hon. Friend hits the nail on the head. Far too often during this pandemic—whether in response to the public health aspects of the pandemic or, indeed, to the economic aspects of it—everything the Government have done has been about trying to get to the next day. It has been about trying to get a quick win and just get through the day, but unless we see a strategic thought-through process from the Government, we will continue to see these problems reinvent themselves.
Alongside increasing universal credit at the outset of the pandemic, the UK Government enhanced local housing allowance to cover the lowest 30th percentile of market rents. Both these actions effectively reversed the effect of George Osborne’s freeze on the benefit introduced in 2016. The benefits freeze is a prime example of what the Tories believe to be acceptable social security policy, but the Joseph Rowntree Foundation has made it very clear that the benefits freeze has been the biggest contributory factor in exacerbating poverty levels among working families.
Although there was a welcome increase to universal credit during the pandemic, there was sadly no increase to legacy benefits such as employment and support allowance and income support. Without this increase, those who are claiming legacy benefits face unprecedented financial challenges related to the pandemic, and this further risks worsening the financial situation for those claimants who are already facing difficulties. That specifically includes those with disabilities who cannot and should not be left behind by this Government who already have a pretty woeful record when it comes to penalising those with a disability. Increasing the value of the legacy benefits would also protect people from having to make complex and very difficult decisions about whether they would be better off moving to universal credit. The Government should ease pressure on households receiving legacy benefits by applying an uplift to mirror increases to the standard allowance within universal credit.
Before I conclude, I want to make reference to the two-child policy and rape clause. The Minister is probably wincing at the reference to the rape clause—indeed, he recently wrote to my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss), pleading with her not to call it that. Presumably, Ministers would prefer it to be given its Sunday name: the non-consensual-sex exemption. If the Minister is embarrassed by the reference to the rape clause, I suggest that it is not the wording that should embarrass him, but the very essence of a policy that is surely the most barbaric ever to come out of Whitehall.
The Westminster austerity agenda continues to punish some of the most vulnerable people in our communities and make their lives a misery. The order before the House today is a mere formality; for as long as Scotland remains chained to Westminster, my party and I will always speak up for the most vulnerable and make the case for a decent, generous and robust social security system. But there is no escaping the fact that until Scotland is independent we are forced to accept the majority of social security policy from a Westminster Government we did not vote for—whose support, at best, could only be described as meagre.
Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)
I am pleased to follow the hon. Member for Glasgow East (David Linden) and I congratulate him on his appointment.
This order is an annual routine, but this year is different: the number claiming universal credit has more or less doubled since last March; we are still in a global pandemic; and the order would dramatically cut the universal credit standard allowance. We have already been reminded by my hon. Friend the Member for Feltham and Heston (Seema Malhotra) that for four years, from 2016 to 2020, people claiming around half the benefits covered by this order had their incomes frozen: they were no longer connected at all to the cost of living.
In 2018, the House of Commons Library estimated that, this year, working-age social security spending would be £37 billion less than in 2010 in real-terms 2018-19 prices. The Resolution Foundation says much the same, coming up with a figure for social security spending that is around £34 billion lower in 2023-24 than if the 2010 system had remained in place. People claiming universal credit and working tax credit had a temporary increase of £20 a week. That costs about one sixth of the real-terms cut in annual working-age benefits since 2010—less than 3% of overall pandemic support.
The Minister was right to say that people are scared at the prospect of losing the £20-a-week increase. I think he was kind of hinting—saying, “Well, don’t worry; it is not really going to happen.” But the answer to that problem is not to suggest that other Members of the House should not be talking about the issue; it is for the Government to make a clear statement that they are not going to go ahead with their current policy, which is to cut the benefit in April. I hope we do not have to wait until the Budget, which is still another three weeks away, before we have an announcement about what exactly the Government’s policy is.
The Joseph Rowntree Foundation says that withdrawing the temporary increase will risk sweeping half a million more people, including 200,000 more children, into poverty. In its report this morning, which has been referred to, the Work and Pensions Committee unanimously, on a cross-party basis, called on the Chancellor, as others already have in this debate, to extend the increase for at least a year. We are joined in that call by lots of organisations, as well as by the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith), who I see in the Chamber, and the right hon. Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire (Stephen Crabb), both former Secretaries of State; by many other Government Members —we have just heard from the right hon. Member for North Thanet (Sir Roger Gale); and by the House of Lords Economic Affairs Committee, chaired by the noble Lord Forsyth.
The Joseph Rowntree Foundation quotes a woman in London saying:
“That £20 is often the difference between light and heat or no light and heat. If you don’t have gas, you can’t cook.”
That is what many people have been up against during the pandemic. That support must not be withdrawn next month.
The report also looked at the idea that has been floated of removing the increase but giving instead a lump sum—perhaps £1,000, equivalent to a year’s worth of the increase. The Committee is strongly opposed. It is a very bad idea, and the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions made it clear to the Committee last week that she rightly opposes it. Citizens Advice told us that
“having a stable regular income is the best way to support people to budget and manage their money.”
The attraction for the Treasury, of course, would be the hope of withdrawing the increase without people noticing. It would not work.
People claiming benefits other than universal credit and working tax credit have seen, as we have been reminded, no increase at all. In our report in June, as the hon. Member for Glasgow East reminded us, we recommended increasing legacy benefits by the same amount. The report said:
“that does not mean that the Government should simply ignore the needs of those people who are claiming—through no fault of their own—benefits which rely on outdated and complex administrative systems. Those benefits include support for disabled people, people with health conditions, for carers…We recommend that…the Department should immediately seek to increase the rates of relevant legacy benefits by the equivalent amount.”
Since then, the Government have steadfastly refused. The Prime Minister told the Liaison Committee that it is because the Government
“want everybody to move on to universal credit.”
However, until two weeks ago, people receiving severe disability premium were prevented by law from doing so.
It has been argued recently, against the increase in legacy benefits, that the universal credit rise was to help people claiming for the first time, rather than those already claiming, but that was not what the Chancellor said in announcing the increase on 20 March 2020. He said that it was to
“benefit over 4 million of our most vulnerable households”—
the 4 million claiming universal credit and working tax credit at the time. All the other equally vulnerable house- holds, and many more vulnerable than those 4 million, have had no extra help at all. This order increased disability-related benefits by 0.5% at most.
Should disabled people have had some extra help during the pandemic? The Secretary of State told the Select Committee last week that she was
“not aware specifically of extra costs that would have been unduly incurred”
by disabled people during the pandemic. I spoke to a constituent—a disabled single parent with two daughters, one of whom is disabled. She used to search for bargains in local markets and supermarkets. During the pandemic, she has had to stay safe and not do that. She pays £1.50 or £2 for what used to cost her £1. She feels very hurt that she has had no extra help for those extra costs. Others have to pay supermarket delivery charges of £4 or £5 a time, and another £4 if they buy less than the minimum £40 order. That is a big chunk out of an income of £74.70.
The Select Committee’s coronavirus survey last year showed that people claiming disability benefits have substantial additional costs, such as extra cleaning and carers’ protective equipment. Last week, the Disability Benefits Consortium, in a new survey of disabled people claiming legacy benefits, which my hon. Friend the Member for Feltham and Heston referred to, found that 82% have had to spend more than normal during the pandemic and two thirds have had to go without essentials at some point over the past year. That is the evidence that the Secretary of State said last week that she had not seen. It is very clear, and I hope the Minister will reflect on it.
Unpaid carers have borne an extraordinary burden during the pandemic. Carer’s allowance is going to rise under this order by 35p per week. Carers UK is calling for it to increase by £20, like universal credit.
The standard minimum guarantee in pension credit will be raised, which is welcome, but take-up of pension credit remains much too low. The Minister for Pensions wrote to the Committee last week with an estimate of 63% for pension credit take-up. The charity Independent Age has called today for a new written strategy on pension credit uptake, including trial automatic enrolment. It estimates that the cost to the Government of those eligible for but not receiving pension credit is
“£4 billion a year in increased NHS and social care spending.”
That is a powerful reminder that scrimping on social security imposes large additional costs elsewhere.
The British Association of Social Workers has pointed out that the start of real terms working-age social security cuts in 2010 marked the start of a big surge of children being taken into care, imposing very large new costs on the Exchequer. We need to ensure that the social security system has the resources to do the job that all of us agree it should do. That means maintaining the £20 a week rise in universal credit for at least another year, and ensuring that legacy benefit claimants can, at last, get extra help as well.
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab) [V]
I am a regular in social security debates. Over the last 10 years, it has affected me deeply to learn how millions of our citizens are being treated by the state. I thought that our social security system was meant to provide a safety net and support for us if something bad happened in our lives, and many of the 3 million new universal credit claimants, including more than 7,000 in my constituency, will have that thought too. Our social security system should be there for all of us in our time of need, just like the NHS, providing security and dignity in retirement and the support needed should we become sick or disabled, or if we fall out of work, to protect us from poverty whether we are in or out of work.
The reality, as we have been hearing, is somewhat different. In the past, I have talked about the escalating levels of poverty. They are primarily a result of the four-year benefit freeze, but others have mentioned, around the benefit cap, a whole host of cuts that the previous coalition and Conservative Governments introduced. As we heard from my right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms), the equivalent of £37 billion has been taken out of working-age social security support since 2010.
I have talked about the 4 million or so children growing up in poverty, which affects not just how hungry or cold they may be on cold days such as today, but their cognitive development, how they will do at school, their very futures and even how long they will live. The free school meals fiasco was just that: a fiasco. Yet still the Government sit on their hands and do the bare minimum, as report after report says that the situation is getting worse.
The Government say that work is the best route out of poverty. I say, “Well, why were more than 8 million families living in poverty before the pandemic, including 3 million children, and why will four out of five of those families still be in poverty 10 years later?” The Government say, “We had to clear up your mess from the financial crisis.” I say, “Well, we’ll have to clear up your mess after the mismanagement of this pandemic, including your failures in adopting recommendations for pandemic preparedness from 2016.”
Poverty and inequality are not inevitable; they are political choices, and we will make very different choices. This is about political ideology. In spite of all the Government’s talk about levelling up, they have studiously ignored every reasonable proposal from charities and others—even from their own Back Benchers.
Take the recent Work and Pensions Committee report on the five-week wait for the first universal credit payment. With approximately 6 million new universal credit claimants —nearly double last March’s figure—we undertook an extensive inquiry into how the debt, rent arrears and psychological distress that new UC claimants face could be avoided. Our recommendations included introducing a starter payment, not a loan, to cover the wait for the first payment. We also recommended that the Department for Work and Pensions work to define and identify vulnerable claimants who may be at risk, and that it work more closely with other agencies in this regard, so that vulnerable people get the right joined-up support. Unfortunately, the Government rejected all our recommendations—every single one. Levelling up should not just be about infrastructure projects.
This is the first time the House will have heard about the death of such a vulnerable claimant, Philippa Day. Nearly two weeks ago, the coroner reporting on the inquest into Philippa’s death issued a prevention of future deaths notice against the Department for Work and Pensions and Capita after he found 28 failings. This is the fifth prevention of future deaths report to be issued to the DWP since 2013. Philippa was 27 when she died in October 2019 after going into a coma having taken an overdose of insulin. She had known mental health problems as well as having type 1 diabetes, and she had been battling with an application for the personal independence payment after being on disability living allowance. Her money was stopped in January 2019 and, in huge debt, she overdosed in August 2019. The coroner stated:
“Given the sheer number of problems in the handling of Philippa’s claim I am unable to conclude that each of these was attributable to individual human errors. The following deficiencies in the system’s ability to process PIP claims without causing unnecessary distress to claimants were evidenced…Although the decision to take an overdose was doubtless multi-factorial in origin, the combined impact of successive destabilising incidents caused by the problems in the handling of her benefits claim was, in my finding, the predominant factor, and the only acute factor, which led to her decision to take an overdose.”
Philippa’s was not the first death of a vulnerable claimant over the past 10 years, and I fear that it will not be the last. I am afraid that the response of the Work and Pensions Secretary to my questions on this has not been good enough. There has to be an independent inquiry into these deaths.
Not only have the Government hollowed out support for working-age people, making it far from adequate, but all too often the culture is one of disregard and even punishment rather than support, and 2021 will continue to be tough on people. As others have said, at the very least the Chancellor needs to maintain the £20 per week uplift to universal credit and working tax credits for at least a year, and it must be extended to legacy support, which is often used by disabled claimants. As Professor Sir Michael Marmot said recently, we need to recognise the key drivers of the UK’s high and unequal death toll from covid, including the existing levels of poverty and inequality, and address these by building back fairer. When I asked the Prime Minister about this, he said that he would, and I am going to hold him to that commitment.
Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab) [V]
The number of people claiming universal credit has doubled to around 6 million, while job vacancies remain far below the pre-pandemic levels and unemployment is set to reach a five-year high. It hardly seems a propitious moment to be reducing any benefits. I have to say that, much as I like the Minister, it sounds to me a little like doublespeak for him to claim that calling the reduction of an existing payment a cut is somehow fraudulent and a terribly unacceptable use of emotive language.
The latest Trussell Trust survey of 1,000 people in receipt of universal credit shows that one in five people think it is very likely that they will need support from a food bank if the uplift is removed. Nearly a quarter of a million parents fear not being able to properly feed their children if the uplift is removed, and seven in 10 people on universal credit since early 2020 say that they use the uplift to buy absolute essentials. It is for those reasons that I support the Work and Pensions Committee’s call to maintain the uplift for a further year at the very least.
It has been estimated that keeping the increase could cost around £6.4 billion, but as the Select Committee argues, that should be seen in the context of the Treasury’s own claim that it has spent £280 billion on coronavirus support measures this year. In that context, 2% is hardly outrageous. The expenditure that the Minister announced today needs to be viewed against the 2019 Office for Budget Responsibility report on the impact of the 2015 Budget, which cut £9.1 billion from welfare spending.
It is worth repeating that the £20 a week uplift was never extended to those on legacy benefits, and therefore it excluded many carers and disabled people and those on jobseeker’s allowance. Apparently, the justification is that it would have taken too long to update the legacy systems. I have heard some excuses in my time, but I doubt many people will find that a persuasive reason for excluding quite so many people. It would be helpful to hear how the Minister thinks the Government are helping carers and the disabled to meet the additional costs incurred through no fault of their own, such as the cost of PPE.
There are aspects of today’s announcement that I welcome. I particularly support the decision to honour the triple lock and the increase in the guaranteed minimum pension credit, but it would be so much better if the Minister could address the elephant in the room, rather than risk undermining the positive steps he is attempting to take.
Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)
It is hard to believe that more than four months have passed since we considered the Social Security (Up-rating of Benefits) Bill last autumn, and I welcome the annual process used to ensure that social security benefits and pensions are uprated. However, like others who have spoken in the debate, I must put on record my disappointment at the decisions taken. We are just weeks away from the new financial year, and it might seem hard to believe for some Members, but for millions of people across the country, that represents a terrifying reality.
There is still total uncertainty about what will happen to the universal credit uplift of £20 a week. Under the statutory instrument, the Government plan to take away £1,000 a year from the least well-off families in Britain. This is not scaremongering. The uplift may have been for one year, but people’s situations are arguably more precarious than they were a year ago, so this is quite simply the wrong thing to do. It is the wrong thing to do morally, and it is the wrong thing to do economically, because this money will not be stored away; it will be spent and reinvested back into the economy.
The support that the uplift represents is vital, yet the Government have spurned opportunity after opportunity to make it permanent or to at least extend it. They could have done it during the Secretary of State’s publication of uprating totals back in November, and they could have done it when the latest national lockdown was announced at the beginning of the year, but they did not. Then the Government abstained on the Opposition day motion in the name of the Leader of the Opposition, which puts us in a bizarre situation where Parliament has approved a motion calling for the uplift to be made permanent, yet the Government plan to do nothing about it. The idea of non-binding motions may be familiar to those of us who occupy this place, but in terms of communicating the will of the House to our constituents, I find that an abdication of responsibility from those on the Government Benches. During all that time, millions of families have had to live with the uncertainty of not knowing what their income will be come April. The Government need to provide support, but they also need to provide certainty.
I welcome the report published last week by the all-party parliamentary group on poverty, chaired by the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake), calling for the uplift to be made permanent. As the hon. Member for Feltham and Heston (Seema Malhotra) said, support for that exists across the House. That is what the Government have to do. Otherwise, they will be letting people down at exactly the time when our safety net is meant to support them.
The report also calls for an uplift in legacy benefits, which I wholeheartedly echo and which has been recommended by the Work and Pensions Committee, the Joseph Rowntree Foundation and many others. I do not think we in this place have given enough attention to the issue of people in receipt of legacy benefits. Many of my constituents who receive these benefits were very disappointed to see that they had been excluded from any uplift. It is not right. If we accept that universal credit claimants should receive an uplift, there is no reason why that should not have been extended. Instead, the only uplifts offered for legacy benefits are the inflationary ones detailed in the statutory instrument today. That means, for example, that someone who receives ESA and is in a work-related activity group will receive 35p per week extra, and someone who receives carer’s allowance will see a 30p per week increase. Many of my constituents regard these increases, at a time of such hardship for many of them, to be derisory. I urge the Government to consider uplifting legacy benefits. It is a question of fairness. The Minister, in his opening remarks, suggested that Opposition scaremongering is responsible for those on legacy benefits being deterred from making UC claims, but surely at such an uncertain time it is understandable that people choose to stick with what they know and what they have.
Mark Tami (Alyn and Deeside) (Lab)
Does the hon. Lady agree that people are also exposed to loan sharks and others who know how vulnerable people are at this time and prey on them?
Wendy Chamberlain
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his intervention and agree absolutely: when people are desperate, they turn to whatever options are available to them and that stores up more difficulties for the future.
I turn now to the uplifting of pensions. It is right that the Government have taken steps, such as in the Social Security (Up-rating of Benefits) Act 2020, to ensure that the commitment to the triple lock is maintained. As I said during the passage of that Act, not only does the triple lock provide an important means to ensure that pensioners are properly supported in retirement, but it is a matter of intergenerational fairness. Small increases year on year now ensure that the generation who are currently just entering the workplace will also receive that support when it is time for them to retire.
This is a timely opportunity to discuss pensions, for important research was published today by the charity Independent Age—this was referred to by the Chair of the Select Committee, the right hon. Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms)—detailing that older people miss out on £88 million a year from the warm home discount because they do not claim pension credit. Some 650,000 pensioners who are eligible for pension credit do not claim it. I hope the Minister in his winding-up speech will address what the Department for Work and Pensions is doing to promote engagement and increase uptake of this important benefit.
The final area I want to refer to where there is an inherent sense of unfairness is the frozen pensions of overseas pensioners in certain countries. I have recently met people affected by this issue. They have found it hard to survive on a frozen pension and this is especially the case during the coronavirus pandemic. There is a moral case to expand the pensions uplift to overseas pensioners during the pandemic.
I welcome the recent report of the all-party group on frozen British pensions, which is chaired by the right hon. Member for North Thanet (Sir Roger Gale), who spoke earlier in the debate. The report tells of a British citizen, a 96-year-old veteran called Anne Puckridge, who served in all three branches of the armed forces. She moved to Canada in 2001 so that she could be close to her family. Despite all that, and despite her national insurance contributions, she finds herself receiving a state pension of £72.50 a week. Of course, because of the 15-year rule, she is denied proper representation in this place, and I look forward to the Government bringing forward legislation, as they committed to do in their manifesto, to scrap the 15-year rule. She is in a strange and arbitrary situation where, had she moved a bit further south, over the border, into the United States, she would be eligible for a fully uprated state pension, because we have an agreement with the US. Does the Minister see the unfairness in that?
The all-party group has found that the Canadian Government are willing to engage on this issue and have made a formal request to the UK Government about the potential for reciprocal arrangements. I hope the Minister will be in a position to update us on what discussions he and the Pensions Minister, the Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, the hon. Member for Hexham (Guy Opperman), have had about this. I hope the Minister will address three key questions on this issue. When do the UK Government plan to respond to the Canadian Government? What is the process moving forward on coming to an agreement? What is that response likely to be? I urge them to reach an agreement. It would clearly be transformative for very many. I look forward to hearing from the Minister on this issue during his winding-up speech.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP) [V]
It is always a pleasure to follow right hon. and hon. Members, and indeed learned Members, and I look forward to the Minister’s response. He is very intent on and interested in his portfolio.
Article 6(2) sets out that the full rate of the state pension is to be amended from £175.20 to £179.60. I would be most obliged to understand that consideration has been given to the fact that this additional £4.40 per week would just about cover the cost of the BBC TV licence. I make this point because today a number of constituents have contacted me about the BBC TV licence. We have all got our reminders about it today, as indeed have many pensioners. Pensioners must now pay, never mind the cost of living increases. Surely we would be better placed to increase this before that reaches final approval.
Again, this is not the Minister’s portfolio—it is not his direct responsibility—but I would respectfully and gently ask: has he had any opportunity to talk with a Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Minister about perhaps approving free TV licences for those over 70 years old, because there are many who fall into that category? I am always very mindful at this moment in time that we have had an increase in poverty in all age groups, in particular families and those who are elderly.
I have some concerns about the uplifts in benefits. The most vulnerable in receipt of PIP are seeing uplifts, under article 16, of anywhere from 10p per week to a grand amount of 45p per week. I am not against the increase, but before I could consider voting for the motion I would like an understanding of how the cost of living increase is factored into this. I think it is important that we understand how these increases, while in many cases nominal, have the cost of living factored into them.
In Northern Ireland, the Northern Ireland protocol is seeing individual products increase by more than this—it is something that I would be aware of and my colleagues would be aware of—never mind a whole week’s shop-worth. While these provisions exclude Northern Ireland, perhaps an outline of the rationale can be given as to the uplift amount.
On the state pension uprating, as pertains to part 2, article 10, maternity pay has an uplift of 77p. It is difficult to comprehend, as this would not even pay for a litre of milk. Again, I say respectfully and genuinely to the Minister: is he able to explain the rationale to expectant parents who, when hearing of the uplift, will believe that their life is to be made easier, only to understand that these uplifts will cost more to process than the actual increase to a family?
Every one of us, as elected representatives, is very aware of those in poverty. We have been confronted with a greater number of those who are subjected to poverty in all spheres of life, but more so due to the pandemic, and all the stats and figures indicate that that is the case. So when it comes to increases in pensions and benefits, I think the rationale for how they are considered and how they are agreed is something that we all wish to understand better.
When we take into consideration the difficulty that lockdown babies are facing with their social skills and the need for parents to be able to afford to take them out to baby classes as soon as it safe to do so, it seems that their maternity pay uplift will not help them increase the quality of life for their child. I know that the Minister is keen to ensure that they are helped, affected and assured, but again, my constituents ask me: just how does it work?
Has consideration been given to the effect of the pandemic on maternity leave? I referred to that just a few minutes ago. I think it has been the extra that has pushed people very much to the breadline. I am aware that, in my constituency, among many of the people who are under pressure financially, there are more referrals to the food bank in my constituency. The one in my constituency was the first food bank in the whole of Northern Ireland. Over this last period—the Christmas period—it handed out 870 individual assistances to those people. That again tells me that there is real financial pressure. I would ask: has consideration been given to the effect of the pandemic on maternity leave and is that a consideration that we can make at this stage?
I conclude by saying to the Minister that I ask these questions genuinely and respectfully, but I do feel, on behalf of my constituents, that I need an answer.
Will Quince
I begin by thanking all those who have spoken and taken part in the debate, which covered many important topics. Given the time constraints, I will not be able to cover off all the points raised, but as I said in my opening speech—I will just focus on this for one moment—the statutory annual review of benefits does not include a decision on the £20-per-week uplift to universal credit, which was announced by the Chancellor as a temporary measure in March last year. I repeat, because this is important, that the Chancellor has been clear that all options are on the table. He will take into account the assessment of the economic and health situation when considering the best way to build on the successful support that the Government have provided to those on low incomes throughout this year so far.
I make no apology for using the word “scaremongering”. I understand some of the points that Opposition Members made, but there is a big difference between lobbying for additional Government support going forward and using emotive language and politicising an issue. I gently remind the House that it was this Government who introduced the temporary £20-per-week uplift to universal credit; it was not a measure that Opposition parties were calling for. This Government have not flinched throughout this pandemic in supporting the poorest, the lowest paid and the most vulnerable and disadvantaged, and I have no doubt that the Chancellor and the Government will continue to do so.
Members raised concerns about legacy benefits. First, let me say that I appreciate that many people face financial disruption due to the pandemic. That is why the Government put in place an unprecedented package of support, totalling more than £280 billion, to protect jobs, help families and strengthen our welfare safety net. Just to give a bit of the broader context on welfare spending, in 2021 we will spend more than £100 billion on benefits for working-age people. That is £100,000 million—around £1 in every £9 that the Government spend; double our Defence budget. We spend more on family benefits than any other country in the G7, at more than 3% of GDP. We make no apologies that we will continue to reform our welfare system so that it encourages work while supporting those who need help—an approach based on the clear evidence that work offers families the best route out of poverty.
Stephen Timms
Does the Minister accept the evidence that disabled people have seen significant cost increases in the course of the pandemic?
Will Quince
I understand the point that the right hon. Gentleman has made. I know that his report goes into some detail on this issue. I gently remind the Chair of the Select Committee that universal credit is about £2 billion more generous than the legacy benefits system it replaced and is part of a broad package of support. Over and above the £20 uplift available for those on universal credit, those in receipt of legacy benefits may be entitled to other measures. It is important that they go on to the gov.uk benefit eligibility checker to check their eligibility before applying, because as the right hon. Gentleman knows, there is no path back to legacy benefits once someone has made a universal credit application. It is important to stress that universal credit is part of that broader package of measures worth more than £280 billion throughout the course of this pandemic. Yes, of course we recognise that people across the country have faced additional costs throughout this pandemic. That is exactly why the Chancellor stepped up with that £280 billion package, including an extra £7 billion in welfare support.
The Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for Feltham and Heston (Seema Malhotra), said that we should heed the words of those on the frontline. I totally agree and encourage her to visit her local jobcentre at the earliest available opportunity to speak to work coaches, because then she will hear what they think about universal credit and how they believe it has been the tool that not only has enabled us to support an extra 3 million people throughout this pandemic but has allowed them to incentivise, support and empower people into work.
Seema Malhotra
I have visited my local jobcentre and keep in close touch with it. I hope that the Minister also listens to what I said about what the Trussell Trust, Citizens Advice and the Child Poverty Action Group have been saying, because that is important, and they will probably want a response from the Minister on those points.
Will Quince
I work very closely and meet with all the organisations that the hon. Lady references, but work coaches are an important reference point. They all say without hesitation, when I visit jobcentres across the country, that universal credit is an incredible tool—a powerful tool—to help support and empower people back into work. That is why it is so absurd that the Labour party wants to scrap it.
Several Members raised pension credit and its uptake. I have no doubt that the Pensions Minister will be willing to meet hon. Members to discuss that further, because I know that he has done a considerable amount of work in that area.
The uprating order will ensure that working-age benefits increase in line with inflation, which represents a cash increase of £500 million for working-age benefits. That includes those benefits that contribute towards extra costs arising as a result of disability or a health condition, and pensioner premiums in income-related benefits.
To conclude, I will summarise the benefit increases that the Government are implementing to support those most in need. We are increasing the basic state pension and the new state pension by 2.5%. That will deliver on our manifesto commitment for the state pension triple lock. We are increasing the pension credit standard minimum guarantee in line with the cash increase in the basic state pension to support the poorest pensioners. We are increasing working-age benefits in line with prices; we are increasing the universal credit work allowances so that claimants can earn more before their payments are reduced; and we are increasing benefits to meet additional disability needs and carer benefits in line with prices. I commend the order to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That the draft Social Security Benefits Up-rating Order 2021, which was laid before this House on 18 January, be approved.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
I will suspend the House for three minutes in order that the Chamber can be prepared for the next item of business.
Pensions
(3 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Guy Opperman) [V]
I beg to move,
That the draft Guaranteed Minimum Pensions Increase Order 2021, which was laid before this House on 18 January, be approved.
I welcome the new shadow Ministers to their posts. You wait ages for a new shadow Minister, Mr Deputy Speaker, and then two come along in a matter of weeks. I welcome the hon. Member for Reading East (Matt Rodda) to his new post. I worked in detail with his predecessor, the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Jack Dromey), who was a wonderful colleague to work with, so my new opposite number has big shoes to fill. I wish him well. Likewise, I welcome the hon. Member for Glasgow East (David Linden) to his new role as the Scottish National party shadow spokesman. I thank the hon. Member for Airdrie and Shotts (Neil Gray) for his work both with and against the Government over many years.
Guaranteed Minimum Pensions Increase Orders are an entirely technical matter that we attend to in this place each year: an order is required by section 109 of the Pension Schemes Act 1993. This statutory instrument provides some inflation protection for the guaranteed minimum pension part of an occupational pension that was built up between 1988 and 1997. This year, that part will be increased by 0.5%, in line with the consumer prices index assessment that took place between 1 October 2019 and 30 September 2020. I commend this statutory instrument to the House.
Matt Rodda (Reading East) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for his generous introductory comments and for setting out the Government’s proposed approach. I thank DWP staff and, indeed, all those supporting pensioners for their work at this difficult time.
Britain should be the best country in the world in which to grow old. One of the first responsibilities of Government is to ensure that there is a proper state pension, as a central part of the welfare state, and that people are able to look forward to a decent income in retirement. That is why we support the triple lock.
This statutory instrument addresses the needs of a particular group of state pensioners—those who paid into the state earnings-related pension scheme—and offers them an increase in line with inflation. Labour supports the measure and will not oppose the Government’s proposals; nevertheless, I wish to put those proposals into a wider context.
First, we should bear in mind the fact that huge numbers of pensioners in the UK rely on the state pension for their income. Figures from the Office for National Statistics show that in recent years we have seen the highest proportion of pensioners who are reliant solely on the state pension since the 1990s. In that light, it is clear that decisions made in this House about the state pension, including SERPS, have wide-ranging repercussions for people’s quality of life in retirement and should not be taken lightly.
As Labour has pointed out before, today’s retirement landscape is a challenging one, and we will have to work hard to find new ways to meet those challenges, including by ensuring that there is real regulation of profit-making consolidation vehicles for defined benefit pension schemes, which are often referred to as pension superfunds. They are currently subject only to an interim regulatory regime announced by the Pensions Regulator this summer.
We also need to create the conditions to support defined benefit schemes more widely. Part of that work involves listening carefully to experts and organisations on the funding requirements of both open and closed defined benefit schemes. We received assurances from the Government during the final stages of the Pension Schemes Bill in the other place, and an important dialogue will take place over the coming months to ensure that the emerging regulatory framework works for all schemes.
Furthermore, although we welcome the approval of the new pensions dashboard as a great opportunity for people to see all the information about their pension in one convenient location, it is vital that we protect consumers from the risk of exploitation. As the shadow Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, my hon. Friend the Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Jonathan Reynolds), told this House when the dashboard was being discussed in relation to the Pension Schemes Bill:
“The last thing we want is for people to make bad choices, prompted, for example, by market disruptions or unscrupulous operators, until they are more accustomed to that level of access.”—[Official Report, 16 November 2020; Vol. 684, c. 106.]
I reiterate his call to safeguard the public dashboard by giving it a head start and keeping commercial transactions off the dashboard until protections can be guaranteed.
Labour also believes that there must be accessible and transparent fee information on the dashboard. We have seen how complexity can make it difficult for those saving for their pensions to understand transaction costs. We should now take the opportunity to fix this problem. In the same light, the Government must do more to end pension scams. Although progress has been made, we must none the less stamp out this behaviour, as the consequences of people falling victim to scammers can be utterly devastating and can turn their lives upside down.
I welcome the growing interest in the assessment and disclosure of climate risk in pension investments. This is a very important issue and we must not rest on our laurels. Pension funds represent trillions of pounds in value and, as such, have huge potential for good if properly directed.
It is important to see today’s announcement in terms of what it means here and now as many pensioners face a hard and difficult winter due both to the coronavirus and the current very cold weather. Over 1 million pensioners who are entitled to pension credit are not claiming it, with very serious consequences, including tens of millions of pounds-worth of linked support for home heating being denied to those who have not claimed. The story is similar for pensioners who are entitled to a free TV licence. I challenge the Government to do much more to make people aware of pension credit entitlements and to encourage far greater take-up.
It is also important to raise the issue of those with concerns about their occupational pensions. For example, in the immediate term, what assessment have the Government made about the viability of Arcadia’s pension scheme and the impact that the sale of the high street businesses will have on staff and pensioners?
While this motion might appear on the surface to be a technical measure that affects only a proportion of pensioners, it is important that we understand the context in which we pass it. I hope that the points I have made emphasise how important it is that in the longer term we consider the pension system as a whole when making any decision that has the potential to affect so many people. As Members of this House, we make decisions that shape not just the lives of millions of current pensioners but the lives of millions of hard-working people who are yet to retire. If we are to make Britain the best place to grow old in, then we must work hard to address the issues that we have discussed today.
Sir Roger Gale (North Thanet) (Con) [V]
I rise as chairman of the all-party parliamentary group on frozen pensions. That is a body that ought not to exist at all, but unfortunately its presence is necessary and has been for some time.
It is to the eternal shame of successive Governments that there is a group of United Kingdom citizens living in Canada, Australia, South Africa, the West Indies and other far-flung places who are entitled to United Kingdom pensions and have seen those pensions frozen since they left the UK for foreign parts. That is wholly unacceptable. These people are men and women who have, in very many cases, served their country long and honourably. They are former members of the armed forces and former diplomats. They are people who have given public service and have paid their way in the United Kingdom, and then, in later life, moved to live with families overseas.
As we heard briefly in the previous debate, a United Kingdom pensioner living in Canada will have their pension frozen, sometimes for many years; the case of Anne Puckridge has been cited. A few hundred yards across Niagara Falls, in the United States, that same pensioner would have their pension uprated in line with inflation, in the same way, as we have heard today from the Minister, that other pensions in the United Kingdom are quite properly uprated. This situation persists because successive Governments have sheltered behind the opinion that, because there is no reciprocal arrangement with another country, it is not necessary for the United Kingdom to pay the full pension. That has led to the disgraceful circumstance where, in Canada, for example, the Canadian state finds itself having to top up the funds payable to a United Kingdom pensioner in order to enable them to live. That is, as I have said, a shame upon our society.
During the past year, the all-party group researched the circumstances of the many pensioners living overseas. It sought the advice of the Canadian, the Australian and other Governments and sought the opinion of parliamentarians and the Speakers of their Houses. Shortly before Christmas, we published our findings. That report is a damning indictment of what the Government of the United Kingdom have allowed to prevail for far too long.
The Canadian Government specifically have indicated very clearly that they wish to enter into a reciprocal agreement with the United Kingdom. In a background note to a parliamentary question, a Government document says that
“officials have received a letter from the Canadian federal Department responsible for leading the negotiation of Canada’s international social security agreements. The letter seeks to conclude a social security agreement between Canada and the UK. Officials have acknowledged the letter.”
It is a matter of record that the Canadian Government have sought to break the ice. They have made the move and have offered to negotiate a reciprocal agreement with the Government of the United Kingdom. In a written answer on 3 December, the Pensions Minister acknowledged that these representations had been made and indicated that a full response would be forthcoming. That was in December. We are now two months further on. I want to know, please, from the Minister this afternoon what proposals are being brought forward by the Department for Work and Pensions and the Government of the United Kingdom to enter into serious, meaningful and substantive negotiations with the Government of Canada, so that, at the very least, that wrong can be put right. I would like to think that that will be a step towards proving that this Conservative Government are taking steps to right the wrongs of the past.
David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)
Let me start by expressing my thanks to the Minister for his kind words at the beginning of his speech; it is much appreciated and I look forward to working with him in this new role.
Last week, people across the British Isles rightly came together to mourn the passing of a remarkable gentlemen, Captain Sir Tom Moore, a war veteran who served his country and lived to see his 100th birthday. Honouring pensioners and valuing them for their contribution to our society is something that the UK does very well with words, but perhaps less so with actions, and that is particularly the case when it comes to pensions. It is an inescapable fact that the United Kingdom has one of the worst state pensions in Europe, which shows just how much the British Government value older people who have worked their entire lives, paid their taxes, and now find themselves struggling to get by on the relatively low state pension, compared with their peers on the European continent.
As the right hon. Member for North Thanet (Sir Roger Gale) outlined, the situation is even worse for pensioners who have moved abroad. Older people who have chosen to join family members overseas have found that their pension has been frozen at the same rate as it was when they first became entitled to it, or indeed the date on which they left the UK and were already in receipt. The reason I spoke about Captain Sir Tom Moore is that frozen pensions particularly adversely impact veterans who live overseas.
Bernard Jackson exemplifies the injustice of Britain’s frozen pensions. Bernard fought in world war two and participated in the D-day landings as a wireless operator in the Royal Air Force. He moved to Canada with his wife, to their dream home. Sadly, after his wife died, Bernard was forced to return to the UK because he could not live on his frozen UK state pension of just £48 per week. He served his country in its darkest hours yet he was forgotten by the UK Government, with that neglect forcing him to leave his dream home. After his return to the UK he continued to campaign against the injustice of frozen pensions, to ensure that nobody else would suffer as he did. Sadly, he passed away in March 2020.
For those of us who have been following the injustice of frozen pensions there has been an encouraging proposal from the Government of Canada to implement a reciprocal agreement and end the injustice of frozen pensions for the 150,000 UK pensioners who live there. I would argue that it is now incumbent upon the British Government to open negotiations with Canada and rectify that moral injustice, because failure to do so, leaving UK nationals abroad in poverty, would send an awful signal for what is now meant to be global Britain.
It is not just overseas pensioners who face injustice when it comes to UK pensions policy. Women here at home continue to be impacted by the changes to the state pension age. Like other parties, we in the SNP support the principle of equalisation of the state pension age, but we have long had concerns about the way in which it has been done. The WASPI women have been left high and dry by a British Government who continue to adopt an ostrich policy when called upon to provide fair transitional arrangements. So we in the SNP will always call for the WASPI women to be supported, and remind Ministers that it is not too late to act on that.
One other area of pensions policy that I want to raise is that of pension credit take-up, particularly during the pandemic. It was incredibly disappointing that the Minister, when appearing before the Work and Pensions Committee last week, confirmed that the DWP had discontinued its take-up campaign, despite countless reassurances from the Government that it would continue. The Government talk a good game about trying to increase the take-up of pension credit, but talk alone is not enough, so I would ask the Minister in summing up to outline exactly what the Government’s strategy is to increase take-up. Do they even have one, and if so, will the Minister publish it?
In summary, the uprating of the state pension in line with the triple lock is welcome, but the WASPI women, and pensioners living overseas, will not feel the benefit of that. As I said at the beginning of my remarks, the British Government are good at warm words for pensioners, but words alone will not keep our pensioners warm in their houses this winter.
Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)
I wish to raise concerns specifically about the guaranteed minimum pension, which is the subject of the order. Concerns have been raised by the public with the Select Committee. The ombudsman investigated complaints from two people, and concluded that there had been maladministration in introducing the new state pension system in 2016 over its impact on people with a guaranteed minimum pension. The concern being raised in correspondence since is that the problem identified by the ombudsman still has not been properly addressed.
The ombudsman concluded:
“DWP was aware the pension changes could negatively affect people with long periods of contracting out who were due to reach State Pension Age shortly after the new State Pension was introduced…DWP failed to provide clear, accurate and complete information through its pension forecasts, impact assessments and other literature…despite being warned by both the National Audit Office and the Work and Pensions Select Committee that better communication was needed for those with long periods of contracting out…some individuals were not aware that they might need to consider seeking independent financial advice and might need to make alternative provision for their retirement.”
The concern is still being raised that those problems are not yet being properly addressed.
Last August, the permanent secretary at the DWP replied to a letter from the Committee on that subject. He confirmed that compensation of £500 and £750 had been paid to the two people who had raised the complaint with the ombudsman, as the ombudsman had recommended. I asked for an update on responding to being found guilty of maladministration. In response, the permanent secretary wrote that the ombudsman
“also recommended…that we invite others who believe they have suffered a similar injustice as the two individuals to come forward to have their cases considered.”
That was the ombudsman’s recommendation. The permanent secretary wrote:
“We propose to respond…by publishing a factsheet on GOV.UK and I attach a draft. We are currently awaiting the”
ombudsman’s “comments on this.”
The ombudsman will have to decide whether publishing a factsheet meets its recommendations—I must say that I have my doubts—but it certainly falls well short of what the Work and Pensions Committee previously called for. It said:
“Government should not rely on general awareness campaigns or happenchance in promoting that understanding. It should focus on identifying the individuals affected, assessing their potential losses, and communicating with them.”
The permanent secretary also wrote that, in addition, the ombudsman
“recommended that their reports into the matter were shared with the Select Committee and we have sent your office copies of these documents today.”
The report was finalised on 30 September 2019, and it was sent to the Committee on 28 August 2020, and that was only in response to my request for an update.
I also asked how much the Department knew of the negative impact of the policy on individuals and how it was communicated to Parliament. The permanent secretary wrote:
“As was clear from publication of the Government’s White Paper in January 2013, it was an intrinsic feature of the new State Pension that the old regime of additional State Pension and contracting out, along with its various forms over the years, would be replaced by a new, simpler single-tier system. It was a fundamental feature of the changes that the withdrawal of additional State Pension meant also the withdrawal of GMP indexation.”
The ombudsman’s report highlighted that the White Paper did not say that those who had reached state pension age and could no longer add qualifying years would lose out from the changes. The White Paper gave the impression that people would be able to offset the increase in national insurance contributions that they will pay over the rest of their working lives. It implied that people will offset losses through additional national insurance contributions.
The permanent secretary also wrote:
“A detailed account of the change was provided in a response to a”
parliamentary question
“on 6 January 2014 and is attached for reference”,
but that answer does not make it clear that some people would lose out. Even if someone affected had seen that answer, which is unlikely, it would not have helped them to understand the impact on their own pension.
The permanent secretary wrote:
“More generally, the policy, and how it was communicated, was examined by the Work and Pensions Select Committee in its investigation into Understanding the new State Pension in 2016. In addition, the NAO reported on the policy in the same year.”
However, both those events took place after the legislation had been passed, not before. Both concluded that the DWP provided insufficient information to people about potential negative impacts.
The ombudsman, I believe, is right that
“DWP should have acted on the feedback they received through the Work and Pensions Committee and NAO reports. By failing to do so, DWP were not open and accountable and failed to seek continuous improvement…this amounts to maladministration.”
The ombudsman found that the DWP had failed to make its external communications clear and that
“there were some individuals who might financially lose out over the long term from the transition of the second state pension to the new State Pension—specifically in relation to the ending of indexation in relation to the second state pension/Guaranteed Minimum Pension.”
It also concluded that there is an injustice to members of the public who were not aware of the possible negative impacts of the removal of the second state pension and its relationship with the GMP. Up to 2 million people have reached state pension age since 2016. DWP literature has not told them that the 2014 reform could harm them over time. The Department has not fully acknowledged the negative consequences to the pension reforms over the long term. Its literature reassures people that notional losses will be offset and that they will not lose out, but that will not be true for some. The ombudsman says:
“The DWP’s actions, therefore, may have provided false reassurance and reduced the incentive for these people to find out about their future pension situation. This is an injustice for those who wished to plan for the future and might have been negatively affected.”
In addition to compensating the individuals and communicating with the Committee, the ombudsman recommended:
“Within three months of this report, review and report back to us on the learning from this investigation, including action being taken to ensure that affected individuals receive appropriate communication from the DWP about their state pensions. In particular, the DWP should ensure that their literature clearly and appropriately references that some individuals, who have large GMPs and reach State Pension Age in the early years of the new State Pension, may be negatively affected by the changes. The DWP should advise individuals to check their circumstances, and should provide instructions for how to do this; Within three months of this report, review and report back about how other individuals who believe they have suffered an injustice as a result of the maladministration we have found can raise any concerns with the DWP and have them considered”.
Neither of those things has happened so far. It will soon be two years, let alone three months, since the ombudsman published that report. I have given the Minister notice of this question. Can he explain to us how the Department now plans to fulfil its obligations?
There is no doubt that the Department’s claims about the state pension reforms were misleading. They mislead members of the public, potentially seriously, and denied them the opportunity to act to safeguard their position. Can the Minister assure us that the Department has learnt its lessons and that similar mistakes, covering up damaging impacts of its policies on some claimants, will not be repeated in the future?
Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)
As the Minister set out, this is a technical piece of legislation that has to be approved every year, and ensures that those who accrued pensions from contracted-out defined benefit schemes between 1988 and 1997 will receive increases in line with inflation. This will provide a positive impact to those people for whom that applies. I thank the right hon. Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms), Chair of the Select Committee, for raising his concerns. I entirely agree that it is incumbent on the Government proactively to reach out to those who may have missed out on moneys due to error or omission on the part of the Government or the Department.
There may now be fewer defined benefit schemes than there were 30 years ago, but many will not reach maturity for decades to come. That will also be the case for many of the people on DB schemes between 1988 and 1997, who will have many years left to work. We have recently spent time deliberating the importance of defined benefit schemes during the passage of the Pension Schemes Bill. I was pleased to see the Minister in the Lords provide reassurances on the Government’s plans for defined benefit schemes. The next steps lie with the regulator—after the Queen grants Royal Assent to the Bill, of course. Therefore, like the shadow Minister, I would be grateful if the Minister updated the House on what discussions have taken place with the regulator regarding defined benefit schemes and what timescales he estimates for the measures in the Bill, such as collective defined contribution schemes, to come into force.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP) [V]
I welcomed in March 2016 the Government’s announcement that those reaching state pension age between 6 April 2016 and 6 December 2018 would receive a fully indexed public service pension for life. I further welcomed the Government extending those arrangements in January 2018 to those reaching state pension age by April 2021. The Government are currently consulting on a further extension of the full indexation policy, and I look forward to seeing the outcome of that, especially in the light of the McCloud judgment.
The right hon. Member for North Thanet (Sir Roger Gale) and the hon. Member for Glasgow East (David Linden) referred to frozen pensions. As the Minister will be aware, the 2020 report by the all-party parliamentary group on frozen British pensions revealed that the Australian and Canadian Governments have been calling on the UK to end this policy for many years. Since then, the Canadian Government have formally requested a reciprocal social security agreement covering the uprating of pensions with the UK. Some would refer to this as an immoral frozen pension policy. For the 150,000 UK pensioners affected who live in Canada, the impacts of this policy can be devastating. Since Canada pays Canadian pensioners residing in the UK their full pension, the agreement would simply provide UK pensioners in Canada with the same rights as their counterparts in the UK.
Other Members have referred to this, and I feel that it is important to put it on the record. One such pensioner is 96-year-old world war two veteran Anne Puckridge, who served in all three armed forces but receives a meagre £72.50 a week of the £134.25 a week state pension she is owed, all because she moved to Canada at 76 to be closer to her family. Peggy Buchanan, who served the UK at Bletchley Park, where she helped to break the German Enigma codes, is also denied her full UK pension because she now lives in Canada. As the right hon. Member for North Thanet said, had Peggy’s family settled 2 miles further south in the USA, her pension would not be frozen.
The unjust frozen pension policy that denies half a million UK pensioners who paid into the system their full UK state pension is a national shame that has been allowed to continue by successive Governments for decades. It is not right that UK pensioners are punished with a frozen pension for moving to Canada, often to be close to family or due to health reasons. I am always mindful of the close ties between these countries. As someone who, at the young age of 18, emigrated to Canada and then returned again, I know of the close cultural, historical and social ties that the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland has with Canada.
The recent inquiry by the all-party parliamentary group on frozen British pensions found that one in two frozen pensioners receive a UK pension of £65 per week or less. Many veterans and former public servants who have given so much to this country are now struggling on a frozen pension. The Government of Canada have now presented an opportunity to rectify a moral injustice that sees thousands of UK pensioners in Canada denied the full UK state pension that they paid into. I believe that every UK state pensioner should receive a full uprated UK state pension, regardless of where they live.
I wish to clarify that this legislation will enable us to continue to do right by those who have worked hard all their lives in the expectation that they will be treated fairly and will not be a stopgap to simply put off doing the right thing for another four years. It has to be remembered that every year we put off doing the right thing is a year in which many die without receiving what they have been entitled to. Surely we must bring forward legislation to address this in a more comprehensive way, and I look forward to that happening soon, now that the consultation has ended. I look forward to the Minister’s response, as I believe that many issues still need to be sorted.
Guy Opperman [V]
I would like to thank all colleagues for their contributions. This is a debate on the Guaranteed Minimum Pensions Increase Order 2021, and there was limited discussion of that, but there was widespread discussion of many other aspects of pensions legislation, some of which related to the previous debate.
The shadow spokesman, the hon. Member for Reading East (Matt Rodda), raised many particular policies that he wishes to campaign on, and I welcome those efforts. He will discover that many of the policies that he raised were issues that were debated, discussed and in fact legislated on by the Labour Government of 1997 to 2010. Indeed, the Chair of the Work and Pensions Committee, the right hon. Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms), was the Pensions Minister in, I believe, 2008 and held my job in a previous Labour Government.
The shadow Minister raised a number of issues in respect of DB support, climate change and pension scams. Clauses 123, 124 and 125 of the Pension Schemes Bill take forward those three issues. We have set out, both in the White Paper and in the legislation, the extensive work that we are doing to support DB on an ongoing basis, and I have worked extensively over the last three to four months with many of the proponents of open DB schemes and many of the organisations that wish to continue the support. We have also worked very hard with the Pensions Regulator, and that work continues on an ongoing basis.
The shadow Minister is right to raise climate change as a vital issue. We believe that we have made pensions safer, better and greener. The clause 124 regulations will be forthcoming. Indeed, we have already brought forward the response to the consultation in respect of the taskforce on climate-related financial disclosures, which makes us the world’s first country to legislate for TCFD in respect of climate change and pensions.
Finally, on pension scams, clearly the shadow Minister is aware of the extensive discussion and debate that we had before the Work and Pensions Committee last week, and the extensive work that we have done to address the pension transfer problem, which is the key area that the DWP can address. I believe that we will be able to legislate and regulate, and have the power this autumn to ensure that those transfers are stopped, as I set out in much greater detail at the Work and Pensions Committee.
My right hon. Friend the Member for North Thanet (Sir Roger Gale) raised an issue both in the previous debate and in this debate in respect of overseas pensions. He will know that, sadly, the policy on uprating of UK state pensions paid overseas has been the policy of successive Governments of different political persuasions for over 70 years, since world war two. I do not have good news to tell him, I am afraid. There is no intention that I am aware of for this Government to change that policy.
The hon. Member for Glasgow East (David Linden) made his first contribution as shadow Minister and I, again, welcome him to his place. I look forward to visiting Scotland, when the pandemic allows, to campaign at length leading up to May. In respect of the key issue that he raised, I gave extensive evidence to the Work and Pensions Committee a week or so ago on pension credit. There is much that we are trying to do to progress that, whether in the form of Government communications or our work with the BBC. The fact of the matter is that pension credit is a benefit introduced by the Labour Government that has never achieved more than 70% of take-up. All Governments, including this Government and myself, want greater take-up of pension credit, and we are definitely doing everything possible to try to increase it.
The Chair of the Work and Pensions Committee addressed in detail a particular point on the Guaranteed Minimum Pensions Increase Order and the history of that legislation. He addressed the ombudsman’s findings relating to two individuals. Concerns have been raised regarding the way that the permanent secretary has dealt with correspondence to the Work and Pensions Committee and/or the ombudsman. I was not aware of that issue until yesterday. Clearly it is for the permanent secretary to respond. On the quality of the original policy formulated from January 2013 by Steve Webb, the Liberal Democrat Pensions Minister, I cannot comment at this stage, but I reject any criticism of a policy that was clearly scrutinised and legislated for by both Houses before it was implemented.
The hon. Member for North East Fife (Wendy Chamberlain) raised open DB. I assure her that we continue to work extensively with the Pensions Regulator on those issues. Although I welcome the comments of the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), I do not think that I can amplify any of the other matters thus far. With those comments, I commend the draft order to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That the draft Guaranteed Minimum Pensions Increase Order 2021, which was laid before this House on 18 January, be approved.
Anthony Mangnall (Totnes) (Con)
On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Yesterday, in the urgent question to the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs on shellfish, I forgot to make reference to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, so I am now putting that on the record.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving notice of his point of order and for putting the matter on the record at the earliest opportunity. I think we will leave that there.
I will now suspend the sitting in order for Members to safely leave and others to come into the Chamber.
Mr Deputy Speaker
Exceptionally—I think this may be the first time, therefore very exceptionally—we are going to have a technical suspension for 10 minutes. Everybody please be here no later than 4.33 pm.
Trade Bill
Tuesday 9th February 2021
(3 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Trade Bill 2019-21 View all Trade Bill 2019-21 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Commons Consideration of Lords Message as at 9 February 2021 - (9 Feb 2021)
17:34 - The House divided: - Ayes: 351 / Noes: 276 - Question accordingly agreed to.
17:45 - The House divided: - Ayes: 318 / Noes: 303 - Question accordingly agreed to.
17:53 - The House divided: - Ayes: 363 / Noes: 267 - Question accordingly agreed to.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
We now come to the message from the House of Lords on the Trade Bill, which is to be considered in accordance with the order of 19 January. We begin with the Government motion to disagree with the Lords in their amendment 1B, with which it will be convenient to consider the other Government motions and amendments on the notice paper.
Anthony Mangnall (Totnes) (Con)
On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for the Government to group the amendments in such a way as to deny Members votes on specific amendments?
Mr Deputy Speaker
As I said in my introduction, all of this is being done under the provisions of the programme motion agreed by the House on 19 January. The questions to be put at that time are governed by Standing Order No. 83G, which does not allow for questions to be put on motions or amendments moved other than by Ministers. It is therefore not possible to have a Division on certain amendments that have been tabled, but I can assure the hon. Member that everything is in order.
The Minister for Trade Policy (Greg Hands)
I beg to move, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 1B.
Mr Deputy Speaker
With this it will be convenient to consider the following:
Lords amendments 2B and 3B, Government motion to disagree, and Government amendments (a) and (b) in lieu.
Amendment (i) to Government amendments (a) and (b) in lieu.
Lords amendment 6B, Government motion to disagree, and Government amendments (a) to (c) in lieu.
Greg Hands
We move ever closer to getting the Trade Bill on to the statute books. I recognise that we are very limited in our time for debate, so I will get straight into the details. I will deal with parliamentary scrutiny, followed by standards, followed by human rights and genocide.
I begin with Lords amendment 1B, on parliamentary scrutiny. Parliament of course plays a vital role in scrutinising our trade policy. We currently have robust scrutiny arrangements that allow Parliament to hold the Government to account. The Government have provided extensive information to Parliament on our free trade negotiations, including publishing our objectives, which are also shared with the devolved Administrations, economic scoping assessments and the Government’s response to the public consultation prior to the start of each set of talks. We have also shared the text of each deal with the relevant Committees in advance of their being laid before Parliament under the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010. The Committees then have the option to produce independent reports on each agreement. Furthermore, if Parliament is not content with a free trade agreement that has been negotiated, it has powers under CRaG to prevent ratification by resolving against ratification indefinitely, acting as an effective veto.
Mr Jonathan Djanogly (Huntingdon) (Con)
My right hon. Friend says that Parliament can indefinitely delay ratification. That is, in practice, almost impossible under existing procedures, would he not agree?
Greg Hands
No, I do not agree. I think the previous Labour Government designed the CRaG process specifically with that in mind—that Parliament would have an effective veto on a trade agreement through the CRaG process by continuing to resolve against ratification indefinitely. That is my understanding of what an effective veto would look like.
In respect of facilitating debate on free trade agreements as part of CRaG, the Government have clearly stated that we will work to facilitate requests, including those from the relevant Select Committees, for debate on the agreement, subject to available parliamentary time. The Government have a good record on this. Debate took place last year on the Japan free trade agreement, alongside six other debates on continuity agreements.
I will address the amendment tabled by the Government in response to Lords amendment 6B, on standards. Although we are in agreement that our continuity deal programme has not reduced standards, I fully understand the House’s desire to ensure that standards are safeguarded. The Government therefore tabled an amendment that will provide a cast-iron statutory guarantee that the trade agreement implementing power in the Trade Bill will not be used to dilute standards. This amendment guarantees that the clause 2 power cannot be used to implement any continuity trade agreement if that agreement is not consistent with existing statutory protections in the areas of human, animal or plant health, animal welfare, environmental standards, employment and labour rights, data protection and the protection of children and vulnerable adults online.
The amendment also provides that clause 2 implementing legislation must be consistent with maintaining UK publicly funded clinical healthcare services. In other words, we are living up to our promises that trade will not lead to a lowering of standards and that the UK’s protection in these areas will continue to lead the pack. I hope that all sides can now unite around this amendment, safe in the knowledge that we are not lowering standards through the back door. I thank hon. Members for their engagement on this issue and encourage all colleagues to join me in voting in favour of the Government amendment.
I now turn to Lords amendments 2B and 3B, on human rights and genocide. With regard to Lords amendment 2B, on human rights, parliamentary Committees have the ability to produce reports on any agreement that the UK negotiates with a partner country.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
I do not know whether the Minister heard my saying in the last debate that I am worried about the courts dealing with this in the absence of a defendant. However, I also expressed my worry about vexatious motions against our allies—Israel, Turkey, Saudi Arabia. How can the Minister assure me that there will not be a series of vexatious motions coming to this parliamentary Committee? Can we ensure that the Committee’s terms of reference are tightly drawn, so that it can actually deal with clear cases of genocide?
Greg Hands
At the moment, I am speaking about human rights—I am coming on to genocide in a moment—but I totally appreciate my right hon. Friend’s question. It would not be proper for me as a Government Minister to seek to dictate how a Select Committee might approach its business; I think we have to have a level of trust in our Select Committees to approach this question sensibly and logically.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)
The answer to this question is very simple. Ministers cannot direct Select Committees. Select Committees will go where they think it is necessary. So with this amendment, Select Committees will feel completely free to look at anything, regardless of what the Government say that the bar is on that. That is the answer to this question.
Greg Hands
I thank my right hon. Friend, but there is a crucial difference here. Yes, the Select Committee runs itself. It can make calls for evidence and produce a report, and we would expect it to report quite quickly if there were credible reports of genocide, so the Select Committee writes the motion, but there is still the protection that the matter then goes to a vote of the whole House. I find it hard to conceive that a vote of the whole House in which the Government had a majority would determine something along the lines suggested by my right hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) or my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith). I find that hard to conceive. I think we should have more trust in our Select Committees.
Going back to human rights, the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office already publishes an annual human rights and democracy report, so there is no need for Lords amendment 2B
Turning to Lords amendment 3B on genocide and the amendment tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green, it is the Government’s firm view that expanding the role of the UK courts in the manner envisaged is inappropriate and would carry harmful unintended consequences. First, it would be unlikely to work. Genocide is notoriously hard to prove, with a higher legal threshold. If a judge were unable to make a preliminary determination on genocide, which is highly probable, it would be a huge propaganda win for the country in question, effectively allowing that state to claim that it had been cleared by the UK courts.
Ms Ghani
I find it hard to believe that, if a country was investigated for genocide, that could in any way be seen as a propaganda event. It is not for us to determine how that decision is taken. The Government repeatedly say that that is for the courts, so we should allow the courts to come to a determination on the basis of evidence. We should never believe that people will not put a case forward to the courts because it might fail. That is just nonsense.
Greg Hands
I have to say that I disagree with my hon. Friend. I also think that the proposal made in the amendment tabled by the Chairman of the Justice Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill), is a superior process, which I am going to outline. So I disagree with her point, if I may respectfully say that.
As I was saying, if a judge were unable to make a preliminary determination on genocide, it would be a huge propaganda win for the country in question, effectively allowing that state to claim that it had been cleared by a UK court. That would be an awful result, and I encourage the House to think strongly about the implications of that before supporting this amendment. Rather than helping persecuted people, we would be setting their cause back. Further, any determination would be subject to appeal, which would create a more drawn-out process than that envisaged by the amendment.
Greg Hands
I am not going to give way, because I am conscious of the fact that I have already been speaking for nine minutes and I have given way four times.
Secondly, the amendment raises serious constitutional issues and blurs the separation of powers. Inserting the courts into a decision-making process that is rightly a matter for the Government and for Parliament would disrupt the delicate constitutional balance we have in this country between the Executive, Parliament and our independent judiciary. As outlined in an article for PoliticsHome last week by the Chair of the Justice Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst, it is the role of Government to formulate trade policy and conclude international treaties, including trade deals. Parliament already has a critical role in this under the terms of CRaG, which enables it to scrutinise treaties prior to ratification and effectively block them if it chooses. Fundamentally, it is right and proper that Parliament takes a position on credible reports of genocide relating to proposed free trade agreements rather than, in effect, subcontracting responsibility to the courts to tell us what to think.
Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con)
Will my right hon. Friend give way?
Greg Hands
I am going to make more progress—sorry, I will not give way further.
The wording of that substantive motion will be provided by the Committee. A similar process would ensue in the other place to take note of the report. The process that I have outlined would be triggered in each case by the publication of the Select Committee report.
Greg Hands
I am not going to take further interventions —there is only an hour for this debate.
It is up to Committees how they report, but such a report could come about in response to evidence produced by their own inquiries or to a finding of genocide by a competent criminal court, whether international or domestic. Such an approach rightly puts Parliament, not the courts, in the driving seat on this issue, which is who generates a debate in Parliament. Our policy on the legal determination of genocide has not changed. It has long been the Government’s position that genocide determination is a matter for the relevant court, which includes international courts and domestic criminal courts. However, whether to have a debate in Parliament should be a matter for Parliament.
I hope the House agrees that the amendment tabled by the Chair of the Justice Committee is a reasonable middle ground: it delivers the result envisaged by the Lords amendment—that is, to have a parliamentary debate—and the amendment tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green, but it does so through Parliament, not the courts. It allows Parliament to act quickly and decisively on the issue of genocide and, crucially, places a specific duty on the Government to act on the Committee’s concerns. It does so without upsetting the delicate separation of powers and without judicial encroachment. It ensures that Parliament has a clear role and that the Government have a clear duty when credible reports of genocide are raised with regard to a proposed bilateral FTA partner. I hope that Members from all parties will come together in support of the amendment tabled by the Chair of the Justice Committee.
Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)
At the outset, I thank the hon. Members for Wealden (Ms Ghani) and for Huntingdon (Mr Djanogly), the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) and the many others from all parties who, like our colleagues in the other place, who have worked with great persistence, and always in good faith, to achieve the right outcomes today.
Do you know what, Mr Deputy Speaker? It was 52 years ago this week that the House of Commons debated the introduction of Britain’s very first Genocide Act, which made genocide a distinct offence in our country and gave our courts the power to determine when it had been committed. When one looks back at that debate, it really strikes one that, were it not for some recognisable names, one would not know which MPs were Labour, Conservatives or Liberal, such was the unity in the House on the issue. Such obvious pride was taken by all Members in being part of a decision, taken by the British Parliament and led by the British Government, that would resonate around the world.
I fear that today, the atmosphere and outcome of our debate may be very different. Any future generations who choose to look back will ask themselves why on earth the Government of the day were playing procedural parliamentary games on an issue as serious as momentous as the genocidal crimes being committed against the Uyghurs in China. Rather than dwell on the shameful, shabby and shifty behaviour of the Government Whips in seeking to prevent a straight vote on the genocide amendment, let me instead address the key point of substance in the amendment that the Government have put forward to wreck it.
In the space of the last three weeks, the Prime Minister, the Foreign Secretary and the Trade Secretary have all stated on the record that the courts can determine what is and what is not genocide. The hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill) himself, the Chair of the Justice Committee, wrote an article, which has already been quoted. Let me quote another bit of it, in which he said:
“Successive governments have said that the attribution of genocide is a matter for judicial determination.”
Yet he and the Government are now proposing an amendment that would remove the courts from that process entirely and hand the responsibility instead to the Select Committees, which have already said publicly that they do not have the capacity to make such judgments. In other words, the Government wish to take a strong, substantive and historic new process for attributing genocide through the courts and acting on those rulings through our Parliament, and replace all of that with a weak, flawed and, frankly, entirely forgettable adjustment to the existing powers of Select Committees, and that is not good enough. I hope that Members on all sides will reject what I am afraid has to be said is a shameful wrecking effort, and vote instead for the original amendments 2B and 3B.
The Government’s other wrecking amendment today, on non-regression of standards, is equally flawed and equally contemptuous of Parliament’s will. It has been, I am afraid, very deliberately drafted to apply only to the continuity trade agreements already signed by the Government over the past two years, not to the trade agreements that the Government are negotiating with the likes of America and Australia today. In other words, the amendment would act retrospectively to prevent our standards for food safety, animal welfare, NHS data and online harms being undermined by the deals we signed two years ago.
Emily Thornberry
I am not going to take any interventions, because my view is that we have so little time, I think it is only fair just to continue. [Interruption.] I have made it clear that I am not going to take any interventions.
The amendment the Government have tabled is one whereby we are just talking about continuity agreements, not about agreements to come. Those deals are deals such as the ones we signed two years ago with Lesotho or with Liechtenstein, and this will have no bearing whatever on any trade deal that we negotiate in the next two years with Washington or Canberra. That is the level of contempt with which the Government Whips are treating the House of Commons today. So again, I would urge Members on all sides to reject this ridiculous wrecking effort, and vote instead for amendment 6B.
In closing, I think we can all do something today even more powerful than rejecting those wrecking amendments and standing up to the shameful tactics employed by the Government Whips. We can draw the only logical conclusion from today’s events—namely, that if we do not act to guarantee the rights of Parliament to scrutinise and approve the Government’s decisions on trade, then we leave ourselves entirely at the mercy of the Government Whips, who have shown today that they will stop at nothing to deny us a voice and deny us a vote.
We have it in our power today, by backing Lord Lansley’s amendment 1B, to guarantee Parliament a vote on all future trade deals and take responsibility in this House for ensuring that our standards and our values are not undermined by the deals that we do abroad. It is a very simple idea, and in the absence of a straight vote on what I would call the Alton amendment, passing the Lansley amendment would be the very best safety net that we could put in place to prevent the agreement of trade deals with countries that commit genocide and the very best rejoinder that we could provide to anyone who would seek to suppress the will of this Parliament. If we can achieve that outcome, we can turn this from a day of shameful, shabby, shifty tactics to a day a pride for our democracy and a day of promise for the Uyghurs.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
There is a three-minute limit on all Back-Bench contributions from now.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. That is a very short time, so I will do my level best to get my three points across.
I just want to say something about the procedure today. Of course, we would not be sitting here if it was not in order for these proceedings, but there are different ways to be in order, and the reality of bundling together all these things into one motion—an amendment tabled by the Government—means that of course there is no way we will get to vote on the Lords amendment on genocide. I simply point out that fact. It reminds me that this little dispute is a little bit like the Handforth parish council one, and it is always a good idea to read the Standing Orders. I have read them, and they tell me what has happened: the Government have deliberately blocked this. I am sorry, but that is what this is. No point of order on that one; that is the reality. I simply say to my hon. Friends that I have been here long enough, and this is beneath them. I wish they had thought again, and I hope they do not try this one again.
I respect my right hon. Friend the Minister for Trade Policy enormously, as he knows, but I must pick up on a few points that he made, as I did table an amendment. First, he extols the virtues of the Government amendment and attacks the idea that the courts could make the judgment, as that would impinge on our position as a Parliament. Yet literally yesterday, in answer to a parliamentary question about whether genocide was a matter for the courts, the Foreign Office said:
“It is the policy of the UK Government that any judgment on whether genocide has occurred is a matter for competent courts rather than Governments or other non-judicial bodies.”
I ask my right hon. Friend: what is a Select Committee? Is it a judicial or a non-judicial body? If it is a non-judicial body, the Government amendment puts the power in the hands of a non-judicial body. What are we doing? We are running in circles just to avoid the reality.
My point is that we have been a little insulting about judges in the amendment that my right hon. Friend is talking about. I have my own differences with judges, but I remind the House that when we need an impartial taking of evidence and judgment—Savile, Grenfell, Hillsborough or any of the other cases—we turn not to Select Committees but to a judge. Why do we do that? First, because we assume that they are impartial and secondly, because they are trained to take and deal with evidence. We are not; we are partial—that is why we are here. We have Select Committees and we have prejudices, and that is the point.
Tim Loughton
Why does my right hon. Friend think that the Minister claims that a Select Committee, which already has the power to investigate all sorts of things in this House, is in some way superior to a judicial determination by a court? Only this week, Sir Geoffrey Nice, a distinguished QC who prosecuted Milošević, said that under the International Criminal Court Act 2001, UK courts are competent to prosecute the offence of genocide. The provision is there—we should surely be using it, not dismissing it.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith
That is why, I say gently to my right hon. Friend the Minister, in my amendment I deliberately locked in the idea that if the Government want to sift this by looking at Select Committees first, that is fine, but I think they should have the power to refer it to a court if the evidence is overwhelming and they want that final impartial judgment. However, he did not mention that at all.
I come back to amendment 3B. We bent over backwards to answer every single question that the Government laid on the last time we debated this. Under the amendment, the courts cannot strike down trade deals anymore. The Government set the terms of the referral and the level of evidence required to pass the barrier. All that is handed back to Ministers. All the court will do is decide on genocide, and then it is up to Ministers and Parliament to decide what to do. We do not even tell Ministers in this amendment that they should do anything other than at some point come back and ask Parliament. That seems completely reasonable and puts the power in the hands of Parliament.
We have a very limited amount of time, and I am very sad today that the Government have chosen not to allow us to vote on the amendment. I am not voting on my amendment either. I oppose the Government’s amendment because, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) suggested, I think it will lead to much more vexatious complaint and all sorts of human rights stuff piling through.
Today should have been a chance to stand tall—to send a signal to those without hope all over the world, whether the Uyghurs or the Rohingya. Instead of providing a beacon of light and hope, we have today gone into the dark corridors of procedural purdah. We need to emerge.
Drew Hendry (Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey) (SNP) [V]
Lords amendment 1B covers one of the most glaring omissions from the Bill and it simply serves to underline the ideologically driven and confusing motives of the Government, who have already dealt so much damage to people, families and businesses right across Scotland and the other nations of the UK—and for what? It is supposedly for undiluted parliamentary sovereignty, yet the Government have not seen fit to give Parliament a role in setting the agenda on trade negotiations. That is extraordinary. It is damning of this Government, given the scrutiny arrangements that other Parliaments have around the world, including the EU’s, where they have control over both mandates and the progress of negotiations. The UK has now sunk to the bottom, relative to what is undertaken elsewhere.
Sir Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)
I yield to no one in my detestation of genocide and I yield to no one in my admiration for the domestic courts of the United Kingdom. Despite the good intentions of Lords amendment 3B, it has to be faced that it has a fundamental flaw, in that it brings the domestic courts of the United Kingdom into areas where, constitutionally, they have never sought to go.
When we refer to the competent courts in relation to genocide, it is abundantly clear from the convention and subsequent legislation that we refer to the international courts and, in certain circumstances, the criminal courts of the United Kingdom in relation to individuals who are within their jurisdiction. That is wholly different from what is proposed in Lords amendment 3B, which brings the civil courts of the United Kingdom into a wholly novel area of jurisprudence, linked only to one specific issue, which is genocide in contemplation of a trade deal, not more generally.
The decisions on trade deals are constitutionally entirely matters for Parliament. That is why, despite the best endeavours and intentions of the amendment, I cannot support it and why I brought forward the amendment in lieu in my name, supported by three former law officers of the Crown. This would enable Parliament to express a clear view and would, inevitably, in real political terms, enable it to block a trade agreement with a genocidal state, because no Government could ignore that, but it would do so at the end of a parliamentary process. This would then give the appropriate Select Committee greater powers than Select Committees otherwise have, because they will be entitled not only to demand as a matter of law that the Government table the motion that they require if they are dissatisfied with the Government’s response, but to write the wording of the motion. This goes further than the powers that Select Committees have at the moment. That would be most important, as it would enable us to have a proper lock on the matter. We must not allow the courts to be dragged into an area where they have not themselves sought to go. We saw the wholly unfair and unjust criticism of our courts in cases such as the Miller litigation. To place them in this situation, where they will be obliged to step beyond what is the normal constitutional balance, would not be fair on them. They would not be in an easy position to come to a determination, as has been pointed out. Above all, it would inevitably be inviting them to trespass into areas that are highly politically contentious.
I want to have a means of scrutinising future trade deals. That is why I have much more sympathy for Lords amendment 1B than I have for Lords amendment 3B, because that would give a means of dealing with it. Lords amendment 3B, it is misconceived because of that misunderstanding in relation to what a competent court is and the need not to stretch that beyond our constitutional practices—
Imran Hussain (Bradford East) (Lab) [V]
Genocide and grave human rights abuses are the most horrific and wicked crimes a state can commit, and those who perpetrate such crimes should be held accountable by this Government and the entire international community. Let me be absolutely clear: they are not internal issues, as Ministers often claim, but international issues. The Government should therefore be using the trade deals they negotiate with other countries as a means of strengthening our human rights commitments, as I advocated during the passage of the Bill last year.
Yet despite so many Members from across the House agreeing that trade deals should at least uphold our human rights obligations, Ministers have shown that they believe otherwise, defeating by the slimmest of margins the amendments that would have prevented them from signing trade deals with genocidal states, and proposing today a counter-amendment that is a pale imitation of what we should be doing as a country. In acting this way, they risk further emboldening those who continue to commit serious crimes against humanity. We have, sadly, already seen where refusing to take strong action against the Burmese military for their genocide of the Rohingya, for example, leads.
The bottom line is that we should not be signing any trade deal with any state that is committing any crime against humanity. Turning a blind eye and doing business with the very regimes that torture, abuse and kill others will sign away any moral authority that we have to call ourselves defenders of human rights, to enforce sanctions against abusers, or to advocate for stronger protections. However, while the Government’s previous vote against the amendments and the amendment they propose today are bitterly disappointing, they are sadly not surprising. On far too many occasions, I have urged them in Parliament to act against those committing human rights abuses and genocide, including in Kashmir. I have repeatedly called for action to protect Kashmiris from the persecution, oppression and injustice that they face on a daily basis at the hands of the Indian armed forces, only for Ministers to utter warm but meaningless and hollow words while the sons and daughters of Kashmir continue to suffer.
Trade is one of the few tools that we have left, in an interconnected, globalised world, to pursue a foreign policy based on protecting human rights. We must therefore take strong action in this Bill to show that we value human rights and that we will stand up for the many persecuted and oppressed peoples around the world.
Jeremy Wright (Kenilworth and Southam) (Con) [V]
Let me start with the amendments on genocide. The revised amendment 3B deals with some of the deficiencies of the original, but not, I am afraid, all. I still have the concerns that I have expressed previously about how the judicial process that it sets out will work in practice and about what a High Court judgment in such cases will really mean. I also think that the concerns that others have expressed about the effect of a finding that genocide has not taken place are well founded.
This may be strange thing for a former Attorney General to say, but I wonder whether we are getting too hung up on the judgments of courts. It is true, of course, that Governments have routinely relied on the courts to make a formal finding of genocide when guilt must be proven to a required legal standard, but we are discussing trade negotiations, not criminal convictions. In that context, if we have good evidence that genocide or anything like it is being committed by the country with which we are proposing to do a trade deal, we should retain the right not to do that deal with it, whether there is a formal judicial determination of the specific crime of genocide or not.
That is why I support the amendment in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill). Under that amendment, the trigger for a parliamentary vote is not a court ruling, with all the difficulties and pitfalls that brings, but rather the much lower bar of credible reports of genocide. That means that, unlike under amendment 3B, we can decide to refuse a trade deal with a country we believe has engaged in genocide despite the absence of a court ruling that it has done so. That is, in effect, a higher standard of human rights protection than that proposed in the amendment from the other place.
The judgment of Parliament on potential trade deals is important, and it is important that our judgment is exercised at the appropriate time in the negotiating process. For me, that means that Parliament should have its say when a negotiating mandate is being drawn up, not solely when the deal is done. However, I have two problems with Lords amendment 1B, which provides for that.
Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP) [V]
It is good to have this debate, although I am afraid it is a bit too short, as I think most Members would accept.
When it comes to trade deals, Parliament really needs to debate beforehand. One of the things we know from the little interaction we have had with negotiators is that it is much better for them to know what Parliament is thinking; it strengthens their hand in negotiations to understand what they might get through Parliament at the end of the day. That is hugely important. It is also important for them to hear the concerns of 650 people who represent the geographical area that the trade deal will be a huge, integral part of and will affect. I would caution that what happened before Christmas, with the rush of the European trade deal, is a lesson that Parliament should think and not rush.
There is, of course, within any Executive—any Government—a feeling that they do not want scrutiny, they do not want to discuss, and they do not want to pause, reflect and think again, but for the good of everyone concerned, they should do that. Parliament treats itself as a sausage factory; it gets things done and through, and that is the end of it. However, at the end of the day, as the shellfish exporters, the poultry exporters and many others in the UK know, once Parliament has washed its hands of it and walked away, other people have to deal with the text at hand. They cannot deal with that text very well if it has not been thought about, reflected upon or given due scrutiny.
In Parliament, we talk a lot about trade deals, but do we realise the GDP size we are talking about? That is something we can lay out beforehand. Leaving the European Union will cost the UK about 4.9% of GDP. The best of the upcoming trade deals that we are looking at will make only a fraction of that back—with New Zealand and Australia, probably about a fiftieth of it. Are people aware of that?
During the negotiations on the Japan trade deal, the International Trade Committee could not get access to the right level of negotiators. It was only at the end that we understood the pass we were sold on tariff rate quotas, where the UK accepted playing second fiddle to the European Union; after the European Union had dined with Japan, the UK could then perhaps go to the table for the crumbs. We were not aware of that at all during the negotiations. Parliament has to look a bit better. We have to trust our Select Committees, improve access, and have debate beforehand and afterwards. As for the point that Parliament has much power with the CRaG process, frankly, that is just not true.
The best the Government could do at this stage would be to adopt Lord Lansley’s amendment 1B. That would be a huge help from the point of view of the Select Committee and Parliament, and the Government should have the humility to do that.
Dr Liam Fox (North Somerset) (Con)
I wish to make only three brief points. First, the House of Commons is the appropriate place to scrutinise the elected Government’s independent trade policy. That is why I am against Lords amendment 1B, because it actually gives powers away from the House of Commons. The amendment requires the House of Lords to give its permission for the elected Government to even have discussions on our future trade policy. I cannot believe that the Labour party’s position is to give the House of Lords a veto on what an elected Government in the House of Commons should or should not be able to do. I wonder sometimes whether this House is having some sort of collective democratic nervous breakdown, because it seems always to want to give its powers away to someone else.
As I said last time, I do not believe that the courts should have a say on the elected Government’s trade policy, either—whether prospectively or retrospectively—or on what we debate in Parliament. When it comes to the issue of genocide, what matters is what we do about credible accusations of genocide. We should not be waiting for judicial confirmation through the Trade Bill. We can assess evidence, assess intelligence and listen to eyewitnesses ourselves. Frankly, if we want to take action in response to the Chinese Communist party’s treatment of the Uyghur people, we should do so. We have given ourselves new powers. But the Trade Bill is not the appropriate place to deal with that issue.
On the impact, we are talking not about stopping trade with China or stopping companies doing trade deals with suppliers in China—the use of sloppy language that fails to differentiate between trade deals and free trade agreements, which are a different legal entity entirely, does not help the quality of the debate—but we do have a perfect right to take into account any state’s behaviour when it comes to a future free trade agreement, and our ability to do so is limited. I campaigned to leave the European Union because I wanted powers brought back from Brussels, but I wanted them brought back to this place, not given straight back to the Executive to exercise them on our behalf. When I was Secretary of State, I wanted to see Parliament given a vote on new trade agreements, as the previous Speaker would have attested. I still believe that that is most appropriate at the beginning, at the setting of the mandate, because if Parliament can agree then on the direction of travel, we are less likely to have the sort of misinformation that we had on the transatlantic trade and investment partnership and the ridiculous scare stories that we heard from the SNP spokesman today. If we do not have the ability to vote at the beginning of the mandate, it makes the CRaG process less credible.
The Government are making a rod for their own back. Today we have an opportunity to give power back to the House of Commons—not the House of Lords, not the courts, not the Executive. We should show a little bit of courage and faith in our own institution.
Ms Nusrat Ghani (Wealden) (Con)
Today was intended to be a historic vote on a simple question: can we give effect to the Government’s own policy that genocide determination is a judicial matter, allowing us to assess whether our trading partners are committing that most heinous of crimes? Yet that most serious question—the destruction, rape, sterilisation, brainwashing and killing of an entire group of people from the face of the Earth —cannot be answered today. We have been denied a vote on the genocide amendment, which was improved to meet the Government’s objections—an amendment so powerful that it secured a majority of 171 in the other Chamber—and was on course to win the backing of the House today.
I am appalled at the parliamentary games played over such a grave issue, but we will not let the principle go away. We will do everything we can to ensure that we are not trading with genocidal states. Let us remember that it is the Government’s position, not mine, that genocide is for the courts. The Foreign Secretary said last month, “Whether or not it amounts to genocide is a matter for the courts”. The Prime Minister, last month, said that
“the attribution of genocide is a judicial matter”.—[Official Report, 20 January 2021; Vol. 687, c. 959.]
Why, then, is a meaningless amendment being backed that demotes this to the level of a Select Committee—and it has been rejected by a Select Committee—and deliberately excludes the Uyghurs and China? We are outsourcing genocide determination to the UN, which is handcuffed by China and Russia. Why not bring that back home? Why not take back control, in line with the Government’s own policy?
Sir Iain Duncan Smith
Will my hon. Friend reflect that the Government’s complaints that the previous amendment was flawed were taken into consideration such that under the current amendment the court would make a preliminary determination only, and it would be for the Government and Parliament to decide what to do about it at any stage?
Ms Ghani
Indeed. Some colleagues have said that we have bent over too much and that there is too much power with the Executive, but we have separated the power: the courts determine genocide, Parliament opines and the Executive are in charge.
We are unsure what the objections are now. I tabled a question to the Government to ask who determines genocide, and the response was:
“The determination as to whether a situation constitutes genocide is factually and legally complex and should only be made by a competent court following a careful and detailed examination.”
That means that any Select Committee paper would be rubbished.
The values of our country do not include enriching ourselves on the back of slave labour or using our new-found post-Brexit freedom to trade with states that commit and profit from genocide. Britain is better than that. Last week, the Board of Deputies of British Jews highlighted the plight of the Uyghurs and the chilling similarity to Nazi Germany: 2 million Uyghurs are in prison camps. The late Rabbi Sacks was once asked where God was when the holocaust took place. He responded that the real question was: where was man?
Let the record show that, on this day, men and women in this House were ready to vote on the genocide amendment, to lead the world in standing up to tyrannical regimes that commit genocide, to honour our vow of “never again”, to ensure that we are never complicit in genocidal trade, and to put Britain on the right side of history. Today, we were denied that vote, and this House was denied its say.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab) [V]
This country should never trade with any country where genocide is being practised. We are as guilty as others when we seek to perpetuate that kind of trade. It is appalling that all five signs of genocide incorporated in the genocide convention are now present in China in Xinjiang province, and that President Xi is personally implicated.
It is no use us clasping our pearls, signing holocaust memorial books or weeping about genocide in the 1930s if we are not prepared to do every single thing that we possibly can today to protect the vulnerable. That means wielding every single instrument, national and international, commercial and diplomatic, to protect the victims of abuse. We failed for far too long because we delayed in the 1930s and ended up having to go to war. Their humanity is our humanity; we are involved in their lives and in their deaths.
China already makes it impossible for us to act in an international court or any international body, so of course we should use the UK courts. I say to the Chair of the Justice Committee that Lord Hope of Craighead made it absolutely clear that a preliminary determination of genocide should be located within the High Court precisely because it is not a criminal process. That is the whole point of the amendment. It should be the courts, not politicians, that make these decisions because they know how to sift evidence and are able to require witnesses and evidence to be brought before them.
I saw the amendment that has been presented, supposedly by the Chair of the Justice Committee, last week; it was very definitely a Government amendment long before it appeared on the Order Paper. It is as tawdry a piece of parliamentary jiggery-pokery as I have seen in my 20 years in the House. Select Committees already have every single one of the powers that are supposedly being given to us by the amendment. The Government already dismisses every single substantive motion agreed by the House if they just do not like it. They did so on the Yazidis, when the House’s view was unanimous, and they did so on the Foreign Affairs Committee reports on the Rohingya.
By constructing the amendment in the way they have, the Government have deliberately denied the House a clear vote on genocide and how we would like to tackle it in relation to trade. The bottom line is that the Government seem to do everything in their power to prevent us as a nation from standing clearly and unambiguously against human rights abuses in China, and up with this we will not put.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
To finish no later than 5.31 pm, I call Katherine Fletcher.
Katherine Fletcher (South Ribble) (Con)
Let me cut right to the chase: free trade is too important to end up with consequences being felt elsewhere. The Lords amendments are noble. I agree: China risks perpetrating atrocities of oppression, torture, sterilisation and the incarceration of people just because they have the cheek to want to be a different type of person or think something different. Its ideology and its ideas are failing, and the people will rise up.
However, I fear that the Lords amendments would have unintended consequences. Genocide in other countries is hard to prove in our courts. It is hard to get witnesses to come to speak. We have no power to compel hostile Governments to appear before our courts. What happens if a judicial procedure or a court finds that there is not enough evidence to prove genocide? Cue the lies, manipulation and crowing that would come from a dictatorship. “Fake news” is what they would describe from their machine. “The British courts have cleared us,” would scream the headlines. Who have we helped then? Nobody. Parliament can investigate and vote. We can and should decide, and I will be supporting the Government amendment proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill) and the Secretary of State.
Greg Hands
I was happy to take interventions earlier, but I will try now to respond to the points raised in the debate. First, I want to clear up the question about parliamentary procedure that a few Members have raised. As you will know, Mr Deputy Speaker, it is a long-standing convention for amendments to be packaged during ping-pong in this way. “Erskine May” states that
“the practice has developed in the later stages of the exchanges between the Houses of grouping together as a ‘package’ a number of related amendments for the purposes of decision as well as debate.”
Secondly, the right hon. Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry) talked about the standards amendment only being backward-looking. She is relatively new to the Bill. I have been involved with the Bill for four years—too long, some might say. The whole Bill is about continuity trade agreements; that is the point. I also note that she has not always been so strong on China. In her very first contribution as the shadow Secretary of State for International Trade on 12 May 2020, she asked the Secretary of State whether the trade talks she was pursuing with the United States
“would constrain the UK’s ability to negotiate our own trade agreement with China”—[Official Report, 12 May 2020; Vol. 676, c. 111.]
So there we have it—the Opposition are clearly quite keen on a trade agreement with China.
As for the SNP, the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey (Drew Hendry) says again that he supports free trade and rejoining the European Union, and again he praises EU trade agreements, but as we all know, the SNP has not supported a single one of those EU trade agreements. It is against Canada, it is against Korea, it is against South Africa, and it abstained on Japan.
We have heard excellent, heartfelt contributions from my hon. and right hon. Friends. We heard passionate arguments in particular from my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) and my hon. Friend the Member for Wealden (Ms Ghani), and from those who know the court systems well: my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill), my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Jeremy Wright) and my hon. Friend the Member for South Ribble (Katherine Fletcher).
The point is this: it is a matter for Parliament to decide what should come before it. That is why the Select Committee is the right and proper place for this, not the courts. The Government share Members’ concerns when it comes to Xinjiang. That is why the Foreign Secretary announced stepped-up measures last month, including ones relating to trade and supply chains. But today’s debate is not about whether there is a genocide in Xinjiang. It is about who triggers a debate in Parliament on whether there are credible reports of genocide.
As the former Attorney General, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kenilworth and Southam, said, the amendment in the name of the Chair of the Justice Committee is more human rights-friendly than the Alton amendment because it allows Parliament to look at credible reports of genocide—it does not have to prove whether there has been a genocide—which will lead to a vote on whether we should be carrying out trade talks with that country. That is a much better position, and I therefore urge all Members to back that amendment.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
I remind the House that, following Mr Speaker’s recent announcement, where second and subsequent Divisions take place on the same item of business, the doors will normally be locked after five minutes, rather than eight—that is, after eight minutes on the first Division and after five minutes for each subsequent one.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
In order to observe social distancing, the Reasons Committee will meet in Committee Room 12.
Backbench Business
(3 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Integrated Review of Security, Defence, Development and Foreign Policy
(3 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
Before I call Tobias Ellwood, I should say that there will be a four-minute limit on Back-Bench contributions. A number of colleagues want to get in on this debate. I do not mind interventions, but they prevent other people from speaking unless colleagues stick to four minutes. If that does not happen, I will reduce it to three minutes, so I would urge colleagues, especially those in the Chamber, to be very aware of the effect of that.
Mr Tobias Ellwood (Bournemouth East) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the publication of the Integrated Review of Security, Defence, Development and Foreign Policy.
I thank the Backbench Business Committee for allotting this debate today. Let me begin by expressing my gratitude for what the armed forces do for our country. They do not just watch our backs and keep us safe at night; they are our back-up and who we call upon to step forward in times of need, which is no better exemplified than during the pandemic.
The origins of this integrated review date back to the Queen’s Speech in December 2019, billed as
“the most radical reassessment of our place in the world since the end of the Cold War”.
Simply put, the function of any review of this kind is, first, to assess the current and emerging threats and opportunities that we face; secondly, to define the UK’s ambitions on the international stage; and, finally, to upgrade our soft and hard power credentials so we can continue to defend our interests and support those ambitions.
The world is a more dangerous place since the last comprehensive review in 2015. The Chief of the Defence Staff recently described
“the strategic context as uncertain, complex and dynamic; with the defining condition being one of chronic instability.”
The causes of this era of instability are, first, the West, including us, having become risk-averse, increasingly unclear what we collectively stand for, believe in or, indeed, are willing to defend.
Secondly, authoritarianism is on the rise across the world. Ever more states and non-state actors are abusing our dated international rules-based order to pursue their own agendas. Finally, advances in technologies and our growing reliance on data have altered the very character of conflict, allowing attacks on our way of life to be exacted below the threshold of traditional military response.
So how should Britain respond? We should have an integrated review so that we can clarify our long-term strategy relating to China, to Russia, to extremism that is once again on the rise. What are our intentions to help to resolve hotspots such as Yemen? What is our post-Brexit security relationship with the EU? Currently there is none. What are the latest assumptions about the security consequences of climate change and of future pandemics? Most fundamentally, what are our ambitions to repair our frail, rules-based order? Our history, connectivity, international reach, and soft and hard power strengths have traditionally allowed us to step forward when other nations hesitate. Today we hold the G7 presidency, and with the United States just last week reaffirming its resolve to lead the west in confronting global instability, we are overdue in clarifying what “global Britain” means.
The absence of a review is having consequences. Without confirming our international role, our interests and our ambitions, how can the Ministry of Defence craft a requisite defence posture? How can our defence industry plan for the future? In updating our military architecture, we must also be frank about our current capabilities. We should be honest. We perpetuate the myth that our incredible professional armed forces can meet all their taskings and that they have all the kit they need. In reality, that is not the case: our forces are overstretched; sadly, they are now underpaid; and they are often lacking the equipment or the number of platforms to do the taskings that we ask of them.
Yes, the Royal Navy has two incredible aircraft carriers, but our surface fleet is now too small to protect our post-Brexit maritime trade interests. In the Army, our main battle tank and our Warrior armoured personnel carriers are now more than 20 years old, waiting for the green light of the integrated review to know whether they will get upgraded or not. The Royal Air Force has just introduced a formidable F-35 stealth fighter. Unfortunately, we are now only purchasing 48 of 138, because the money is no longer available.
Mark Tami (Alyn and Deeside) (Lab)
The right hon. Gentleman makes a very important point. If we reduce the order, not only does that reduce the actual number of aircraft; it also affects workshare and the work going forward. I represent an area that includes Sealand, which has a direct interest in the F-35, which is obviously a vital aircraft for this country’s defences.
Mr Ellwood
I agree with the right hon. Gentleman; there are knock-on consequences to delaying decisions, and to changing the promises and commitments that were made in previous reviews.
Yes, the MOD received an additional £16.5 billion in December for the rest of this Parliament, but the Office for Budget Responsibility confirms that there is a £7 billion shortfall in the 10-year equipment plan. Of course we want to seek to retain full-spectrum capability, but investment in the new cyber and space programmes has been paid for by cuts to our conventional capabilities. If the pandemic has taught us anything, it is the need for resilience and flexibility. I therefore stress that it would be a grave error to reduce the size of the Army by the speculated 10,000 troops. I suspect that the Whips might have a problem if that were put to a vote in this House.
Let me step back; what Britain has traditionally brought to the table is our leadership. Our diplomatic reach, agency work and overseas aid programmes have allowed us to offer workable solutions to problems and to lead the alliances to fix them. I am genuinely concerned that Whitehall has lost the bandwidth—or, indeed, the appetite—to do this. I hope that the publication of the integrated review will prove me wrong.
Finally, I want to turn to China, our biggest geopolitical long-term threat, which warrants its own chapter in the review. For decades, the west has turned a blind eye to China’s human rights abuses and democratic deficit, hoping that it will mature into a global responsible citizen. Well, we now realise that that will not happen. China’s conduct in the pandemic, in Hong Kong, in the South China sea, along with its continued abuse of World Trade Organisation rules and the way it has saddled dozens of countries with debt confirms that it is pursuing a competing long-term geopolitical agenda, which, left unchecked, will progressively see our world splinter into two spheres of influence.
Economically, technologically and militarily, China will challenge and possibly overtake US dominance in our lifetime. Militarily, China’s navy grows by the size of our Navy every single year. It is now introducing its own fifth generation air force, and its army is now the largest in the world. It is sending more rockets into space than all the other nations combined and perfecting space-based weapons.
In my view, cold war two has already begun, but we are still in denial and too timid to call it out, because of China’s mighty economic clout. This time, it will not be a build-up of military hardware, troops and nuclear weapons either side of an iron curtain. It will be fought on two very different fronts. First, nations will be forced to take sides, and China is winning here. It is neutralising countries by ensnaring them in long-term debt, controlling states by owning their data and paralysing the international apparatus, such as the United Nations, so removing global scrutiny. Secondly, it involves so-called short of war operations, bypassing direct military engagement through the use of cyber weapons to hit societies directly, as every aspect of our lives goes online. This is the modern battlefield: interference in our critical national infrastructure, including eventually satellites; misinformation via social media; and data theft, including personal data. This is the new reality that the integrated review must address.
I hope that I have articulated to the Minister why this review of all reviews in our generation is arguably the most important for us to publish. It was a brave Churchill in 1946 who warned the west in his iron curtain speech of the advancing Soviet threat. This review offers our Prime Minister today an opportunity to do something similar, starting by expanding the G7 permanently to include Australia, India and Korea, which would represent more than half the world’s GDP, the basis on which we could reform our international trade and security standards. For China’s Achilles heel is its economy. Global trade is critical for China’s advancement. During the last war, the UK and the US got together to write the Atlantic Charter, which formed the basis for so many of the Bretton Woods organisations that built up our world order and which has served us so well for the past few decades. They now need attention. Perhaps it is time for us to look at an Atlantic Charter 2.0. Again, this is something on which the integrated view could focus.
In conclusion, it is time to up our game. The integrated review is a critical statement of intent, re-establishing our post-Brexit credentials and setting out a coherent vision of the UK’s place in the world. It is vital that the Government produce this roadmap, because it is currently missing. I hope that the Minister and the Government are listening carefully to the impressive list of parliamentary colleagues who will be speaking today, no doubt supporting this publication. I hope that there will be no further delay in the integrated review. It must be not another exercise to salami-slice capabilities, manpower, or indeed defence spending but a genuine appraisal of our defence posture and the formal confirmation of our nation elevating its global ambitions and its desire to play a more proactive role on the international stage.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
The four-minute limit will now come into effect. For those participating virtually, the countdown clock will be visible on the screens. In the Chamber, it will be in the usual place on the clock.
John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)
The Chairman of the Defence Committee, with whom I am pleased to serve, mentioned the Atlantic Charter. I am very proud of the fact that that charter was brought in by the post-war Labour Government of Ernest Bevin and Clem Attlee to deal with the existential threat that this country was facing.
Looking at the current review, everyone recognises the linkages between the elements of defence, security, foreign policy and development. As US Defence Secretary Mattis said:
“If you don’t fund the State Department fully, then I need to buy more ammunition ultimately”.
As a member of the Defence Committee and a previous Defence Minister, I also have to be concerned that the Defence budget is not carved up to fund the other areas, because that is what we were facing in the earlier policy review. There was a glaring need to expand cyber and intelligence capability. That was obvious, but it was all within a zero budget. Something had to give, and if there had not been cross-party uproar, it would have been the Defence budget, with a catastrophic impact on equipment, troop numbers, facilities and morale. That is still a threat, and it would be a huge mistake.
Our previous ambassador to the United States, Kim Darroch, recently gave evidence to the Defence Committee. He said:
“I would be really worried about reducing further the size of the British Army. I say that in part on the basis of my experience in Washington. I would go into the Department of Defense and occasionally to see General Mattis myself or to take people in to see him and his predecessor under the Obama Administration. One of the things that both would say consistently is, ‘You are already too small—in terms of your Army. I mean, 80,000 just isn’t good enough. You need to be above 100,000. It is a big mistake to reduce to the level you are at. For goodness’ sake, do not go down any further and expect to retain your current level of credibility in Washington.’”
Ironically, one of the outcomes of the dither and delay that we have seen on the strategic review that has been to our advantage is that we can relate to the new Biden Administration and the new policies that are rapidly reshaping internal and external policy for the United States. We must certainly work with the Biden Administration to reinforce NATO after the instability of the unlamented Trump regime, but we need to have credibility in order to do that.
That brings me to the second underpinning of our defence and security strategy, which must be resilience, not only in our service personnel, crucial as that is, but in their support, both from civilian employees and also in industry. Surely even the dinosaurs in the Treasury have learned from the covid pandemic that the cost of running down capacity is penny wise, pound foolish on an exponential scale. That is why the mood of the country has shifted, and the pressure will be on the Ministry of Defence to back British industry wherever possible—so I say to the Defence Department: get on with the support ship contract! We must also value the work and commitment of the support personnel and cut out the pernicious dogma that private provision is always best. It has a role, but as we can see from what is currently happening at Faslane, the bean counters are splitting the contracts into smaller competing packages, leading to a complexity of multiple providers and interfaces and a lack of a clear line of accountability. And that on our nuclear deterrent base—really?
Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
What a joy it is to follow two such pro-defence warriors as we have just heard. As the years roll by, the contents of defence reviews get vaguer as their titles grow more convoluted. In my time in Parliament, we have moved from the 1998 strategic defence review through the 2010 strategic defence and security review, the 2015 national security strategy and strategic defence review and the 2018 national security capability review to the snappily titled integrated review of security, defence, development and foreign policy that we are discussing today.
Conducting such exercises in public will always be problematic. When a conflict is actually under way, it is folly to spell out our strategy, yet in between crises it is usually impossible to predict which potential conflicts will actually occur. If we want peaceful co-existence and our adversary does not, he has the choice of whether, when, where and how to attack. We, by contrast, must maintain a range of capabilities to deal with a wide spectrum of threats. Because an opponent’s intentions can change far more quickly than military capabilities, a democracy must maintain maximum flexibility to deal with the unexpected.
The spectrum of threats runs from nuclear and other mass destruction weapons through to conventional or hard military power, and then, via cyber-space and subversion, to disinformation—the latter three on an industrial scale thanks to the coming of the internet. The range of options available to democracies in the face of such threats runs from deterrence through to containment, and then to the dire last-resort alternatives of open warfare or submission to the attacker’s demands. If only deterrents could meet all potential threats, that would clearly be ideal, but while one can deter some of the most destructive methods of aggression, containment must be used to hold hostile states and aggressive ideologies in check until they evolve into something less virulent. In cyber-space, there is a role for deterrence by building resilience and ensuring that would-be attackers will face unacceptable and unavoidable penalties, while at the level of subversion, which is often commercial and financial, not just ideological, the role of good intelligence work is of paramount importance.
As I have already in the past expressed doubts about the wisdom of holding strategic reviews of this sort in public, I will spend the remaining short period of time posing a few questions about the intelligence aspects. I would like to know from the Government whether Defence Intelligence, in particular, will have the necessary agility and breadth to meet the newer threats on the spectrum. Can some detail on the operation of the National Cyber Force announced at the end of last year be provided in the context of the review? Will adequate investment be made in UK capability to operate in the so-called grey zone of disinformation and influence operations, which can be contained but are difficult to deter? Will such investments be funded by additional resources and not be at the expense of conventional capabilities needed to counter hard-power threats elsewhere on the spectrum? Finally, if the fusion doctrine set out in the national security capability review continues to move elements of national security policy into Government Departments not traditionally involved in such work, will parliamentary oversight of those national security elements be facilitated, and will my Committee be able to do its job in that respect?
Chris Law (Dundee West) (SNP) [V]
When the integrated review was announced, many of us feared for the future of the UK’s contribution to international aid and development. The Prime Minister has made it clear previously that he placed little value on aid spending, remarking that the UK could not
“keep spending huge sums of British taxpayers’ money as though we were some independent Scandinavian NGO.”
Rather than recognising the UK’s moral duty to help the world’s poorest and most vulnerable people, the Prime Minister’s ambition was to use aid money to promote global Britain and advance the UK’s political, commercial and diplomatic interests. It was expected that he would at least go through the pretence of a review, but with the integrated review paused due to covid-19 and without any external consultation, the Prime Minister announced that he would abolish the world-leading Department for International Development. The Government dismissed the opinion of experts, including over 200 non-governmental organisations, who called on the Prime Minister to reverse his decision, and instead pursued his long-term desire to merge the Department into the Foreign and Commonwealth Office.
The Chancellor compounded this when he announced that the UK would reduce its aid commitment from 0.7% to 0.5% of gross national income—a shocking abrogation of responsibility and morally reprehensible, particularly in this global health crisis. The Chancellor shamefully used covid and protecting public finances as his excuse for this reckless and inhumane cut. He conveniently forgot, however, that a windfall had been delivered to the defence budget the previous week. Westminster once again put bombs before bairns. Huge sums are already being lost due to the fall in the amount of GNI, and this further cut means that the aid budget is going to be cut by up to a third. Let us be in no doubt: this is devastating. In the midst of a global pandemic, we should be stepping up, not stepping away. The UN has already warned that covid-19 will set back development gains by decades, and millions have been pushed into poverty.
The reality of these cuts is that each year 5.5 million fewer children are being immunised and 105,000 more lives are being lost, while almost 1 million fewer children are being supported to gain a decent education and 7.6 million fewer women and girls are being provided with modern methods of family planning. Crucially, until legislation is brought forward and enacted, it is the Government’s legal responsibility to ensure that 0.7% of GNI is spent on official development assistance. Anything else would be unlawful and this House must hold them to account on that. Reports suggest that the Government will delay any legislation until after the G7 summit in June. Reneging on the 0.7% target is just another example of the UK abandoning its international commitments.
The Government are embarrassing themselves on the world stage as they become increasingly isolated and insular, with the Prime Minister breaking his own manifesto commitments to imitate and appease his Brexit allies Cummings and Farage. This mindset has driven the Government’s decisions on international development in the integrated review—a mindset that has routinely advocated using the aid budget to build a new royal yacht Britannia; that believes a strategic priority of UK aid is to build the trading and investment partners of the future; and that encourages spending on spies, enhanced cyber-weapons and artificial intelligence-enabled drones rather than on alleviating extreme poverty. This is not a global Britain; it is a little Britain. No matter how many Union Jacks the UK Government wave or parade in front of our televisions, this mindset is best described as Hobbesian: being solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short.
Finally, with the UK seemingly intent on breaking its commitments and abandoning the world’s most vulnerable people when they need us most, we in the Scottish National party will continue to oppose this mindset, and Scotland will soon fulfil its obligations as an independent nation, delivering aid for the world’s poorest as part of the global effort to eradicate poverty.
Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge and Malling) (Con) [V]
It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Dundee West (Chris Law). I thought his Hobbesian description was somewhat negative given that Hobbes was talking about civil war and the separation of the kingdom into different parts, whereas what the Government have achieved through one of the areas that is essential to the planned integrated review—that is, of course, science —is really quite remarkable.
If we look at the achievements of Kate Bingham, we see that the Government have delivered something fundamental to the future strategic strength of our entire nation: the deployment of science and innovation alongside enterprise and—yes—finance to make the whole much greater than the sum of the parts. This is a fantastic achievement in the face of a virus that is affecting the entire world, and it will no doubt deliver an enormous amount for the entire globe, as we will see that the innovation and development we have achieved in the United Kingdom will become something of a gift to all.
That leads me to the second area that is essential for our integrated review to be successful: technology. From AI to quantum computing, the achievements of our start- up nation and our universities are going to be fundamental to ensuring our strategic strength and depth into the future. That is why so many of us have been passionate advocates for the Government’s National Security and Investment Bill and are absolutely supportive of its aims —although some of us would rather make a few tweaks. The Bill is essential to the development of the future of our green economy. Whether in hydrogen energy, about which many of us are passionate because of China’s domination of the battery industry, or other areas, there are many technologies in which we are already leading.
That brings me to the element on which I am afraid the Government really could do more. They really do need to publish the integrated review. They have the most fantastic team in No. 10—led by someone who was an adviser to the Foreign Affairs Committee, so I admit to a bias there. The Government could easily publish a fantastic report on how they see this issue going forward. Bringing together the full arms of the state—all the institutions that the British people have at their disposal—is exactly what we need if we are to be able to fight our corner in the coming decade. The world is changing, the rules are changing and the norms are changing. We set the standards by encoding into written law the norms that we grew up with over the past 200 years. Other countries are, quite understandably, encoding their own standards into the electronic code that now runs our lives. As that is becoming cheaper and cheaper, we are seeing technological decoupling and a reversal of some of the globalisation that was achieved in the late 1990s.
This is a moment of challenge for all of us, but I think Britain can succeed. Britain is not only at the heart of a networked world, with some of the best, oldest and strongest alliances around the world—we also have the people. We have the diplomats and the aid workers. We have the soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines. We have the businesses, the finance houses, the innovators, the farmers and so many more who can generate that kind of lead. Indeed, our scientists and our NHS are demonstrating it today. What we need now is not a new orchestra. We need the conductor to set out the tune, so that we can all play it, because Britain will succeed if we know where we are going.
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind) [V]
I am pleased that we are having this debate and that there will be a review of foreign and defence policy that includes foreign affairs, defence and international aid. But it is a great shame—in fact, it is more than a shame; it is terrible—that on 19 November 2020, the Prime Minister announced that defence expenditure would rise to 2.2% of GDP and that an extra £24.1 billion would be spent over the next four years, and at almost the same time he announced a reduction in the aid budget from 0.7% to 0.5% of GDP and the closure of the Department for International Development, which was subsumed back into the Foreign Office, where the Government always wanted it to be. That is a great shame and a terrible message to the rest of the world.
This review needs to concentrate on the issues that face the world as a whole. The covid pandemic has shown just how dangerous this world is and just how dangerous the threat of another pandemic is, which is now seen as a tier 1 threat. The Government were advised in 2008 of the need to prioritise preparations for dealing with a global pandemic. The shortages of personal protective equipment and everything else show that they absolutely did not do that. The introduction to that report quite rightly says, on page 3, that we should look at the “drivers” of conflict. The wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria and now Yemen have led to an unprecedented number of refugees around the world. Some 65 million people—fellow citizens of this planet—have no home of their own and no secure place to live. They want to contribute to the world’s future.
If we are to have a rational review of what we are to achieve in the future, we must surely look at the issues facing the security of the planet, which obviously means our own security at the same time. One of those issues is global inequality. The gap between the richest and the poorest was, at the best times, beginning to close, but because of the economic slowdown due to the coronavirus, it is likely to get wider and wider. More people will be short of food, and more people will be leading insecure lives, and that will be the driver of the terrorists and threats of tomorrow.
Later this year, COP26 will meet in Glasgow, where I hope we will come to an agreement that we will get to net zero by 2030. That means that the priority for all of us should be looking at the issues that face the world—refugees, global poverty, environmental disaster and, of course, trade supplies and food chains for the future; we are a trading nation, and we need to be sure that we can still trade and buy things from elsewhere. We have a very big job on our hands, and I hope the review takes all those issues on board.
The last thing I would like to say in the few seconds I have left is quite simply this. The threat of a nuclear war has now been downgraded to tier 2. The treaty on the prohibition of nuclear weapons—the global ban—has been supported and signed by 86 nations and ratified by 52. Opinion polls show 59% support in this country for signing it. The global network of Parliamentarians for Nuclear Non-proliferation and Disarmament shows the importance of it. When the non-proliferation treaty comes up for review, let us make a positive contribution and a real effort to bring about a world free of nuclear weapons in the future. Let us concentrate on human rights, poverty and the issues that face us, because that will ultimately make us more secure.
Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn). In 20 years, we have not agreed on very much, but I was born in his constituency in Crouch End.
I want to make two principal points about the integrated review. The first is about Ministry of Defence procurement, which has frankly become a basket case. The National Audit Office and the Public Accounts Committee have produced numerous reports in recent years outlining the chronic failures in the MOD’s procurement function. One recent NAO report highlighted that of the 32 major projects managed by Defence Equipment and Support, only five are running to schedule, and many, as well as being late, are also running considerably over budget. The latest NAO report on the equipment plan, published on 12 January, confirms yet again that the plan is unaffordable within the MOD’s budget, and that the affordability gap is widening.
One procurement after another is now in serious trouble. The Ajax recce vehicle, Astute submarines, the Crowsnest airborne early warning platform, the Challenger 2 upgrade, the Warrior capability sustainment programme —the list goes on and on, and yet nothing ever really changes. The procurement bureaucracy ploughs on regardless like a giant super-tanker, but one that is probably 40% over budget and five years late.
The increase of the defence budget by £4 billion a year over four years—a roughly 10% increase—is very welcome indeed. Nevertheless, unless we can seriously reform procurement, it will be the equivalent of simply handing large wodges of cash to a chronic alcoholic. About 40% of the entire defence budget is now spent on equipment, including support, yet DE&S at Abbey Wood is persistently incapable of managing its contractors properly and efficiently. If we cannot grasp that nettle once and for all in this review, the whole exercise will have been largely a complete waste of time.
Secondly, if because we cannot cut the Gordian knot of defence procurement, we look for savings elsewhere by slashing the Regular Army, that will only compound the error, as the deputy Chairman of the Committee, the right hon. Member for Warley (John Spellar), made so plain. There is really little point in Ministers promulgating the concept of global Britain and punching above our weight on the world stage if at the same time we are reducing our Regular Army to 72,000 and discarding some of the best line infantry battalions in the world as a result.
The new Biden Administration are already very worried about that, and from what I hear privately they have a perfect right to be. This is now a very live issue—75,000 versus 72,000. I understand that no final decisions have yet been taken, so I appeal to Ministers to draw back before it is too late and reject the 72,000 proposal while there is still time.
As Kipling famously reminded us:
“For it’s Tommy this, an’ Tommy that, an’ ‘Chuck him out, the brute!’
But it’s ‘Saviour of ’is country’ when the guns begin to shoot”.
Let us not destroy some of the finest line infantry in the world simply because we lack the moral courage to fundamentally reform the way we buy their kit.
Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (Ind) [V]
It is a pleasure to speak in this debate. The UK’s departure from the EU and the upcoming publication of the integrated review has prompted a great deal of thinking about the role of the British state in the world. To date, far too much of the political discourse in this House has been based on empty slogans such as “global Britain” and “Empire 2.0”. Much of that vein of British nationalism is based on the misguided concept of superiority—hence the glib use of phrases such as “world-beating” and “best in the world” by Ministers and media propagandists.
I fear that the grand illusions that drove much of the Brexit debate will drive the UK’s foreign policy in a direction that is foolishly based on the exercise of military power. For example, sending an aircraft carrier and an accompanying strike group to the South China sea to showcase carrier capability seems a bizarre strategic decision when it comes to defence and security priorities. Instead, I urge the British Government to forget their superiority complex, stop wasting billions on weapons of mass destruction and realise that, in the real world, it is through working with others that policy objectives can be best achieved.
That brings me to where I believe the British state should prioritise future investment. The essence of our defence policy must be security. I do not believe the British state faces any prospect of invasion from another state; rather, the security threat comes from terrorism and cyber-warfare. A mass-casualty event in the UK is far more likely to come via the use of a terrorist dirty bomb using nuclear, chemical or biological technology than via a state-sponsored missile strike.
I share concerns that the trade and co-operation agreement between the EU and the UK could reduce the resources available to law enforcement agencies to tackle those threats following the loss of access to Europol, Eurojust and the second Schengen information system. Access to such systems would be far more effective in identifying and neutralising sporadic terrorist threats than any nuclear bomb, warship or tank.
Misguided foreign policy adventures diminish domestic security and create long-term instability in those regions where wars are waged. The review should therefore address not only how the British state can enhance its defence capabilities in the true sense of the word, but how the UK can collaborate with countries across the world to support peace and stability.
It is that final question—how the British Government promote peace and stability—that is, for me, at the very heart of what we are debating today. This review gives the Government an opportunity to set out a vision of a globally responsible Britain using soft power to promote access to global education, support diplomatic missions to find solutions to global tensions, and combat environmental degradation.
That is critical at a time when covid-19 is reversing decades of global progress in supporting vulnerable communities across the world. UNICEF reports that 6,000 more children are at risk of dying each day due to the impact of the pandemic on health services in low and middle-income countries. By the end of 2020, there had been an estimated 14.3% increase in the number of severely malnourished children. We have not heard too much about how the review will outline how UK aid will be used to support interventions to tackle these issues, other than being a blueprint for wasting billions on flag- waving exercises designed to shore up the Conservative base.
I will finish by quoting the Guardian columnist Simon Jenkins:
“Sovereign countries change not from without but from within. Short of horrendous wars, they change when their rulers know they must… If Britain really feels the need to set the world to rights it will do so by example, and no other way.”
Diolch yn fawr iawn.
Sarah Atherton (Wrexham) (Con) [V]
Our adversaries are changing, the characteristic of warfare is changing, and our military is modernising to combat emerging hard and soft threats, but that will take decades to evolve, and in the meantime we still need boots on the ground. A string of previous defence and procurement reviews have been throttled by lack of funding, but with the announcement of a £24 billion increase in defence spending, I want to see ambition matched by British global aspiration.
In 2018, the national security capability review identified that disease and natural hazards posed a real threat to the UK. How right it was. Therefore, this integrated review must incorporate a fresh analysis of the type of risk and geopolitical competition that that will cause and, equally, what role we want the military to play in it.
During this pandemic, civilian authorities have requested military support on 441 occasions. In Wales, the military has propped up the vaccine roll-out programme, and the number of military personnel embedded in NHS Wales doubled as of last week. The health board serving my constituency of Wrexham has just been afforded logistical planners to assist with expanding the efficiencies of the vaccination centres. That role is vital to protect the public and, by extension, national stability and security.
Let us look at the number of military personnel currently diverted to other duties: 14,500 on winter support; 4,500 on military aid to the civil authorities; three battalions on standby, and a further 5,000 personnel working behind the scenes. Without doubt, such prolonged support will impact military resilience and strike capability. I would like to see that threat addressed in the integrated review, along with a reassurance that personnel numbers will reach their target and will not be reduced.
I anticipate that the integrated review will identify opportunities in the modernisation of defence in order to create skilled jobs and drive exports. That will facilitate the Government’s agenda to level up and build back stronger. Certainly, the defence industry and supply chain is vital, and nowhere more so than in Wales. In addition to the presence of military personnel, the next generation of the Army’s Ajax armoured fighting vehicle is made in Merthyr, and components for the Boxer in Cardiff. In north-east Wales, MOD Sealand is the global F-35 maintenance hub, and the Shadow aircraft will be supported by Raytheon, in addition to the work undertaken at Qioptiq.
That all creates significant prosperity—more than 7,500 jobs—with the procurement spend in Wales increasing by 11% to £1 billion. That has been achieved because we are one United Kingdom, and the Conservatives are the party of defence. Wales’s defence footprint is vital, but our armed forces and defence industry need certainty. Certainty comes with the integrated review, which I hope will be published sooner rather than later.
Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab) [V]
It is almost a year since the Prime Minister launched his integrated review into the UK’s international policy, and how the world has changed since then. The review is supposed to map out how the levers of our diplomatic, development and defence policy work together, providing a truly integrated international strategy for the decades ahead, but despite assurances that it would be published last autumn there is still no sign of it. We have, however, seen a drip of premature announcements linked to the review about increases to defence spending, reductions to development spending, and of course the merger between DFID and the FCO last summer.
To make such a momentous decision as a merger before completing the review denied many external stakeholders the opportunity to contribute evidence, and pre-empted the review’s conclusions. It was a deep mistake and will have long-term consequences. By cutting UK aid spending to 0.5% of gross national income from 2021 onwards, the Government have broken their promise that the integrated review would be underpinned by an ongoing commitment to spend 0.7% of UK GNI on official development assistance. Reducing our spending at a time of increased global need while our allies in France and Germany seek to increase their development spend sends a message of a country backing away from solving problems and sharing burdens, rather than taking the lead in finding solutions.
In normal times, we would be talking about how to ensure that our aid budget is reaching the people most in need of it, whether it is delivering value for money, and whether it is sufficiently transparent. We need to get back to those conversations. I am pleased that the Government plan to publish a new development strategy, born out of the conclusions and objectives that will be set out in the integrated review. That new strategy will provide an opportunity for the UK to cement its commitment to poverty reduction and the attainment of the sustainable development goals. The International Development Committee, which I chair, is keen to contribute to that new strategy, ensuring that it draws upon the views of stakeholders from across the world.
When the Foreign Secretary spoke to my Committee last month, he told us of his vision for the UK to be an international leader in conflict and dispute resolution. To undertake that role with credibility we must first remove the contradictions that persist in our international policy. How can the UK take the global lead in tackling climate change but continue to support the use of fossil fuels through UK Export Finance? How can we share our commitment to providing quality education for girls when one of the first casualties of aid cuts was a girls’ education programme in Rwanda? How does it make sense for the UK to be rightly providing humanitarian assistance to Yemen yet continuing to sell arms to the countries that use those weapons on the Yemeni people?
The integrated review is our chance to tell the world what sort of country the UK wants to be. I want it to be one that promotes peace, equality and prosperity for all, so I have to ask: when will the integrated review be published?
Dr Liam Fox (North Somerset) (Con)
Politicians have never really come to terms fully with globalisation. Perhaps it is the inevitable loss of sovereignty that provides the reticence, but it is a reality. We live in a world that is more interdependent and interconnected than at any time in history. Examples of the impact of that are all around us, from the financial crisis to the effects post 9/11 and the covid pandemic. Events in other parts of the world ricochet quickly to wherever we are, to the extent that the concept of “over there” is almost redundant, because whatever risk is over there today will be over here tomorrow, whether that risk comes from terrorism, economic issues or, as now, a public health emergency.
We need to have a proper response to the reality in which we find ourselves. I draw a distinction between globalism—the idea of global government—and globalisation, which is an economic reality. One is a pipe dream and the other is the situation that we must address today. We require multilateral co-operation in a much more concerted way than we have in the past and we have to have better institutions. Many of the institutions on which we depend today for global co-operation were designed for a very different world. The United Nations, the Security Council, the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, the World Trade Organisation and the World Health Organisation all need to be brought up to date, and Britain can play a lead in that.
We need to be at the centre, and we are well placed. We have a permanent seat on the Security Council, and we are in the G7 and the G20. We are at the heart of the Commonwealth. We are a key member of NATO and a big contributor to the World Bank and the IMF. All those have already put Britain in a key position to help.
Post Brexit, we need to remodel Whitehall to reflect the reality of the change, whereby risk is multifactorial, and defence, economic security and commodity security, including water, are all risks that need to be addressed together. I sat on the National Security Council, which was supposed to take a wider view of risk, but it is all too easy for it to become focused on short-term threats to national security rather than take a wider strategic view of longer-term threats.
Issues such as NATO are ongoing problems. The underfunding of NATO by many of its European members needs to be addressed—and they need not think that a change in the American presidency is going to give them much of a breather at a time when the patience of American taxpayers has been sorely tested for far too long. We need to take a strategic view not only of our own interests, but of the interests of those whose world view competes with ours. That is particularly true when the Chinese Communist party is trying to create a more permissive environment for totalitarianism and when we need to create one for democracy, freedom and the rule of law.
I end with a short story. When I was Defence Secretary, I asked a senior official at the Élysée Palace why during the cold war we were happy to use the word “better”—freedom was better than tyranny, capitalism better than state planning and democracy better than totalitarianism—but we were reticent during the Islamic threat to say that religious toleration was better than imposed orthodoxy, that equality for women was better than their being second-class citizens and that democracy was better than theocracy. The answer that I got was, “I think that today we can only say that we are different, not better.” If we believe that what we stand for is only different and not better than the alternatives, how can we lead? We either have to shape the world or be shaped by it. I believe that the values we hold are the key to that better future.
Martin Docherty-Hughes (West Dunbartonshire) (SNP) [V]
Just last night, we heard from ITV News that there is a new component: the defence White Paper—something that had not been raised with us on the Defence Committee and none of the witnesses at our integrated review inquiry had seriously raised. In the press reports this morning, submissions from the Australian and German Governments raised their own defence White Papers, but it seems odd that the first we are hearing about it in a UK context is a month before the White Paper is published.
The Committee’s report on the integrated review was called “In Search of Strategy”; I do not think I am the only one still looking for that strategy. It is, of course, important at this point to reiterate what I and many in Scotland will be looking for in the review. It will come as no surprise to anyone who has heard me witter on about it that our north Atlantic neighbourhood must be central to this integrated review: it is the geography and location that defines our future, just as it has our past. That would, of course, seem logical except that it played no part in the 2015 SDSR, and the UK’s neglect of its own backyard is an ongoing worry for those who see all the emphasis in this review being about an Indo- Pacific tilt.
The second plea that I would like to make is on behalf of the defence people who will undertake this strategy. It is clear from the evidence presented in the comprehensive spending review that the extra cash for defence announced in November is going to find its way principally to ensuring that the MOD can just about tread water with its equipment plan, while the day-to-day budget remains stagnant.
For those on the Government Front Bench who will talk about “efficiency savings”, let me say that anyone who has read the National Audit Office reports knows that those are illusionary; yet again, this will be fiscal restraint built on the backs of those who serve in our armed forces, and their terms and conditions, housing and wages, all after almost a decade of previous lost real-terms savings. This is unsustainable.
My country is going to be an independent member of the European Union and NATO in the coming years, and much as it will come as a surprise to those who have not been paying attention, this Scottish nationalist at least wants to see our largest neighbour and closest friend have a strategy that its people and its Parliament can understand and buy into. I do not expect anyone on the Government Benches to want to get this right for those reasons, but today I do live in hope.
Mr Andrew Mitchell (Sutton Coldfield) (Con)
I draw the House’s attention to my interests, which are set out in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
The integrated review is a most important moment and, along with my colleagues, I look forward very much to its publication. It will set out what global Britain means post Brexit, and as many have said, there are undoubtedly huge opportunities for us there. It wires together defence, diplomacy and development, and I want to say a few words about development and the importance of soft power, where, hitherto, Britain has been a global leader.
Many on the Conservative Benches, as well as across the House, are very much opposed in principle to the reduction in the 0.7% commitment, not only because it was a promise delivered when the former Defence Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for North Somerset (Dr Fox), and I were in government, but because it was a manifesto commitment made by every elected Member of this House at the last election, just a year ago. It is incredibly unwise to break that commitment, particularly in the midst of a global pandemic. We all know that covid will never be beaten here until it is beaten everywhere, and the British development budget has helped to do an enormous amount to build health structures, which have been so important. If we are vaccinating people in the northern part of Uganda, it is not just about a vaccine and a needle; it is about health structures, and having clinics, fridges, and adequately trained staff.
This will be the largest cut that has ever been made in international development spending, and we are the only country contemplating it: the United States has announced that it will increase development spending by $15 billion; France is increasing its level of developing spending above what we are now proposing; and Germany reached the 0.7% figure last year. The 0.7% has gone down so much this year—as of course it rightly does sometimes, because it reflects the state of our gross national income—that £3 billion has already been shaved off the budget. If the 0.5% proposal were to be brought in, we would be talking about another £4 billion, and so nearly half the budget of nearly £15 billion last year. It is wrong in principle to use that to wipe out 1% of the debt we have racked up in the past year. I ask the Government respectfully to think again about this.
I have a second point I wish to make. I read that the Government are worried about losing a vote on this in the House of Commons and are therefore intending to kick it into the long grass. May I suggest a more constructive approach? Brexit was supposed to bring power back to this Parliament, not to Executive fiat, and I think the Government should put this to Parliament sooner rather than later. The reason for that is, first, that development is long-term; many important development programmes run for three or five years. We see this in the example of the Prime Minister’s excellent proposal that all girls should get 12 years of education. If there is doubt over the budget, it is extremely unhelpful in planning those programmes, which will, by definition, then be much less effective. Secondly, as has been pointed out, the Government may be in breach of the law, because the provisions do not allow for missing the target on purpose. If the Government advance down that particular route, they may well get judicially reviewed. So I urge them to think again about this, perhaps getting the £4 billion they would save by this pernicious and shabby cut from a digital online services tax. Why not let Amazon pay fair tax instead of balancing the books in this way on the backs of the poorest people in the world?
Mick Whitley (Birkenhead) (Lab) [V]
I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Warley (John Spellar) and the right hon. Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood) for securing a debate on this incredibly important subject.
Since coming to power in 2010, the Conservative party has presided over a decade of decline in the field of defence. Successive defence reviews have been used to slash spending, leaving a £13 billion black hole in the defence budget, our armed forces short of service personnel and greatly needed orders being deferred. This all raises troubling questions about the readiness of our armed forces to meet new and fast-changing threats in an ever more volatile world. The Prime Minister is right to recognise that, after so many years of reckless mismanagement, it is time to end the era of retreat. I welcomed the Chancellor’s announcement last autumn of more than £24 billion of additional funding, in cash terms, for defence over the next four years. The Minister must now confirm how much of this additional funding will be used to fill spending gaps caused by swingeing funding cuts over the past decade.
Of course, the first priority of this integrated review must be to address the needs and wellbeing of our brave service personnel, who put their lives at risk to keep us safe. That means, at long last, putting an end to the scourges of low pay, substandard housing and inadequate mental healthcare. I would also like to know what consideration the integrated review will give to the role that defence spending has to play in supporting domestic manufacturing and improving sovereign capabilities. This is a key challenge for the UK going forward. For far too long, our country’s sovereign capabilities have been undermined by the Government’s tendency to bypass British manufacturers and buy defence projects off the shelf from abroad. One of the most important lessons of the pandemic is that we simply cannot rely on international supply chains to deliver equipment and infrastructure that is vital to safeguarding our national security. It is imperative that the integrated review recognises that, and that the Government take steps to ensure that vital defence projects are designed and delivered by British manufacturers.
This issue has a special resonance in my constituency of Birkenhead, which is home to the iconic Laird shipyards. In 2019, Cammell Laird was part of a TEAM UK consortium that was successfully shortlisted for the construction of Royal Fleet Auxiliary’s new fleet solid support ships. By building these ships in British shipyards, the Ministry of Defence can guarantee at least 6,500 jobs across the UK, including hundreds at Cammell Laird alone.
I have been encouraged by what the Defence Secretary and Prime Minister have to say about the role of defence spending in promoting jobs, skills and high-quality apprenticeships at home, but I am concerned that the Government are still failing to deliver. Too many supposedly shovel-ready defence projects have been delayed, jeopardising British manufacturers and jobs. In Faslane this week, members of Unite the union are balloting for industrial action over the future maritime support programme contract process. They fear the contract will be split into smaller components and contractors, which risks undermining collective bargaining arrangements, as well as the delivery of the project. What we need now is action, and that means putting social value and the promotion of economic prosperity at the very heart of the integrated review.
Philip Dunne (Ludlow) (Con) [V]
I remind the House of my role as deputy chairman of the Defence Growth Partnership. I, too, look forward, as other Members have said, to the integrated review, but I also look forward to the defence and security industrial strategy. I congratulate the Secretary of State on securing a multi-year settlement outwith the one-year spending review, providing a £16 billion increase in defence spending over the next four years. As was made crystal clear in the recent National Audit Office report, the continuing material gap in the affordability of the equipment programme has to be grasped. Allocating adequate capital and then avoiding repeated delays through stop-start decisions to programmes will improve both cost and the delivery schedule.
I make four quick points on judging the integrated review. The first is whether the increased resources are sufficient to match the Government’s policy ambition to develop the required capacity and capability to maintain credible and effective force structures. The second is whether the review recognises the value of an defence industrial base with sufficient resilience, innovation and sustainable capacity to supply our armed forces with the superior capability that they need, now and in the future. That requires a careful combination of competition and collaboration with industry, providing greater visibility to contractors of potential defence capability requirements. It also requires identifying the contribution of defence and security to the UK economy, as I recommended a few years ago; I am pleased that that is now being stood up through the joint economic data hub, which will help to demonstrate how defence can contribute to prosperity and the Government’s levelling-up agenda.
Thirdly, in the post-Brexit era the integrated review provides the opportunity to show global Britain taking a leadership role in international capability programmes. Developing export potential for UK defence capabilities by establishing joint requirements with our allies is essential to ensure that our armed forces are at the forefront of innovation, but also encourages industry to co-invest in developing new capabilities. Securing international support for export programmes will require increased co-operation between Government Departments here at home and the simplifying of Government-to-Government engagement overseas.
Fourthly, I shall be looking for continued investment in innovation—something I championed when in post. All too often, the innovation budget has fallen victim to the annual salami-slice of cutting current programmes to fit departmental spending into the annual budget envelope. That is no way to build confidence with the user community in the armed forces, nor with the potential new suppliers who will come from the technology innovators of the wider commercial world beyond defence, as war-fighting moves into the digital, cyber and space domains.
I urge the Government to use the integrated review to match capability with ambition and support the UK’s defence enterprise base, to develop world-leading capability and to build on its important contribution to the prosperity of our country and the credibility of our armed forces.
Hywel Williams (Arfon) (PC) [V]
I thank the right hon. Members for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood) and for Warley (John Spellar) for securing the debate.
I fear that the review is compromised by the assumptions on which it is founded, not just the assumptions about global affairs—new and unclear threats abound, and old friends of course change leaders—but rather, the assumptions about the very state whose interests the review seeks to safeguard and advance. An effective review must pay due attention, not only to the state of international affairs but to the political and economic environment here in the UK. More than half the population of Scotland now support independence in every poll. More than half the population of Northern Ireland say they want a referendum in the next five years on reunification. Even in Wales, disregarded as the most docile part of the kingdom, support for independence now stands at over 30%. The Prime Minister and his friends might prefer to ignore these humdrum matters in their grandiose consideration of global affairs, but for any international strategy to be worth the candle, it needs a degree of domestic consent.
Let us suppose for a moment that Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales choose to remain in the UK. The first finding of the review should be that the centralisation of international engagement in Westminster and in Whitehall will no longer do. So far, this Government have shown themselves wonderfully adept at failing to work with these diverse national interests. They subordinate the Union to the wishes of the largest number. The review should therefore enable proper participation by the four parts of the UK in international affairs, from approving trade deals to consenting to offensive operations by armed forces drawn from, and paid for by, all four parts of the state.
Plaid Cymru wants Wales to play a constructive international role, from supporting climate action to eradicating want, to striving for peace in conflicts in places like Yemen. The Prime Minister’s view is different and, I am afraid, more than a little confused. He said in this place on 19 November:
“We have a chance to break free from the vicious circle whereby we ordered ever decreasing numbers of ever more expensive items of military hardware, squandering billions along the way.”—[Official Report, 19 November 2020; Vol. 684, c. 488.]
That is all quite true, of course. That is what he said then, but he followed it up with support for Trident. He has, as we say in Welsh, “Pen punt a chynffon dimau”, which very loosely translates as “A pound in the head but a ha’penny in the pocket”. Change is essential.
On a local note, the MOD has acquired training aircraft that cannot normally fly over the sea and that make a very loud noise over land. They are based on Ynys Môn. Ynys Môn is, of course, an island; the clue is in the name.
The time for global pretensions, when foreign affairs were conducted by a Westminster and Whitehall elite, has had its day; and, given its multitudinous failures, quite rightly so.
James Sunderland (Bracknell) (Con)
It is something of an irony that the debate is about publication of the integrated review, but I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood) for convening it and giving us this opportunity.
At the heart of the review is the need for the UK properly to define its strategic role in the world. What is it that we want to do? In my view, policy follows strategy, so it stands to reason that our global strategy will pave the way for the next generation of integrated foreign, development and defence policy aims to 2030 and beyond. For those in any doubt at all, defence spending is a necessary evil to keep us safe. Today we face a multitude of threats in multiple domains. Some are known to us and some are not, and we are living in an era of constant competition and persistent engagement with our foes, so we need an insurance policy that lies in having some of the most potent military forces in the world—both nuclear and conventional.
Thanks to the commitment of this Government, with an additional £16.5 billion being pumped into defence over the next four years, the MOD finds itself in the position of being able to think long term with its planning. It provides certainty, security and the confidence to make longer-term decisions. I cannot even begin to scratch the surface of the review in a few minutes, but I want to focus on a number of areas.
First, we need to better align our foreign policy with our defence policy, so let us clarify that relationship. Cutting overseas aid from 0.7% to 0.5% is not popular, but charity begins at home. I support the decision, albeit with two conditions: that it reverts when we can afford it; and that it comes with a requirement for a comprehensive review of how we spend the money overseas. Let us tighten the relationship between hard and soft power; embed Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office and MOD advisers within foreign Governments; and make those Governments more accountable for how they spend our money. Let us make better use of military training teams to engage in upstream capacity building, particularly in countries where existential threats continue to hinder progress.
If we are serious about being a global power, perhaps even east of Suez, our forces need to be truly expeditionary. We must therefore enhance our ability to project force anywhere in the world at unlimited liability and at readiness. Our naval platforms, ro-ro ferries and long-range aircraft, such as the C-17, will need to be augmented.
We must also never take a risk with the extensive logistic capabilities that we will need to support our combat and combat support arms. The Navy will need more warships, not least to protect our carriers, as quantity does have a quality all of its own. I would also like to see a bigger surface fleet, albeit with less capable platforms, perhaps, but to enhance our global presence. We will also need to invest in our forward operating bases, not just our traditional P jobs in Cyprus, Gibraltar and Ascension, but also further east in Diego Garcia, Bahrain, Singapore and elsewhere. Defence relationships with NATO, the UN, the Five Eyes community, the five power defence arrangements, the EU and through bilateral agreements will also need to be reinforced.
Lastly, we need a comprehensive defence industrial strategy to support our nascent manufacturing capability. I continue to find it crass that we are investing huge sums in overseas military equipment when we should be protecting jobs and livelihoods at home. We have some of the best manufacturers and integrators on our shores, so let us invest in them by building British, buying British and selling British. I hope that once it is published, the integrated review will be what it needs to be.
Mrs Emma Lewell-Buck (South Shields) (Lab) [V]
I would like to thank the right hon. Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Warley (John Spellar) for securing tonight’s debate. The integrated review so far has been a matter of delay, confusion, contradiction and vague statements. It was announced in 2019, and the House was told that it would be completed early in the new year of 2020. Then it was to be January 2021, and then the Secretary of State for Defence said it would be in February, only for the Prime Minister to advise us a day later that it would not be in February. We are now told that it is expected in spring this year. The Government’s response to the Defence Committee’s report, aptly named “In search of strategy”, was incredibly poor. Their response to the International Development Committee’s report was not only poor but dismissive, and their response to the Foreign Affairs Committee did not fare much better.
I appreciate that this is a difficult review. It is vast in scope and it comes at a time of global instability, emerging threats and increasing risks on the back of a decade of decline, the coronavirus pandemic, climate change, food insecurity, non-state actors, allies who do not always behave in the way we expect them to, and enemies we know of and those we do not know yet, but the actions of this Government to date have not increased our status and standing in the world; they have diminished them. We are isolated from Europe and out of step with the new US President when it comes to arms sales in support of the Saudi-led offensive operations in Yemen. We need to be consistent in our approach to human rights abuses. We should call them out in every single country where they happen. The fact that we do not do so is leading to questions about our values and priorities on the international stage. The merger of the Department for International Development and the Foreign Office has damaged our soft power and our reputation for international humanitarian co-operation.
In spite of the delay in the review, funding and policy decisions relevant to it have been announced, such as the increase in defence spending, which was welcomed across the House. However, this raises the question: what is the desire behind spending this money? It appears to be funding without a strategy. What has not been so welcome is the repeated reports of cuts of 10,000 soldiers. I understand that emerging cyber-technology and grey-zone operations need investment and that warfare is always changing. In this ever-changing landscape, though, the one constant in warfare throughout history has always been and always will be our brave forces personnel, and to diminish their numbers would be a grave mistake. Defence Secretaries in the previous two US Administrations warned us that our Army was too small, and just last week Lord Darroch, the former British ambassador to the US, warned that further cuts could put our transatlantic defence relations at risk.
I am always struck that, when it comes to defence and foreign affairs, vague and nebulous words and concepts are used that serve only to hinder understanding and the delivery of our aims. So I make a plea that this review should not suffer from the same problem as previous ones, such as the 2015 SDSR. In Committee, we heard that the review repeatedly used phrases such as “rules-based international system”, yet officials were completely unable to describe exactly what this meant. It does not bode well that MPs across this House continue to seek answers on this issue and get none. It does not bode well that people around the world are no longer clear what we stand for. I urge the Government to stop making vague promises, stop making contradictory statements and offer some answers very soon.
Stuart Anderson (Wolverhampton South West) (Con)
I have been a member of the Defence Committee for approaching a year now, and the integrated review is something that we have been eagerly awaiting. The importance of the review cannot be underestimated, and a date for when it is going to be released would be gratefully received by the Committee and many more. In a little over that year, we have left the EU and we are coming out of what is hopefully a once-in-a-century pandemic that will have a lasting impact on what the future holds for us. What is our country going to look like on the world stage? What thought has been given to our position—to where we see ourselves and where our allies see us?
Anyone who knows me would say I am an optimist, but I like to temper that with a sensible pragmatism. We have faced the same as the rest of the world; the speed at which we recover could define the position that we take. I understand why there has been a delay in the publication of the review, but time is now of the essence and we must release it.
As a member of the Defence Committee and a proud veteran, I want to see a strong vision for our country, especially on the world stage. The opportunities for us will be different given the impact of coronavirus and life outside the EU. However, in the same breath we must look at the threats to our country and our allies. Many continually argue that warfare has changed and we must prepare for every eventuality. Although it is fair to say that warfare has evolved, its nature remains—and always will—brutal, so it is vital that we prepare and can cover every eventuality, from traditional fighting capabilities to operating effectively in the grey zone, and anything else that we need to be able to do.
As a young soldier, I was sent on operations after debates and votes in this House. I hope it is not the case, but there could be a time in the future when we debate and vote on whether to send troops into harm’s way to defend us or our allies. I want to know that we have done everything we can to equip, prepare and set up for success our brave armed forces.
I have a son, Sam, of whom I am very proud. At 16, he has one main focus, and that is to be a soldier. To me, he is still a child, but he is the same age as I was when I walked into the Army careers centre. If he is successful in joining the Army, I want to know that he will have everything he needs to fight, however they need to fight in the coming decades.
I firmly believe that there is an acceleration in the evolution of the battle space. We need to know, clearly, how we are prepared for that and where we stand in the world. The integrated review will set all this out for our country and our allies. We need to do what the Prime Minister originally planned and release the integrated review, so I would really welcome a date.
Claire Hanna (Belfast South) (SDLP) [V]
Since the previous major review of the UK’s national security and defence in 2015, we have experienced significant change and new, emerging threats, not least the global pandemic and the UK’s departure from the EU. Last November, the Prime Minister said in a statement on the review that
“Britain must…stand alongside our allies, sharing the burden”—[Official Report, 19 November 2020; Vol. 684, c. 487-488.]
but I am afraid those words felt hollow in the context of the loss of DFID and significant cuts to the aid budget. I am concerned that the integrated review will represent another step away from international development and overseas aid priorities and a move towards defence and cure—I suppose—rather than a focus on prevention and long-term development.
The UK’s development record has been something to be really proud of in terms of helping countries with fragile political, economic and healthcare systems and in turn making the world a safer place for us all. That is the best basis of a security and defence strategy. Recent moves towards explicitly self-interested policies will create a scenario in which the purpose of development spending becomes transactional or just for use as leverage, which is not just morally wrong but has, as we know, proven disastrous in the past. It is important to remember precisely why DFID was created. It was from the need to separate general overseas policies from aid interests and to ensure that aid was used in the best interests of the most vulnerable—which is how I believe citizens want it to be spent—and not, as was the case then, to leverage trade and arms deals.
For the first time in many years, development progress around the world is going backwards. Unfortunately, that is the context in which the Government have dropped their legal commitment—a manifesto pledge that is less than a year old and, as was said earlier in the debate, a commitment made by nearly every Member of this House—to protect the UK’s aid spending. For all the talk of global Britain and walking on the world stage, it is important not to strip back things such as generosity, far-sightedness and multilateralism. I say this as an Irish Member of the UK Parliament who is not moved by concepts like sovereignty and the armed forces, but who is deeply proud of the UK’s commitment and records on aid.
We are living in an economic contraction worse than any in living memory, but aid investment is far-sighted and is a good way to spend money to guard against longer-term problems. Well-nourished children will learn well in school and informed and empowered women will see their children thrive and survive. Draining the reservoirs of poverty stops extremism taking hold and we know that this makes for a safer and more secure world for all of us.
In December, a report estimated that covid-19 would push a further 200 million people into extreme poverty, while, at the same time, commercial interests from the global north extract resources many times greater in value than those that we invest in aid and development. Climate change resulting from our overuse of those resources will have massive impacts on developing countries and could lead to mass displacement, natural disasters, instability and the potential for conflict and a refugee crisis.
As we face the future, the UK cannot leave developing countries behind and go it alone. This review cannot see the decimation of a strong record in aid in favour of isolationism and self-interested policies. If we do not address the root of instability and insecurity around the world, we will not have a safer world for UK citizens or for anybody else. With covid and with development generally, until everyone is secure, we cannot all be secure.
Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con) [V]
With the end of the cold war, the UK failed to develop a new national or grand strategy and allowed its mechanisms for maintaining such a strategy to atrophy. This review must start by accepting that and deal with the changes in equipment, concepts, pressure of economics, accelerating technological change, and the new forms of conflict and competition. It must demand new and different operational concepts and a new strategic frame- work to meet the challenge of modern hybrid warfare.
The Chief of the Defence Staff’s announcement of a new integrated operating concept is therefore of extreme importance. The integrated review must set out a conceptual framework that incorporates all forms of new technology and must support the new relevant operational concepts. The Nagorno-Karabakh war demonstrates just how decisive technological advantage can be if one side has deployed it and the other side does not have it. The technology can be more important than force numbers, tactics or training, and that may be a paradigm shift in the nature of modern conflict.
To prevail, today’s military must have electronic warfare dominance, integrated, multi-force battle management systems enabling very short sensor-to-shooter links, 24/7 surveillance and remote targeting, ground, air and sea-launched precision warheads and survivable platforms such as armoured fighting vehicles with active defence suites. At 2% of GDP, what will we be able to buy? Not enough on its own. Not only must the MOD adapt but many other Government Departments need to acknowledge and provide for their own evolving contribution to national security. This also extends to the private sector.
Civilian technological development has become key to maintaining military pre-eminence. A crisis may still require large equipment numbers at short notice, so we must also reduce unit costs and design in commonality, ease of training, and low cost of storage and maintenance. We must also find civilian value for military technology in order to reduce costs.
Here is an example. The west relies on space for everything that we do in our daily lives, including military operations. This contrasts with Russia or China. By 2045, China may well have equivalent reliance, but its design will be resilient and defendable. The UK has no launch capability, but we do have a thriving satellite industry. Now is the time that we must fund a coherent space policy, including launch capability. If Russia’s heavy lift rockets can destroy the global network of telecommunication satellites with nuclear electromagnetic pulse space weapons and instantly it can replace its own satellites, we must show how we would replace ours just as quickly both as a response and as a deterrent. The RAF’s experimental Microset could be a classic dual use capability in such a role.
Finally, Sir Stephen Lovegrove’s welcome move to national security adviser takes defence into what has been too much of a diplomat’s fiefdom, but it is imperative that his successor as deputy permanent secretary at Defence arrives with an appreciation of all this new complexity and the role that technology must play. In this, we need experts not amateurs, however gifted they are.
Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD) [V]
I want to make three points, and the first is a short one. The hon. Member for Bracknell (James Sunderland) referred to some threats not being known. That takes me instantly to the cyber aspect of our defence. The revelations recently about how the organisation called Bellingcat identified the murderers in Salisbury are very instructive indeed. We have to be very serious about this, as other Members have said. That is all I want to say about that.
The hon. Members for Bracknell and for Birkenhead (Mick Whitley) and the right hon. Member for Ludlow (Philip Dunne) made great play of guarding our British defence industry capability. I am firmly of the opinion that, as we reach next-generation weapons for all three services, it is very important that if we cannot make them at our own hand—and hopefully we can, using British expertise and British engineering—we should co-operate with other countries, and we must have a stake in making that equipment. If we do not, the fact is that we will never have all the intellectual knowledge that we would like to have.
I am sure we are all very pleased that the UK has bought F-35s from the United States—although perhaps not as many as we would like—but I cannot honestly see Lockheed Martin telling us every single thing about how every gizmo in that aircraft works. Why should it? This is a very important point. Even if it seems expensive at the time, if we do not do that, we will be making a mistake. As other Members have said, we will be depleting our future manufacturing capability, and once we lose those skills—be it in shipyards, building aircraft or building weapons for the Army—it is very hard to get them back again.
My second point is a Scottish point, and I want to make a slightly different one from the one that the Chamber hears quite a lot of. I am very clear that if the 4th Battalion of the Royal Regiment of Scotland said to my hometown of Tain or to Wick, Thurso or wherever they have the right to do this that they would like to parade with their bayonets fixed and their colours flying, local people would be absolutely delighted. There is no doubt about it: our armed forces enjoy a very special place in people’s hearts in the highlands. I talked about the 4th Battalion of the Royal Regiment of Scotland, but if HMS Sutherland chose to visit Invergordon, which it has done in the past, that would go down extremely well with the local people. Our armed forces are seen as something that Scotland can be extremely proud of, and I believe that the armed forces in all four parts of the United Kingdom are part of the glue that sticks our country together and makes the United Kingdom united.
There have been some sensational words in the press about the fact that we are not recruiting as many people into the armed forces as we should be, and that possibly is the case. The highlands of Scotland are very fertile recruiting grounds, as are many other parts of Scotland. I wish to see much more effort made through recruiting teams coming to Highland games, fêtes and town galas, because there is a great future here, and it could really help our armed forces. It is a pleasure to join this debate, and I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood) for bringing it forward.
Richard Drax (South Dorset) (Con) [V]
First, I pay tribute to our armed forces for all they do. Last November, the Prime Minister paid his own tribute when he said:
“For decades, British Governments have trimmed and cheese-pared our defence budget. If we go on like this, we risk waking up to discover that our armed forces—the pride of Britain—have fallen below the minimum threshold of viability, and, once lost, they can never be regained. That outcome would not only be craven; it would jeopardise the security of the British people, amounting to a dereliction of duty for any Prime Minister.”—[Official Report, 19 November 2020; Vol. 684, c. 487.]
Amen to that. My right hon. Friend went on to announce a welcome increase in defence spending of just over £24 billion over the next four years. As a former soldier and a member of the Defence Committee, I believe that this level of support and commitment to our armed forces is critical.
Paying an insurance premium is always painful, until it is called for, when its value is truly appreciated. The question now is: what do we want our armed forces to do? We need a clear aim if a relevant appreciation is to be made. We had a useful acronym in the Army: KISS—keep it simple, stupid. For too long, reviews have been overcomplicated, often resulting in a fudge. During the cold war, the aim was simple: to counter the threat from the Soviet Union. Today, there is a clear and present danger not only from a re-emergent Russia but from China, and that is not to mention terrorism. Worryingly, the rules-based order appears not to apply to any of them.
Our days of operating on our own, except perhaps for minor deployments, are over, and we will be working closely with our NATO allies. Whatever we deploy, whether on land, on sea or in the air, must be the best, with properly trained and equipped personnel. Can we afford to go on mothballing scores of main battle tanks, fooling ourselves that they can be reactivated in days, when that is simply not possible? If we are to keep that asset, surely quality is more realistic than quantity.
Of course, money and the Government’s commitment to spend it is a key factor, but with hugely expensive items on the wish list, not least in cyber and space, the question is how to prioritise? Surely that is a question not just for the UK, but for our allies, not least the most important one—the United States. At a recent public session of our Committee, I noted Lord Darroch’s comments carefully. He told us that former US Defence Secretary General Mattis said that the US would not regard our armed forces as credible if we could not field an Army of 100,000. I understand that there is an ongoing argument within the MOD about whether the Army should be cut to 75,000 or 72,000. Like the US, I believe that any cut to our dwindling conventional force is short sighted. Maintaining such an asset within NATO is key to deterring a would-be aggressor. Now, as global Britain, we need to take that responsibility very seriously indeed.
Of equal significance is soft power. Our armed forces serve and are welcomed around the world. Our troops evacuate, support, rescue, protect, build and train overseas. The white ensign flying proudly at the stern of our warships is still a powerful and reassuring emblem to many, representing freedom, democracy and the rule of law. At a time of great instability in the world, when so many people live under the cosh, never has it been more important to fly the flag.
The Prime Minister has made an encouraging start. Now we need clarification of the aim so that a through appreciation can be made and the right conclusions reached.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
We will go to our final speaker, Alyn Smith, who I am squeezing in with two and a half minutes.
Alyn Smith (Stirling) (SNP) [V]
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I appreciate the opportunity to speak.
This is a curious debate, in that the integrated review is a bit like the Loch Ness monster: it is oft talked about but seldom seen. It is curious that we are debating a paper that none of us has seen and is clearly being made up as the Government go along. That said, I wish them well. I want Scotland’s closest neighbour and friend to have a vision of where it fits in the world, to be secure in its skin and to be comfortable in how it progresses and presents itself. But from my and my party’s perspective, global Britain has voluntarily made itself smaller, meaner and poorer by leaving the European Union: smaller by leaving the European Union and limiting the opportunities we have, poorer by doing so in the way it did, and meaner by opting out of the Erasmus programme and visa arrangements for creatives when it did not need to, and by cutting the 0.7% international aid budget at a time when the world needs it more than ever.
All those advantages have been taken away and replaced with bluster and flags, and the idea that flying a flag on a ship somehow makes it more effective than any other. That is not our vision. Contrast that with the SNP’s vision of independence in Europe and the real-world advantages that we have enjoyed until recently, which we will regain with independence. We want to be independent not to be separate or apart. We know where we fit in the world: we fit in the north-west corner of the European continent, and we are very comfortable with that. We are naturally multilateral. The cornerstone of our foreign policy is EU membership. The cornerstone of our defence policy is NATO membership. The cornerstone of our trade policy is EU membership. All those advantages will make us more secure and richer.
The people of Scotland have a choice between two Unions: the Union with the UK or the Union with our European continent. Choosing between two Unions is a really comfortable place for the people of Scotland to be. I will critique global Britain on its merits, and I will critique the review honestly when it is brought forward—I look forward to doing so—but I will contrast them against the real-world advantages of European Union membership, which Scotland so firmly endorsed and will regain with independence.
Stewart Malcolm McDonald (Glasgow South) (SNP) [V]
I congratulate the Chair of the Defence Committee on securing the debate. In the year of COP26, and the year we hope to start to put the pandemic behind us, the debate is rather timely. However, as my hon. Friend the Member for Stirling (Alyn Smith) said, it seems curious that we are debating a document that has not yet been published. Of course, that is not the only curious thing about the integrated review. The other curious thing about it is that, certainly as far as the defence element goes, all of the budget has been published months in advance of the integrated review being finalised; that happened before Christmas.
The other curious element is when we will we finally see it. If the Minister answers only one question, I feel it should be that one, because when the Secretary of State for Defence gave a covid update not so long ago I asked that question of him and he told us that it would be in the first two weeks of February. Here we are, still within the first two weeks of February, and we now believe that it will be within the first two weeks of March. If the Minister clears up that and nothing else, we will at least have made some progress.
In November of last year we published a 70-point submission to the Government. I am sure that the Minister has read all of it. We put in there some of the things that the Scottish National party would like to see within the integrated review when it is published. We restated our long-standing opposition to the nuclear programme. We suggested that we see proper multi-year defence agreements dealt with on a cross-party basis, much as happens in European countries. We suggested, again, our manifesto commitment of an armed forces representative body. We suggested that the Foreign Office follow examples such as Canada or Belgium, where there is greater public involvement in foreign and diplomatic policy-making, and that we have a proper mechanism by which the devolved Administrations of the UK can engage in foreign policy-making and the use of the Department’s resources.
We suggested, of course, no deviation from the 0.7% aid spend. I think I heard the hon. Member for Bracknell (James Sunderland) use that dreadful phrase “charity begins at home”. Well, he is never one to miss an opportunity to miss the mood of a debate and my goodness did he when he uttered that phrase in the same speech in which he called for the Government to stick to the global Britain rhetoric. We cannot have both of those things.
We have called on the Government to formally adopt the concept of climate justice, to design a new atrocity prevention strategy, and to have greater policy coherence across all Departments when it comes to foreign policy. One example of that descending into farce was on 2 July last year, when Lord Ahmad, a Foreign Office Minister, welcomed the UN’s call for a global ceasefire, and on 5 July the Trade Secretary announced the resumption of weapons sales to Saudi Arabia.
We have asked the Government repeatedly to implement the recommendations of the Russia report. We have asked for a commitment to NATO’s standing maritime groups to be prioritised over out-of-area operations that have dubious benefit. We have called on the Government to have resilience at the heart of defence and security policy-making. We have called on the Government to put health, human and economic security on a par with the buying of hard kit and to make it central to the review when it is published.
We have called on the Government to diversify the armed forces recruitment base, with only 11% of the armed forces made up of women. That number is embarrassingly low. We have called on the Government, along with Conservative Members, to rip Capita out of the recruitment process when it comes to the armed forces, and of course to deliver on the promise made to Scotland prior to the independence referendum on armed forces numbers in Scotland—a promise they have never met. We have also called on the Government to provide a mechanism in the review by which we can have democratic oversight of special forces, and to support a global ban on lethal autonomous weapons—something supported by the UN Secretary-General.
Forgive me, Madam Deputy Speaker—the clock does not seem to be working on the screen, but perhaps I can quickly outline the five pillars by which we will assess the review when it is published. How will it strengthen multilateralism? What will it do to help to reform organisations such as the Security Council and Interpol and to ensure greater collaboration on digital data and cyber? What will it do to enable the UK to be a good global citizen, to promote human rights, to strengthen aid commitments, and to have a proper atrocity prevention strategy? How will it focus on the UK as a north Atlantic nation? Many Members have said that NATO is the cornerstone of the UK’s defence policy, as it should be, and yet seem keen to act anywhere other than in its own backyard. The UK is a north Atlantic country. We want the integrated review to bolster resilience. We want it to better enable the Government to define, identify and deter grey zone threats, and ultimately—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I thank the hon. Member for his contribution. There is not a clock because we have an agreement from the Front Benchers that they will stick to the time limits agreed.
Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab) [V]
This has been an important debate, and I am pleased that there have been so many excellent contributions. Four Chairs of Select Committees and a number of senior and well-informed Back Benchers have made a number of important and varied points. Most of them shared the view that there needs to be a strategic approach towards Britain’s engagement in the world.
Let us remind ourselves that in February of last year the Prime Minister announced that he was launching an integrated review. He said that it would define Britain’s place in the world. It would, he said, be the largest review of its kind since the end of the cold war. It would, we were told, provide a coherent framework for Britain’s foreign, defence, security and development policies. Impressive words, but what has happened since? In November of last year, the Prime Minister delivered another statement that was again full of warm and impressive words, but by then the integrated review had been pushed into 2021; and in the middle of last month the Defence Secretary told us that it would be published in the first two weeks of February. The latest is that it will be published in the spring. Perhaps the Minister could be precise in telling us when that will take place.
We have seen significant developments in two areas in particular that should have been included in the consideration of the integrated review. The first was the collapsing of DFID into the FCO, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion) referred eloquently. This move had little strategic thought behind it and was accompanied by a cut in the UK’s aid budget—this at a time when the world is in crisis and there is more need for development aid than ever before. It not only hits the world’s poorest but diminishes the UK’s status in the world and hugely damages our ability to be an international force for good.
The second development was the statement in November on an increase in defence spending and a reorientation of defence spending priorities. This came after a decade of cuts, of course. It was a supreme example of putting the cart before the horse. It was funding without a strategy, as my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mrs Lewell-Buck) eloquently said. Neither in that statement in November nor since has there been an explanation of how exactly that money will be used strategically to address the real and potential threats that this country faces.
To be fair, the Foreign Secretary hinted, in his evidence to the Foreign Affairs Committee in October, that a rethink of priorities was taking place. We were informed that there would be an Indo-Pacific tilt in UK foreign policy, to which the hon. Member for Carmarthen East and Dinefwr (Jonathan Edwards) referred. We were also told that other areas, such as strengthening the national resilience of technology and cyber, would be included in the integrated review. But after a year, there is nothing of substance to be seen; and please, Minister, do not put all the blame on covid. We know there are more deep-seated problems at the heart of Government that have led to this unacceptable delay.
The central question is: when will we have the integrated review? Now that Britain has left the European Union and we are clear that the disastrous period of Trump’s presidency is behind us, at long last we need to see the publication of the review. A review is needed to give coherence and direction to Britain’s role in the world, so that all the energies of all Government Departments with an international interface can contribute towards common goals. A review is needed so that Britain’s strong diplomatic tradition and its influence through so-called soft power can play a significant role in furthering our national objectives. We wait to see whether the Government’s integrated review is up to the task.
The Minister for the Middle East and North Africa (James Cleverly)
Let me first congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood) on securing this debate, as well as the right hon. Member for Warley (John Spellar). Both have extensive interests and long-standing interest in this area. I pay tribute to the members of the House of Commons Defence Committee for their work, and I also thank the Foreign Affairs and International Development Committees for their scrutiny of my Department’s work. I thank both their Chairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Tom Tugendhat) and the hon. Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion), for their contributions, as I do the Chair of the Intelligence and Security Committee, my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis).
The fact that I am joined on the Front Bench by my hon. Friend the Minister for Defence Procurement—he represents Horsham, where my wife has family, as he knows—demonstrates the integrated nature of this review, as we have both a Defence Minister and a Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office Minister here. [Laughter.] It is an in-joke, Madam Deputy Speaker; he knows what I mean. Time prevents me from addressing all the points raised in this debate, but I hope that during this speech I will be able to cover most, if not all, of them. The integrated review is an ambitious and wide-reaching review, and the purpose of this integration is to examine every aspect of our international security, development and defence policy. It is my pleasure to respond to this debate on behalf of the Government.
The Government want UK foreign policy to deliver for our people and to be rooted firmly in our national interest. That is why the commitment to deliver a review of foreign, defence, security and development policy was announced in the Queen’s Speech in December 2019. As we said then, and as has been mentioned by right hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth East, the review is
“the most radical reassessment of our place in the world since the end of Cold War”.
When published, the review will define the Government’s ambition for the UK’s role in the world, outline how the UK will be a problem-solving, burden-sharing country, and set a strong direction for the recovery from covid-19 at home and overseas so that collectively we can build back better.
I am pleased to be able to tell the House that the Government intend to publish the review in March. [Interruption.] This year. The Government’s original intention was to publish the review in 2020. However, the House will agree that it would have been wrong to set out the Government’s long-term international vision while we tackled the early stages of a global pandemic. Providing a full response to covid-19 was and is the Government’s No. 1 focus; that is why it was right to pause the review in the spring of last year.
Work has, however, been ongoing, adapting to the ever-shifting geopolitical and geo-economic context caused by covid-19. The review has involved detailed horizon-scanning, covering trends, opportunities, risks and threats. It has involved evidence-gathering and policy analysis, and wide consultation with experts, academics and foreign partners.
The Prime Minister, supported by the National Security Council, is personally leading the review. The Foreign Secretary chaired a cross-Whitehall ministerial small group to advise the Prime Minister. Civil servants from across Whitehall have worked to ensure that the review draws on the full range of expertise and skills available to Government. This demonstrates the integrated whole-of-Government approach to this review, going further than the strategic defence and security reviews of the past. Our future strategy and approach to the challenges of the next decade will benefit from the collective might of our national security apparatus.
The Government have also looked beyond Whitehall to incorporate the expertise of the nation, speaking to key people and organisations with an interest in our nation’s security and prosperity. By reaching out in this way we have ensured that the best minds in the UK and beyond are feeding into the review’s conclusions and challenging traditional Whitehall assumptions and thinking.
The initial findings of the review are already informing our decision making. The announcements made in November’s spending review were informed by the first phase of the integrated review and set us on the right path to deliver on our visions and priorities. The Prime Minister has already announced the first conclusion: the largest increase in defence spending since the cold war, more than £24 billion over four years. This settlement is a signal of intent and heralds an era when we bolster our global influence. It ensures that our armed forces have the necessary tools and equipment to defend the UK and its people, cement our place as a leader in NATO and underpin our foreign policy and our ability to defend free and open societies.
On international development, changes to our ODA budget were driven by the economic impact of covid and are temporary. To ensure the maximum impact from our aid budget, the Foreign Secretary has set out the core principles for us to sharpen our focus this year.
The Government have signalled our intention to deepen involvement in the Indo-Pacific and have started to take steps in that direction. Last week, we submitted the notification of intent letter to begin the comprehensive and progressive agreement for trans-Pacific partnership accession process.
The creation of the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office itself was an act of integration, uniting development and diplomacy into one Department, bringing together Britain’s international efforts to have an even greater positive impact and influence on the world stage.
Let me end by saying that this is the opportunity to define and strengthen our place in the world. The integrated review will send a message about what the UK stands for as an independent actor on the global stage and how we will back this up with action to secure our interests and also defend our values.
The world has not stood still, and neither have we. The UK endures as an active global leader. In the past year alone, we have led the global efforts to deliver a vaccine, raising $8.8 billion for Gavi through our hosting of the global vaccine summit; we have demonstrated global leadership in tackling climate change, including doubling our international climate finance contribution to help millions around the world; and we have pushed back on those who would attack our values through the new bespoke immigration route for British national overseas status holders. This is global Britain.
The integrated review will build on that, setting out our vision for the next decade, based on our values and grounded in the UK national interest. We will announce the full conclusions of the integrated review in March, unleashing our independent foreign policy outside the European Union as we launch our presidencies of the G7 and COP26. 2021 will be a year of leadership for global Britain as a force for good in the world.
Mr Ellwood
Let me take a minute to thank all those who have participated in the debate, and the Minister for responding. He mentioned covid-19 and our contribution. I look forward to seeing HMS Argus repeat what it did with Ebola, helping other nations and making sure that we get the vaccinations out. I hope that he might be able to take that forward. I thank all those who contributed.
Three themes arose from the debate. First, there is a real desire for Britain to play a more active role on the international stage—to be one of those nations that step forward when others hesitate. Secondly, we must invest in our soft and hard power: do not cut the Army by 10,000, and do not cut our aid budget from 0.7%. Thirdly, the Government must publish the review. The Minister gave a month, but I noticed that he did not give a day or a year; I presume it is 2021. We very much look forward to that.
The US has stepped forward as a nation to say that it is going to be more invigorated, to re-establish western resolve. We need to be with it. This integrated review provides the road map for what global Britain means. We look forward to its publication.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the publication of the Integrated Review of Security, Defence, Development and Foreign Policy.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I am sorry that we were not able to get to the many other speakers who wanted to get in, but time simply did not allow it.
Business without Debate
(3 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Mr Mark Harper (Forest of Dean) (Con)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I felt it would be helpful to the House to explain why I objected to that statutory instrument. It was debated yesterday in a Committee, which I attended. I asked the Minister for Patient Safety, Suicide Prevention and Mental Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Bedfordshire (Ms Dorries), a number of important questions about the sharing of health data with law enforcement authorities, namely the police. The Minister was not able—I have no criticism of her—to furnish the Committee with answers to many of those questions yesterday, and she undertook, quite reasonably, to write to Members.
I put it on the record that I did not feel it would be appropriate for the House to be asked to support the statutory instrument without those answers having been furnished to the Committee. Those answers have not been furnished to the Committee, and that is why I objected to the statutory instrument, which will force it to be voted on tomorrow. I hope that is helpful to the House.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that point of order. He has clearly used it to explain very thoroughly why he objected to the motion and, as I say, there will be a deferred Division tomorrow.
Climate and Ecological Emergency: UK’s Response
(3 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)
It has been almost two years since this House declared a climate and nature emergency, and more than one year since Parliament last debated the climate and nature crises as an interlinked issue, yet the need for not only debate and declarations but ambitious action could not be more urgent.
The world is now hotter than at any time in the past 12,000 years, and 16 of the 17 hottest years on record have taken place since 2000. Record fires have raged in the Amazon and the US, ice caps in Greenland melt at a terrifying pace and Storm Eta wreaked havoc and unimaginable tragedy in central America. At the same time, the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services has set out the grim facts on nature and biodiversity: 1 million species are now threatened with extinction, many within decades—more than ever before in human history. Every warning light on the dashboard is flashing red. With the UK due to host the COP26 climate summit in November, and with the COP15 biodiversity summit also taking place this year, the responsibility to show honest and bold global leadership could not be greater.
That means acknowledging three things. First, our domestic climate policy is inconsistent and incoherent. To take just one example, the Government’s failure to call in the recent decision to allow a new coalmine in Cumbria prompted James Hansen, for 10 years NASA’s most senior climate scientist, to warn that the Prime Minister risks humiliation by showing such contemptuous disregard of the future of young people and nature. The UK cannot lead a good COP from a position of weakness and inconsistency.
Secondly, we are off course to meet both our fourth and fifth carbon budgets. Not only that, but those budgets are based on an 80% emission reduction by 2050, not net zero. The latest annual progress report from the Climate Change Committee highlighted that the Government have failed on 17 of their 21 progress indicators, and that only two of 31 key policy milestones have been met.
Thirdly, and most crucially for tonight’s debate, the science on which the target of net zero by 2050, and thus the revised Climate Change Act 2008, are based has moved on. It is time to update the legislation. Let me explain why. The climate does not care about target dates. What matters is how much carbon is emitted into the atmosphere over the rest of this century. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change estimates that a global carbon budget—the total burnable carbon between 2018 and 2100—consistent with a 66% chance of 1.5° C warming is just 420 billion tonnes of CO2. It is currently being burned at approximately 40 billion tonnes a year. On current trends, that gives us until 2030 at the latest before that global carbon budget is used up. After that point, we would have to rely on costly and uncertain negative emissions technologies to avoid global heating of more than 1.5° C. Historically, the UK has been one of the world’s biggest emitters. We started the modern fossil fuel age with the industrial revolution. We are disproportionately responsible for the cumulative emissions in the atmosphere. Factoring that in alongside the need to allow space for poorer countries to develop, a fair carbon budget for the UK looks like around 2.5 billion tonnes of CO2 over that same period.
If we calculate emissions on a consumption basis—that is, if we take responsibility for carbon burned overseas in the service of UK consumption—we are burning through our fair carbon budget at more than 500 million tonnes a year. That gives us just five years before it is gone. That is the reality, that is the inconvenient truth and that is why we urgently need to adopt the climate and ecological emergency Bill, a private Member’s Bill that I introduced into the House last year that so far has the support of 98 MPs from eight different parties.
The Climate Change Act 2008 was undoubtedly pioneering in its time, and many other countries have taken inspiration from it, but it is now hopelessly out of date. An emergency means that we need to act now, in line with what the science demands. The beauty of the climate and ecological emergency Bill is that it offers Government, Parliament and citizens a framework for the UK to play the fairest and most effective role it can to meet the crisis head on—a framework designed for coherence and integrity.
The CEE Bill follows the science; it represents the last best chance for the House to tackle the climate and ecological crisis that we all face together. It has been drafted with the help of expert scientists and has three primary goals: to ensure that the UK meets targets designed to limit global heating to 1.5° C, the point that we must not pass if we are to avoid catastrophe; to conserve and restore nature, ensuring that we protect this life-sustaining planet that is our common home; and to give people a real say in how we transition to a zero-carbon society, drawing on the creativity and ingenuity of the British people as we recover from the effects of the pandemic.
The Bill also seeks to fill in the holes of the 2008 Act in three key ways: first, by accounting for the UK’s emissions on a consumption basis, counting the emissions that we are responsible for overseas as well as those from international aviation and shipping; secondly, by setting out measures that tackle the climate and ecological emergency simultaneously; and thirdly, by involving citizens in what will need to be an equitable shift towards a fairer and greener society.
We need to tell the truth about our climate emissions. The Government like to say that they have reduced emissions by more than 40% since 1990, but that is true only on a territorial basis; one of the ways in which it has been achieved is by offshoring so much of our manufacturing and essentially outsourcing so many of those emissions to countries such as China. If we factor those back in, we have reduced emissions by much less than 40%—possibly by as little as 10% or 15%.
It is time for honesty and time to face reality. The Committee on Climate Change has now published its advice in relation to the sixth carbon budget for the year 2035 and specifically recommended that international aviation and shipping emissions be taken into account. I would welcome confirmation from the Minister tonight that the Government intend to heed that advice.
I also note that the CCC’s advice still leaves out the emissions associated with trade. I ask the Minister: will the UK commit to updating its consumption-based accounts and setting targets and budgets that take account of all the carbon emissions attributable to UK consumption, including those associated with imports? Does she agree that COP26 is the golden opportunity for the international community to start to co-ordinate action on consumption-based emissions with a view to ensuring consistent, robust methods of calculation, avoiding the risk of double-counting and getting the incentives right for different actors?
One of the most important policies in the CEE Bill is the inclusion of nature. Nature has been absent from these debates for far too long, and the UK is one of the most nature-depleted countries in the world, failing right now to meet 17 out of 20 UN biodiversity targets. Yet climate and nature are two faces of the same problem. The CEE Bill places a premium on nature-based solutions, and on making change now rather than relying on speculative future technologies. Unless we change the goals of our economic system away from ever-increasing growth, as the Dasgupta review demonstrates, we will undermine both our own health and that of the natural world. As Professor Dasgupta says, we need to change how we think, act and measure economic success to protect and enhance our prosperity and the natural world. If anyone is in any doubt about that, consider that the global economy is set to nearly triple in size between now and 2050—that means three times more production and consumption.
It is hard enough to decarbonise the current economy in such a short time span; the idea that we will be able to do it three times over while protecting and restoring nature is, frankly, for the birds. Or quite literally not: not the birds, not for the bees and not for the thousands of species at risk from the impact of human activity on the planet. The UN biodiversity summit COP15, due to take place in May, is an immediate opportunity for the Government to raise the bar and demonstrate that they are listening to Dasgupta and others.
Finally, there is citizens’ engagement. It is important to recall that the Climate Change Act 2008 itself also started life as a presentation Bill in 2005, inspired by civil society’s “Big Ask” campaign. It is proof that by working together, with shared purpose, giving a voice to thousands of concerned citizens calling for change, global history can be made.
Likewise, the CEE Bill is the people’s Bill. It has sprung from the grassroots, with the intention of giving the public a real say on the climate and nature emergency. The brainchild of the CEE Bill Alliance—a talented group of campaigners, including those who previously fought for the Climate Change Act—it has also had input from scientists at the cutting edge of climate and ecology. My thanks go to them all and to all those who have joined the campaign. The campaign for the CEE Bill is broad and inclusive, working with allies from business, trade unions, faith groups, charities, local communities, the arts and individuals.
The Bill has participative democracy at its heart. The transition to a zero-carbon future is not something that should be done to the people; it is something that should be done with people. Only then will it be a just transition. There is an opportunity, too, for the process to give citizens fresh agency and hope—for our response to the climate crisis to renew our tired and failing democracy. Initiatives such as the Climate Assembly UK show that people have a huge appetite to be part of identifying and agreeing positive solutions. Assembly members came up with ambitious ideas such as free bus travel, a frequent flyer levy, and advertising bans on high-emission products. We are often told that the public will not get on board with bold policies, but that could not be further from the truth. It is also striking that alongside clear, proactive, accountable and consistent leadership from the Government, assembly members also wanted cross-party consensus and for political parties to work together.
The CEE Bill proposes a new and much larger emergency assembly to guide Parliament and the Government in their strategy to reduce emissions and restore nature—this is to help Ministers, not hinder them, and ensure that action reflects the boldness for which citizens are crying out. So will the Minister outline tonight whether the Government have plans to actively and meaningfully engage the people of this country in tackling the climate and nature crises? What role does she envisage will be played by a participative democracy?
To conclude, we are nearing a cliff edge of cascading Earth system collapse. The narrow window for limiting warming to 1.5° is closing fast. Leadership means telling the truth about what that means for people’s lives and livelihoods. It is no exaggeration to say that this is the most consequential decade in human history. The experience of covid-19 has demonstrated that with a collective understanding of the nature of a crisis Governments can take radical, unprecedented action. The scale and ramifications of the emergency require us to set aside party differences, as happened in 2008, and reach for the new vision of human prosperity that we know is possible. With sufficient political will, we can co-operate to ensure we all thrive within the limits of our planet, but that is not going to happen without new legislation that gives us a framework commensurate with the science and with the reality. The CEE Bill is that new legislation. It brings the future into the present and our responsibility to the future into the present, too. I hope the Minister will grasp this opportunity to recognise that the climate crisis is bigger than any one political ideology, and will work with me and others on legislation that could be a new and desperately needed global first.
Nadia Whittome (Nottingham East) (Lab) [V]
It is a real privilege to follow the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas), and I am very proud to co-sponsor her CEE Bill.
The emergence of coronavirus has thrown into focus the way in which environmental degradation can have profound impacts on society, and of course the escalating ecological crisis will make future pandemics more likely, so we must make sure that our recovery is a green one right from the start. We cannot wait until the pandemic is over to take these urgent steps. We cannot afford to lose sight of the climate crisis, because it threatens our very existence. The 2018 special report by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change concluded that to stop runaway climate chaos we need “rapid and far-reaching transitions” that are “unprecedented” in scale, yet we have heard from the hon. Lady how little progress we have made on that.
The Bill really offers the most viable way for us to tackle the climate and nature emergency at a national level. It provides a clear framework to deliver the UK’s commitments to the Paris climate agreement. For example, the Bill would introduce measures to dramatically reduce our emissions, restore and regenerate our soils, biodiverse habitats and ecosystems, and lessen the negative impacts that we have on our environment. In short, it would mean that the Government would have to take immediate, radical action of the sort that the crisis demands. The Bill has been written by scientists, lawyers and climate activists. It is backed by a broad range of campaign groups, businesses, charities and individuals and, as will be evidenced today, it has huge cross-party support.
In May 2019 this House declared the climate and ecological emergency, but that means very little without comprehensive legislation. We cannot simply declare; we must also act, and the Bill is essential to ensuring the commitment that we made almost two years ago.
Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)
I am grateful for the opportunity to show solidarity with the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas), not least by taking the perch that she is quite accustomed to on these Benches. This is an important opportunity to demonstrate the cross-party and cross border ambition that exists to tackle the climate emergency. The Scottish Government and First Minister were the first on these islands to declare a climate emergency. I am still not sure whether the UK Government have declared an emergency in the way that the House as a whole has, but there is undoubtedly cross-party agreement on the need to raise our level of ambition and the level of action that we are taking.
The Scottish Parliament has already passed a second climate change Act, with genuinely world-beating carbon emissions reductions targets. Of course we have the opportunity to go further and faster, as technology and political allow us to. We are also committed in Scotland to a just transition, transforming local economies, and we have already committed to higher environmental standards and nature standards, including on air pollution —amendments of the type that the Tory Government were rejecting when the Environment Bill was debated last week.
We wish the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion well with her Bill. It is disappointing that the procedures in this place are not allowing it to have the proper debate that it deserves, but she has given an indication of how popular campaigning and determination can make these things work, so perhaps, beyond the Queen’s Speech, we shall see a further opportunity for proper debates and votes on the proposals, to test the will of the House on them.
In Glasgow, my city, we look forward to hosting COP26 later this year. I hope that, one day soon, Scotland will be able to become an independent signatory to the Paris agreement and whatever protocol arrives from Glasgow, but in the meantime the UK Government must lead by example. Talk is not enough, and we are demonstrating tonight that the cross-party ambition and the political will is there if the Government are willing to take that action.
Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD) [V]
It is a real pleasure to be here this evening to provide support to the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) in this very important debate. I speak on behalf of all the Liberal Democrats when I say that we really support the Bill’s continued progress. While we have been discussing the climate and ecological emergency, for me one of the real priorities is that the Bill brings together the action needed both on climate change and on the environment. Both are absolutely critical, as the hon. Lady laid out in her excellent opening speech, but it is really clear that the current structure of government is not well set up to deliver on our objectives and the Government’s objectives in these areas. We see too much stovepiping between different Departments on both climate and the environment, and to bring everything together under one set of objectives that can be driven forward together is really important, and is the real strength of the Bill.
I have been involved in a number of digital events up and down the country to support the Bill and talk more to the public about it. It has become clear that we can use the platform that the Bill provides to speak to the public much more openly about climate and the ecological emergency. We all know that there will be a measure of individual behaviour change required, and it is urgent that we start talking to members of the public right now about what they need to do to deliver the change we need to see if we are to combat climate change and make a real difference to our environment.
Those are the reasons why I am supporting the Bill. The Liberal Democrats want to see the Bill progress through the Commons. I echo what the hon. Member for Glasgow North (Patrick Grady) about the structures of the House not allowing that, but I believe that if a way could be found for more Members to have their say on the elements of the Bill, we would see a lot more progress.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
Before I bring in the next speaker, it is important to say that Adjournment debates should not be about specific pieces of legislation. The debate is about the UK’s response to the climate and ecological emergency. References to a Bill are fine, but it is not a forum for discussion on a particular Bill. I am sure that Liz Saville Roberts will take that into account in her speech.
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC) [V]
Diolch yn fawr, Dirprwy Lefarydd. It is an honour for me to work today in a cross-party spirit with the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas). I am sure that we are all trying to raise the sense of urgency by the best means we can and use this House and this Chamber to good effect.
Climate change and ecosystem degradation are already a pressing reality in Wales, from changing weather patterns to biodiversity loss, with a 2019 report concluding that 666 species are threatened with extinction and 73 have been lost already. It is clear that to address this issue effectively and quickly, we need to mobilise unprecedented levels of innovation and investment across our economy and society.
Wales is a nation committed to transition, with the principle of sustainable development written into our constitution, but to bring about real transition, the UK also has to change. That means devolving and decentralising power, rather than centralising the decision making and resources necessary for that transition. Critically, that means increased economic and borrowing powers for the Government of Wales to finance the pivotal transition with the rapidity that our climate and environment demand.
I welcome this debate, and I hope that the UK Government will consider how best to support this transition across all four nations of the UK, particularly in the upcoming Budget. No nation in the world can manage climate change alone, but neither can centralised command and control alone bring about the change we need.
Madam Deputy Speaker
Before I call the Minister, I should say that there have been a number of contributions, and it needs to be noted that this has left the Minister with a very short amount of time to respond; she only has six minutes.
The Minister for Business, Energy and Clean Growth (Anne-Marie Trevelyan)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) on securing this Adjournment debate on such an important subject. I am really pleased that I was able to share some of my time with colleagues, because this issue speaks far more widely than this Parliament—it is a global challenge. How we act on climate change is the most pressing issue of our time; I completely agree with her.
While we find ourselves in the midst of this very difficult pandemic, which of course is our short-term priority, we must not abandon and have not abandoned our planet’s need for urgent care, because we risk so many further crises for our children. Climate change is happening now, and this Government are determined that the UK will be a world leader in ensuring that the Paris agreement takes root across the globe. We will demonstrate through our commitment to bring down our country’s greenhouse gas emissions, and acting this year as the president of COP, that we will be a global leader.
The Prime Minister has made a critical commitment to doubling our international climate finance to £11.6 billion, with £3 billion of that going to nature-based solutions. We were the first major economy in the world to set a legally binding target to reach net zero carbon emissions across our economy by 2050, and we have shown that rapid progress on decarbonisation is possible alongside a thriving economy. Our emissions are down by almost 44% across the last 30 years, and our economy has grown by 78% in the same period. We have been absolute in our commitment to power past coal over the last 10 years, with a reduction in electricity generation from coal from 40% in 2012 to less than 5% today, replaced by renewables. We have made significant progress in meeting our climate targets, meeting our first two carbon budgets and projected to meet the third by 2022. We exceeded the required emissions reduction of the first by 1.2% and the second by nearly 14%, but now is the time to double down and decrease our emissions further and faster. To do this, the Prime Minister set out his 10-point plan last year to lead the world into a new green industrial revolution. We set out ambitious policies, backed by £12 billion of Government investment. The plan will support up to 250,000 highly skilled green jobs across the UK and accelerate our path to reaching net zero by 2050 while laying the foundations for building back greener.
The 10-point plan will develop the cutting-edge technologies needed to drive down those emissions in industries across the UK through significant investment in hydrogen, new nuclear and carbon capture technologies. The 10-point plan will go further. We are backing our world-leading automotive sector, including in the west midlands, the north-east and Wales, with a £2.8 billion package to accelerate the transition to electric vehicles and transform our national infrastructure better to support that electric vehicle revolution. Working with industry, we will drive the growth of low-carbon hydrogen. As part of the 10-point plan, we are aiming for 5 GW of low-carbon hydrogen by 2030. That will see the UK benefit from around 8,000 jobs across our industrial heartlands and beyond.
Importantly for me, we are determined that this transition must be a just and fair one. The Treasury is conducting a review into the cost of net zero. In its review due to be published this spring, it will outline how the transition to a net zero economy will be funded and ensure that contributions are fair between households, businesses and the taxpayer. We must ensure that the net zero transition works for everyone.
Throughout the UK, more than 2.5 million highly skilled people employed in manufacturing make a huge contribution to the wealth and character of their communities. We must not take those skills away from people, so as industry changes, our lifetime skills guarantee will ensure that people are equipped with the skills they need to adapt to the new products and services that we want them to provide. We have also launched the green jobs taskforce, bringing businesses and unions together with skills providers and Governments to develop plans for new, long-term, good-quality green jobs by 2030.
This year, we find ourselves in the privileged position of being the president of the G7 and of hosting and holding the presidency of COP26. We are determined to use these key international events to promote ambitious action to deliver the transformational change required by the Paris agreement. I have the extraordinary honour of being not only the Minister for Energy but the international champion for COP26 for adaptation and resilience. One of the critical challenges that we have as a global leader is not only to ensure that we walk the walk in demonstrating our decarbonisation in the UK, taking our country to a place where our greenhouse gas emissions are no longer impacting on the planet, but to help those developing countries that need to be able to grow and support their communities in a green way, building back better after the traumas that covid has caused to so many of the very poorest developing countries.
We will bring forward our own bold proposals, including our net zero strategy, in the run-up to COP26 to demonstrate that we will be cutting those emissions, creating new jobs and bolstering those new industries across our country to lead on that global stage. We will make sure that the UK’s voice is heard, that we deliver on our commitment to net zero and that protecting our planet for our children and for theirs in the future is something on which we can deliver.
Question put and agreed to.
Members Eligible for a Proxy Vote
(3 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Member eligible for proxy vote | Nominated proxy |
|---|---|
Ms Diane Abbott (Hackney North and Stoke Newington) (Lab) | Bell Ribeiro-Addy |
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Nigel Adams (Selby and Ainsty) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Bim Afolami (Hitchin and Harpenden) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Imran Ahmad Khan (Wakefield) (Con) | Ms Nusrat Ghani |
Nickie Aiken (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Peter Aldous (Waveney) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Rushanara Ali (Bethnal Green and Bow) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Tahir Ali (Birmingham, Hall Green) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Lucy Allan (Telford) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Dr Rosena Allin-Khan (Tooting) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Mike Amesbury (Weaver Vale) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Sir David Amess (Southend West) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Lee Anderson (Ashfield) (Con) | Chris Loder |
Stuart Anderson (Wolverhampton South West) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Caroline Ansell (Eastbourne) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Tonia Antoniazzi (Gower) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Edward Argar (Charnwood) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Jonathan Ashworth (Leicester South) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Sarah Atherton (Wrexham) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Victoria Atkins (Louth and Horncastle) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Gareth Bacon (Orpington) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mr Richard Bacon (South Norfolk) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Kemi Badenoch (Saffron Walden) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Shaun Bailey (West Bromwich West) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Siobhan Baillie (Stroud) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Duncan Baker (North Norfolk) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mr Steve Baker (Wycombe) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Steve Barclay (North East Cambridgeshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Hannah Bardell (Livingston) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Paula Barker (Liverpool, Wavertree) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Mr John Baron (Basildon and Billericay) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Simon Baynes (Clwyd South) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Margaret Beckett (Derby South) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Apsana Begum (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab) | Bell Ribeiro-Addy |
Aaron Bell (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Scott Benton (Blackpool South) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Sir Paul Beresford (Mole Valley) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Jake Berry (Rossendale and Darwen) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Saqib Bhatti (Meriden) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mhairi Black (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Ian Blackford (Ross, Skye and Lochaber) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Olivia Blake (Sheffield, Hallam) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Crispin Blunt (Reigate) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Steven Bonnar (Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Andrew Bowie (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Tracy Brabin (Batley and Spen) (Lab/Co-op) | Mark Tami |
Ben Bradley (Mansfield) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Karen Bradley (Staffordshire Moorlands) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Ben Bradshaw (Exeter) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Suella Braverman (Fareham) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Jack Brereton (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Steve Brine (Winchester) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Paul Bristow (Peterborough) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Sara Britcliffe (Hyndburn) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
James Brokenshire (Old Bexley and Sidcup) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudon) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Ms Lyn Brown (West Ham) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Anthony Browne (South Cambridgeshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Felicity Buchan (Kensington) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Ms Karen Buck (Westminster North) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Robert Buckland (South Swindon) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Alex Burghart (Brentwood and Ongar) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab) | Bell Ribeiro-Addy |
Conor Burns (Bournemouth West) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Dawn Butler (Brent Central) (Lab) | Bell Ribeiro-Addy |
Rob Butler (Aylesbury) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Ian Byrne (Liverpool, West Derby) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Liam Byrne (Birmingham, Hodge Hill) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Alun Cairns (Vale of Glamorgan) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Amy Callaghan (East Dunbartonshire) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Dr Lisa Cameron (East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Sir Alan Campbell (Tynemouth) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP) | Sir Jeffrey M Donaldson |
Dan Carden (Liverpool, Walton) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD) | Wendy Chamberlain |
Andy Carter (Warrington South) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Miriam Cates (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Maria Caulfield (Lewes) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Alex Chalk (Cheltenham) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Douglas Chapman (Dunfermline and West Fife) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Bambos Charalambous( Enfield, Southgate) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Rehman Chishti (Gillingham and Rainham) (Con) | Sir Iain Duncan Smith |
Jo Churchill (Bury St Edmunds) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Feryal Clark (Enfield North) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Greg Clark (Tunbridge Wells) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mr Simon Clarke (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Theo Clarke (Stafford) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Brendan Clarke-Smith (Bassetlaw) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Chris Clarkson (Heywood and Middleton) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
James Cleverly (Braintree) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (The Cotswolds) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Dr Thérèse Coffey (Suffolk Coastal) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Elliot Colburn (Carshalton and Wallington) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Damian Collins (Folkestone and Hythe) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Daisy Cooper (St Albans) (LD) | Wendy Chamberlain |
Rosie Cooper (West Lancashire) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind) | Bell Ribeiro-Addy |
Alberto Costa (South Leicestershire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Robert Courts (Witney) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Claire Coutinho (East Surrey) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Ronnie Cowan (Inverclyde) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Sir Geoffrey Cox (Torridge and West Devon) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Neil Coyle (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Stephen Crabb (Preseli Pembrokeshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Angela Crawley (Lanark and Hamilton East) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Virginia Crosbie (Ynys Môn) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Tracey Crouch (Chatham and Aylesford) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Jon Cruddas (Dagenham and Rainham) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
John Cryer (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Judith Cummins (Bradford South) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Janet Daby (Lewisham East) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
James Daly (Bury North) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Ed Davey (Kingston and Surbiton) (LD) | Wendy Chamberlain |
Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
David T. C. Davies (Monmouth) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Gareth Davies (Grantham and Stamford) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op) | Mark Tami |
Dr James Davies (Vale of Clwyd) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mims Davies (Mid Sussex) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Alex Davies-Jones (Pontypridd) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mr David Davis (Haltemprice and Howden) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Dehenna Davison (Bishop Auckland) (Con) | Ben Everitt |
Martyn Day (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Thangam Debbonaire (Bristol West) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Marsha De Cordova (Battersea) | Bell Ribeiro-Addy |
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Caroline Dinenage (Gosport) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Miss Sarah Dines (Derbyshire Dales) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Martin Docherty-Hughes (West Dunbartonshire) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Anneliese Dodds (Oxford East) (Lab/Co-op) | Mark Tami |
Michelle Donelan (Chippenham) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Dave Doogan (Angus) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Allan Dorans (Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Ms Nadine Dorries (Mid Bedfordshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Steve Double (St Austell and Newquay) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Peter Dowd (Bootle) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Oliver Dowden (Hertsmere) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Richard Drax (South Dorset) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Jack Dromey (Birmingham, Erdington) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Mrs Flick Drummond (Meon Valley) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
James Duddridge (Rochford and Southend East) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Rosie Duffield (Canterbury) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
David Duguid (Banff and Buchan) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Philip Dunne (Ludlow) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Ms Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Maria Eagle (Garston and Halewood) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Colum Eastwood (Foyle) (SDLP) | Patrick Grady |
Mark Eastwood (Dewsbury) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (Ind) | Stuart Andrew |
Ruth Edwards (Rushcliffe) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Julie Elliott (Sunderland Central) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Michael Ellis (Northampton North) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mr Tobias Ellwood (Bournemouth East) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Chris Elmore (Ogmore) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Mrs Natalie Elphicke (Dover) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall) (Lab/Co-op) | Mark Tami |
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
George Eustice (Camborne and Redruth) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Chris Evans (Islwyn) (Lab/Co-op) | Mark Tami |
Dr Luke Evans (Bosworth) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Sir David Evennett (Bexleyheath and Crayford) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Ben Everitt (Milton Keynes North) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Michael Fabricant (Lichfield) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Laura Farris (Newbury) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD) | Wendy Chamberlain |
Stephen Farry (North Down) (Alliance) | Wendy Chamberlain |
Simon Fell (Barrow and Furness) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Marion Fellows (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Ind) | Stuart Andrew |
Katherine Fletcher (South Ribble) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mark Fletcher (Bolsover) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Nick Fletcher (Don Valley) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Stephen Flynn (Aberdeen South) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Vicky Ford (Chelmsford) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Yvonne Fovargue (Makerfield) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Dr Liam Fox (North Somerset) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Vicky Foxcroft (Lewisham, Deptford) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Mary Kelly Foy (City of Durham) (Lab) | Bell Ribeiro-Addy |
Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Lucy Frazer (South East Cambridgeshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
George Freeman (Mid Norfolk) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mike Freer (Finchley and Golders Green) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Richard Fuller (North East Bedfordshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Marcus Fysh (Yeovil) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Sir Roger Gale (North Thanet) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Mark Garnier (Wyre Forest) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Nick Gibb (Bognor Regis and Littlehampton) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Peter Gibson (Darlington) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Jo Gideon (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Preet Kaur Gill (Birmingham, Edgbaston) (Lab/Co-op) | Mark Tami |
Dame Cheryl Gillan (Chesham and Amersham) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Paul Girvan (South Antrim) (DUP) | Sir Jeffrey M Donaldson |
John Glen (Salisbury) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mary Glindon (North Tyneside) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Mr Robert Goodwill (Scarborough and Whitby) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Michael Gove (Surrey Heath) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mrs Helen Grant (Maidstone and The Weald) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
James Gray (North Wiltshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Neil Gray (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Chris Grayling (Epsom and Ewell) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Damian Green (Ashford) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Margaret Greenwood (Wirral West) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Andrew Griffith (Arundel and South Downs) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Kate Griffiths (Burton) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
James Grundy (Leigh) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Jonathan Gullis (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Louise Haigh (Sheffield, Heeley) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Luke Hall (Thornbury and Yate) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Fabian Hamilton (Leeds North East) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Stephen Hammond (Wimbledon) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Matt Hancock (West Suffolk) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Greg Hands (Chelsea and Fulham) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Claire Hanna (Belfast South) (SDLP) | Ben Lake |
Neale Hanvey (Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Emma Hardy (Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Ms Harriet Harman (Camberwell and Peckham) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Carolyn Harris (Swansea East) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Rebecca Harris (Castle Point) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Trudy Harrison (Copeland) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Sally-Ann Hart (Hastings and Rye) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Simon Hart (Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Sir Oliver Heald (North East Hertfordshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
John Healey (Wentworth and Dearne) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
James Heappey (Wells) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Chris Heaton-Harris (Daventry) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Gordon Henderson (Sittingbourne and Sheppey) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Sir Mark Hendrick (Preston) (Lab/Co-op) | Mark Tami |
Drew Hendry (Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Darren Henry (Broxtowe) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Anthony Higginbotham (Burnley) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mike Hill (Hartlepool) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Damian Hinds (East Hampshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD) | Wendy Chamberlain |
Dame Margaret Hodge (Barking) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Mrs Sharon Hodgson (Washington and Sunderland West) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Kate Hollern (Blackburn) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Adam Holloway (Gravesham) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Paul Holmes (Eastleigh) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Rachel Hopkins (Luton South) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Stewart Hosie (Dundee East) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Sir George Howarth (Knowsley) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
John Howell (Henley) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Paul Howell (Sedgefield) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Nigel Huddleston (Mid Worcestershire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Dr Neil Hudson (Penrith and The Border) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Eddie Hughes (Walsall North) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Jane Hunt (Loughborough) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Jeremy Hunt (South West Surrey) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Imran Hussain (Bradford East) (Lab) | Bell Ribeiro-Addy |
Mr Alister Jack (Dumfries and Galloway) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD) | Wendy Chamberlain |
Dan Jarvis (Barnsley Central) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Sajid Javid (Bromsgrove) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mr Ranil Jayawardena (North East Hampshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mark Jenkinson (Workington) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Andrea Jenkyns (Morley and Outwood) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Robert Jenrick (Newark) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Boris Johnson (Uxbridge and South Ruislip) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Dame Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Gareth Johnson (Dartford) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Kim Johnson (Liverpool, Riverside) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
David Johnston (Wantage) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Darren Jones (Bristol North West) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Andrew Jones (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mr David Jones (Clwyd West) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Fay Jones (Brecon and Radnorshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Gerald Jones (Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Mr Marcus Jones (Nuneaton) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Ruth Jones (Newport West) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Sarah Jones (Croydon Central) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Simon Jupp (East Devon) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mike Kane (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Daniel Kawczynski (Shrewsbury and Atcham) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Alicia Kearns (Rutland and Melton) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Gillian Keegan (Chichester) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Liz Kendall (Leicester West) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Afzal Khan (Manchester, Gorton) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Stephen Kinnock (Aberavon) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Sir Greg Knight (East Yorkshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Julian Knight (Solihull) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Danny Kruger (Devizes) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Kwasi Kwarteng (Spelthorne) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Peter Kyle (Hove) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Mr David Lammy (Tottenham) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Robert Largan (High Peak) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mrs Pauline Latham (Mid Derbyshire) (Con) | Mr William Wragg |
Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab) | Bell Ribeiro-Addy |
Chris Law (Dundee West) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Andrea Leadsom (South Northamptonshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Ian Levy (Blyth Valley) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mrs Emma Lewell-Buck (South Shields) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Andrew Lewer (Northampton South) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Brandon Lewis (Great Yarmouth) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Clive Lewis (Norwich South) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mr Ian Liddell-Grainger (Bridgwater and West Somerset) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Tony Lloyd (Rochdale) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP) | Sir Jeffrey M Donaldson |
Mark Logan (Bolton North East) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Rebecca Long Bailey (Salford and Eccles) (Lab) | Bell Ribeiro-Addy |
Marco Longhi (Dudley North) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Julia Lopez (Hornchurch and Upminster) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Jack Lopresti (Filton and Bradley Stoke) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mr Jonathan Lord (Woking) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green) | Bell Ribeiro-Addy |
Holly Lynch (Halifax) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Kenny MacAskill (East Lothian) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Jason McCartney (Colne Valley) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Siobhain McDonagh (Mitcham and Morden) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Stewart Malcolm McDonald (Glasgow South) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab) | Bell Ribeiro-Addy |
Mr Pat McFadden (Wolverhampton South East) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Conor McGinn (St Helens North) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Alison McGovern (Wirral South) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Craig Mackinlay (South Thanet) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Catherine McKinnell (Newcastle upon Tyne North) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Cherilyn Mackrory (Truro and Falmouth) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Anne McLaughlin (Glasgow North East) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Rachel Maclean (Redditch) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Jim McMahon (Oldham West and Royton) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Anna McMorrin (Cardiff North) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
John Mc Nally (Falkirk) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Karl MᶜCartney (Lincoln) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Stephen McPartland (Stevenage) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Esther McVey (Tatton) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Khalid Mahmood (Birmingham, Perry Barr) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Shabana Mahmood (Birmingham, Ladywood) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Alan Mak (Havant) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Seema Malhotra (Feltham and Heston) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Kit Malthouse (North West Hampshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Scott Mann (North Cornwall) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Julie Marson (Hertford and Stortford) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Christian Matheson (City of Chester) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Mrs Theresa May (Maidenhead) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Jerome Mayhew (Broadland) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Paul Maynard (Blackpool North and Cleveleys) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Ian Mearns (Gateshead) (Lab) | Bell Ribeiro-Addy |
Mark Menzies (Fylde) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Johnny Mercer (Plymouth, Moor View) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Huw Merriman (Bexhill and Battle) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Stephen Metcalfe (South Basildon and East Thurrock) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Edward Miliband (Doncaster North) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Robin Millar (Aberconwy) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mrs Maria Miller (Basingstoke) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Amanda Milling (Cannock Chase) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Nigel Mills (Amber Valley) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Navendu Mishra (Stockport) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Mr Andrew Mitchell (Sutton Coldfield) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Gagan Mohindra (South West Hertfordshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Carol Monaghan (Glasgow North West) | Patrick Grady |
Damien Moore (Southport) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Layla Moran (Oxford West and Abingdon) (LD) | Wendy Chamberlain |
Penny Mordaunt (Portsmouth North) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Jessica Morden (Newport East) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Stephen Morgan (Portsmouth South) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Anne Marie Morris (Newton Abbot) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
David Morris (Morecambe and Lunesdale) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Grahame Morris (Easington) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
James Morris (Halesowen and Rowley Regis) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Joy Morrissey (Beaconsfield) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Wendy Morton (Aldridge- Brownhills) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Dr Kieran Mullan (Crewe and Nantwich) (Con) | Chris Loder |
Holly Mumby-Croft (Scunthorpe) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
David Mundell (Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
James Murray (Ealing North) (Lab/Co-op) | Mark Tami |
Mrs Sheryll Murray (South East Cornwall) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Lisa Nandy (Wigan) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Sir Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Charlotte Nichols (Warrington North) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Lia Nici (Great Grimsby) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
John Nicolson (Ochil and South Perthshire) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Caroline Nokes (Romsey and Southampton North) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Jesse Norman (Hereford and South Herefordshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Alex Norris (Nottingham North) (Lab/Co-op) | Mark Tami |
Neil O’Brien (Harborough) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Brendan O’Hara (Argyll and Bute) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Dr Matthew Offord (Hendon) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD) | Wendy Chamberlain |
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Guy Opperman (Hexham) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Abena Oppong-Asare (Erith and Thamesmead) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Kate Osamor (Edmonton) (Lab/Co-op) | Bell Ribeiro-Addy |
Kate Osborne (Jarrow) (Lab) | Bell Ribeiro-Addy |
Kirsten Oswald (East Renfrewshire) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Taiwo Owatemi (Coventry North West) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Sarah Owen (Luton North) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (Con) | Sir Jeffrey M Donaldson |
Neil Parish (Tiverton and Honiton) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Priti Patel (Witham) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mr Owen Paterson (North Shropshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mark Pawsey (Rugby) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Stephanie Peacock (Barnsley East) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Sir Mike Penning (Hemel Hempstead) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Matthew Pennycook (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
John Penrose (Weston-super-Mare) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Andrew Percy (Brigg and Goole) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Jess Phillips (Birmingham, Yardley) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Bridget Phillipson (Houghton and Sunderland South) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Chris Philp (Croydon South) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Christopher Pincher (Tamworth) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Luke Pollard (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Lab/Co-op) | Mark Tami |
Dr Dan Poulter (Central Suffolk and North Ipswich) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Rebecca Pow (Taunton Deane) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Lucy Powell (Manchester Central) (Lab/Co-op) | Mark Tami |
Victoria Prentis (Banbury) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Jeremy Quin (Horsham) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Will Quince (Colchester) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South East) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Dominic Raab (Esher and Walton) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Tom Randall (Gedling) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Angela Rayner (Ashton-under-Lyne) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Steve Reed (Croydon North) (Lab/Co-op) | Mark Tami |
Christina Rees (Neath) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Ellie Reeves (Lewisham West and Penge) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Rachel Reeves (Leeds West) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Jonathan Reynolds (Stalybridge and Hyde) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Nicola Richards (West Bromwich East) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Angela Richardson (Guildford) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Ms Marie Rimmer (St Helens South and Whiston) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Rob Roberts (Delyn) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mr Laurence Robertson (Tewkesbury) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP) | Sir Jeffrey M Donaldson |
Mary Robinson (Cheadle) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Matt Rodda (Reading East) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Douglas Ross (Moray) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Lee Rowley (North East Derbyshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Dean Russell (Watford) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Lloyd Russell-Moyle (Brighton, Kemptown) (Lab/Co-op) | Mark Tami |
David Rutley (Macclesfield) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Gary Sambrook (Birmingham, Northfield) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC) | Ben Lake |
Selaine Saxby (North Devon) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Paul Scully (Sutton and Cheam) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Bob Seely (Isle of Wight) (Con) | Ms Nusrat Ghani |
Andrew Selous (South West Bedfordshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Naz Shah (Bradford West) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP) | Sir Jeffrey M Donaldson |
Grant Shapps (Welwyn Hatfield) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Alok Sharma (Reading West) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mr Virendra Sharma (Ealing, Southall) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op) | Mark Tami |
Alec Shelbrooke (Elmet and Rothwell) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Tommy Sheppard (Edinburgh East) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Tulip Siddiq (Hampstead and Kilburn) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Chris Skidmore (Kingswood) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Alyn Smith (Stirling) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Cat Smith (Lancaster and Fleetwood) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Chloe Smith (Norwich North) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Greg Smith (Buckingham) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Jeff Smith (Manchester, Withington) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Julian Smith (Skipton and Ripon) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Royston Smith (Southampton, Itchen) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Karin Smyth (Bristol South) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Alex Sobel (Leeds North West) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Amanda Solloway (Derby North) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Dr Ben Spencer (Runnymede and Weybridge) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Alexander Stafford (Rother Valley) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Keir Starmer (Holborn and St Pancras) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Andrew Stephenson (Pendle) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Jo Stevens (Cardiff Central) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Jane Stevenson (Wolverhampton North East) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
John Stevenson (Carlisle) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Iain Stewart (Milton Keynes South) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD) | Wendy Chamberlain |
Sir Gary Streeter (South West Devon) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Wes Streeting (Ilford North) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Mel Stride (Central Devon) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Graham Stringer (Blackley and Broughton) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Julian Sturdy (York Outer) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Zarah Sultana (Coventry South) (Lab) | Bell Ribeiro-Addy |
Rishi Sunak (Richmond (Yorks)) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
James Sunderland (Bracknell) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con) | Mr William Wragg |
Sir Robert Syms (Poole) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Sam Tarry (Ilford South) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Derek Thomas (St Ives) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Gareth Thomas (Harrow West) (Lab/Co-op) | Mark Tami |
Nick Thomas-Symonds (Torfaen) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Owen Thompson (Midlothian) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Richard Thomson (Gordon) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Edward Timpson (Eddisbury) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Kelly Tolhurst (Rochester and Strood) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Justin Tomlinson (North Swindon) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Craig Tracey (North Warwickshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Anne-Marie Trevelyan (Berwick-upon-Tweed) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Jon Trickett (Hemsworth) (Lab) | Bell Ribeiro-Addy |
Laura Trott (Sevenoaks) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Elizabeth Truss (South West Norfolk) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge and Malling) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Karl Turner (Kingston upon Hull East) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Derek Twigg (Halton) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Mr Shailesh Vara (North West Cambridgeshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Matt Vickers (Stockton South) (Con) | Chris Loder |
Theresa Villiers (Chipping Barnet) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mr Robin Walker (Worcester) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mr Ben Wallace (Wyre and Preston North) | Stuart Andrew |
Dr Jamie Wallis (Bridgend) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Matt Warman (Boston and Skegness) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
David Warburton (Somerset and Frome) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Giles Watling (Clacton) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Suzanne Webb (Stourbridge) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Claudia Webbe (Leicester East) (Ind) | Bell Ribeiro-Addy |
Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Helen Whately (Faversham and Mid Kent) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mrs Heather Wheeler (South Derbyshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Dr Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Dr Philippa Whitford (Central Ayrshire) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Mick Whitley (Birkenhead) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Craig Whittaker (Calder Valley) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
John Whittingdale (Malden) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Nadia Whittome (Nottingham East) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Bill Wiggin (North Herefordshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Craig Williams (Montgomeryshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Hywel Williams (Arfon) (PC) | Ben Lake |
Gavin Williamson (Montgomeryshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD) | Wendy Chamberlain |
Sammy Wilson East Antrim) (DUP) | Sir Jeffrey M Donaldson |
Beth Winter (Cynon Valley) (Lab) | Rachel Hopkins |
Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Mike Wood (Dudley South) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Jeremy Wright (Kenilworth and Southam) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mohammad Yasin (Bedford) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Jacob Young (Redcar) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Nadhim Zahawi (Stratford-on-Avon) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Draft Bank for International Settlements (Immunities and Privileges) Order 2021
(3 years, 9 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chair
Before we begin, I would like to remind Members to observe social distancing; I think everyone is sitting where ticks indicate availability. Mr Speaker has stated that masks must be worn when Members are not speaking. All notes should be sent to Hansardnotes@parliament.uk.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (James Duddridge)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Bank for International Settlements (Immunities and Privileges) Order 2021.
The Order has been negotiated as part of a host country agreement to support the establishment of the new Bank for International Settlements Innovation Hub in London. The order is required so that the United Kingdom can fully comply with its obligations as host country under the host country agreement.
In 2020, it was announced that the Bank of England was successful in its bid to host the hub in the UK. It will conduct research on the emerging trends in financial technology and help the global central banking community ensure that innovation does not negatively impact on consumers and the stability of the financial system. Of course the UK is a leader in FinTech, and the sector is worth more than £11 billion annually to the UK. It is a success and that is largely based on the UK’s policy and regulatory expertise on innovation in the financial sector and FinTech. London’s selection very much reflects that success.
The order includes limited immunity for legal processes in respect of staff in relation to their official acts and certain tax exemptions. Those immunities ensure that public funds supporting international financial institutions, such as the Bank for International Settlements, are spent purely on the delivery of their work, and do not simply add to the tax revenue of the country. They were part of a bid condition to host the Bank for International Settlements. Our hosting of the BIS hub is good news for the UK, and to host this beneficial organisation is a success for the UK.
The order simply sets out the logistics to allow the Bank for International Settlements to establish itself in London, and I commend the order to the Committee.
Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Dr Huq.
As the Minister said, the order is simply designed to put in place the standard diplomatic immunities and privileges that go with the establishment of any international institution in the UK. The Opposition will not vote against it, but I have a number of questions.
The UK is a global leader in financial innovation and technology, and the Bank of England’s success in bidding to host the Bank for International Settlements Innovation Hub reflects our continued high standing. Technology is of course changing all aspects of the global economy, including in the global south, and technology will play a crucial role in ensuring that financial systems are effective, resilient and inclusive. It is also crucial to our economy, and we are at the forefront of many FinTech innovations. The establishment of the UK hub will allow us to collaborate with many others to innovate through research and other technical means.
The Bank for International Settlements is one of the world’s oldest financial institutions. It has played a significant role as the bank to central banks for more 90 years, from the central banks gold pool co-ordination during the early days of the Bretton Woods system through to supporting monetary co-operation among European Community central banks. It has also played a supportive role in many active financial co-operation initiatives and continues to do so, including working on new opportunities presented by environmentally friendly and green investment technologies. The Opposition are very happy to see the Bank for International Settlements establish a hub in the UK, and support the granting of the appropriate immunities and privileges.
We have seen some issues in the past associated with diplomatic status in the UK being abused or not used appropriately. Some examples have related to very serious cases, and others have related to the payment of parking charges and the congestion charge in London. How will the new immunities work? I note that the order contains an exemption relating to traffic penalties, but what is the Government’s standard on all such institutions? London is a hub, and we host many international bodies, including the International Maritime Organisation just across the river from us, so what is the Government’s policy on immunities?
The order allows for the exercise for the first time of the powers in section 12 of the International Development Act 2002. Can the Minister confirm whether any further regulations will be invoked under those powers? Can the Minister confirm that the host country agreement is similar to those put in place wherever the BIS has opened hubs around the world? Are we doing anything different from those other locations where it has established hubs or offices? Will any specific funding or resources be provided to the BIS by the UK Government, for example the use of property or any grant funding? Will any of that be earmarked as official development assistance spending? How will the activities of the London hub be made transparent and accountable, so that we understand the type of work it carries out? I am sure that there is much that we will want to welcome, but many questions surround some of the more negative aspects of international financial technology. We have heard some lively debates in the past few days about crypto currencies and trading based on Reddit tips and so on. I am assuming that the BIS hub will look at the positive ways in which innovation in FinTech can be used for the benefit not just of this country but globally, including those countries currently excluded from many financial processes. How will the hub balance those positive and potential negative aspects of FinTech?
The past three decades have seen the significant internationalisation of the BIS from its original European focus, but Europeans still account for 50% of its membership. Of the rest of the world, the number of countries with central banks and monetary authorities stands at five from South America, three from Africa and two from Oceania. The majority of the developing world across the global south is simply not represented. Will the UK as a member organisation of the BIS and as a host of the hub push for greater global representation to ensure that the work of the bank is fully inclusive?
We support the order and the standard process it represents, but I would appreciate some answers from the Minister to my questions.
James Duddridge
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his constructive approach, and his helpful questions.
On abuse of diplomatic status, the immunities provided would not include parking charges. The immunities and privileges relate to the organisation in pursuit of its activities, not to individuals nor their families.
There is no cross-over between the terms of this limited order and any plans relating to ODA or IDA in any way, shape or form.
In terms of other BIS hubs, the only difference in terms of immunities and privileges is that we have tightened the terms of the order, given recent cases. I am aware of no other differences.
The flow of money to the BIS hub is through the Bank of England, but certainly we will not spend ODA on that hub, so there should be no confusion whatsoever about that: I am leading on this statutory instrument because it is an immunities and privileges order. In terms of the accountability of FinTech, its impact is largely positive although I acknowledge that there are some negative aspects. I will pass on the hon. Gentleman’s comments in that respect to Her Majesty’s Treasury, which leads on this in a departmental sense, although the Bank of England is the member organisation of the BIS.
The hon. Gentleman made a very good point about wider membership of the BIS. As I said earlier, the hub will have an effect on the developing communities, which in many ways operate in less of a regulatory environment but are moving at faster pace, so the more countries we can bring into the BIS, the better.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Social Security (Contributions) (Rates, Limits and Thresholds Amendments and National Insurance Funds Payments) Regulations 2021
Draft Tax Credits, Child Benefit and Guardian’s Allowance Up-rating Regulations 2021
(3 years, 9 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chair
Before we begin, I remind Members to observe social distancing and only to sit in the places clearly marked. I also remind Members that Mr Speaker has stated that masks should be worn in Committee when Members are not speaking. Hansard colleagues would be grateful if Members can send their speaking notes to hansardnotes@parliament.uk.
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Jesse Norman)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Social Security (Contributions) (Rates, Limits and Thresholds Amendments and National Insurance Funds Payments) Regulations 2021.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to consider the draft Tax Credits, Child Benefit and Guardian’s Allowance Up-rating Regulations 2021.
Jesse Norman
The draft regulations set the national insurance contributions limits and thresholds, as well as the rates for a number of national insurance contributions for the 2021-22 tax year. They make provision for a Treasury grant to be paid into the national insurance fund, if required.
As right hon. and hon. Members will be aware, national insurance contributions, or NICs, are a key element of the nation’s welfare safety net, helping to support workers through ill health, unemployment and old age. They allow people to make contributions when they are in work in order to receive contributory benefits when they are not working. NICs receipts go towards funding contributory benefits, as well as to the NHS.
As announced in November and in line with previous years, the Government are using the September consumer prices index, or CPI, figure of 0.5% as the basis for setting all national insurance limits and thresholds, and the rates of classes 2 and 3 national insurance contributions for 2021-22. If I may, I will first outline the specific changes to the class 1 primary threshold and the class 4 lower profits limit.
The primary threshold and lower profits limit indicate the point at which employees and the self-employed start to pay class 1 and class 4 national insurance contributions, respectively. Those thresholds will rise from £9,500 to £9,568 per year. The rates of classes 1 and 4 NICs are unchanged by the draft regulations.
Increases to the primary threshold and lower profits limit do not affect eligibility for state pension. That is determined by the lower earnings limit for employees, which will remain at £6,240 in 2021-22, and payment of class 2 NICs for the self-employed, to which I will come shortly.
The upper earnings limit, the point at which the main rate of employee NICs drop to 2%, is aligned with the higher rate threshold for income tax. The upper earnings limit threshold will increase from £50,000 to £50,270 per year. Similarly, the upper profits limit is the point at which the main rate of class 4 NICs drops to 2%. That will also increase from £50,000 to £50,270 per year.
As well as class 4 NICs, the self-employed also pay class 2 NICs. The rate of class 2 NICs will remain at the weekly rate of £3.05, due to the rounding rules that require the calculation of the CPI increase to be rounded to the nearest five pence. The small profits threshold is the point above which the self-employed must pay class 2 NICs. That will increase from £6,475 to £6,515 per year.
Class 3 NICS allow people voluntarily to top up their national insurance record. The rate of class 3 will increase in line with inflation, from £15.30 to £15.40 per week.
The secondary threshold is the point at which employers start paying employer NICs on their employees’ salary. That threshold will increase from £8,788 to £8,840 per year. The threshold at which employers of people under 21, and of apprentices under 25, start to pay employer NICs on those employees’ salary will increase from £50,000 to £50,270 per year. The rate of employer NICs is unchanged by the regulations.
The regulations also make provision for a Treasury grant of up to 17% of forecasted annual benefit expenditure to be paid into the national insurance fund, if needed, during 2021-22. A similar provision will be made in respect of the Northern Ireland national insurance fund. The report by the Government Actuary’s Department, or GAD, laid alongside the re-rating regulations, forecasts that a Treasury grant will not be required in 2021-22. However, in view of the economic challenges created by the covid-19 pandemic, the Government consider it prudent to make the maximum provision at this stage.
I trust that that is a useful overview of the changes we are making to adjust contributions to the Exchequer in line with inflation, and I commend the draft regulations to the Committee.
The Committee is also considering the Tax Credits, Child Benefit and Guardian’s Allowance Regulations 2021. As hon. Members know, the Government are committed to delivering a welfare system that is fair for claimants and taxpayers alike, while providing a strong safety net for those who need it most. The regulations will ensure that tax credits, child benefit and guardian’s allowance increase in line with the consumer prices index, which had inflation at 0.5% in the year to September 2020.
Overall, this proposed legislation makes changes to the rates, limits and thresholds for national insurance contributions, and provision for a Treasury grant, and also increases the rates of tax credits and guardian’s allowance in line with prices. These are important and necessary steps, and I hope that colleagues will join me in supporting the regulations.
Abena Oppong-Asare (Erith and Thamesmead) (Lab)
I am grateful to the Minister for his explanation of the draft regulations. I will first address the draft Social Security (Contributions) (Rates, Limits and Thresholds Amendments and National Insurance Funds Payments) Regulations 2021, which give effect to the annual re-rating of the various national insurance contribution rates, limits and thresholds, as the Minister has just said.
The Opposition will not contest the regulations. However, we are concerned about the lack of targeting of the regulations and the lack of a cost-benefit analysis in relation to other measures. The lower earnings limit is a level of earnings at which employees start to gain access to certain contributory benefits. From April 2021—so, in just two months’ time—the lower earnings limit will be increased in line with the CPI. However, due to the rounding rules when calculating the lower earnings limit, this has resulted in no change occurring in cash terms, meaning that the lower earnings limit will remain at £120 per week. Does the Minister intend to continue raising the lower earnings limit in line with inflation? Does he feel that it is sufficient, given the current crisis that we face? And are additional measures needed to ensure that people can contribute towards the social security that they might need, which will all depend on the lower earnings limit?
The draft Tax Credits, Child Benefit and Guardian’s Allowance Up-rating Regulations 2021 relate to tax credits, child benefit and guardian’s allowance, and enact increases that had previously been announced in a written ministerial statement in November 2020. As with the previous regulations, these regulations are generally linked to the CPI. Again, the Opposition will not oppose them.
As the explanatory memorandum notes, the Coronavirus Act 2020 increased basic working tax credits from £1,995 to £3,040 for the 2020-21 tax year only. This £20 per week increase to the basic rate of working tax credit does not apply for the purposes of the annual review, and the annual rates for consideration will therefore be £1,995. Given that the economic situation is still dire for many families across our country, which I see in the cases that I get in my constituency as a local MP, we have also seen the worst recession in the G7 and one of the highest death rates in Europe.
In those circumstances, can the Minister say whether the Treasury is considering a review of its approach to tax credit uplift as part of the upcoming Budget? The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions refused to make her position clear on whether the uplift ought to be removed in the middle of the pandemic when facing questions from the Work and Pensions Committee last week. Can the Minister update us any further?
What has become grimly clear in the last 11 months is that the UK social security safety net is severely inadequate. However, I must emphasise again that the major omission from this debate is clarity over the proposed withdrawal of the £20 a week uplift to universal credit that is due to take place in April 2021. The Opposition believe that it is deeply irresponsible for the Chancellor to be winding down the support for families with his cut to universal credit, which will leave unemployment support at a 30-year low in the middle of an economic crisis. The Government should do the right thing and secure our economy by cancelling the cuts to universal credit. It is discriminatory and unfair that the £20-a-week uplift was never extended to people on legacy benefits, many of whom are carers or disabled.
Although we do not oppose either of the instruments presented to us today, we remain concerned about the Government’s approach to ensuring social security for the people of Britain, and about the lack of adequate support for so many families who are struggling to get through this crisis.
Jesse Norman
I am very grateful to the hon. Lady for her comments, and I am grateful to the Opposition for supporting these measures. I think it would be worth making a couple of points in response. The first is that there is a difference between the process we are going through now, which is the standard upratings that are part of the normal fiscal cycle, and policy interventions that may be added or adopted on top of that. At the moment, we are involved in the process of the plumbing, rather than the specific policy interventions. As you will know, Mr Mundell, those policy interventions come through fiscal events; they certainly do not come in secondary legislation, for reasons that you might understand.
In relation to universal credit, on which the Government have received many petitions and inquiries, as the hon. Lady will be aware, the statutory uprating is separate from the uplift that the Chancellor has previously given. It is part of the normal review of underlying tax credit rates, which has to be undertaken every year—it is a normal part of the process—to assess whether they have retained their value in relation to prices. By upgrading them, we will ensure that they retain their real value. Again, it is separate from policy interventions, and the Chancellor and the Treasury keep all taxes under review. We will continue to do so in relation to both the benefits and the tax side of the equation.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Tax Credits, Child Benefit and Guardian’s Allowance Up-rating Regulations 2021
Resolved,
That the Committee has considered the draft Tax Credits, Child Benefit and Guardian’s Allowance Up-rating Regulations 2021.—(Jesse Norman.)
Air Traffic Management and Unmanned Aircraft Bill [ Lords ] (First sitting)
Tuesday 9th February 2021
(3 years, 9 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Air Traffic Management and Unmanned Aircraft Bill [HL] 2019-21 View all Air Traffic Management and Unmanned Aircraft Bill [HL] 2019-21 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 9 February 2021 - (9 Feb 2021)
The Chair
Before we begin, I have a few preliminary points to make. Please switch electronic devices to silent mode. Tea and coffee are not allowed during sittings. I remind hon. Members about the importance of social distancing. Spaces for Members are clearly marked—I think we have grasped that. Mr Speaker has asked Members to wear face coverings in Committee, except when they are speaking. I will not be wearing my face mask, because I will be interjecting and it would take time to put it on and off, but if you would do so, that would be great. The Hansard Reporters would be grateful if Members emailed any electronic copies of their speaking notes to hansardnotes@parliament.uk.
Ordered,
That—
(1) the Committee shall (in addition to its first meeting at 9.25 am on Tuesday 9 February) meet—
(a) at 2.00 pm on Tuesday 9 February;
(b) at 11.30 am and 2.00 pm on Thursday 11 February;
(c) at 9.25 am and 2.00 pm on Tuesday 23 February;
(2) the proceedings shall be taken in the following order: Clauses 1 to 7; Schedules 1 and 2; Clauses 8 and 9; Schedules 3 and 4; Clause 10; Schedules 5 and 6; Clause 11; Schedule 7; Clauses 12 and 13; Schedule 8; Clause 14; Schedule 9; Clause 15; Schedule 10; Clause 16; Schedule 11; Clauses 17 to 22; new Clauses; new Schedules; remaining proceedings on the Bill;
(3) the proceedings shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at 5.00 pm on Tuesday 23 February.—(Robert Courts.)
Resolved,
That, subject to the discretion of the Chair, any written evidence received by the Committee shall be reported to the House for publication.—(Robert Courts.)
The Chair
Copies of written evidence that the Committee receives will be made available in the Committee Room. We will now begin the line-by-line consideration of the Bill. The selection list for today’s sitting is available in the room, on the table. This shows how the selected amendments have been grouped for debate. The selection and grouping list shows the order of debates. Decisions on each amendment are taken when we come to the clause or schedule that the amendment affects. We begin our proceedings with the Question that clause 1 stand part of the Bill, and I ask the Minister to get stuck in.
Clause 1
Meaning of “airspace change proposal”
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Robert Courts)
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Charles. Clause 1 provides a definition of “airspace change proposal”, which is referred to in clauses 2 and 3. An airspace change proposal is a proposal that
“relates to managed airspace or the flight procedures or air traffic control procedures used within it”
and which is submitted to the Civil Aviation Authority for approval. The powers in part 1 of the Bill will provide vital support for a modernisation of our airspace, helping to make journeys quicker, quieter and cleaner, and to maintain the UK’s position as a world leader in aviation. Clause 1 is required in order to provide clarity on what is within the scope of the Secretary of State’s powers to direct, which we will come to under later clauses in part 1. I therefore beg to move that this clause remain part of the Bill.
Mike Kane (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab)
I concur with the Minister: it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Charles.
This country has a world-class aviation sector—the third largest on the planet. We want to protect that, grow it and make it better. We also want to facilitate the study of STEM subjects—science, technology, engineering and maths—for all our young people who want to go in for it. We will get past this pandemic and we will keep our eyes on the horizon, and I think that this legislation will help us to do that.
We are discussing airspace modernisation in the UK. Our airspace is an invisible part of our vital infrastructure. It was originally designed in the 1950s and ’60s and therefore needs urgent modernisation. In fact, we now have an analogue system in a digital age. It needs to be upgraded. We support that ambition, and I know that the Minister is keen on that ambition as well.
In the other place, my noble Friend Lord Rosser pointed out that not only has airspace provision not been updated in this House since the ’50s or ’60s, but the provision for drone technology—my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford South will deal with that when we get there—has not been updated since the Aviation and Maritime Security Act 1990, and he pointed out that that is closer to Yuri Gagarin’s first trip into space than it is to today. For the record, I point out that when Yuri Gagarin was the first cosmonaut, or the first human to enter the cosmos, on 12 April 1961, he came to the UK in July that year and landed at Manchester airport in my constituency. He was invited by the Amalgamated Union of Foundry Workers. He visited their offices in Moss Side after he landed in my constituency and then went on to a civic reception at Manchester Town Hall. Members can tell that I am a Mancunian to the core, so I wanted to get that on the record.
We currently have the covid crisis and there is limited air traffic, but we need to ensure that our airspace—our infrastructure in the sky—is fit for a post-pandemic world. By simplifying UK airspace, we make it more efficient, it will deliver more precise and more direct routes, prevent rising delays and reduce congestion, and, more importantly in this eco-friendly world, it will become more sustainable. The Airport Operators Association is concerned about the lack of definition in the enforcement power in the clause. Although the Government have presented this as necessary for the implementation of airspace modernisation, a current or future Secretary of State could use the power for other airspace-related purposes.
I therefore again raise my concern, as I did on the Floor of the House last week, about the scope of the powers attributed to the Secretary of State for Transport by the clause. I understand that the Minister has engaged with the AOA over its concerns. Despite his assurances about the duty to consult—there is a robust appeals process—I still have misgivings as to why the Bill should not simply have a specific definition of the powers. I therefore ask the Minister to consider this matter and perhaps explain to the Committee why that has been omitted.
Robert Courts
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for making those points. He is absolutely right to set this in an historic context, because this is an historic piece of legislation that updates an historic legacy airspace environment, and of course makes it fit for the new technology that we will discuss later. It will make a simpler, more efficient airspace.
Turning to the hon. Gentleman’s specific points on enforcements powers, his concern is that a future Secretary of State might use them for other airspace-related purposes. Any Bill has to be a balance between enabling the flexibility of the Government to take the steps required. Airspace in particular, as we will discuss when we come to drone technology, is in the vanguard of technological change, so there has to be an element of flexibility built in. I refer the hon. Gentleman and the Committee to the safeguards that exist within the remainder of this part of the Bill. I will stray from this clause in so referring to them but, with your permission, Sir Charles, I will briefly deal with them, and we will come back to them later when we get to clause 7.
There are, for example, some requirements in advance of the safeguard ever being used. It is intended to be a last resort if the airspace change is not progressed voluntarily. That is the Government’s initial intention. It is therefore to be limited, certainly at the outset. It is meant to be within the context of the CAA’s airspace strategy. The CAA’s oversight team is to work with airports before it recommends to the Secretary of State that the power is used. It is not intended to be used where there are factors outside the airspace sponsor’s control. So my first point is that before we ever get to the stage of the Secretary of State using his powers, there are numerous steps that ought to be taken in advance.
The Secretary of State’s reasons for so acting under clause 4 are expected to be in writing and are published, so there is democratic and press scrutiny of any such decision. We will come to clause 7 and enforcement and appeals in due course, but I will briefly refer to them now to address the point that the hon. Gentleman made. There are grounds for an appeal to the Competition Appeal Tribunals: an error of fact that the decision was wrong in law, or discretion was exercised, but an error was made in the context of that discretion being exercised. This is a balanced act. There is a considerable amount of consultation or engagement in advance, and various safeguards are built in, which are very much on a par with what we seek in other regulatory spheres. For those reasons, I submit that no further definition is required.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 1 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
It may not have escaped colleagues’ attention that there was a little crosswind as we started the Bill. Minister, you do not need to move anything. When I call it, you just stand up and make a speech. Does that make sense? You do not need to do any ancillary stuff around that. I will be more certain in my decision making.
Clause 2
Direction to progress airspace change proposal
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Robert Courts
This clause gives the Secretary of State the power to direct a person involved in airspace change, following the consultation I referred to a moment ago, to prepare or submit an airspace change proposal to the CAA or take steps to obtain its approval following submission or to review its operation following implementation.
These powers will ensure that airspace change proposals that assist in delivery of the CAA’s airspace strategy can be taken forward if a sponsor does not do so voluntarily. We intend the powers to be used, at least initially, to deliver changes identified in the airspace change masterplan, as the intention is for this to be incorporated into the CAA’s airspace strategy. This will ensure that airspace modernisation can be achieved to deliver quicker, quieter and cleaner journeys.
Without this clause, the Secretary of State would not be able to ensure that airspace change proposals identified as being important in helping to deliver the CAA’s airspace strategy are taken forward. That would mean that an airport could hold up other airports if their airspace change proposals were interdependent, as many are and would be. The full benefits of modernisation would therefore not be realised without those powers.
Mike Kane
This takes us to the crux of the Bill. Upgrading UK airspace is a complex process at the best of times and in normal times, but we do not have normal times. It has to be paid for and delivered by the industry. While we support that, national air traffic control is responsible for modernisation of the en route network. Airports modernise approach and departure routes in their local airspace, through a process set out by the Civil Aviation Authority publication CAP1616. As modernisation is complex, particularly in the south-east of England, where there are high levels of interdependence between airports sharing the same airspace, the industry is committed to working to a masterplan. We know that the process is managed through the Airspace Change Organising Group, with oversight from the CAA, the DFT and, therefore, the Minister.
The pandemic has caused some of this work to slow down, which is my concern. The Minister knows that I have pushed him on this publicly and privately. Airports in the UK are close to mothballing at the moment—I am not going to be critical. We have asked for an aviation-specific support package, and I know that the Government have given some packages to airports and airlines, but we know they are in big trouble. They are huge capital assets that are bleeding cash as we speak and getting no passengers through, which is their key revenue. They are now beginning to shut down their airspace change teams—if not today, then in the next few weeks, if the Government’s package does not come through.
The Airspace Change Organising Group is still waiting for the funding promised last year by the Chancellor to continue its work. Without that, the modernisation of the UK’s airspace, where we have the third biggest industry on the planet, world beating and world leading, will fail. The impact of covid on the industry’s finances makes paying for the programme even more difficult. The Airport Operators Association has suggested that the Government should consider helping out with the costs, as airports lead the way for our UK economy out of the pandemic.
The Minister and I share the same enthusiasm for this, and we both agree that there is an urgent requirement for airspace to be modernised in order to achieve the environmental, noise and operational benefits. Therefore, I cannot see how the Bill will ensure that will happen. How can this clause ensure that Government direction will be followed when the sector simply does not have the means to pay for it currently? That is my main point for the Minister today.
Robert Courts
Clearly, the Government recognise the great challenge that the aviation sector faces at the moment. I will not rehearse the wide economic measures that the Government have undertaken in order to support all businesses—I know that the shadow Minister is aware of those and I would drift a long way from the purpose of the Bill if I did rehearse them. However, I will refer to the business rates relief that we introduced recently, and I will observe that, although covid is clearly having a substantial impact on the industry, aviation will recover in the long term. It will remain a central part of the UK—of its trade policy, its strategy and its place in the world. It is a successful—indeed, world-leading—industry, as the hon. Gentleman quite rightly referred to it, and I am confident that it will return to that place in due course.
It is a long-standing policy that those who benefit from an aviation policy—air passengers—ought to pay for it. It is therefore right that we continue that policy within the context of the Bill. However, in the event that there are some aspects in relation to which the Government might consider taking an alternative view when looking for the ability to fund airspace change, the ability to fund will need to be taken into account in deciding whether or not to give such a direction, because that is what we are dealing with here—whether the Secretary of State directs that an airport should bring an airspace change forward. The Secretary of State will continue to consider the ability to fund as a part of that process.
The Government recognise that there may be occasions when small airports require financial assistance to carry out some aspects of an airspace change proposal. We would expect the CAA’s oversight team to work with the airport operator before recommending that the Secretary of State use those powers in the first place with regard to an airspace change proposal. If at that time the airport operator expressed concern that it did not have sufficient funding for it to proceed with a particular proposal, we would expect that oversight team to suggest alternative solutions.
There are a number of possible alternative solutions, and I will quickly refer to them: an alternative sponsor might pay for the changes; or there might be alternative funding support; or there may be, on a case-by-case basis, Government funding under section 34(1)(b) of the Civil Aviation Act 1982, if an ACP were to have an adverse financial impact. We are a long way away from that circumstance, as there are a number of steps that we could take in due course. In any event, the funding—the payment basis—would be taken into account before it is directed that those powers are exercised.
Mike Kane
I thank the Minister for that response. I think that we will have numerous conversations in the months ahead about the mechanisms, which he has quite rightly outlined, that he can use to bring forward the airspace modernisation programme. We must not fail on this programme, because it is vital for the industry, including for its confidence as we bounce back post pandemic, hopefully later this year. I will continue to hold the Minister’s feet to the fire on this issue, if he does not mind—and I will do so even if he does mind.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 2 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 3
Direction to co-operate in airspace change proposal
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Robert Courts
This clause gives the Secretary of State a power to direct a person involved in airspace change to co-operate with another person involved in airspace change. This direction might be needed if, for example, the original sponsor was unable to progress an airspace change proposal, so that someone else agrees to progress it but requires assistance from the original sponsor in order to do so.
Without the clause, an ACP that was identified as being important in delivering the CAA’s airspace strategy may not be taken forward if the original sponsor is unwilling, or unable, for any reason—such as those we have touched on already, or for other reasons—to take the ACP forward. The clause is therefore important to ensure that if an alternative sponsor were to become involved in progressing an ACP, the original sponsor can be compelled, if necessary, to co-operate in ways that the Secretary of State considers appropriate, such as providing information and documents to enable that ACP to progress.
Again, this measure is intended to ensure that airspace modernisation can be achieved quickly, in order to deliver the quicker, quieter and cleaner journeys that we would all like to see.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 3 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 4
Directions under sections 2 and 3: supplemental
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Robert Courts
This clause requires that directions given by the Secretary of State under clauses 2 or 3 must be given in writing and published, and that notices of variation and revocation must also be published. It is essential that any such direction is made in writing, and that any variation or revocation of a direction is made through such a notice, so that the recipient is clear about what is expected from them.
That direction could specify what the person is expected to do, the dates of tasks they must complete, and requirements to keep the CAA informed of progress on these. A direction given under clause 3 can also specify information or documents to be provided by a person directed to co-operate in an ACP, and the date by when this must be done. Without the clause, what is expected of a directed person may not be clear, and this could risk the direction not being complied with and not being properly enforceable.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 4 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 5
Delegation of functions to CAA
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Robert Courts
This clause gives the Secretary of State powers to delegate the Secretary of State’s functions under clauses 2 to 4 to the CAA, with a notice of this in writing to be published by the CAA. It enables the Secretary of State’s direction-making powers to be delegated to the CAA should this prove to be desirable in the future.
The CAA, as the national airspace regulator, has the expertise to take on this role if so required. Given that both the Secretary of State and the CAA have various roles in relation to airspace change, it is clear that appropriate internal governance structures would need to be put in place in both organisations to manage any possible conflict of interest risks, as required.
Without the clause, the Secretary of State would lack the flexibility to be able to delegate functions to the CAA, and would therefore need to amend this primary legislation should it prove desirable in the future to delegate such functions. Although such circumstances are not currently foreseen, a lack of flexibility could risk delivering the CAA’s airspace strategy and the successful delivery of the airspace modernisation programme if circumstances arise in the future whereby the Secretary of State was no longer better placed to exercise those direction-making powers.
Mike Kane
As the Minister eloquently outlines, this will give the Secretary of State the power to delegate to the CAA. However, the Minister will be aware that the Airport Operators Association believes that there is a fundamental conflict of interest with this proposal, and I would like to explore that for a few minutes. The Government have sought to reassure Parliament and the industry that appropriate separation would be maintained with the CAA in the exercise of these functions. Although there may be a significant extent to which this is possible in theory, it fails to address the perception challenge. In particular, the regulator is opened up to criticism for bias from parties which have agreed with the specific CAP1616 policies I referred to earlier being mandated. Some communities around airports already believe that the CAA is biased towards industry, and this would help neither that perception, nor the importance of rebuilding trust between the aviation sector industry, the regulators and communities.
When we debated the Bill on the Floor of the House last week, a number of colleagues on the Government Benches pointed out that communities often feel overlooked when it comes to airspace change and noise. I know this is of particular concern to a number of Conservative Members who raised it last week.
Could there be a conflict of interest where the Secretary of State can delegate power to enforce a programme to the CAA? Does the Minister think that? Does the Minister agree with the Airport Operators Association that the CAA is established to act as a neutral adjudicator of CAP1616 proposals? If the regulator is asked to enforce an ACP, is it being asked to mandate an application that it will have to make a judgment of suitability on? Is there a conflict of interest with the CAA being delegated enforcement powers when it is also responsible for making the judgment on suitability? It appears that it will act as both judge and jury, and I hope that the Minister will explore that conflict today.
Robert Courts
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising those points. There are a number of answers that I will give—perhaps three. First, there is the safeguard to which I referred to at the beginning of our debate, which is an overarching safeguard in any event against any decision that is made. Secondly, there is the CAP1616 process, which stands out with this Bill. It is a consultation process that started in 2018, so it is relatively recent. That will enable a great deal more consultation for local communities than in the past, and will help to manage such concerns.
With regards to the thrust of the hon. Gentleman’s points on the internal potential for a conflict of interest, I accept that in delegatory responsibility terms there will be a need to ensure that such governance structures are in place. I stress that we do not plan to delegate these at present, but that is in order to build in flexibility for the Bill in future. Such internal governance structures would need to be put in place to manage any potential conflict to which, quite rightly, he alerts us.
The CAA has already created an internal governance structure that separates out its role in tracking airspace change proposals and advising on the use, powers and decisions on ACPs. For example, this includes different directors, with decision making kept separate up to board level. The CAA is able to create a new team to take on responsibilities related to directing an ACP, should this power be delegated to it by the Secretary of State. Those structures will need to be created; I am confident that they can be.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 5 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 6
Provision of information
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Robert Courts
Clause 6 amends an existing information-gathering power that is contained in section 84 of the Civil Aviation Act 1982. This will enable the CAA to request any information that it considers that it needs from persons involved in airspace change, to assist the CAA in carrying out its function under part 1 of the Bill or for the purpose of giving any advice, assistance or information to the Secretary of State, in connection with the performance of the Secretary of State’s functions under part 1.
Without the clause, the CAA could not be sure that all relevant information had been taken into consideration from bodies before advising that a direction should be given. This clause will minimise the risk of challenge from the body giving a direction, which could otherwise argue that not all relevant information had been considered. The clause is therefore needed to support part 1 and overall this will help to support the delivery of the airspace strategy, with the aims that we are all agreed upon today.
The Chair
Colleagues are content—excellent. [Hon. Members: “Aye.”] That was said with such enthusiasm, colleagues.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 6 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 7
Appeals and enforcement
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
That schedule 1 be the First schedule to the Bill.
That schedule 2 be the Second schedule to the Bill.
Robert Courts
The purpose of clause 7 is to introduce schedule 1. It says:
“Schedule 1 makes provision for appeals against decisions to give or vary directions under sections 2 and 3…Schedule 2 makes provision for the CAA to enforce directions and connected appeals.”
These are the provisions to which I referred at the beginning of our discussions.
The appeals set out in schedule 1 could also be brought against decisions given by the CAA, if the functions of the Secretary of State, under part 1, are delegated to it. The recipient of the direction can appeal to the Competition Appeal Tribunal. Schedule 1 sets out the process that must be followed and the grounds for the appeal. Without that schedule, the recipient of a direction could not appeal against the decision and that would not be fair, given that non-compliance with a direction could lead to a penalty fine.
Schedule 2 sets out the procedure for the CAA to issue contravention notices, enforcement orders, penalties for contravention of enforcement orders, which can be either a fixed amount, up to 10% of annual turnover, or 0.1% of daily turnover, and appeal rights for those. Without schedule 2, the CAA would not be able to enforce the direction to ensure that bodies that do not comply with it are penalised. The threat of a penalty fine clearly should act as a deterrent on non-compliance and incentivise the recipient of a direction to progress or to co-operate in an ACP, which will in turn help to deliver the CAA’s airspace strategy.
The Chair
The question is that clause 7 stand part of the Bill. As many as are of that opinion, say ‘Aye’. [Hon. Members: “Aye!”] As many as are of the contrary opinion say, ‘No’. The Ayes have it. We must have more enthusiasm, colleagues.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 7 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedules 1 and 2 agreed to.
Clause 8
Part 1: interpretation
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Robert Courts
Clause 8 provides definitions of various terms used throughout part 1. Its function is to provide clarity and to aid interpretation of the powers in the Bill, so that they may be used effectively to direct airspace change proposals, as is standard in Acts of Parliament.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 8 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 9
Licensed air traffic services: modifying the licence and related appeals
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
That schedule 3 be the Third schedule to the Bill.
That schedule 4 be the Fourth schedule to the Bill.
Robert Courts
Clause 9 will give the CAA a more effective power to modify the conditions of the licence held by NATS En Route plc—known as NERL—to provide air traffic services in the United Kingdom. It makes provisions to replace the existing processes that were set out in the Transport Act 2000, and includes new appeal rights for the licence holder and certain other parties who are materially affected by the decision.
The licence holder provides air traffic services to ensure that aircraft carry passengers and freight safely and efficiently through our airspace. The CAA, as the industry regulator, is responsible for modifying conditions of the licence. However, the current process is not fit for purpose, because any modification requires agreement from the licence holder. If agreement cannot be reached the matter can be referred to the Competition and Markets Authority for a determination.
The clause will enable the CAA to make a modification without having to obtain such agreement, but while enabling the licence holder to appeal against the decision—to ensure, of course, that the CAA is accountable. That will give the CAA greater flexibility in modifying licence conditions, the better to serve consumers, airlines, passengers, cargo operators and airport operators.
The clause also confers on the Secretary of State the power to amend the terms of the licence that make provision for its duration and set out the procedure for doing so. For example, it will enable the Secretary of State to extend the licence notice period from the current 10 years to 15 years. That will enable the licence holder to have access to more efficient financing.
Clause 9 also introduces schedules 3 and 4. Schedule 3 introduces a new process, by which the CMA may consider appeals against decisions by the CAA to modify conditions of the licence to provide air traffic services. The changes made by the Bill will enable the CAA to change a licence condition after appropriate consultation. The schedule will enable the licence holder, airlines, and certain airports that are materially affected by the CAA’s decision to modify a licence condition, to appeal against the decision.
Those airports would need to be prescribed in secondary legislation. We intend appeal rights to be given to airports that receive a London approach service from the licence holder as a monopoly provider. At present, those are London Heathrow, London Gatwick, London City, Luton and Stansted.
The provisions also deal with the grounds on which an appeal may be allowed, the steps that the CMA may take when it determines an appeal, the time limits for determination of an appeal and publication of the appeal determination. The appeal rights are essential to ensure that the CAA is accountable for its decisions, and to safeguard the interest of the licence holder and others whose interests are materially affected by the CAA’s decision making.
Schedule 4 makes detailed provision for the procedure by which the CMA receives, considers and determines appeals against decisions by the CAA to modify conditions in the licence to provide air traffic services. The new licensing framework will enable the CAA to modify a licence condition after appropriate consultation. This schedule will enable the licence holder, airlines and certain airports to appeal the CAA decision to modify licence conditions. It sets out in detail the procedure that applies to the appeal, culminating in it being determined by the CMA.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
That schedule 5 be the Fifth schedule to the Bill.
That schedule 6 be the Sixth schedule to the Bill.
Robert Courts
The clause will give the CAA the powers it needs to enforce breaches of the licence in the most effective and proportionate way.
As I said a moment ago, the licence allows the holder to provide air traffic services, enabling aircraft to carry passengers and freight safely and efficiently through our airspace. It is therefore important that the licensing regime reflects current best practice and continues to deliver the better outcomes for consumers to which I have referred.
The existing enforcement regime is not fit for purpose. It is unnecessarily bureaucratic and inflexible, and it lacks proportionality. The CAA, for example, is unable to take enforcement action in respect of past breaches that have ceased, and there is no penalty regime, which is available in other regulated sectors.
The new powers will enable the CAA to take a stepped approach to enforcement by giving it the flexibility to impose a less serious sanction at an earlier stage, escalating that if non-compliance persists. The new appeal rights for the licence holder will ensure that the CAA remains accountable for its enforcement decisions. Amending the CAA’s duty to investigate complaints with the discretion to do so—replacing duty with discretion—will enable both the CAA and NERL to use their resources more effectively.
Schedule 5 gives the CAA the tools it needs to act in the most effective and proportionate way in response to contraventions by the licence holder of its licence conditions or statutory duties. Those tools will enable the CAA to give a contravention notice, an enforcement order or an urgent enforcement order—in accordance with the seriousness of the breach—backed up with the ability to impose financial penalties.
The schedule will enable the CAA to issue effective notices and ensure that the licence holder is treated fairly when the amount of penalty is determined, thus reducing the likelihood of challenge and allowing the provisions of the Bill to function as intended. The licence holder may appeal to the Competition Appeal Tribunal in respect of enforcement action taken against it. That important safeguard is to ensure that the CAA remains accountable.
Schedule 6 will give the CAA the further tools it needs to investigate breaches by the licence holder of the licence conditions or statutory duties, and to carry out enforcement action in the most effective and proportionate way. It will ensure that the CAA has all the powers it needs to decide whether to take enforcement action, or what enforcement action is appropriate.
To that end, the schedule will enable the CAA to serve notice on persons, requiring them to provide it with information. The CAA may do so in relation to information that it needs to investigate alleged breaches by the licence holder or to take enforcement action in respect of such breaches. It also makes provision to enable the CAA to enforce breaches of the requirement to provide it with information, whether the breach is by virtue of non-compliance, the giving of false information or the destruction, alteration or suppression of relevant documents.
Finally, the schedule will make provision to govern how the CAA determines the amount of a penalty and the right of the person to go to the CAT under the framework. It is expected that the availability of the powers and the threat of enforcement for not complying with them will provide the licence holder with greater incentives to comply, bringing benefits to consumers, while of course the appeal to the CAT provides the essential safeguard.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 10 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedules 5 and 6 agreed to.
Clause 11
Air traffic services: consequential amendments
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
That schedule 7 be the Seventh schedule to the Bill.
Robert Courts
Clause 11 introduces schedule 7, which contains amendments that are consequential on clauses 9 and 10. Schedule 7 sets out those consequential amendments to existing Acts to ensure alignment with the new legislative framework.
The Bill would introduce a new framework in the Transport Act 2000, governing the new licensing regime for the regulation of the provision of air traffic services. Without making the minor and consequential amendments detailed in schedule 7, we would not have a coherent new licensing regime.
With one exception, all the consequential and minor amendments are made pursuant to provisions in the Transport Act 2000. Most of the amendments will make provisions that amend that Act, to ensure that the nomenclature in it is aligned and compatible with the new legislative framework. A couple of the amendments introduce specific aspects of parallel modern licensing frameworks, for example, to ensure that regulations can make anti-avoidance provision, if a regulated entity attempts to avoid proper application of the provisions.
Schedule 7 would also amend a single provision in the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Act 2013, to ensure that the Competition and Markets Authority can properly determine appeals against the CAA’s licence modification decisions.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 11 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 7 agreed to.
Clause 12
Airport slot allocation
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Robert Courts
This is a slightly difficult aspect and, if I may, I will add one or two extra words. As it is slightly complicated, it is worth going through it slowly.
Council Regulation (EEC) No. 95/93 requires airlines with allocated slots at level 3 airports to use those slots at least 80% of the time in the preceding scheduling period, in order to retain that slot in the upcoming equivalent period. Prior to the covid-19 pandemic, that 80:20 rule of “use it or lose it” helped to encourage efficient use of scarce airport capacity. It also allowed a degree of flexibility for airlines and their operations. There are eight slot-constrained airports in the UK, to which the 80:20 rule applies: Birmingham, Bristol, Gatwick, Heathrow, London City, Luton, Manchester and Stansted.
Due to the unprecedented impact of covid-19, in March last year, the European Commission took the decision to waive the 80:20 rule. Airport co-ordinators were instructed under that waiver, when determining slot allocation for the upcoming summer season, to consider slots as having been operated, regardless of whether they were used. That covered the summer 2020 season and was subsequently extended to cover winter 2020-21.
The UK supported the European Commission’s position. Without that alleviation, airlines may have incurred significant financial costs by operating flights at low-load factors needed to retain those slots. Alleviation has helped to protect future connectivity and airline finances, and reduced the risk of empty or near-empty ghost flights being run to retain the slots, which would have a financial impact on airlines as well as an environmental impact. We anticipate that the effects of covid-19 on the airline industry will regrettably continue for some time. Passenger demand is not predicted to return to 2019 levels until at least 2023.
After the EU transition period ended on 31 December, regulation 95/93 was retained in UK law. However, when it was retained, the power of the Commission to extend the period of alleviation from the 80:20 rule, which was transferred to the Secretary of State, was expressly limited to 2 April 2021. We expect disruption to air travel to continue for a number of years, so it is imperative that the UK has at its disposal the powers to provide alleviation, should the evidence suggest that that is warranted.
Returning to the 80:20 rule, while the covid-19 disruption continues, it might mean that some airlines will protect their commercial interest in retaining their slots by operating fights with empty or near-empty aircraft, despite the associated costs, both financial and environmental. Without this clause, the Government would be unable to provide flexibility on slot usage to deal with the ongoing impacts of the covid-19 pandemic at slot co-ordinated airports beyond the summer 2021 season. That flexibility will also provide certainty, to enable airlines to manage their slots efficiently.
This clause inserts a new article, 10aa, into retained Council regulation 95/93 of 18 January 1993 on common rules for the allocation of slots in UK airports. This would provide the Secretary of State with a power to provide air carriers with an alleviation of the requirement to operate slots allocated to them 80% of the time in order to retain those slots in the next equivalent scheduling period. This power would be exercisable until 24 August 2024—so it is time limited—and for scheduling periods up to and including winter 2024-25. To allow for flexibility, this clause also includes powers to modify the 80% requirement relating to slots usage, which will be an alternative to applying a full alleviation of the 80:20 rule for a specified scheduling season. This recognises that there might be alternative ratios that could be applied to ensure the efficient use of slots, and then moving back to 80:20 as demand recovers. The Secretary of State will also be able to make certain other modifications to the slot usage rule: for example, setting a deadline for the return of slots not intended for operation, or providing that a waiver should not apply to slots of an airline that ceases operations at an airport.
This clause will also allow the Secretary of State to make certain other changes to the operation of the rules relating to the allocation of slots under regulation 95-93. For example, the Government could change co-ordination parameters to reflect partial closures of airports, adopt temporary rules for the most efficient allocation of unused slots to new entrants, or give the slot co-ordinator enforcement powers, such as where unused slots are not returned with sufficient time to enable them to be effectively re-allocated. Having the powers to vary the 80:20 ratio and modify the operation of the rule in this way will allow appropriate measures to support the sector’s recovery as passenger demand for flights returns. Any such changes would be based on an assessment of the current situation, and would be supported by evidence based on the latest available data.
Mike Kane
The Minister was right to spend a little extra time focusing on this clause, because it will be extraordinarily important in the years to come, as the aviation sector tries to recover. It came into focus this year that one of our national carriers was not acting in the national interest, by using the pandemic to change the terms and conditions of tens of thousands of its workforce. National carriers should always act in the national interest. I am glad to see that some of that damage between the workforce and the management is currently being repaired.
However, it was this national carrier’s grandfathered rights—particularly at Heathrow, and the way it wanted to retain its rights at Gatwick but move out its operation—that brought this issue into focus. Again, it did not seem fair or right to use what is almost a monopoly bias in what, in my opinion, is a very large closed shop when it comes to slots. If I remember rightly, in “Henry V”, when the Archbishop of Canterbury is trying to explain female hereditary rights in Salic law, Shakespeare says something that we could also say about airport slots: it is as clear as mud. I am afraid that is what airport slots are, which is why I think this will be dodgy territory—not party-politically dodgy territory in particular, but for the Secretary of State and the Minister over the next four or five years, whoever they are.
Robert Courts
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for those points. I enjoyed his Shakespearean reference, and I understand it entirely. This is a rather tricky part of the Bill and it took a while for us all to get our heads around it, particularly where the statutory instruments fit in, earlier in the year. He raises a number of points, and it is important to distinguish between what we are dealing with here and the wider policy aspect.
The issue of which airline has which slot is dealt with by Airport Coordination Ltd, independently of Government. The hon. Gentleman refers to a carrier being perceived to have not acted in the national interest. The Government do not involve themselves in that; it is dealt with by ACL. The wider future policy aspect is another matter, which I will come to in due course. However, he refers to grandfather rights, which I will deal with at this stage.
Obviously, we recognise that we have the ability to change the policy now that we have left the European Union’s transition period, and we will look at future slots policy in due course. Clearly, any further amendment of policy will require significant consultation and engagement with industry, and will require a good long look at what the ongoing policy will be. We are dealing here with the extraordinary times in which we live, in order to cope with the suppressed demand. There are slightly different imperatives between what we are dealing with today and what the hon. Gentleman is pressing me to look at. It is more a question of where and how we look at it. I suggest that it is not appropriate to look at that issue here.
The hon. Gentleman asks me if the date can be brought forward. The date is there because that is the date of the expected demand recovery that I referred to in my opening remarks. It means that, regrettably, we are not expecting demand to recover to 2019 levels until around 2023, or roughly that time. That means that the date in the Bill is what is required to enable that power to exist, should we require it. That date is in there because of the time taken to recover. I will add two points. First, any such decision has to be taken on the basis of data and market conditions at the time. I hope that is a reassuring factor for hon. Members. Secondly, this is a power and not an obligation. If the Secretary of State looked at that data and decided that the power was required, it would be open to him or her to exercise that power. The fact that the power is there does not mean that it has to be used. That is the reason it is there. As for conferring an unfair advantage, the power gives the opportunity for conditions to be attached. There is greater flexibility with regards to the wider policy perspective in the Bill than at present. We would have to go further into primary legislation after the usual process if we wanted to do anything further. I hope that gives the hon. Gentleman the reassurance that we have done what we can at this time and some reassurance as to the reason for the timescale.
Mike Kane
I am grateful to the Minister for his considered explanation. I hope that, in the cross-party nature of getting this right, he will commit to keeping an open mind about ensuring that new operators coming into the market will not be competitively disadvantaged by the clause. I want to work with him on that over the next few years to make sure that that is not the case and that we reactivate our aviation industry from this pandemic as soon as we possibly can.
Robert Courts
I welcome the hon. Gentleman’s comment and the constructive nature of that engagement. I am committed to working with him to ensure that we get future aviation policy right.
The Chair
The question is that clause 8—[Hon. Members: “Clause 12.”] Am I on the wrong page? Clause 12? Good grief. There you go; I think that is early-stage senility on my behalf. I apologise.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 12 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
We are going through the Bill very quickly. Do we want to crack on? Would you like to carry on, colleagues, because you are doing so well, or do you want to go and have a cup of tea and come back on Thursday? I am sure you do not want to come back on Thursday. Crack on? [Hon. Members: “Crack on.”] Mr Tarry is keen to crack on. We are at clause 13 now, are we not? I momentarily left the road and ended up in a ditch.
Clause 13
Powers of police officers and prison authorities
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Government amendment 2.
That schedule 8 be the Eighth schedule to the Bill.
Robert Courts
Clause 13 introduces schedule 8 to the Bill. This makes provision about general powers of police officers in relation to offences involving the use of unmanned aircraft and also amends sections 93 and 94 of the Police Act 1997. Without this clause, schedule 8 would not form part of the Bill.
Schedule 8 provides the police, the civil nuclear constabulary, and custodial institutions with the powers they need to protect the public from the unlawful use of unmanned aircraft. Schedule 8 contains powers for a police constable: first, the power to require a person to ground an unmanned aircraft if they have reasonable grounds for believing that person to be controlling it and if they have reasonable grounds for suspecting that it has been, is or is likely to be, used in the commission of an offence; secondly, the power to stop and search persons or vehicles where the constable has reasonable grounds for suspecting they will find an unmanned aircraft, and that it is or has been involved in the commission of certain offences under the Air Navigation Order 2016 or a relevant prison offence, such as assisting a prisoner to escape or conveying illicit articles into or out of a prison; and also, the power to enter and search premises under warrant.
Schedule 8 also amends section 93 of the Police Act 1997 so that counter-unmanned aircraft technology, which involves interference with property or wireless telegraphy, can be authorised in relation to certain offences involving unmanned aircraft. The Police Act 1997 is also amended so that the CNC and specified officers and staff in custodial institutions such as prisons may authorise this technology in relation to certain offences involving unmanned aircraft. Such unlawful use of unmanned aircraft can pose safety and national security risks, particularly around critical national infrastructure and prisons. For example, serious and organised crime groups currently use unmanned aircraft to deliver contraband into prisons, which threatens safety, destabilises prisons and undermines the efforts of hard-working staff and prison officers in delivering effective rehabilitative regimes.
It is therefore essential that custodial institutions are able to disrupt the supply of contraband by criminal gangs using unmanned aircraft and to maintain the security and the safety of prisons and their staff. Similarly, civil nuclear sites, which include some of the UK’s most sensitive assets, must be protected from unlawful unmanned aircraft use. The powers in the schedule enable the CNC to respond more effectively to unmanned aircraft incidents at civil nuclear sites. Stop-and-search powers and powers of entry and search under warrant are necessary for the police to be able to investigate offences effectively.
Take a scenario in which an unmanned aircraft is being flown in the flight restriction zone of a protected aerodrome. The police arriving at the scene suspect that they have identified the individual who was the remote pilot. The constable suspects the remote pilot has breached article 94A of the ANO 2016—the navigation order—by flying at or near the aerodrome without permission. However, the remote pilot has already ceased flying and put the unmanned aircraft in their car. Currently, the police have no powers to search the car for the unmanned aircraft, so no action can be taken. The powers in the Bill would permit the vehicle to be searched in such circumstances. Without the schedule, the ability of police, prison officers and the CNC to protect the public and our critical national infrastructure and prisons from the unlawful use of unmanned aircraft would be limited.
Briefly, Government amendment 2 to schedule 8 is a simple amendment to correct an omission in the Bill. Paragraph 5 of schedule 8 sets out the meaning of a “relevant unmanned aircraft offence”. As currently drafted, the offences in the Air Navigation Order 2016 included in the definition are summary only offences. In relation to Scotland, the definition should also include offences in the ANO 2016, which are triable either way or on indictment. Such offences were included in the definition of “relevant offences” in the Bill as introduced in the other place in January 2020. They were inadvertently omitted from the Government’s amendments tabled on Report in the other place, when the provisions setting out the definitions that apply in relation to the power to enter and search under warrant, and the supplementary power to retain evidence seized, were restructured.
If the amendment is not accepted, there would be no power for a justice of the peace, a summary sheriff or a sheriff in Scotland to issue to a constable a warrant to enter and search premises in relation to offences in the ANO that relate to unmanned aircraft and that can be tried under indictment. Nor would the supplementary power for a constable to retain items seized using powers in schedule 8 for forensic examination, investigation or as evidence at a trial apply in relation to such offences. The policy intention behind the Bill remains unchanged, and the amendment would not add to any offences or powers that were not already in the Bill as it was introduced in January 2020.
Mike Kane
The rapid deployment of drone technology offers great benefits for society, but as the Minister points out, it can also pose great threats. Clause 13, which deals with the powers of police officers and prison officers, is important. When the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May) was Prime Minister in 2018, Gatwick was brought to a complete halt by the use of drones, and we did not have the powers to stop it. The Opposition are supportive of the clause. The Minister and I cover the Maritime and Coastguard Authority, and the potential of drones in search-and-rescue operations—particularly some of the technology that great British manufacturers such as Airbus are developing to help with rescue operations on land and at sea—in the years ahead is really exciting.
We support the additional powers. We agree with the British Airline Pilots Association and others that the powers are proportionate to the threat that unmanned aerial vehicles pose. There is a concern that the deterrents might not be a factor if the police are not sufficiently resourced for the powers, and I have some questions for the Minister. Do the police have the capability to bring down drones? We want to be tough on drones and tough on the causes of drones in the wrong places. Do the police have the resources to detect misuse and breaches of protected airspace? A final worry is whether this legislation will keep up to date with the rapidly changing use of unmanned vehicles in the UK.
Robert Courts
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for those points. I entirely agree that there are exciting possibilities in unmanned air vehicles. During the pandemic, we have seen trials of deliveries of essential supplies, for example, and we can look forward to seeing more of that sort of thing. He is right that this country has a good industrial base, so there are some real opportunities for the country as an industrial asset,. In addition, the loiter capabilities of drones in particular give us great advantages in search and rescue and intelligence gathering. We have a number of assets to look forward to, but we must guard against their misuse.
The hon. Gentleman raised three points and I will try to allay his concerns. The first point is on the ability to bring down drones. There has been wide consultation with the police and their position is that they already possess that power, although there is an operational question over how and whether it should be used, for fairly obvious reasons relating to kinetic effects. The police have been involved in every stage and the Bill has been brought forward with their co-operation. That power exists elsewhere; the question is not whether it needs to be in the Bill but whether it should be used, as that has other operational ramifications.
On resources, the police have been involved and consulted at all stages, as I said. I am confident that they have the resource needed. Regarding flexibility and rapidity, many of the substantive rules required in the future will take place under the air navigation orders, which are statutory instruments. The Bill enables changes to the regulatory and legal landscape as technology advances. The hon. Gentleman is right that this is a breathtakingly fast-evolving area of technology. While that presents opportunities, we must ensure that we do not need to bring forward legislation such as this regularly. This Bill, because of the way it is structured and the powers it gives, enables us to do that.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 13 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 8
Unmanned aircraft: powers of police officers and prison authorities
Amendment made: 2, in schedule 8, page 68, line 29, at end insert—
“(iv) an offence under the law of Scotland which arises under any other provision of the ANO 2016 and relates to unmanned aircraft, except an offence which is triable only summarily;”—(Robert Courts.)
This amends the definition of “relevant unmanned aircraft offence” to catch Scottish offences under the Air Navigation Order 2016 relating to unmanned aircraft — except any triable only summarily. These offences were caught by Schedule 8 on introduction but were inadvertently omitted when Schedule 8 was amended in the Lords.
Schedule 8, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 14
Powers of police officers relating to ANO 2016
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
That schedule 9 be the Ninth schedule to the Bill.
Robert Courts
Clause 14 introduces schedule 9, which makes provision about powers of police officers relating to requirements in the ANO of 2016. The powers in the schedule will enable the police to enforce more effectively requirements of the risk-based framework for unmanned aircraft operations, including in relation to the competency of remote pilots and registration of unmanned aircraft system operators.
It is important to be distinct about the two different concepts, as well as relevant consent and exemptions required for higher risk flights, including flights at or near protected aerodromes. This includes the power to require a remote pilot of an unmanned aircraft to provide evidence that they have met any applicable competency requirement in the ANO 2016 for their flight and information as to the identity of the unmanned aircraft system operator of the unmanned aircraft. It also includes the power to require a UAS operator to provide evidence of registration and information as to the identity of the remote pilot of the unmanned aircraft, and to provide evidence that they have the relevant consent where needed to be able to carry out a flight lawfully. A relevant consent includes an operation authorisation issued by the CAA, or a permission for a flight over or near a protected aerodrome. There is also a power to inspect an unmanned aircraft in order to establish whether the other powers I have just described are exercisable. If the remote pilot or the unmanned aircraft system operator does not have the documentation, information or evidence with them when the constable requests it, they must be able to provide it to the police station instead within seven days, or as soon as is reasonably practicable, similar to existing procedures for driving licences.
Schedule 9 makes it an offence to knowingly or recklessly provide false or misleading information when purporting to comply with a requirement that has been imposed on a person using one of the powers in the schedule. To be able to establish whether an offence under the ANO 2016 has been committed, the police need the powers conferred on them by the schedule. This in turn will enable them to deal more effectively with offences that have been committed, as well as deterring the commission of further offences. Without clause 14, schedule 9 and the powers it contains would not form part of the Bill, so the police would not be given the powers they need to effectively tackle the unlawful use of unmanned aircraft where this involves the breach of provisions of the Air Navigation Order 2016.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 14 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 9 agreed to.
Clause 15
Fixed penalties for certain offences relating to unmanned aircraft
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
That schedule 10 be the Tenth schedule to the Bill.
Robert Courts
Clause 15 introduces schedule 10 and is about provision for fixed penalties. Schedule 10 enables the police to issue a fixed penalty notice for a fixed penalty offence where they believe that the offender did not cause or intend to cause various types of harm or damage when committing the offence. It is important to note that if the preconditions for the exercise of this power are met, the constable has the option to issue a fixed penalty notice as opposed to pursuing a prosecution through the courts. They can only do so when an offender is aged 18 or over. The schedule also gives the Secretary of State powers to prescribe in regulations the offences in relation to which fixed penalty notices may be issued and the amounts of the fixed penalties.
Prescribing the offences and the amounts in regulations will enable this legislation to keep pace with an area of technology that is rapidly evolving, as the Government will be able to prescribe new offences involving unmanned aircraft as they are created. The schedule also sets out the definition of a fixed penalty notice, the information that must be included in it and the procedure for paying it. A person given a fixed penalty notice will have 21 days to pay it before they are convicted of the offence.
The schedule also sets out when registration documents in relation to a fixed penalty notice may be issued and the procedure for doing so in England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, as well as requirements as to the information a registration document must contain. Such documents are necessary when a fixed penalty notice is not paid within the 21-day timeframe and has not been appealed. These provisions provide an immediate and proportionate deterrent to committing certain offences, reducing the burden on the courts and police, because a person who is given a fixed penalty notice and pays it within the required timeframe will not be subject to the costs that are incurred when a person is prosecuted through the courts.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 15 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 10 agreed to.
Clause 16
Amendment and enforcement regulations
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
That schedule 11 be the Eleventh schedule to the Bill.
Robert Courts
The clause introduces schedule 11, which contains powers to ensure that any new offences related to unmanned aircraft, including those created via an air navigation order or in relation to particular EU-derived legislation on unmanned aircraft, can be enforced using the police powers in the Bill. The aim of the schedule is essentially to future-proof as much as possible the enforcement of legislative requirements relating to unmanned aircraft. It contains provisions that will enable the police powers in the Bill to be used to enforce new offences relating to unmanned aircraft in future.
Schedule 11 contains powers that allow for amendments to be made in subordinate legislation to schedule 8, clause 14 and schedule 9 once the Bill becomes an Act in the light of changes in relevant subordinate legislation. The definition of “relevant subordinate legislation” includes the Air Navigation Order 2016, the creation of a new air navigation order, regulations made by the Secretary of State under retained law and regulations made under the power in paragraph 3 of the schedule.
Those Henry VIII powers may be relied on for three specific purposes. First, the police powers can be amended so that they can be used to enforce new offences relating to unmanned aircraft created in future relevant subordinate legislation. Secondly, paragraph 1 provides for amendments to be made to the Act to ensure the maintenance of the effect of the powers where they would otherwise cease to be effective because of provisions in relevant subordinate legislation. Thirdly, schedule 11 provides for a power to amend the Act in consequence of provisions made in any relevant subordinate legislation to confer a police power that corresponds to a power conferred by schedule 9.
Paragraph 3 provides for enforcement of particular EU-derived legislation. The schedule contains a power to create criminal offences and civil penalties so that the legislation’s requirements can be properly enforced. Without schedule 11, it would not be possible to ensure that the enforcement of offences relating to the use of unmanned aircraft remained feasible, especially in the light of new and often rapid developments in unmanned aircraft technology and its possible misuse in future, with which the related legislation has to keep pace.
Sam Tarry (Ilford South) (Lab)
It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Charles. We seem to be whistling through the Bill faster than the snow is falling on the Thames.
I thank the Minister for his comments. The Opposition share many of the British Airline Pilots Association’s concerns about the catastrophic collisions that could happen if drones were used maliciously or even incautiously and far too close to airports. We would therefore like reassurance from the Minister about restrictions on drone flights, for example, if the in-built safety features such as geo-fencing, lights or the transponder were retuned or deliberately disabled. The Minister said that penalty notices applied to those aged 18 and over, but it is clear that sales of drones are often to people under 18. We know how ingenious many of our young people are in this day and age, when it is possible to plug a drone into a computer and reconfigure its parameters. Sometimes we need to think about how to ensure that we are not being outwitted by people who purchase and use those items.
I would also like reassurance about the distinct threat of unmanned aircraft pilots operating drones as swarms. That is a potentially dangerous development. The military not just in the US but in Israel have been testing that, and it would not be beyond the wit of civilians purchasing unmanned aircraft to do it. We need reassurance that the police are equipped with the technology to disable a single swarm of drones conducting a mission. We also need to satisfy the safety concerns about overseeing those multiple unmanned aircraft if they are performing different missions.
The Opposition are concerned about the Bill’s failure to recognise wake turbulence. Again, the British Airline Pilots Association has raised that matter. Wake turbulence is stipulated in law in terms of the distance between aircraft, but unmanned aircraft are not currently covered. That could be a significant safety issue for the public if a drone crashed over a populated area due to an aircraft’s wake turbulence. Those are some of the areas of concern on which we would like to hear reassurances from the Minister.
Robert Courts
I thank the hon. Gentleman for those excellent points. They show the complexity of the challenge we face as we adapt to welcoming this new technology while ensuring that it does not pose a danger to those on the ground or in the air. For those reasons, we have constructed the Bill in the way that we have, so that it is able to adapt and flex to technology or operating practices that change in the future.
Many of the hon. Gentleman’s points will be covered by some of the definitions of the way people operate drones in the Bill—for example, their operation as swarms, or in relation to wake turbulence. I suggest that is not something that needs granularity on the face of the Bill. It is a practice that could be tackled by the police when they operate under the powers conferred by the Bill. The police have been heavily involved in the drafting and preparation stages of the Bill, and we continue to work with operational partners, not just the police, but related agencies, such as the CAA, We have been keen to ensure that the Bill not only gives the flexibility required, but is realistic to implement once it becomes law. We will obviously continue to work closely with the CAA and police to make sure they are ready to respond to changes made to offences using the powers in schedule 1.
Police training and guidance relating to unmanned aircraft and powers in the Bill are a key part of the Government’s counter-unmanned aircraft strategy, which continues in any event. Briefings and general guidance are provided to officers with more specialist advice available in the form of tactical advisers to ensure the most efficient and effective use of policing resource.
The hon. Gentleman also asked about the resources available to the police. Again, I pray in aid those aspects of the legislation, because we have worked closely with the police to provide them with the guidance to ensure they have the resources that they require. I think I have covered all the hon. Gentleman’s points.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 16 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 11 agreed to.
Clause 17
Disclosures of information
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Robert Courts
This clause authorises a disclosure of information where it does not contravene data protection legislation or parts 1 to 7 or chapter 1 of part 9 of the Investigatory Powers Act 2016.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 17 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 18
Part 3: interpretation
Robert Courts
This is the interpretation part of this section of the Bill. The Bill provides that ANO 2016 means the Air Navigation Order 2016, which we have referred to throughout this Committee sitting. The Bill provides that subordinate legislation means any instrument made or to be made under an Act of Parliament on or after IP—implementation period—completion day under any retained direct EU legislation. The Bill also provides that unmanned aircraft means any aircraft operating or designed to operate autonomously or to be piloted remotely without a pilot on board. Drones and model aircraft are the most commonly used types of unmanned aircraft.
Sam Tarry
It is important to raise a concern and disappointment that the Bill is two years too late. For a moment, we ought to reflect on the incident at Gatwick in December 2018, which affected 140,000 passengers and in excess of 1,000 flights, costing the airline operators tens of millions of pounds. The pace of change of technology for unmanned aircraft and unmanned aircraft swarms has advanced rapidly, as I have already mentioned. The Bill must ensure that the Department for Transport and the Minister continue a dialogue with the police to identify threats as early as possible so that we are not in that situation again. More specifically, we need clarification from the Minister about how the Department and the Civil Aviation Authority plan to keep up with new anti-drone technology, to provide support and licences to private operators, perhaps at aerodromes—particularly ones near critical national infrastructure such as power stations—and then to police that technology.
Furthermore, we need to ensure that the Bill enables the DFT and the police to keep up to speed with the possible future development of broad, unmanned traffic management systems, so we need to be looking ahead. During the pandemic we have seen the ubiquitous use of Amazon. I have probably recycled more cardboard boxes from my wife’s orders than I care to think of, but it is not beyond the realms of possibility that those boxes could, in the next 10 years, be delivered by drones. That is certainly something that private companies are thinking about, but will the provisions and scenarios laid down in the guidance around the Bill be able to keep pace with those developments? In fact, as a result of the rapid increase in the technology, Administrations around the world who are also looking at this issue have called for a focus on the use of drones—beyond just recreational and military use—by commercial operators.
Robert Courts
The hon. Gentleman’s vision for the potential future of the industry is absolutely right. There are all sorts of endless possibilities. The hon. Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East and I have talked already about, for example, the maritime sphere and search and rescue possibilities. There are myriad others. He is absolutely right to focus on, for example, how it is not inconceivable that the day-to-day deliveries that we currently do by land might be done by air in future.
The sponsoring and promotion of that aspect of things probably lie outside the Bill. We would probably look at other areas of Government to ensure that we make the most of those technologies. What we are concerned with in this Bill is ensuring that there is a safe regulatory environment by laying out a framework with the flexibility to innovate for the future to ensure that the regulation stays up to date, which we do primarily through air navigation orders.
In terms of the DFT being well informed as to what is required, I refer back to the detailed and ongoing engagement we have with the Civil Aviation Authority, which is a world-leading regulator in this sphere, as it is in other spheres of aviation. We also work closely with the police, and I have referred to how the Bill has been created in close consultation with the police to ensure that they have the powers they need. By continuing to engage closely with the CAA, the police and all manner of other bodies—we have referred to many others, such as BALPA—and listening to their views, we will stay on top of ensuring that we have the regulations we need so that the great vision we have discussed is realised in a safe manner. This Bill lays out the regulatory framework within which we can do that in the future.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 18 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
Colleagues, with grit, determination and focus, we are in danger of finishing this Committee stage in its entirety by 11.25 am. As long as you are all happy to progress on that basis—there seems to be a degree of happiness in the room—we will continue.
Clause 19
Regulations
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Robert Courts
This clause sets out which powers in the Bill are subject to the affirmative resolution procedure and which are subject to the negative resolution procedure. Every effort has been made to limit the number and scope of the delegated powers in the Bill. Delegated powers have been included in the Bill only where it is not appropriate, practical or possible to make provision in the Bill itself.
In the Bill, where amendments to primary legislation relate to procedural matters, we propose that the negative resolution procedure would apply. For example, schedule 3 gives the Secretary of State powers to modify time limits for an appeal to be determined by the Competition and Markets Authority. If the time periods are no longer appropriate, or the CMA needs longer to consider an appeal, it is right that there is a mechanism to amend the timeframe.
However, it is right that some powers in the Bill that could have significant impacts should be subject to a higher level of parliamentary scrutiny and debate. For example, the power under paragraph 3 of schedule 11 makes regulations providing for the creation of criminal offences in relation to the requirements of particular EU-derived legislation on unmanned aircraft.
Some powers we propose in the Bill are made by the affirmative resolution procedure in the first instance and by the negative procedure for any amendments thereafter. For example, that would apply to paragraph 2 of schedule 10, on the power of the Secretary of State, by regulations, to prescribe offences as fixed penalty offences for the purposes of the Act. That is to give Parliament the opportunity to scrutinise the secondary legislation before it comes into force for the first time. Using the negative procedure thereafter is considered proportionate and in line with other existing legislation, and it allows the Government to respond flexibly to changing circumstances, such as changes to inflation.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 19 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 20
Extent
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Robert Courts
This clause states that the Act will extend to England and Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland, except for clause 12—“Airport slot allocation”—which extends to England, Wales and Scotland only. Civil aviation, aviation and transport, including airspace, are reserved matters in respect of all three devolved Administrations. Aerodromes are a transferred matter in relation to Northern Ireland, which is taken to include airport slot allocation. As a result, and because there are no co-ordinated airports there, and there are not expected to be any designated there during the relevant period, clause 12 has not been extended to Northern Ireland.
The powers provided in part 3 of the Bill are necessary for police and other law enforcement agencies to enforce the lawful and responsible use of unmanned aircraft. However, the powers relate to the regulation of unmanned aircraft. The legislative consent process is triggered for Scotland and Northern Ireland in relation to schedule 8 of the Bill, which provides in part 2 for the authorisation of property interference and interference with wireless telegraphy when certain offences have been committed using an unmanned aircraft.
Schedule 8 also extends the range of public authorities that may authorise such interference to include the CNC and a member of senior management in custodial institutions. The provisions confer a function on Scottish Ministers and on the Department of Justice in Northern Ireland to designate certain officials in the Scottish Prison Service and in the Northern Ireland Prison Service and Youth Justice Agency as being capable of authorising counter-unmanned aircraft measures.
The Scottish Parliament and the Northern Ireland Assembly both passed legislative consent motions in June 2020. The legislative consent motion process does not apply to Senedd Cymru because excepted functions relating to prisons are reserved.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 20 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 21
Commencement
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Robert Courts
The clause sets out when each of the provisions in the Bill will come into force. Clause 7 and schedule 2, clause 13 and schedule 8, clause 14 and schedule 9, and clause 15 and schedule 10 will all come into force on the day on which the Bill is passed, only for the specific purpose of making secondary legislation.
Schedule 9 enables the police to require the production of information, documentation and evidence by UAS operators and remote pilots of unmanned aircraft. The measures require UAS operators to register their aircraft, remote pilots to have been issued their certificates of competency, and consent to have been obtained from the CAA for higher-risk flights.
Schedule 9 also enables the police to inspect an unmanned aircraft to assist in determining whether other powers conferred by the schedule are exercisable. It also gives the Secretary of State the power to prescribe other information, documentation or evidence that a UAS operator or a remote pilot must produce. This power comes into force on the day on which the Bill is passed. All other provisions in schedule 9, which are not required for the purposes of making regulations, will come into force two months after the day the Bill is passed.
Clauses 12 and 16 to 22 will also come into force on the day the Bill is passed. All other clauses come into force on the date set out in the statutory instruments to be made once the Bill has passed. The commencement dates for statutory instruments can be different depending on the purpose of the statutory instrument. That provides flexibility for the coming into force date.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 21 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 22
Short Title
Robert Courts
Clause 22 provides that the Act may be referred to by its short title, the Air Traffic Management and Unmanned Aircraft Act 2021, when it is cited in other legislation and documents.
The Chair
Gosh. We are cantering through this.
Clause 22, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
Gosh. Well done, everybody. I thank the Committee, the Clerk of the Committee and the transcriber of the Committee’s speeches and proceedings.
Question proposed, That the Chair do report the Bill, as amended, to the House.
Robert Courts
I would like to thank the Clerks of the Committee and you, Sir Charles, for chairing and for dealing with the business in such an efficient and diligent manner this morning. I thank the hon. Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East—the Opposition spokesman—and the Opposition Whip for having facilitated the efficient but detailed consideration of the Bill. It is an exciting Bill and it is necessary, as we look to the future, for not just space management but drone operations, which we have discussed today. I am grateful to everyone for their constructive engagement in Committee. I look forward to that as we move forward to Report.
The Chair
Might I say that I think I heard the Minister make a point of order? That is what I was meant to hear. That was not entirely a point of order, Minister, but it was rather brilliantly put.
Mike Kane
On a point of order, Sir Charles. The American sociologist Margaret Mead said we should never doubt that a small group of committed people could change the world, because nothing else in history ever has done. Well done to all Members today; there was thorough scrutiny of the Bill.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford South and his staff for helping with the heavy lifting, and the Whips for keeping us safe. Today, democracy was seen to be done and to be in action, despite the pandemic. Sir Charles, thank you for your excellent chairing. To the Department for Transport civil servants and the Clerks of the House, my heartfelt thanks.
The Chair
Excellent. Does anyone else want to make any bogus points of order—encouraged by the Chair, might I add? In the absence of any more, the question is that I report the Bill, as amended, to the House.
Bill, as amended, accordingly to be reported.
Written Statement
(3 years, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Contingencies Fund Advance
(3 years, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Paul Scully)
I hereby give notice of the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy having drawn an advance from the contingencies fund totalling £2,819,000,000 to enable expenditure in connection with the Governments’ response to covid-19 support packages for business to fight the virus and build back better, to be spent ahead of the passage of the Supply and Appropriation Act in March 2021.
Parliamentary approval for additional resources of £1,459,000,000, additional capital of £1,110,000,000 and additional cash of £250,000,000 will be sought in a supplementary estimate for the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy. Pending that approval, urgent expenditure estimated at £2,819,000,000 will be met by repayable cash advances from the Contingencies Fund.
The cash advance will be repaid upon receiving Royal Assent on the Supply and Appropriation Act.
[HCWS775]
House of Lords
Introduction: Lord Parker of Minsmere
Introduction: Baroness Foster of Oxton
Arrangement of Business
The Lord Speaker (Lord Fowler)
My Lords, the Hybrid Sitting of the House will now begin. Some Members are here in the Chamber, others are participating remotely, but all Members will be treated equally.
After a personal statement from the noble Lord, Lord Freud, Oral Questions will commence. Please can those asking supplementary questions keep them short and confined to two points. I ask that Ministers’ answers are brief as well.
Personal Statement
Lord Freud (Con)
My Lords, with the leave of the House I will make a personal statement. Today, the Commissioner for Standards has published a report into my conduct. The report relates to letters, to which I was a signatory, to members of the judiciary about references provided to the court to inform the sentencing of Mr Elphicke. My motive was purely to alert the judiciary to what I considered to be an important issue of principle. However, I recognise that it was not my place to do so, and that I should not have added my name to the letters. I apologise to the House and the judiciary.
Covid-19: Over-75s
(3 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Hodgson of Abinger
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the impact of (1) the COVID-19 pandemic, and (2) the subsequent restrictions put in place to address the pandemic, on those aged over 75.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Lord Bethell) (Con)
My Lords, it is a sad fact that this horrible virus targets over-75s more than any other group. We should all be proud of the country’s determination to protect the lives of the elderly and the infirm and give thanks for the vaccines that save so many lives. I assure my noble friend that the NHS has remained open to all and will catch up on the backlog for all those who need medical intervention, irrespective of age.
Baroness Hodgson of Abinger (Con) [V]
My Lords, we all recognise that the pandemic has had a particularly devastating impact on the elderly, with them not being able to see loved ones, isolation increasing dementia and high death rates in care homes. While I congratulate the Government on vaccinating all those in care homes, can the Minister kindly tell us when those housebound and receiving care will all be vaccinated? Will the Government consider adopting the successful Tubbe system being used in many Belgian care homes, whereby management and residents cojoin in decision-making, thus giving the residents more control of their daily lives and helping them to cope?
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, we have now reached more than 80% of over-80 year-olds. Local vaccination services, of which there are more than 1,000 in England, co-ordinate the delivery of vaccinations to people who are unable to attend a vaccination site, including visiting homes, the personal homes of housebound individuals and other settings such as residential facilities for those with learning difficulties. The rollout of the vaccine to those at home is progressing at great pace and we are getting great feedback from the front line.
Baroness Pitkeathley (Lab) [V]
Is the Minister aware that many people over 75, notwithstanding their age, are providing care for family members—a spouse or an adult child with special needs, for example? Research by Carers UK shows that two-thirds of these older carers are providing more than 90 hours’ care a week, having had to take on more duties during the pandemic. One-third of them say that they are reaching breaking point and that their own health, physical and mental, has been severely affected. How will the Government ensure that sufficient support is available to these older carers, on whom so many depend?
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, I pay tribute to all those elderly carers, who, as the noble Baroness quite rightly points out, provide a huge service to society, to their loved ones and to the community. We have put in place a tremendous amount of support for carers, including PPE support. We have changed the arrangements for domiciliary care so that we can restrict the spread of the virus, and we have changed the way in which domiciliary care is paid for. The noble Baroness is entirely right: we should not forget the considerable contribution made by a large number of unpaid carers, many of whom are themselves elderly.
Lord O’Shaughnessy (Con) [V]
My Lords, as well as the direct health impacts that the pandemic has brought on older people, there are the indirect effects of increasing loneliness and isolation, which can have a devastating impact too. As the country emerges from lockdown, will my noble friend ensure that the right support for mental health and other support is in place for this group, including better access to their families and loved ones through more flexibility in the use of support bubbles?
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, my noble friend is entirely right about the massive mental health challenge and, if not the challenge to mental health, that of the isolation and loneliness felt by many who are shielding or isolated. Seven hundred and eighty thousand individuals over 70 are considered clinically extremely vulnerable. We have changed the terms of the shielding arrangements to give them more flexibility, and we have published the well-being and mental health support plan relating to Covid-19, which sets out steps to strengthen the support available for those who are struggling. But my noble friend is entirely right: we must do more to support and help voluntary organisations, which play a critical role, as do local authorities.
Baroness Barker (LD)
Another wave of Covid is hitting care homes at the moment. Therefore, there is an urgent need for hand-held rapid testing kits that deliver accurate and swift results. What investment is being made in biotech companies and care staff to develop a rapid testing system that works at scale?
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, the innovation and partnerships team at NHS Test and Trace has an enormous programme on this. The lateral flow devices are a huge development but, as the noble Baroness undoubtedly knows, the sensitivity of a lateral flow device means that it is not necessarily appropriate for the user case that she described. We have invested in DnaNudge and other small point-of-care devices, but having a fast-turnaround device that can be rolled out in mass numbers is a challenge, and we continue to search for the ideal format.
Baroness Pidding (Con) [V]
My Lords, with the opening up of appointment slots for the fourth cohort, as announced by the Secretary of State last night, can the Minister assure all those in earlier cohorts that their second dose of the vaccine will be given in a timely manner within the 12-week timeframe, and how will this be managed?
Lord Bethell (Con)
I completely recognise the concern of my noble friend and of many in the Chamber on this point, so I shall provide concrete reassurance. Everyone will receive their second dose within 12 weeks of the first one. All those booked in at vaccination centres will have an appointment, made at the same time, to receive their second dose, and those who do not have a date today will receive one from their GP.
Lord Laming (CB) [V]
My Lords, the Minister will know that six out of 10 people with dementia live in their own home, so they depend on a range of care workers coming into their home—sad to say, often without PPE and some even without face masks. In contrast, those living in residential care have now gone almost a year without being allowed a visit from a loved one—they are not able even to hold their hand. Does the Minister agree that now is the time to set up a formal review in order for us to learn the lessons of the impact of Covid-19 on the over-75s suffering from dementia?
Lord Bethell (Con)
The noble Lord explains the situation of those who have been in care homes and separated from their loved ones extremely well. We all feel extremely heartbroken by the stories of people who have been separated from their loved ones, but we need to put the saving of life as the first priority. Visits have been allowed outdoors, behind screens and in safe environments. I appreciate that that is not the same as an intimate face-to-face meeting but, where we can, we have put in place guidelines to ensure that people are protected. A review of the guidelines will happen on 22 February, and that seems the right moment to review these procedures.
Lord Bhatia (Non-Afl) [V]
My Lords, can the Minister confirm that those over 75 years of age must receive the vaccine first?
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, the priority list from the JCVI indicates that all residents in care homes, older adults and those over 80 will be first. But, with the current state of the rollout, all those over 65 should have been offered a vaccine, and I encourage them all to step up and respond to the letter when they receive it.
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
I would like to ask the noble Lord about domestic abuse. Next year, ONS data collection will, for the first time, include those aged over 75 who suffer from domestic abuse. That is an important step forward. However, the pandemic has meant that many older people at risk of domestic abuse are indeed isolated and at risk. So what steps are the Government taking to collect data on the impact of domestic abuse on over-75s during the pandemic and to ensure that appropriate support is in place for older victims and survivors?
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, the noble Baroness makes the point extremely powerfully. Of course, our prevailing feeling is of admiration for all those who have, through love and companionship, cared for those who are shielding or at home. But of course, as the noble Baroness alludes to, there are instances when, through either domestic tension or simple abuse, there is violence, and we cannot hide from that fact. I am not aware of a current trial or piece of research on this matter but I will take it back to the department and undertake to write to the noble Baroness with an update.
Lord Roberts of Llandudno (LD) [V]
I declare a personal interest in this question. One thing that has really helped to keep elderly people informed has been broadcasts, which they have accessed through the free TV licence. I hope that the Minister will make sure that the free licence continues long after the pandemic is over.
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, that is slightly beyond the reach of the Department of Health and Social Care, but I appreciate the noble Lord’s point.
The Lord Speaker (Lord Fowler)
My Lords, the time allowed for this Question has elapsed and we now come to the second Oral Question.
Osteoporosis: Treatment
(3 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Black of Brentwood
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what plans they have to ensure that people with osteoporosis have (1) equitable, and (2) timely, access to treatment.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Lord Bethell) (Con)
My Lords, to reduce variation in osteoporosis services, NHS RightCare has published the pathway for falls and fragility fractures, which advises local commissioners on optimising osteoporosis services. The Government have also provided an extra £1 billion to fund elective recovery in 2021-22. Patients can also use the resources of the Royal Osteoporosis Society.
Lord Black of Brentwood (Con) [V]
My Lords, broken bones seriously impact on the lives of the elderly, causing significant ill health and premature death. Many arise unnecessarily as a result of undiagnosed or inadequately treated osteoporosis. Is my noble friend aware that one in five women who sustain a fracture have to break three or more bones before diagnosis and that fewer than half of women sustaining a hip fracture after the age of 50 receive treatment for osteoporosis the following year? As these are unacceptable figures, with huge costs to the NHS, what action will the Government take to ensure that patients are identified, treated and managed effectively in primary care, including proper access to fracture liaison services?
Lord Bethell (Con)
My noble friend is prescient to raise this issue on a day like today, which is slippy and dangerous for those who may take a fall. He is entirely right that the early diagnosis and treatment of osteoporosis are critical for those suffering bone fractures as well as for the system as a whole. The fracture liaison service can play a key role in reducing the risk of fractures in patients and to this end it has been promoted and recognised as best practice by NHS England. As part of the falls and fragility fracture audit programme the fracture liaison service database measures participation and standards in fracture liaison services.
The Lord Speaker (Lord Fowler)
Baroness Chisholm of Owlpen. No? I call the noble Baroness, Lady Bull.
Baroness Bull (CB)
My Lords, the Minister has rightly pointed to fracture liaison services and the vital role they play, but only half of the population in England currently has access to an FLS, compared to 100% in Scotland and Northern Ireland. Is the Minister aware of the recent economic analysis that suggested that upscaling provision to cover all over-50s in the UK could prevent an estimated 5,686 fragility fractures every year, with net cost savings of £1.2 million? Will the Government commit to 100% coverage for fracture liaison services and if not, why not?
Lord Bethell (Con)
The noble Baroness is entirely right. There is significant regional variation in the rates of fragility fractures within the older population with the lowest incidence observed in London, the east of England and the south-east and the highest in the south-west of England, Northern Ireland and Scotland. To reduce variation in osteoporosis services in 2017, NHS England’s RightCare programme published cases studies and pathways for the management of osteoporosis and fragility fractures. The noble Baroness is right that we should have high aspirations in this matter. I am not sure that I can commit to 100%, but I will return to the department and see if we could be doing more.
Baroness Quin (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I do not have a specific interest to declare, but I have been a member of the All-Party Parliamentary Osteoporosis Group and fully support the Royal Osteoporosis Society. Will the Government commit themselves to some kind of timetable for the achievement of a comprehensive system such as exists in Scotland and Northern Ireland? Will they meet the Royal Osteoporosis Society and interested parliamentarians to discuss the specific issue of delays in access to treatment which have understandably emerged during the current Covid crisis?
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, the noble Baroness is right to press me for a timetable but, unfortunately, that is not something I can commit to from the Dispatch Box today. However, I would appreciate the opportunity to meet the Royal Osteoporosis Society and will put an appointment in the diary for as soon as possible.
Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted (LD) [V]
My Lords, given the high incidence of osteoporosis in women aged over 50, of whom 50% are affected, and low levels of vitamin D in the population, what plans are there to help increase the consumption of vitamin D, which helps prevent osteoporosis? Is the mandatory nutritional fortification of some foods under consideration?
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, the CMO has recently issued new guidance on the consumption of vitamin D and there has been widespread discussion about its dosage level. My understanding is that we are leaving the matter at that for the moment. I am not aware that the mandatory application of vitamin D to food is on the runway at the moment, but I am happy to check that point and write to the noble Baroness.
Baroness Wheeler (Lab)
My Lords, your Lordships’ House recently discussed the importance of medical research and government financial support for the fundraising and work of key charities on new brain tumour research treatments. With an estimated 3.5 million people aged over 50 currently affected by osteoporosis, many suffering chronic pain and disability, research on this is also vital. What resources does the NHS currently spend on osteoporosis research? Will the Minister undertake to consider the financial support, including match funding, that the Government can provide to the Royal Osteoporosis Society’s newly launched research academy and its potentially game-changing road map, which charts the key steps for researching a cure for this extremely debilitating disease?
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, I do not have the figures for the precise amount that the Government spend on osteoporosis research at the moment, but I am happy to write to the noble Baroness with them if they are available. We are enormously grateful to the Royal Osteoporosis Society for its contribution to medical research. I can confirm that it has received a grant of £258,000 to support important work providing support for the vulnerable during the pandemic. That comes out of the package of £750 million that the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced to support the charity and voluntary sector during the Covid pandemic.
Lord Brownlow of Shurlock Row (Con) [V]
My Lords, I take this opportunity to congratulate my noble friend the Minister and thank him for his dedication at the Dispatch Box over the past 11 months. I declare my interest as a patron of the Royal Osteoporosis Society. Further to the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Bull, is my noble friend aware that only 55% of the population in England have access to fracture liaison services, which have been shown to diagnose people with osteoporosis faster and move them on to treatment quicker? What plans do Her Majesty’s Government have to improve this and make access to fracture liaison services more available?
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, the Royal Osteoporosis Society estimates that there are 95 fracture liaison services across England and Wales. While it is true that many cover more than one hospital, it should be remembered that they are non-specialist services and therefore CCGs are able to refer patients to fracture liaison services beyond their area. As I mentioned, we have a RightCare programme publishing case studies and pathways to encourage the greater rollout of best practice, but we are conscious that gaps remain and are working hard to close them as soon as possible.
Baroness Stuart of Edgbaston (Non-Afl)
My Lords, if the Minister were to go to Birmingham, he would find acclaimed fracture liaison services in the south, but in the north and east of the city they are not available, yet they are all part of the same clinical commissioning group. Will he encourage that group to ensure that there is equality of access across its geographical area and not to create a postcode lottery within it?
Lord Bethell (Con)
The noble Baroness alludes to a point slightly beyond the reach of the junior Minister in the department; we have a degree of federalisation, as she knows. However, I completely agree with and applaud the sentiment. We need more comprehensive coverage of fracture liaison services. We believe in the principle of 100% coverage, to which the noble Baroness, Lady Bull, alluded. I will look into whether we can do more in Birmingham to get a wider service.
Baroness Massey of Darwen (Lab) [V]
My Lords, the Royal Osteoporosis Society points out the enormous cost to the NHS of osteoporosis-related fractures and the distress of those who suffer. This implies that prevention should be improved. Will the Minister say how diagnostic services will be enhanced in relation to, for example, bone density scans and GP practices?
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, we do a lot of work on prevention. Vitamin D is made available and we have fracture liaison services to look at those who present themselves with a fracture to diagnose osteoporosis. A vast amount is already done. I am sure that more could be done, but this is an elusive and difficult to diagnose condition, which relies on those who fear that their bone density may be low presenting themselves to their GP for diagnosis.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, it is quite clear that preventive healthcare can assist here, through not only vitamin D but exercise patterns. Have the Government considered getting a comprehensive exercise plan for the over-50s that will encourage them to undertake activity that improves muscle mass and bone density, both of which protect against this?
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, last year we launched a massive campaign, the Better Health campaign, to encourage healthier living with respect to both eating habits and fitness—I can report to the House that I have committed myself to that campaign and it is bearing some good fruit. We are spending hundreds of millions on marketing, we have engaged dieting services for those who wish to be involved in them, and we have mobilised a huge number of exercise regimes, including the park runs. These are bearing up well, but I encourage all those who wish to have a healthier life to do more.
The Lord Speaker (Lord Fowler)
My Lords, the time allowed for this Question has elapsed. We now come to the third Oral Question.
Overseas Territories: Humanitarian and Disaster Relief
(3 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Lancaster of Kimbolton
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the United Kingdom Overseas Territories’ preparedness for humanitarian and disaster relief operations.
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon) (Con)
My Lords, the FCDO and MoD provide significant support to Bermuda and the Caribbean territories to ensure that they are ready for the annual hurricane season. The FCDO has helped to establish search and rescue capabilities in the territories, and new defence regiments in the Cayman Islands and the Turks and Caicos Islands will be trained to respond to such disasters. The FCDO continues to invest in capability building to ensure that territories are ready for a range of humanitarian and disaster operations.
Lord Lancaster of Kimbolton (Con)
The Royal Navy has a forward presence in the Caribbean during hurricane season to support our overseas territories, but the real challenge is getting access to islands once the hurricanes hit, as the ports and airports can be damaged. That is why in 2017, post Hurricane Irma, we raised two new Army Reserve units on the Cayman Islands and the Turks and Caicos Islands to deliver humanitarian assistance and disaster relief on island and open those ports. These have been a tremendous success with strong local support, and I was privileged in my military capacity to see the commissioning of the first officers at Sandhurst last year. Can my noble friend the Minister tell us whether there are now plans to raise similar units on Anguilla and the British Virgin Islands?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, I first pay tribute to my noble friend for his work during his term as Minister for the Armed Forces in creating, and being instrumental in establishing, these new units in both the Cayman Islands and the Turks and Caicos Islands, which joined Bermuda in this respect. He is quite right: these provide operational capacity and capability within the territories. No other territory has yet expressed an interest in establishing defence forces, but I assure my noble friend that we stand ready to support them if indeed they wish to do so.
Lord West of Spithead (Lab)
My Lords, as we speak, HMS “Medway” is on station in the West Indies, providing reassurance and support, safeguarding our north Atlantic Caribbean territories and getting to know the many islands and their civilian emergency services and support facilities, so as to assist in an emergency, whether it be a hurricane, volcanic eruption or instability caused by the drugs trade. Warships can move hundreds of miles a day, and offer communications, engineers, medics, food, fresh water and resilient, disciplined manpower. Bearing in mind that we have overseas territories across the south Atlantic, in the Indian and Pacific oceans, some with the largest marine protection zones in the world, does the Minister believe we have sufficient ships to safeguard them and their resources appropriately?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, I can assure the noble Lord that we have sufficient resources, in respect of both the military operations and the support. I have myself seen the strength of having military assets within the territories during and in the aftermath of such hurricanes. We all remember RFA “Mounts Bay” playing a sterling role as first responder. I assure him that, together with our military assets and the other investments we have made, we stand ready to support our territories within the region.
Baroness Northover (LD)
My Lords, as the Minister himself has admitted, the Government reacted too slowly to the devastating 2017 hurricanes in the Caribbean. In 2018, the Government, including the noble Lord, Lord Lancaster, announced that they hoped to secure multinational co-ordination in the region. What progress has been made?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, I will look at Hansard—I do not think I admitted to that. What I did say was that we had to respond afterwards; we had assets in the region. I am sure the noble Baroness will recall that we were among the first countries to react and work with key regional partners. I can assure her that we have been investing and working with regional partners. The multinational co-ordination cell of the Caribbean is a UK concept, and we are working with key partners from the United States and France and the Netherlands and Canadian militaries to co-ordinate a large-scale response if indeed the tragedy of hurricanes should hit again.
Baroness Hooper (Con)
My Lords, given the rich biodiversity of the overseas territories, where it is generally recognised that 94% of unique British species are to be found, what special assessment and consideration is given by the Government to this aspect of preparations for disaster relief emergencies?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, my noble friend is right to draw attention to the important work in this respect. The UK’s Darwin Initiative supports the OTs to increase their resilience in the face of climate change by funding projects. The CSSF has also provided OTs with over £4.6 million for capacity building through the Maritime and Coastguard Agency, and we are very proud of the 4.3 million square kilometres of MPAs within our overseas territories.
Lord Singh of Wimbledon (CB) [V]
My Lords, the Government and our Navy are to be congratulated on their timely assistance to our Caribbean and other overseas territories. Does the Minister agree that recurring natural disasters are a fact of life for many, and that the best way of mitigating suffering is to facilitate co-operation between territories in the regions to share best practice and ensure the pooling and rapid deployment of resources to the affected areas?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
I can assure the noble Lord of that, as I said to the noble Baroness, Lady Northover. We work very closely with CDEMA, the regional emergency response agency in the region.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My Lords, in an FCO press release in July 18, announcing the measures that we were taking to support the overseas territories following 2017, the Minister said we were going to work with partners for an “effective and strategic response” for future hurricanes. One of the four priorities of the Sendai framework is disaster risk governance and how we manage disaster risk. Can he tell us what mechanism the Government have put in place to support the overseas territories to do exactly that?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, I assure the noble Lord that we have done just that. In the event of a major hurricane impact, the relief and recovery unit leads on providing immediate and medium-term programme funding response. I have already referred to the multinational co-ordination cell within the Caribbean, and we work very closely with CDEMA specifically. It is based in Bermuda but, at the moment, given the Covid crisis, it is set up on a virtual basis.
Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD) [V]
My Lords, the Minister said that other overseas territories have not asked to have reserve units to deal with crisis response. Will the Government consider being proactive and suggesting to some of our overseas territories that it would be a good idea to follow the example of the Turks and Caicos?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, we were proactive; in this I pay tribute once again to my noble friend. It was he who wrote to me and we then acted together; he facilitated the training. However, I take on board the noble Baroness’s point, and we will continue to present the benefits of such regiments to all the territories.
The Lord Bishop of Coventry
My Lords, climate change is the context in which this conversation is happening. Given the marine diversity and repository of so much of the world’s biodiversity in the overseas territories, how will the Government ensure that the voices of the overseas territories will be amplified in the forthcoming COP 26 summit?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, as the Minister for the Overseas Territories, I assure the noble Lord that I have a loud voice in the Government, and I will ensure we do just that.
Lord Randall of Uxbridge (Con) [V]
My Lords, I declare my interest as a trustee of the UK Overseas Territories Conservation Forum. My noble friend the Minister will be aware of the environmental disaster affecting the coral reefs in the Caribbean, caused by stony coral tissue loss disease. This will have an enormous knock-on effect on tourism and, consequently, the economy of these overseas territories. Our noble friend Lord Goldsmith of Richmond is being extremely helpful with the environmental side, but will the Minister look into what further the FCDO can do to assist and avert what potentially could be a real disaster for those overseas territories?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
I assure my noble friend that my noble friend Lord Goldsmith does not carry responsibilities only in Defra; he is also a Minister at the FCDO, and his views are well represented in our discussions on the point that my noble friend raises.
Lord McConnell of Glenscorrodale (Lab)
My Lords, when the United Nations sustainable development goals were agreed in 2015, resilience from the shocks of extreme weather events was a key element of the purpose behind agreeing them in such a comprehensive fashion. In their discussions with the overseas territories and others, will the Government ensure that setting a framework within the sustainable development goals is part of the long-term strategy for improving resilience to extreme weather events, rather than just reacting to them?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
The noble Lord makes a very valid and practical point. That is exactly the focus for ensuring long-term resilience, as he suggests.
Lord Flight (Con)
My Lords, sending disaster relief can be less than successful and very expensive. There is thus a case for overseas territories having their own reserve units. As an example of those set up through my noble friend’s help, the Caymans and the Turks and Caicos have their own units. I believe that the Channel Islands have had reserve units for two or three centuries, or more. For how many other British Overseas Territories would it be viable to have their own reserve units?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
I assure my noble friend that we are taking the example of the territories that have established these reserve units to see how others can build up their capacity and capability. I continue to engage with my noble friend who initiated this process. I assure my noble friend Lord Flight further that the overseas territories work very much in a collaborative fashion, as I have seen myself, whether in the sharing of assets or training, or in learning from each other. We as a Government facilitate those discussions.
The Lord Speaker (Lord Fowler)
My Lords, all supplementary questions have been asked and we now move to the fourth Oral Question.
Online Gambling: Stake Limits
(3 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Foster of Bath
To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to the announcement by the Gambling Commission on 2 February of new protections and controls for those who gamble through online slots games, what plans they have to introduce measures to apply stake limits to online gambling.
Lord Foster of Bath (LD) [V]
My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper and declare my interests as set out in the register.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Baroness Barran)
My Lords, we welcome the Gambling Commission’s new measures on online slots games, which will help to reduce the intensity of play and protect vulnerable people. We are seeking evidence on the case for and against further controls, such as stake limits, as part of the Gambling Act review. It will be an evidence-based review to ensure that we get the right balance between respecting freedom of choice and preventing harms.
Lord Foster of Bath (LD) [V]
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her response but I was concerned by the Government’s apparent complacency. Only last week, shocking research by Oxford University revealed the devastating impact on the health of those who gamble more than they can afford, including an increased likelihood of suicide. That shows the urgent need for measures on affordability and tighter restrictions on advertising, for example. If the Gambling Commission also proposes online stake limits, will the Government ensure their early introduction without waiting for the outcome of the gambling review?
Baroness Barran (Con)
I cannot accept that this Government have been complacent about reviewing measures in relation to gambling and protecting vulnerable people. We have made a number of changes, most importantly in recently announcing the full-scale review. We will continue to implement things as quickly as they are needed and not wait for legislation.
Lord Empey (UUP) [V]
My Lords, my noble friend may be aware that our former Select Committee on Financial Exclusion, of which I was a member, learned that gambling companies deliberately targeted the most vulnerable in our community. They knew exactly who was watching TV at three in the morning. With the tidal wave of increased advertising, is it not time, given the severe damage being caused, for the Government to consider a precept or special tax on these companies to offset the increased costs in health and social care resulting from abuses that are clearly taking place in our country?
Baroness Barran (Con)
I thank my noble friend for his question. As we have said, we are considering all options in this regard but have also made major commitments to increasing provision for those who are negatively impacted by gambling. We hope very much that the evidence arising from the review will shape that thinking going forward.
Lord Smith of Hindhead (Con)
My Lords, I refer to my interests as set out in the register. Does my noble friend agree that if a limit on stakes for online prizes is introduced, as I think it should be, then such limits must apply equally to the maximum stake for all National Lottery online instant win games, which is currently £10?
Baroness Barran (Con)
The current maximum stake for National Lottery online instant win games has actually been changed to £5, following the Gambling Commission’s decision to withdraw all £10 online instant win games last summer. The National Lottery is regulated under a separate framework from commercial gambling, which reflects the lower ratios of harm observed there.
Lord Berkeley of Knighton (CB) [V]
My Lords, on the plus side, it is noticeable how advertising is now more strenuous in warning about the dangers of gambling. But specialists in addiction tell us that the mere act of suggestion—a bottle to an alcoholic, a syringe to a drug addict, and slot games or horses to gamblers—act as incentives to partake. So it is, as we have heard, the sheer frequency of advertising that is worrying. Does the Minister therefore feel that there is a genuine desire by the gambling industry to restrict the terrible damage that can affect whole families, given its obvious conflict of interests?
Baroness Barran (Con)
I obviously cannot speak on behalf of the industry but looking at advertising and marketing, direct and indirect, is a core part of the review and one of its six main aims. Two recent consultations on advertising have just closed and there will be a response soon—one in relation to the appeal of gambling adverts to children and vulnerable people, and one around advertising and selling items in video games. I think we are all aiming for the same goal of that balance between freedom and protection.
Baroness Armstrong of Hill Top (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I know that the Minister shares with me a concern about the apparently increasing number of women who are gambling, which has a huge impact on their lives and the lives of their families and children. What assessment have the Government therefore made of the number of women who suffer from a gambling disorder in the UK? Do the Government believe that we currently have the right treatment, and enough of it, to have proper intervention for women? Does the Minister feel that there are satisfactory levels of treatment and intervention?
Baroness Barran (Con)
The noble Baroness makes an important point. The latest data that we have shows that 87% of women gambled at the same level or less during the past year, while the quarterly survey that is run shows 0.3% of women gamblers identifying as problem gamblers. The noble Baroness is right that this data relates to the last year so more work and research needs to be done to understand the true extent, and therefore the need for additional treatment and support when we have understood that fully.
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD) [V]
My Lords, it has been suggested that stake limits online may drive gamblers to the unregulated black market. The most addictive form of online gambling is slots with no stake limit. Does the Minister agree that, while concerns around the gambling black market should be addressed, these should not impede reform of the regulated sector, including online gambling?
Baroness Barran (Con)
We are very keen to address all issues, such as online slots, which, as the noble Baroness says, is one of the most harmful and riskiest forms of gambling with the highest loss ratios. That is why these recent changes which affect the design of games are so important, but we will need to navigate in the review a number of overlapping factors, including the black market.
Lord Mancroft (Con)
My Lords, I wish to draw attention to my interests in the register. Gambling companies make 60% of their profits from just 5% of players and they create VIP schemes especially for high-spend customers to encourage them to play more and more—effectively, to lose more and more money. When are the Government going to ban these VIP schemes and put measures in place to ensure that what someone spends on gambling is affordable to them?
Baroness Barran (Con)
My noble friend is right to raise the issue of VIP schemes. Our understanding is that since the commission challenged the industry on this, the number of customers in VIP schemes has fallen by 70%, and the rules governing the schemes formally came into force at the end of October. We will continue to monitor them and, if further action is needed, the Gambling Commission is ready to take it.
Lord Sikka (Lab) [V]
My Lords, the Gambling Commission is, as always, playing catch-up. Does the Minister agree that it needs to be proactive? Will the Government introduce legislation under which all gambling products, prior to their launch, would be assessed for their capacity to cause social harm?
Baroness Barran (Con)
The Gambling Commission has been very active, particularly in the last year with the risks around Covid and lockdown. We are currently looking at funding, and there is a consultation out on an uplift to Gambling Commission fees, to make sure that it can keep pace with the industry.
The Lord Speaker (Lord Fowler)
My Lords, the time allowed for this Question has elapsed, which brings Question Time to an end.
Non-Domestic Rating (Public Lavatories) Bill
Lord Ashton of Hyde
That the order of commitment of 18 January committing the Bill to a Grand Committee be discharged, and that the Bill be committed to a Committee of the Whole House.
Business of the House
Lord Ashton of Hyde
That with effect from 18 February until further Order debates on motions for general debate, whether taken in the hybrid House or hybrid Grand Committee, shall be time limited to one of 1½, 3 or 5 hours, and that this time limit may be varied in accordance with this Order with the unanimous agreement of members taking part at the commencement of proceedings.
Lord Ashton of Hyde (Con)
My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend the Leader of the House, I beg to move the second Motion standing in her name on the Order Paper. This Motion will give us more flexibility in how we are able to schedule general debates, which since last May have been automatically time-limited to three hours. When scheduling such debates in future, any one of the three time limits set out in the Motion could apply. This was discussed and agreed at the last meeting of the Procedure and Privileges Committee and is the same system that exists for SIs, which has worked well.
Business of the House
Lord Ashton of Hyde
That, in the event of the Ministerial and other Maternity Allowances Bill having been brought from the House of Commons:
(1) Standing Order 46 (No two stages of a Bill to be taken on one day) be dispensed with on Thursday 25 February to allow more than one stage of the Bill to be taken on that day;
(2) The report of the Committee on the Bill shall be received forthwith, whether or not the Committee amends the Bill, and no amendments shall be tabled for consideration on Report; and
(3) In accordance with Standing Order 48 (Amendments on Third Reading), amendments shall not be moved on Third Reading.
Lord Ashton of Hyde (Con)
My Lords, the Ministerial and other Maternity Allowances Bill was introduced to the House of Commons on Thursday last week. It is expected to be taken through all of its remaining Commons stages on Thursday this week. The Bill will have its Second Reading in this House on Monday 22 February, for which the speakers’ list is open. This Motion will allow us to take the Bill through its remaining stages on Thursday 25 February. The Motion provides for a substantive Committee stage, but not for a Report stage. In accordance with Standing Order 48, amendments will not be possible on Third Reading. Noble Lords will be able to table amendments for Committee between the point at which the Bill arrives and 4 pm on Monday 22 February. Any amendments will be marshalled and grouped in the usual way. I am grateful to the Legislation Office for the arrangements it has put in place. I beg to move.
Baroness Wheeler (Lab)
My Lords, this is a short, necessary Bill and the procedures are right to ensure it is in place in time for the Attorney-General’s maternity leave. We support it and particularly welcome the agreement with the Government for the Front-Bench teams in the Commons and the Lords to meet and go through related areas, such as paternity and adoption leave, and consider how they can be taken forward later this year. Indeed, we on these Benches look forward to the day when all women can get the maternity leave and pay which means they can take the time off to care for a newborn without a dramatic fall in income.
Lord Ashton of Hyde (Con)
I am very grateful to the noble Baroness for her words.
Arrangement of Business
Lord Ashton of Hyde (Con)
My Lords, I thought this would be a convenient point to confirm the arrangements for the Easter Recess. Subject, as is always the case, to the progress of business, we will rise at the conclusion of proceedings on Thursday 25 March and return on Monday 12 April. I will place a copy of these dates in the Royal Gallery.
UK Shellfish Exports
(3 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab) [V]
My Lords, in the Commons yesterday George Eustice once again tried to portray the fishing settlement as a good deal, whereas the truth is that it is unravelling as we speak. It is no wonder UK fishers feel angry and betrayed. You would have thought that the negotiations of the trade and co-operation agreement would have tied down the future access of live bivalve molluscs to the EU at the time of the agreement, rather than as an afterthought when damage to the sector has already been done. As a result, hundreds of tonnes of stock have had to be dumped and the multi-million-pound industry has ground to a halt.
These are more than teething problems. The future of the sector is at stake. The Minister has described the negotiations as technical discussions, but what is to stop the EU reopening other aspects of the fishing deal in return for a settlement on live molluscs? In the meantime, can the Minister clarify exactly what compensation will be made available to those whose livelihoods are affected by the loss of that EU market? Will they have access to the £23 million disruption fund made available for other fishers whose markets have been disrupted? Will the Government consider increasing this fund now that many more fishers appear to need compensation?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Gardiner of Kimble) (Con) [V]
[Inaudible]—to Commissioner Kyriakides, because we want to restore the trade in undepurated live bivalve molluscs. That is the issue here. We think that the interpretation that the Commission has come to is not correct, and we wish to have discussions with the Commission about it. A 25% uplift in fishing opportunities is an important part of the trade and co-operation agreement, and we will be working on that. As the Government have announced, not only is there a £23 million fund for those who have been in difficulty in these early stages but we will invest in a £100 million fund for fishing over the next three years. There is a lot of promise and a lot of opportunity for British fishing interests and the shellfish industry as well.
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD) [V]
My Lords, it is unfortunate for the Government that the BBC is currently screening its series on the Cornwall fishing industry, filmed last year. All see the dramatic effect on the Cornish crab industry of the withdrawal of the Chinese market, and now the EU is refusing to take its shellfish, which was previously acceptable. The Statement says that scallops are less affected than other bivalve molluscs. This is not the impression that I am gaining from the television coverage of the scallop fisheries in Scotland. However, can the Minister explain what the exact problem is with the class B waters around Wales and the south-west? If these waters were acceptable before 3 February, why not afterwards?
Lord Gardiner of Kimble (Con) [V]
The noble Baroness has hit on why we wish to have discussions with the Commission. It interprets the matter as being one of public health. The point is that all molluscs exported from class B waters have to be depurated. That is undertaken by businesses near to the market on the continent, and it is on that we are seeking redress. The Commission made it clear in September 2019—and I can put copies of the correspondence in the House Library along with the letter to the Commissioner—that molluscs exported for purification can be certified. We therefore think that there is an issue that we need to clarify.
Lord Lilley (Con)
My Lords, is not this and other measures taken recently by the EU to punish the UK for leaving its jurisdiction a flagrant abuse not only of the EU’s own laws but of several international laws such as the WTO SPS agreement, which states that WTO members
“shall accept the sanitary or phytosanitary measures of other Members as equivalent, even if these measures differ from their own”—
ours, of course, are identical—as well as the recent TCA, which states that each party shall ensure that SPS measures
“are not applied in a manner which would constitute arbitrary or unjustifiable discrimination against … the other Party’s territory where identical or similar SPS conditions exist”,
which they do in this case? I hope that my noble friend will make this lawlessness apparent to this House, which always maintains the importance of upholding international law.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble (Con) [V]
Again, my noble friend is correct to raise this point. It is why the Secretary of State wrote to Commissioner Kyriakides yesterday. We wish to meet her and her officials, because we simply do not understand the legal interpretation of what has come out of the Commission very recently, which is entirely contrary to what we had been told previously.
Lord Kilclooney (CB)
My Lords, the Minister will be aware that molluscs cannot be transferred across the United Kingdom, from Great Britain into Northern Ireland, all due to the Northern Ireland protocol. Is he aware that there is today a meeting between the European Union and the Irish Government to reach an agreement whereby all new laws introduced by the EU which may affect Northern Ireland will first have to be submitted to the Dublin Government for their approval? This is a united Ireland in operation and in practice. The approval of events in Northern Ireland is now subject to the control and decision of Dublin and not of London.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble (Con) [V]
My Lords, what the noble Lord has said is important. The working of the Northern Ireland protocol and the fact that Northern Ireland is part, clearly, of the United Kingdom, our quartet of nations, are why the meeting that the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster will have with the Vice-President of the Commission on Thursday is important. We wish to conduct trade as good neighbours, but within the context that we are a United Kingdom.
Lord Knight of Weymouth (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I have recently been in touch with my friend Ronnie Norquoy, who operates boats from Orkney. He tells me that this ban is only the latest in a series of crises: first, the restriction of the China market; secondly, Covid closing the hospitality sector market; thirdly, the wave of red tape and export chaos caused by Brexit; and, now, the Seafood Producers Resilience Fund, which barely covers two weeks of his operating costs. These are not teething troubles. When will the Government get serious about rescuing this vital sector that is fast going out of business?
Lord Gardiner of Kimble (Con) [V]
My Lords, that is precisely why we wish to discuss with Commissioner Kyriakides a situation that we do not think is founded on a correct interpretation of the law. It is clear that the fishing and shellfish industries are going through difficulties, as the noble Lord said, partly because of a reduction in demand due to Covid and partly because of issues that we need to resolve. However, in the long term this is a very important part of our food supply and we will support it.
The Earl of Caithness (Con) [V]
My Lords, it is frustrating that the EU is behaving in the way it is on so many issues. Would be it possible to get the class B waters up to class A, as in Scotland? Is it economically feasible to have our own processing and cleansing plants here, so that we can produce the end product rather than having to let the Europeans do that for us?
Lord Gardiner of Kimble (Con) [V]
My noble friend makes an important point, which is that we all need to work on improving water quality—it is part of the 25-year environment plan and it is addressed in the Environment Bill. We believe that the depuration capacity in GB is sufficient to depurate all oysters produced in GB, but there is insufficient cover for the depuration of mussels, for instance. The £100 million fishing fund could be used to support traders setting up, for instance, a depuration centre. We will continue to explore all those options.
Lord Truscott (Ind Lab) [V]
My Lords, UK shellfish catches were valued at £393 million in 2019, so this is a very serious matter for the fishing industry, especially in the south-west. Is this not yet another example of a loose end left over from a botched negotiation with the EU over Brexit? Does the Minister now think that Brussels is trying to punish the UK for leaving the EU?
Lord Gardiner of Kimble (Con) [V]
My Lords, the Secretary of State has written to Commissioner Kyriakides in a very friendly and a constructive spirit. This issue relates to undepurated live bivalve molluscs and we are now addressing it. I hope that the discussions will resolve this matter so that this important trade can be resumed. It is important for exports; it is also important to all those businesses on the continent that have set up depuration outlets because they wish to be close to the final destination market. I think that this is where discussions with the EU will be very important.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Haskel) (Lab)
My Lords, the time allowed for this Question has elapsed.
Arrangement of Business
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Haskel) (Lab)
My Lords, hybrid proceedings will now resume. If the capacity of the Chamber is exceeded, I will immediately adjourn the House.
These proceedings will follow guidance issued by the Procedure and Privileges Committee. Since there are counterpropositions, any Member in the Chamber may speak. Any intending to do so should email the clerk or indicate when asked. All speakers will be called by the Chair. Short questions of elucidation after the Minister’s response are permitted but discouraged. A Member wishing to ask such a question, including Members in the Chamber, must email the clerk.
The groupings are binding. When putting the Question, I will collect voices in the Chamber only. Where there is no counterproposition, the Minister’s Motion may not be opposed. A participant, whether present or remote, who might wish to press a counterproposition to a Division must give notice to the Chair either in debate or by emailing the clerk. If a Member taking part remotely wants their voice accounted for, if the Question is put, they must make this clear when speaking. Noble Lords following proceedings remotely but not speaking may submit their voice—Content or Not Content—to the collection of the voices by emailing the clerk during the debate. Since there are two counterpropositions but only one debate, a Member who does any of these things must make it clear which Motion they are referring to: B1 or E1. Members cannot vote by email. The way to vote will be via the remote voting system.
Covert Human Intelligence Sources (Criminal Conduct) Bill
Tuesday 9th February 2021
(3 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Covert Human Intelligence Sources (Criminal Conduct) Act 2021 View all Covert Human Intelligence Sources (Criminal Conduct) Act 2021 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 168-I Marshalled list for Consideration of Commons reasons and amendment - (5 Feb 2021)
15:19 - Division conducted remotely on Motion B1 (as an amendment to Motion B) - Ayes: 143 / Noes: 311 - Motion B1 (as an amendment to Motion B) disagreed.
15:35 - Division conducted remotely on Motion E1 (as an amendment to Motion E) - Ayes: 127 / Noes: 296 - Motion E1 (as an amendment to Motion E) disagreed.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 1, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 1A.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)
My Lords, I begin by paying tribute to all noble Lords who have contributed to the debates on this Bill. The quality and detail of discussion have been exceptional, and even where the Government have not agreed with the remarks of noble Lords, I recognise the value they have added to the debate. I also thank those noble Lords with whom I have discussed the Bill directly to seek to reach agreement on key issues, and I thank Opposition Front-Benchers in particular for the collaborative approach they have taken. I hope that today, we are able to reach consensus on the issues raised in these amendments, and to provide the certainty and assurance that CHIS and operational partners deserve when this Bill moves on to the statute book.
I have been clear throughout these debates that the Government’s position on this Bill is driven by the need to ensure that this important tactic remains operationally workable. We cannot risk the operation of the tactic or create unintended risk of harm to CHIS, or indeed the wider public, through damaging amendments, even where the sentiment behind them is well-intentioned. However, where we have been able to provide additional reassurances about the safeguards underpinning the power in an operationally workable way, we have welcomed the opportunity to do so. I again thank the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, for his amendments on real-time notification. I hope I can demonstrate that same approach to the amendments we will discuss today.
Amendment 1 would place on the face of the Bill the requirement that an authorising officer must reasonably believe an authorisation is necessary and proportionate. As I have previously confirmed, it is indeed the case that the belief of the authorising officer should be a reasonable one. The revised code of practice confirms this, and in response to concerns raised by noble Lords, this was further amended to make that clear. However, placing this requirement on the face of the Bill risks casting doubt on whether the belief must be reasonable when that is not specified elsewhere—for example, in Section 29 of Part II of RIPA.
However, the Government are willing to be clearer still in the code of practice and specify that
“the person granting the authorisation must hold a reasonable belief that the authorisation is necessary and proportionate.”
I thank the noble Lords, Lord Anderson and Lord Paddick, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, for their engagement on this point, and I hope this provides the necessary reassurance on this issue.
Amendment 2 would place express limits on the face of the Bill. We have discussed at length why this is not workable and risks CHIS testing and harm to the public by enabling the development of wider initiation tests. To be clear, it is the assessment of operational partners that to explicitly rule out rape, for example, would lead to gangs asking potential members to rape people to prove that they are not working on behalf of the state.
Let me once again confirm that the necessity and proportionality tests and the Human Rights Act provide limits to the conduct that can be authorised. An authorisation that is not compatible with the Human Rights Act will not be lawful, and this is clear in the training and guidance of all public authorities. I ask all noble Lords to seriously consider, therefore, whether we should risk CHIS testing and serious harm to the public when the practical effect of Amendment 2 is not necessary. The Government will not support this amendment for these reasons, and I implore noble Lords to place weight on the advice of operational experts and do the same.
Amendment 3 relates to the criminal injuries compensation scheme. As I said earlier, the Government are listening to ways of providing additional reassurances to Parliament and the public with regard to the safeguards underpinning this legislation where that is operationally workable. Therefore, recognising the views of noble Lords on Report, we are bringing forward an amendment in lieu which makes it clear that a person can access the compensation scheme where appropriate. Therefore, I hope noble Lords are reassured on this point.
Amendment 4 relates to the authorisation of juveniles and vulnerable adults. Let me start by thanking the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham and the noble Lords, Lord Russell of Liverpool and Lord Kennedy of Southwark, for their extensive engagement on this issue. I also pay tribute to Stella Creasy MP in the other place. This is an uncomfortable area and I completely understand why many noble Lords’ starting position would be to seek to prohibit any authorisation of a juvenile. The danger of that approach is that in prohibiting their use as a CHIS you increase their use by criminal gangs, which will be reassured that a juvenile cannot be working on behalf of the state.
Amendment 4 recognises this issue, and instead places additional safeguards into the Bill. The Government agree with the sentiment of this amendment but cannot support it in its current form, as it would create operational issues that would risk unintended consequences for the young person or vulnerable adult. For example, the amendment defines exceptional circumstances as those
“where all other methods to gain information have been exhausted”.
This requirement risks the workability of the power and, crucially, the safety of the juvenile. There may be occasions where there are other ways to gain the information, but these may not be the safest way to extricate the juvenile from the situation and lead to the best outcome for the juvenile involved.
Therefore, the Government have brought forward amendments in lieu. These capture the essence of this amendment and provide significant additional safeguards for the authorisations of these groups, but in an operationally workable form. The government amendments make clear that the authorising officer is under a duty to safeguard and promote the best interests of a juvenile and that the authorisation must be compatible with that duty. This reflects Article 3 of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. It also applies the same statutory safeguards that are in place for CHIS use and conduct authorisations to the new criminal conduct authorisations and requires the IPC to keep these enhanced safeguards under particular review. The use of such authorisations will therefore be subject to close and independent scrutiny, through both the real-time notification process, regular inspections and the IPC’s annual report, which is laid before Parliament.
I encourage all noble Lords to read the 2019 annual report, published in December last year, and I can quote from IPCO here to provide further reassurance today. The 2019 report stated:
“In the very rare instances when a juvenile is authorised as a CHIS, we conduct a close examination of the case. We examine every such case at inspection and focus on the safety and welfare of the juvenile and check that the use and tasking (conduct) is not endangering the CHIS or leading the juvenile to associate with criminals and environments that they would not otherwise encounter.”
I also reiterate another important point relating to oversight of authorisations. It will never be the case that just one individual in the public authority is involved in the authorisation process. RIPA requires the handler and the authorising officer to be different people, while the code of practice mandates that no authorising officer can authorise themselves, so no single officer could ever take a decision without consulting others.
In addition, recognising the views of noble Lords on Report, the amendments also place the requirement for a juvenile CHIS to be authorised only in exceptional circumstances into the Bill and tighten the existing definition of “exceptional circumstances”. Such circumstances will exist only where there is no reasonably foreseeable harm to the juvenile as a result of the authorisation, and where the authorisation is believed to be compatible with the best interests of the juvenile, as per Amendment 4.
The amendments in lieu further clarify that an appropriate adult must be in place for any meetings with an individual under the age of 16, and that there is a presumption that an appropriate adult will attend meetings with 16 and 17 year-olds, with any derogation from this position justified in writing. I hope noble Lords recognise the addition of this language to the Bill in response to concerns raised previously. I can also provide reassurance that the same principles apply to the underlying authorisation of the use and conduct of a juvenile CHIS; an appropriate adult must be in place for a meeting with a juvenile under the age of 16, and justification must be provided if one is not in place at meetings with 16 or 17-year olds.
The definition of “vulnerable adults” is deliberately broad so as to capture a wide range of people—including, for example, victims of modern slavery. The amendments recognise that children are a specific subset of vulnerable individuals, due to their age. It is appropriate for there to be consistent safeguards for all juveniles, as the reason for their vulnerability is the same. It is not possible to apply the “exceptional circumstances” requirement to all vulnerable individuals, as they will be considered to be vulnerable for a wide range of reasons and will require different levels of support. The safeguards, while still robust, recognise this distinction. The amendments add additional safeguards for vulnerable individuals, however. These require that an enhanced risk assessment must be carried out; the source must be capable of understanding and consenting to the deployment and any associated risks; and consideration must be given to the best interests of the source.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab) [V]
My Lords, at this stage in the journey of a Bill, I know your Lordships’ House will be mindful of its role as an unelected revising Chamber, but in the context of this Bill I humbly suggest that noble Lords be equally mindful of the serious constitutional, human rights and rule of law implications of the legislation, which was not a manifesto commitment of any party.
While mature democracies the world over have written constitutions and entrenched Bills of Rights, including ultimate strike-down powers with which their highest courts can protect fundamental rights and freedoms, that is not currently the case in the United Kingdom. Instead, the burden of protecting rights and freedoms must be more evenly shared between the judiciary and legislature. While your Lordships’ House lacks the other place’s elected legitimacy, it can in my view justify its existence at all only by having more of the independence of mind required to stand up for the most fundamental human rights of the vulnerable against state oppression, by accident or design, in the form of authorised criminality with total legal impunity.
Furthermore, the Joint Committee on Human Rights has an important role in our unusual constitutional scheme. It has been unequivocal in its critique of the ways this legislation violates the European Convention on Human Rights. Your Lordships took its clear advice, and that of my noble friend Lady Massey, in the form of the amendment banning the authorisation of certain grave crimes, in particular murder, rape and torture. The Government’s rebuttal is both circular and hollow. They argue that the grave offences in this amendment would provide a deadly checklist against which suspected undercover agents might be tested, but they also argue that the convention rights already provide these express prohibitions. This amendment might be either dangerous or superfluous, but it surely cannot be both. Which is it?
In the past, government lawyers have argued that the convention rights do not bind undercover agents of the state, and only recently, in the very litigation that provoked this Bill, they argued that agents are not precluded from committing murder. I am clear in my belief that the Human Rights Act binds undercover agents of the state, alongside the state itself. I would be grateful if the Minister could place her express agreement with that proposition on the record during today’s proceedings.
However, even that would not render this amendment superfluous, as the criminal law provides a clearer and more detailed set of instructions to all our citizens. This is essential to our nation’s compliance with convention rights. What would your Lordships’ House say if this kind of criminal immunity, without detailed limitation even for grave offences, were being passed in Russia, China or anywhere other than here? What would the Government say?
As a matter of conscience, and if only to record our grave concerns for the benefit of the litigators and senior jurists who will inevitably pick up the stitches that legislators have dropped, I will test the opinion of your Lordships’ House.
Baroness Hamwee (LD) [V]
My Lords, I will speak to Motions A, C and D and my noble friend Lord Paddick to Motions B and E. I thank the Minister and the Government for their engagement on the Bill, which raised far more issues than its slim size might have suggested.
The noble Lord, Lord Anderson, proposed the way forward on the first point, along with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas. They and we on these Benches would have far preferred the new Section 29B to require criminal conduct authorisations to require “reasonable belief” on the part of the person granting them that they are necessary and proportionate and that the requisite arrangements are in place—in other words, for that to be placed in the Bill. Necessity and proportionality are dependent on a belief which, as the Bill is drawn, is subjective, which dilutes the safeguards. The House agreed with us.
The Government have been concerned that, because Section 29 of RIPA—the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act—which deals with authorisation for the conduct and use of covert human sources, requires belief only, the different wording in new Section 29B would throw Section 29 into doubt. I understand the significance of consistency in legislation, but I do not entirely follow the argument in this case, since Section 32A, which was inserted into RIPA in 2012 and deals with authorisations, including those under Section 29—I hope noble Lords are following so far—provides for judicial authority if and only if the judicial authority is satisfied that there were reasonable grounds for believing and so on. Even if the argument is restricted to consistency, our view is that the term should be included in the Bill. The Commons disagreed with this on the basis of inconsistency, which would cast the doubt to which I have referred. The Solicitor-General assured them that
“the legal position is already that the belief must be reasonable, as a matter of public law.”—[Official Report, Commons, 27/1/21; col. 425.]
We have therefore come to the pragmatic solution that the statutory code of practice at paragraph 3.10 should not, as it says in the draft of the code, say that it is expected there should be reasonable belief. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, commented pithily that nothing could be less desirable. A mere expectation should not satisfy the Solicitor-General either. It is to be replaced by the words the Minister has quoted; I would be grateful if she could ensure that Hansard knows there are to be quotation marks around them, because they could have sounded descriptive rather than the text—the same changes are to be made at paragraph 6.4 of the code of practice. As the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, has commented, the police will rely on the code of practice—I hope I have not stolen his line.
On civil redress, during the passage of the Bill there have been different approaches to ensure that someone injured during the course of authorised conduct should be entitled to redress. We were repeatedly assured that no amendment was necessary; the Minister said the Bill did not “in practice” interfere with the criminal injuries compensation scheme, a term which I queried.
The cross-party amendment led on by the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, was agreed by the House by a very substantial majority. We now have a Commons reason that it would be
“inappropriate to create an exception to the effect of”
CCAs, which rather makes our point that an amendment is necessary, but I understand the sometimes slightly obscure process of coming to the formulation of reasons. We welcome this amendment, and we are pleased that the Government have found a form of words to cover the issue that they can live with and with which we are happy to live.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Alderdice) (LD)
The noble Baroness, Lady Massey of Darwen, has withdrawn so I call the next speaker, the noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich.
Lord Anderson of Ipswich (CB) [V]
My Lords, I shall speak to Motions A, C and E on the basis that each of them relates in some way to an earlier amendment in my name.
Motion A concerns Amendment 1, which I originally moved in Committee. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, I would have preferred the requirement that belief be reasonable to have been included in the Bill. However, I welcome the fact that it will at least now be plainly stated in the code of practice at paragraphs 3.10 and 6.4 in terms that improve significantly on the earlier suggested amendment—memorably described by my noble and learned friend Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd as the “worst of both worlds”. The new paragraphs will say plainly that
“the person granting the authorisation must hold a reasonable belief that the authorisation is necessary and proportionate.”
Something similar has been said from the Dispatch Box, but authorising officers will perhaps have the code of practice more readily to hand than the Official Report. I welcome the new wording and, like the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee—who, with the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, took over this amendment on Report—I do not oppose Motion A.
I turn to Motion C on the availability of compensation for the victims of authorised crimes. Lords Amendment 3, which your Lordships passed on Report by a majority of 91, provided that there was no bar to the criminal injuries compensation schemes in Great Britain and Northern Ireland being available to victims of authorised crimes. Without such a clause, it was at least possible that Section 27 of RIPA, which renders authorised activity lawful for all purposes, would have prevented such recourse. The Commons rejected that amendment, with the stated basis being that it was
“inappropriate to create an exception to the effect of criminal conduct authorisations.”
I am pleased that the Government have thought again. Their new clause is, so far as I can see, simply a competently drafted version of mine. It will mean that, should an act of violence ever be authorised, the innocent victim will not be disqualified from compensation by the fact that the perpetrator was a CHIS. It improves the Bill in a specific but potentially significant way.
Finally, Motion E originates in an amendment from my noble and learned friend Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd. That amendment would have improved my own Amendment 5 on real-time notification, which now constitutes Clause 3 of the Bill, by underlining what I believe in any event would be the practical reality: that the disapproval of a judicial commissioner will normally result in the cessation of all further activities undertaken pursuant to an authorisation. My noble and learned friend’s amendment was not agreed to in the other place, but he has negotiated in its place an acceptable alternative in the form of an amendment to the code of practice. It begins:
“Where a judicial commissioner makes observations in relation to a notification, it is for the authorising officer to determine what action should be taken”—
not whether any action should be taken, but what action should be taken, which implies that some action will be taken.
IPCO must then be informed of that action as soon as reasonably practicable, and the Investigatory Powers Commissioner retains full discretion to take what further steps may be thought appropriate—including, as the Minister expressly confirmed on Report, passing the file on to the Director of Public Prosecutions or his equivalent in Scotland and Northern Ireland. As the Minister clarified on 11 January, at cols. 497-98 of the Official Report of your Lordships’ House, if the authorisation is determined not to have met the statutory requirements of necessity and proportionality, nothing in this Bill or in RIPA itself prevents the prosecution either of those responsible for authorising the crime or of the person who committed it.
The consequences for anyone who has unlawfully issued a criminal conduct authorisation are therefore real and give the lie to any suggestion that the real-time notification procedure is without teeth. Successive Investigatory Powers Commissioners have been among our highest-ranking and most experienced judges, well capable of deploying both the bark and the bite. This Bill, read with its code of practice, equips them for both.
In short, we have a solution on each of these three amendments which is largely satisfactory. I thank the Bill team and the Minister for their constructive and courteous engagement with operational partners over many months. The Bill is not perfect—given the intractable subject matter, that is not surprising—but it has been very significantly improved by your Lordships. We can fairly say that we have done our job, and I look forward to seeing the Bill on the statute book.
Lord Paddick (LD) [V]
My Lords, I will speak to the two Motions on which the House will divide. Motion B asks that this House do not insist on its Amendment 2, which placed in the Bill a list of offences that a criminal conduct authorisation could not authorise. This amendment was suggested by the Joint Committee on Human Rights and was championed by the noble Baroness, Lady Massey of Darwen, and the noble Lord, Lord Dubs. The Commons disagree because doing this
“would place sources, and the wider public, at risk.”
As the Minister explained, the argument goes that sources could be tested against such a list to discover whether they were a CHIS and, further, that pursuant of testing to see if a person was a source, they would ask other people who were not CHIS to commit crimes listed in Lords Amendment 2.
Those arguments were demolished by the noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich, in Committee—and the Government have, to date, failed to address them. Australia, Canada and the United States of America have similar lists and they do not present the sort of difficulty in those countries that the Government claim would occur here. In a blatant act of whataboutery, the Minister responded that these countries were different because we have the Human Rights Act and they do not. On Report, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, comprehensively demolished the argument that the Human Rights Act was sufficient, but that is not why the Commons disagrees with Amendment 2.
What has the Human Rights Act got to do with the Commons disagreement? A list is published in each of the countries—Australia, Canada and the USA—of offences that CHIS cannot be authorised to commit, and the reasons the Commons has given for rejecting this amendment do not arise in those countries. Their CHIS are not tested against the list and there is no evidence that others are tested against it either. We are not talking about a hypothetical situation of “What if there was a list of prohibited offences?” but about the fact that this has been tried in practice for many years in similar jurisdictions and the Commons’ stated concerns do not exist.
The noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich, then went on to explain why he believed publishing a list is not a problem in those jurisdictions and why it would not be a problem here. If a gang tested a member by asking them to rape and the gang member refused, it could be that the gang member has scruples that he is not prepared to set aside. I could add to the noble Lord’s example and say that the gang member may be incapable of performing an act of rape in front of an audience or that his sexuality gets in the way of his being able to rape the man or woman he is being asked to rape. There are a host of more likely explanations as to why the gang member might not commit a serious crime other than that he might be a covert human intelligence source refusing to do so simply because he is a CHIS.
To paraphrase the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, a former Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation, also with direct experience of Northern Ireland, he said he found it hard to understand why a shortlist bearing no relation to the types of crime that would routinely be authorised should increase the risk to a CHIS or other members of the public or make it more likely that he would be successfully outed as a CHIS by the criminal group in which he is embedded. As a police officer of over 30 years’ experience, including direct experience of managing police informants, I do not understand either.
Baroness Kidron (CB) [V]
My Lords, I wish to speak to Motion D, the government amendment in lieu of Lords Amendment 4. I, too, thank the Minister for her time and the care that she showed when we met. I wish also to recognise Stella Creasy MP, who has done so much to advance this issue.
I warmly welcome the enhanced protections, most particularly on the definition of exceptional circumstances. Experts have made clear to me that if that is applied rigorously, coupled with the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, it will indeed make a real difference on the ground. Asking children to undertake illegal activities on behalf of the authorities is a place that none of us wants to be in, but as the Bill does precisely that, by formalising and giving permission to instruct child operatives to commit crime, it must be to the highest order of protection. It is the question of what a child is that I wish to raise once more.
A child of 16 or 17 is still a child, as defined by the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child and in our laws, and treated in our communities and families as a child—by right, by law and by practice—and yet the Bill does not afford 16 and 17 year-olds the protections due to children. While under-16s have the absolute right to have an appropriate adult with them when they meet a relevant person, in the case of 16 and 17 year-olds, a relevant person can decide that there are
“circumstances which justify the absence of an appropriate adult”,
even when that is a meeting that will lead to the child undertaking illegal activity on behalf of the authorities. This introduces an extraordinary conflict of interest that structurally undermines the Bill’s other requirement to act in the best interest of the child because it denies a 16 or 17 year-old child the automatic right to the presence of an adult who has the child’s interests as their unfettered concern.
Moreover, while I know the Minister’s assurance that more than one person must be involved, those circumstances can happen at the beginning of a child’s use as a CHIS, during their term as a CHIS and again under proposed new article 10 concerning the renewal of each four-month term, thereby making it possible for a child to be introduced, managed and repeatedly renewed as a CHIS, with no appropriate adult present at any time.
When we last debated this matter, a number of colleagues robustly criticised the amendment in my name, arguing that we should ban child CHIS altogether. However, while my heart is entirely with them, I had accepted the Government’s argument that if gang leaders knew beyond doubt that a child could not be a CHIS, it would drive further recruitment and exploitation of children by gangs. My, albeit reluctant, view was that the best way in which to protect children from being exploited by gangs was to allow the possibility of a child CHIS but to shroud the process in robust protections. We have failed to do that for 16 and 17 year-olds.
This is a failure of which the Front Bench of the Official Opposition in the other place should be ashamed, given that they have not fought for it. I am further disappointed that the Government have used their majority to walk through the Lobby rather than to protect the citizens they are elected to serve—in this case, vulnerable children being made more vulnerable at the behest of the state. All that is being asked here is that every child has an appropriate adult whose role is to make sure that what the child is being asked to do meets the bar of exceptional circumstances, and is understood, agreed to without pressure and in their best interests.
I do not doubt the principled behaviour of many in the enforcement community. I will work alongside officers in the UK and internationally whose commitment to exploited children online is nothing short of humbling. However, history is littered with examples of people in authority who have abused their position. In creating this glaring loophole, not only are we clearly exposing these children to the possibility of abuse by those in authority, we are also exposing those in authority to suspicion, and the Home Office itself to reputational and legal risk from even one bad apple.
Therefore, while the Bill is all but done, I still have some practical questions on both safeguarding and arrangements for meeting, as set out in proposed new Clause 29C(3)(b)(ii) and proposed new subsection (3)(c), where the word “believes” is the bar. In spite of the Minister’s assurance, that still appears to allow a relevant person to say that he or she thought that there was no harm in asking the child to do something illegal. Can she confirm that the guidance will include an objective test for both issues? Similarly, does the IPCO have to work out whether the officer “believed” that the illegal activity was in the child’s best interests or will they be looking to establish whether the action was “compatible” with the child’s best interests? In the event that the IPCO does not like the explanation, how quickly and by what process would it be challenged, bearing in mind that all the while a child is acting as a CHIS with no support? If the final port of call is reporting to Parliament, as we have heard, what level of detail is the IPCO to provide to Parliament? If, God forbid, something went wrong, is there an expectation that the police would reveal that a child was acting as an informant to serious case review, and would that automatically trigger an investigation?
The guidance, the code of conduct or, as the Minister rightly suggested, secondary legislation may be the last port of call for these children. Perhaps she can say when it will be ready, what form it will take and whether she would consider sharing it in advance so that parliamentarians with an interest in this matter can comment and input. Will the guidance be subject to a child rights impact assessment? I understand that it is frustrating to have to deal with so many questions at this late stage but almost every child CHIS has been or will be 16 or 17 years old. If the Bill fails this age group, it will have failed children overall.
In these extraordinary times, we have byzantine rules that make it difficult for colleagues to participate, so I want to put on the record that while the form of expression is mine, the view I am expressing is shared by scores of noble Lords on the Government Benches, the Opposition Benches and my own Benches, and a veritable flock of Bishops, who regret the lack of opportunity to make their views known.
Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd (CB) [V]
My Lords, I wish to speak to Motion E. I have nothing to add to the eloquent observations made by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, on Motion A.
First, I thank the Minister, and in particular the Bill team, for the constructive discussions I have had since tabling my amendment. Its purpose is to add to the real-time notification a mechanism to ensure that action is taken if the judicial commissioner has made adverse comments or found that the authorisation should not have been granted. In the debate on Report, the noble Baroness, Lady Manningham-Buller said:
“It is difficult for me to imagine that if a judicial commissioner raised a serious concern about an authorisation, it would continue. But it might not be able to stop immediately. There would have to be some discussion, because the safety of the covert human intelligence source would be paramount.”—[Official Report, 11/1/21; col. 538.]
I believe that she was right to say what would happen if a judicial commissioner expressed that view.
However, I took the view then, and still take it, that there must be something which operates as a mechanism to ensure that something does happen: that in some cases the authorisation should be discontinued or unwound in an orderly manner. An amendment to the Bill would have been the better course, and I much regret my own failure to try to persuade the security services that it would be in their own interests to have it in the Bill. But taking into account what the noble Lord, Lord Carlile of Berriew, said in the same debate in relation to the utility of codes of practice, and my objective, I am glad that the Minister has agreed to insert into the code of practice the wording that she has read out.
It achieves a number of purposes. First, it goes slightly wider than my proposed amendment, in that it will apply to all observations, not merely saying that the authorisation should not have been granted. Secondly, it requires the person who gave the authorisation to take action, but to work out what to do. If that person gets himself or herself into the position of doing something that should not have been done, they should be responsible for working out how to get out of it. Thirdly, it requires a more senior officer to be notified of what is intended. It has always been my worry that a person in the position of an authorising officer whose action is disapproved of might try to cover up what has happened. Finally, it requires the office of the IPC to be notified of the intended action—that is, before the action is taken, save in cases such as urgency or where the action taken is simply to stop the activity. It enables the IPC to express a view and, if there is a difficulty, to work out what should happen in a collaborative manner.
As I have said, it would have been far better if there was a legislative provision of the type proposed, but as a matter of practical reality, I would hope that this insertion into the code of practice should ensure that if the judicial commissioner does not approve of the authorisation or of what has happened, or criticises it, there is a clear mechanism in place to stop the activity or modify it accordingly in a manner that protects the CHIS.
The IPC is a body with very great authority, comprised as it is of senior judges. It has been my experience throughout my former judicial career that remarks made in such circumstances as this are ignored only at the peril of the person concerned. I would hope and expect, therefore, that the observations will be acted on immediately and that the office of the IPC is notified of any intended action. If, contrary to my expectations, this does not work, the people who will suffer real damage will be the police and the security services; to them, the damage will be immense. What I hope would happen is that this provision will strengthen the view that before making an authorisation in unusual and not simply routine circumstances—most of these authorisations apply to routine circumstances—the police and the security services would serve their own interests far better by going to the office of the IPC before they authorise an action rather than afterwards.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Alderdice) (LD)
The following Members in the Chamber have indicated that they wish to speak: the noble Lords, Lord West of Spithead, Lord Young of Cookham, Lord Russell of Liverpool and Lord Adonis, and the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb. If any other Members in the Chamber wish to speak, I ask them to contact the clerk as soon as possible.
Lord West of Spithead (Lab)
My Lords, I felt initially that in Amendment 1 it was necessary and sensible to have the term “reasonable belief” in the Bill, but the inconsistency with RIPA 2000, the Solicitor-General’s statement in the other place and the changes that have been made to some of the paragraphs have now persuaded me that it is not necessary.
I view Amendment 2 in a much more serious light. We should be proud of the fact that our nation is at last putting our covert human intelligence agents’ behaviour on a statutory basis. We must not lose sight of the fact that agents save lives. In working undercover, CHIS need to be trusted by those on whom they are reporting. Put simply, if they are to be believed to be a gang member, they need to act like one. If they do not, it is no exaggeration at all to say that they could be killed. My experience in Northern Ireland certainly backs that up. Their handlers must be able to authorise them to break the law in certain circumstances and subject to specific safeguards. These safeguards have been strengthened by the work of this House, and we should be proud of that.
It will not help anyone if we put checklists of offences on the face of the Bill—nothing at all would be gained by that. The safety of CHIS should be central to the decisions of this House. We must not forget that they are very important individuals who are doing important things for us. I am afraid that this amendment also ignores that fact. Drawing parallels with the United States and Australia is dangerous and totally irrelevant. If there is a Division on the amendment, I will vote with the Government on this issue.
The Government have been somewhat vague about why they have opposed Lords Amendment 3 on the issue of criminal compensation but have now brought forward their own Amendment 3B, which shows that they have absolutely understood its necessity. The point was well argued by the noble Lord, Lord Anderson. I am happy to support government Amendment 3B. It meets the concerns of the House and provides assurances on the matter in the Bill, which is good.
On Amendment 4, I have thought long and hard about the use of adolescents. When one heard about this initially, one was taken aback, but I have come to realise that, to some extent, the concern about juveniles in relation to the Bill is due to the conflation of the broader question of whether under-18s should be used as CHIS at all. That of course is not the matter at hand that we are discussing, rather it is the narrower issue of whether those involved should be able to participate in criminality and with what safeguards, which is what the Bill addresses. On those CHIS below the age of 16, I now believe that, in very exceptional circumstances, we should use them. The government amendments will put appropriate safeguards in place which will ensure that that can be done with maximum gain and minimum risk.
The other place quite rightly accepted the core element of Lords Amendment 5, which requires all CCAs to be notified to judicial commissioners as soon as possible, and within seven days of being granted. The Government have come back with Amendment 5A, which would require any such activity to stop immediately, except where the judicial commissioner had allowed specific activities to continue for the purpose of discontinuing the authorisation, and they have of course amended the code of practice.
In the other place, the Solicitor-General said:
“On the extremely rare occasions where a judicial commissioner may find issue with an authorisation, the public authority will consult with the commissioner and may indeed stop, or not commence, the activity that they planned to commence. However, this should not be at the expense of the safety of the CHIS.”—[Official Report, Commons, 27/1/21; cols. 428-29.]
This final sentence is compelling for me. To take a hypothetical example, if MI5 authorised activity that was considered essential to the maintenance of a CHIS’s cover, requiring this activity to stop immediately could very well blow that cover and put their safety at risk. As I have said a number of times, the safety of CHIS has been central to the way this House has considered the Bill, and that is important.
The noble Lord, Lord Paddick, appreciated that fact, and his Amendment 5B would not require activity to cease immediately. However, I cannot support his amendment as I believe—indeed, I know—that the notification of prosecuting authorities will cause real problems from a practical and operational point of view, particularly for the agencies and their ability to run CHIS.
In summary, I believe the House should be proud of what it has done on the Bill by putting it on a statutory basis. Anything in this area is always unpleasant, but I believe that the Bill is necessary and a useful piece of legislation.
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
My Lords, I will speak very briefly to Amendment 4, which deals with juveniles and vulnerable adults, and the government amendments to that part of the Bill. The background to this is the debate we had on 13 January, when a group of amendments, led by Amendment 12 in my name, sought to remove children aged under 18 and vulnerable adults from the Bill’s scope entirely. While this secured support from all sides of the House, it was clear that without support from the Official Opposition it was doomed. Therefore, I withdrew it.
The House then coalesced around Amendment 24, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, whose impact on this debate has been substantial. I pay tribute to that. I also supported her amendment, although it did not go quite as far as Amendment 12. Her amendment trumped government Amendment 26 in the same group by offering additional safeguards. Although the Government described these as unworkable, the House supported Amendment 24 in a Division by 339 to 235. As we heard, this was rejected in another place and we now have the government amendments we debate today.
My view, which is shared by the Children’s Commissioner, is unchanged—namely, that we should exempt children and vulnerable adults—but I accept that that will not happen. What we now have is a welcome improvement on government Amendment 26, and I am grateful to my noble friend for listening to the concerns and meeting them where she felt she could. I also pay tribute to the work of Stella Creasy in taking the debate forward.
Some relevant questions on the government amendments have been raised by the noble Baronesses, Lady Hamwee and Lady Kidron. I hope my noble friend will feel able to continue the dialogue once the Bill reaches the statute book, to focus again on the code of practice, in particular to consider extending the protections in the Bill to all children used as CHIS, not just those authorised to commit criminal conduct, and to reconsider the issue of appropriate adults for those aged under 18. In the meantime, I am happy to support the government amendments.
Lord Russell of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, like the noble Lord, Lord Young, I will also speak very briefly to Motion D. I thank all noble Lords who have been part of a chorus of voices speaking on behalf of children, young people and vulnerable adults. It is very good news that their voices have been heard.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Young, and the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron. I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Hornsey, who first tabled the amendment that the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, then took on. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, because the initiative he brought forward to have greater involvement by IPCO has been and is extremely welcome. Stella Creasy has probably got enough plaudits without needing any more; it will doubtless go to her head. I thank the charity Just for Kids Law, which has been very active, helpful and constructive in realising what is and is not realistic.
The noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, asked all the questions that I would have asked, and probably rather better than I would have. I am sure the Minister will deal with them when she comes to respond. I quickly looked up whether a flock of Bishops is the right collective noun. It is actually a Bench of Bishops or a sea of Bishops, but unfortunately we do not have any with us today.
Lord Adonis (Lab)
My Lords, the Government have clearly moved on most of the contentious issues. We expect nothing less of the Minister, whom we hold in very high regard. The fundamental issue that is outstanding—you could argue that the use of under-18s is fundamental, but at least the Government have moved on that, although as it happens I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Young, and the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, that under-18s should not be used—which the Government have not moved on and which we wish to press the Minister on is Amendment 2. I have listened to the debates, but I have not participated in them until now. We are at the crucial moment of whether the House will insist on its amendment, so it is reasonable for people to express a view on this crucial point.
The crucial question is the one put by my noble friend Lady Chakrabarti. We are talking about very weighty matters in Amendment 2 as to whether authorisations can be given in respect of murder, rape and torture. I thought the Minister equivocated on this in the example she gave in opening the debate. Can she say categorically when she replies that murder, rape, torture and their authorisation by agents of the state would contravene the European Convention on Human Rights and the Human Rights Act?
If she is saying that, then it is a complete mystery why the Government will not accept Amendment 2. As my noble friend Lady Chakrabarti so rightly said, Amendment 2 cannot be both dangerous and superfluous. If it is indeed superfluous because the authorisation of murder, rape and torture, even in the circumstances the Minister gave where it might somehow protect an agent’s cover, would itself contravene convention rights and the Human Rights Act, then how can we not be prepared to put it in the Bill? The only reason not to do so is to equivocate on whether murder, rape and torture are indeed against the European Convention on Human Rights and the Human Rights Act. This point seems fundamental.
I so rarely disagree with my noble friend Lord West, even on the need for more frigates; I generally agree with him even on the long list he has of further naval equipment that we need. In this case, I thought that he was in danger of simply parroting the lines of those people who clearly support having no legal safeguards at all in this respect. He said, slightly glibly, if I may say so, that we were talking about a checklist that it would be unreasonable for agents of the state to observe. We are talking not about a shopping list, but about specific exceptions for the most heinous crimes, which I do not believe that my noble friend, whom I know and trust greatly, would grant authorisations for.
The noble Lord, Lord Paddick, gave a very powerful speech; he has himself operated and manged agents and is not coming to this as a kind of naive human rights lawyer. But when he gave chapter and verse on other jurisdictions and how they have dealt with precisely the same issue, my noble friend said that Australia and the United States are—I noted down his phrase—“dangerous and irrelevant.” I was then waiting for him to expand on why they were dangerous and irrelevant, but he stopped at that point; he did not tell us why, somehow, the experience of the United States and Australia—not countries that play fast and loose with their own security—was not relevant to us here.
That leads on to the powerful points made by my noble friend Lady Chakrabarti about the role of the House and, if I may say so, the role of my party, the Labour Party. Those of us who engage in public life do so because we think that our parties express our values. My noble friend pointed out that these provisions were in no party’s manifesto. The Salisbury convention, which rightly governs our conduct, states that we should not insist on amendments in respect of a matter that the governing party has put in its manifesto and on which it has therefore had the explicit endorsement of the people. However, this issue is not covered by those arrangements.
Therefore, there is an important question of judgment as to why we are placed here: whether the House of Lords, as a second Chamber, should seek to insist on amendments concerning an issue in respect of which the Salisbury convention is not operating. Normally, we would not, and normally, I do not, because I am very conscious, as we all are in this place, that we are nominated and the other House is elected. But my noble friend made a very powerful point: that fundamental protections for human rights and the constitution are issues in respect of which, if the Government do not have explicit Salisbury convention mandates, we should be prepared to insist on amendments. The Parliament Acts themselves recognise that, because they except from the power of the House of Commons to override this House Bills to extend the life of Parliament. That was specifically put in to provide a constitutional protection, and in our enlarged understanding of the sphere of proper constitutional protections since the Parliament Act 1911, it is reasonable that fundamental human rights should be a part of that.
If this House does not exist to see that murder, rape and torture cannot be committed by agents of the state, then I am at a loss to understand why we are here at all.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, I am not shy about admitting that I am critical of this Government, whose majority in the other place has made them quite shameless. They have, on occasion, asked your Lordships’ House to break the law, and this is another such occasion. Sometimes we are tough and we refuse; I hope that that is what will happen today.
It was superb listening to the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, and the noble Lord, Lord Paddick. Of course, both Greens will be voting for the amendments because this is about the rule of law and human rights. I do not very often agree with the noble Lord, Lord Adonis —probably never, in fact—but on this occasion I agreed with every single word he said, and I wish I had said it first.
On the enhanced protections for children, I understand that the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, and the noble Lords, Lord Russell and Lord Young of Cookham, feel that something is better than nothing. But quite honestly, this is child abuse. It is child abuse by the Government—using children as spies. I cannot see how any Government who care about the rule of law could put this in legislation. It is obvious that this Government do not care about the rule of law; they protect their own while throwing others to the dogs.
This Bill provides blanket legal protection for undercover police and their informants—who could be criminals—for crimes with pre-authorised immunity. Similarly, the forthcoming overseas operations Bill creates new protections against prosecution for military personnel acting overseas. The Government have fought strongly for these protections against prosecution for the police and the military. They fought against any attempt by your Lordships’ House to reduce or check these protections.
Yet, having granted such broad protections to the police and military, even in cases of fundamental wrongdoing, the Government then refuse what is a comparatively far more limited legal defence for survivors of domestic abuse—usually women. A public inquiry is under way examining the 40-year history of government agents abusing their power while spying on trade unions, green campaigners and those in the black community fighting for justice. Police officers were using sexual relations with women as a deliberate strategy, although we are now told that it was unlawful all the time. We see this Government protecting their own from the law while allowing the abuse of vulnerable people and women. That is what this Government do.
I do not want to pile in on the noble Lord, Lord West, who said that the safety of CHIS should be paramount, but quite honestly, I thought the rule of law and the safety of the realm were meant to be paramount. If you continue to break the law as a Government, you are not increasing the safety of the realm; you are actually making it more dangerous for us all. I very much hope that noble Lords will vote for these amendments today and refuse again to let the Government abuse the law.
Lord Rosser (Lab) [V]
I thank the Minister for her opening statement setting out the Government’s position on these motions. I also thank her for the helpful meetings that have taken place throughout the passage of this Bill.
On Motion A on Lords Amendment 1, we welcome the Government’s willingness to address this issue in the code of practice by including in the code the words, “that the person granting the authorisation must hold a reasonable belief that the authorisation is necessary and proportionate.”
On Motion B and Lords Amendment 2, we note that the Commons disagreed with the Lords amendment on the basis, as has been said, that it would place sources and the wider public at risk. The Minister repeated that view when she said that the Government would not support the amendment and implored this House to accept the advice of operational experts and do the same. We are disappointed that the Lords amendment has not been accepted. As my colleague, the Member for St Helens North, said in the Commons:
“if countries that are our allies, with similar criminal justice systems and with whom we co-operate on security matters, can do this, the Government need to set out a little more forcefully why we should not.”—[Official Report, Commons, 27/1/21; col. 431.]
I thank noble Lords who have raised their concerns today.
The Lords amendment was originally carried in this House by a small majority. We have already asked the elected House to think again on this issue, and it has not accepted the view we expressed. There was no indication, when it was debated and voted upon in the Commons, that our amendment had sufficient support to lead to a change in the Government’s position. We do not believe that sending the same amendment back a further time will produce any change in the legislation. For these reasons, we will not support the amendment to Motion B should the House divide, as it appears it will.
Motion C in respect of Lords Amendment 3 relates to the criminal injuries compensation scheme. We welcome the fact that on Report, the Government listened to the views of this House on redress for victims and have brought forward an amendment in lieu making it clear that an individual can access the scheme where appropriate. I pay tribute to the work done on the issue of redress for victims by the Joint Committee on Human Rights during its consideration of the Bill, and, in particular, by my noble friends Lord Dubs and Lady Massey of Darwen.
Motion D on Lords Amendment 4 relates to the authorisation of juveniles and vulnerable adults. I endorse the Minister’s comments on the involvement of noble Lords who have been particularly engaged with this issue—including my noble friend Lord Kennedy of Southwark and Stella Creasy MP—and pay particular tribute to the noble Baronesses, Lady Young of Hornsey and Lady Kidron, who tabled amendments that we supported throughout the Bill. The Minister will have heard the remaining concerns expressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron. On this issue, we have not achieved everything that was asked for but we welcome the government amendments in lieu, which go further than previous government amendments on this issue.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
My Lords, I again thank all noble Lords for their thoughtful and detailed contributions to today’s debate and the lead-up to it. As the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool, pointed out, we have found a new way to work as a closed Committee without having to go through any of the bureaucracy of setting one up; I was very pleased to hear from him and other noble Lords that those sessions were very useful indeed. I have had many discussions with noble Lords, which have been very helpful. To echo the words of the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, we have made the Bill better, as we often do in your Lordships’ House.
The noble Lord, Lord Paddick, regretted that he could not have a meeting on his amendment. I thought that I had squared off all meetings that I possibly could. I spoke to him and the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, at the end of last week. It is unfortunate that he feels that his amendment could have been discussed further.
I also heard comment that the Bishops wanted to be here. The advancement of modern technology means that everybody can be here, remotely or otherwise, should they want to.
I particularly thank three noble Lords. The noble Lord, Lord West of Spithead, summarised the amendments very succinctly. The noble Lord, Lord Anderson, in typical forensic style, did similarly, as did the noble Lord, Lord Russell. A number of noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord West of Spithead, went into this Bill with some degree of scepticism. It is a tribute to the way in which our engagement has worked that they all feel that the Bill is better now that we have dealt with it than it was initially.
I want to start with the various responses and comments. First, in response to the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, I can confirm that the code of practice will state that
“the person granting the authorisation must hold a reasonable belief that the authorisation is necessary and proportionate.”
The noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, raised the reporting of the recent Court of Appeal hearing as to whether MI5 had authorised offences as serious as murder; the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, also mentioned this. I have been clear throughout that the Bill does not provide a licence to kill and that our commitment to the safeguards in this Bill is firm. All authorisations issued under the Bill must comply with the Human Rights Act or they will be unlawful. I can therefore confirm and place on record that the Human Rights Act binds all authorised activity of undercover agents, alongside the state itself.
The noble Lord, Lord Adonis, asked me a specific question to which he required a specific answer: could I commit to there being no authorisation of murder, torture or rape? Obviously, I cannot be drawn on the crimes that can or cannot be authorised, for reasons that have been stated throughout the course of this Bill, but I note that all authorisations must be necessary and proportionate and must comply with the Human Rights Act. The independent IPC will be notified and see every authorisation in as close to real time as possible.
To clarify, the context of the remarks in the Court of Appeal—to which the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, referred—was a legal discussion that was solely about the existing vires for the Security Service to operate a policy that authorises its agents to participate in conduct that might, or would be, criminal. The First Treasury Counsel said that there is a power to authorise the commission of a crime under the Security Service Act and under the royal prerogative before that, although the power conferred no immunity from prosecution. The comment that the noble Baroness refers to concerns an entirely hypothetical question regarding the narrow point of whether the vires is limited to the commission of some crimes but not others. It was not and is not. That discussion is quite distinct from the question of whether an authorisation or subsequent conduct might be a breach of other law such as the Human Rights Act. I also note that the First Treasury Counsel said nothing about whether any particular type of conduct would or would not be authorised in practice or indeed compatible with a policy that requires it to be necessary and proportionate in any event.
The issue of whether certain conduct or types of conduct should be off limits has deliberately not been discussed in open court proceedings, for the same reasons as I have been unable to discuss these issues on the Floor of the House. It would not be appropriate for me to comment on the legal proceedings further. What I can say and what I have been consistently clear about is that, under the new regime introduced by the Bill, the necessity and proportionality test and the Human Rights Act provide legal limits to the conduct that can be authorised—and I say that again now.
On the subject of juvenile CHIS, I shall response to the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, on the government amendments. She is right that the amendment will prevent an authorisation being granted when the authorisation would put the juvenile in a position of reasonably foreseeable harm. In response to her question about injuries of a psychological nature, I reassure her that the definition of injury in the Bill includes that.
On the subject of the appropriate adult, they are there to support the young person to make informed decisions in relation to any tasking and nothing prevents them from playing an active part in the meetings that take place. The role of the appropriate adult in this setting differs from their role in a custody suite or an interview; they can have discussions with the CHIS and authorising officer outside those meetings, subject to any arrangements that the authorising officer may put in place to ensure that the safety of the CHIS and the adult themselves is assured at all times.
As to whether a juvenile CHIS would be used when other alternatives are available, they are used only in exceptional circumstances and, more importantly, when it is compatible with the best interests of that child. All authorisations must meet the proportionality threshold so, when using an adult could achieve the same outcome as using a child, that could be the correct option. However, even when an adult may be available, there may be occasions when the authorisation of a specific child is the only way in which to remove the child from a harmful situation.
In response to the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, I pay tribute to her role in shaping the debate on this issue. This is a difficult and emotive area, and we all want to ensure that the well-being of a child is the priority of any authorisation, including for 16 and 17 year-olds. There is a presumption that there will be an appropriate adult in place for all meetings with CHIS aged 16 to 18 years. The justification for not having one will be available for IPCO to scrutinise and comment on; he or she will look at all aspects of an authorisation to ensure that all the enhanced safeguards have been applied, and they have stated that they pay particular attention to the welfare of the juvenile.
I assure the noble Baroness that the CHIS code of practice will be updated following the passage of the Bill and will provide the detail that underpins the authorisation process. There will be a public consultation on the updated code, followed by a debate and vote in both Houses. I encourage all noble Lords, as I have said previously, to feed into that process, and I certainly welcome any contribution from the noble Baroness and will make officials and operational partners available for any further discussion.
The noble Baroness asked about the level of detail given to Parliament. Clearly, there will be open and closed parts. The Prime Minister and Home Secretary will look at the closed part, and the open parts will, of course, be shared with colleagues.
As I said in my opening remarks, all criminal conduct authorisation will be the subject of rigorous independent oversight, which includes CCAs for juvenile CHIS, with the Investigatory Powers Commissioner seeing all authorisations in real time and being required to keep under review in particular the safeguards relating to juvenile or vulnerable individuals. The updated code will provide guidance on how the notification process will work and the enhanced safeguards that will apply to juvenile CHIS CCAs to supplement the detailed safeguards that we are bringing forward in the Bill.
I turn to the amendment of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, with regard to the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, on what happens if a judicial commissioner provides comments on an authorisation. Again, I offer reassurance on what would happen if the IPC or a judicial commissioner did not agree with an authorisation when notified of its grant. A judicial commissioner would flag it to the authorising officer, and would work collaboratively to address such concerns; it would not be the case that a public authority would simply ignore feedback from IPCO. This is collaborative, and the views of the commissioners carry very serious weight, but the commissioners have the power to refer an issue to the prosecution services if they felt it was necessary and, ultimately, it would then be for a court to determine the lawfulness and validity of an authorisation.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Duncan of Springbank) (Con)
I have received a single request to speak after the Minister. I call the noble Lord, Lord Adonis.
Lord Adonis (Lab)
My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Baroness for the lengthy reply she has given. However, unless I misheard her, she did not in fact give a direct reply to my very fundamental question on Amendment 2. It was: would the authorisation by agents of the state of murder, rape and torture be against the Human Rights Act and the European Convention on Human Rights? If I understood her correctly, she said that nothing could be authorised that was against the Human Rights Act. Well, is it against the Human Rights Act or not? That is a straight question, but I noticed that she did not mention the European Convention on Human Rights at all in her reply. Can she say whether the authorisation of murder, rape and torture would be against that convention?
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
I think that, like other noble Lords, the noble Lord will know that throughout the passage of the Bill I have very consistently said that I cannot be drawn on the crimes that can and cannot be authorised, for the reasons that I have stated consistently throughout the passage of the Bill. But I will say that all authorisations must be necessary and proportionate, and they must comply with the Human Rights Act. I will go no further than that.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
Moved by
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 2, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 2A.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Duncan of Springbank) (Con)
I understand from the clerks that the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, has already indicated that she wishes to press her amendment.
Motion B1 (as an amendment to Motion B)
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab) [V]
[Inaudible]—my noble friend Lord Adonis, in particular with regard to the exchange between them, so I would like to test the opinion of the House.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 3, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 3A, but do propose Amendment 3B in lieu—
“Criminal injuries compensation
After section 27 of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (lawful surveillance etc.) insert—
“27A Section 27: criminal injuries compensation for s. 29B conduct
For the purposes of—
(a) the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 1995,
(b) the Scheme made under that Act,
(c) the Criminal Injuries Compensation (Northern Ireland)
Order 2002 (S.I. 2002/796 (N.I. 1)), and
(d) the Scheme made under that Order, section 27(1) has no effect in relation to conduct authorised under section 29B.””
Baroness Williams of Trafford
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 4, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 4A, but do propose Amendments 4B, 4C, 4D, 4E, 4F, 4G, 4H and 4J in lieu—
“Criminal conduct authorisations: safeguards for juveniles
(1) After section 29B of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (inserted by section 1(5)) insert—
“29C Criminal conduct authorisations: safeguards for juveniles
(1) This section applies in relation to the grant of a juvenile criminal conduct authorisation.
(2) “A juvenile criminal conduct authorisation” is an authorisation under section 29B for criminal conduct in the course of, or otherwise in connection with, the conduct of a covert human intelligence source where that source is under the age of 18 (“the juvenile source”).
(3) In addition to satisfying the requirements of section 29B, a person may grant a juvenile criminal conduct authorisation only if—
(a) the person has considered the results of an appropriate risk assessment;
(b) there are exceptional circumstances such that—
(i) it is not reasonably foreseeable in the circumstances as the person believes them to be that any harm to the juvenile source would result from the grant of the authorisation, and
(ii) the person believes the authorisation would be compatible with the need to safeguard and promote the best interests of the juvenile source; and
(c) the person believes that appropriate arrangements for meetings are in force.
(4) For the purposes of subsection (3)(a), “an appropriate risk assessment” means an assessment which—
(a) identifies and evaluates the nature and magnitude of the risks of harm to the juvenile source arising in the course of, or as result of, the conduct authorised by the authorisation; and
(b) is carried out in accordance with provision made by the Secretary of State by regulations under this paragraph.
(5) In subsections (3)(b)(i) and (4)(a), “harm” means—
(a) physical injury; or
(b) psychological distress.
(6) For the purposes of subsection (3)(c), “appropriate arrangements for meetings” are such arrangements for the juvenile source’s case as are necessary for ensuring—
(a) that, at all times when the juvenile source is under the age of 16, there will be a relevant person who will have responsibility for ensuring that an appropriate adult is present at all meetings in relation to the authorisation which take place between the source and a person representing a relevant investigating authority; and
(b) that, at all times when the juvenile source is 16 or 17 years old, there will be a relevant person who will have responsibility for—
(i) ensuring that an appropriate adult is present at all meetings in relation to the authorisation which take place between the source and a person representing a relevant investigating authority, other than any such meeting in relation to which a relevant person decides there are circumstances which justify the absence of an appropriate adult, and
(ii) maintaining a record of the reasons for each such decision that there are circumstances in relation to a meeting which justify the absence of an appropriate adult.
(7) In subsection (6)—
“appropriate adult”, in relation to a juvenile source, means—
(a) the parent or guardian of the juvenile source; or
(b) any other person who—
(i) has for the time being assumed responsibility for the juvenile source’s welfare, or
(ii) is otherwise qualified to represent the interests of the juvenile source;
“relevant investigating authority”, in relation to a juvenile criminal conduct authorisation, means the public authority, or (as the case may be) one of the public authorities, for whose benefit the activities of the juvenile source as a covert human intelligence source are to take place;
“relevant person”, in relation to a juvenile criminal conduct authorisation, means a person holding an office, rank or position with a relevant investigating authority in relation to the authorisation;
and in this subsection, “guardian”, in relation to a juvenile source, has the same meaning as “guardian of a child” in the Children Act 1989 (see section 105 of that Act).
(8) No provision made by or under this section affects the power to make additional provision by order under section 29B(4)(c) or (10) in relation to the grant of a juvenile criminal conduct authorisation.”
(2) The Regulation of Investigatory Powers (Juveniles) Order 2000 (S.I. 2000/ 2793) is amended in accordance with subsections (3) to (8).
(3) In article 2 (interpretation)—
(a) in the definition of “relevant investigating authority”, after “authority”” insert “, in relation to an authorisation under section 29 of the 2000 Act,”;
(b) after that definition insert—
““relevant investigating authority”, in relation to an authorisation under section 29B of the 2000 Act, means the public authority, or (as the case may be) one of the public authorities, for whose benefit the activities as a source of the source to whom the authorisation relates are to take place;
“relevant person”, in relation to an authorisation under section 29B of the 2000 Act, means a person holding an office, rank or position with a relevant investigating authority in relation to the authorisation;”.
(4) Before article 3 insert—
“Authorisations under section 29 of the 2000 Act”.
(5) In article 3 (sources under 16: prohibition), after “authorisation” insert “under section 29 of the 2000 Act”.
(6) In article 5 (sources under 18: risk assessments etc.), after “An authorisation” insert “under section 29 of the 2000 Act”.
(7) In article 6 (sources under 18: duration of authorisations), after “an authorisation” insert “under section 29 of the 2000 Act”.
(8) After article 6 insert—
“Authorisations under section 29B of the 2000 Act
7 Sources under 16: prohibition
(1) No authorisation under section 29B of the 2000 Act may be granted authorising criminal conduct in the course of, or otherwise in connection with, the conduct of a source if—
(a) the source is under the age of 16; and
(b) the relationship to which the relevant conduct would relate is between the source and—
(i) the source’s parent, or
(ii) any person who has parental responsibility for the source.
(2) “The relevant conduct” means the conduct of the source which the authorised conduct would be in the course of or otherwise in connection with.
8 Sources under 18: additional requirements
(1) An authorisation under section 29B of the 2000 Act may not be granted or renewed in any case where the source to whom the authorisation relates is under the age of 18 at the time of the grant or renewal unless the person granting or renewing the authorisation—
(a) has considered whether the relationship to which the relevant conduct would relate is between the source and—
(i) a relative or guardian of the source, or
(ii) a person who has for the time being assumed responsibility for the source’s welfare; and
(b) where the relationship would so relate, has taken that fact into account as a particular consideration.
(2) In paragraph (1)(a), “the relevant conduct” has the same meaning as in article 7.
9 Sources under 18: arrangements regarding best interests of the source
Where the source to whom an authorisation under section 29B of the 2000 Act relates is under the age of 18, the arrangements referred to in section 29B(4)(c) of the 2000 Act must be such that there is at all times a relevant person who has responsibility for safeguarding and promoting the best interests of the source.
10 Sources under 18: duration of authorisations
In relation to an authorisation under section 29B of the 2000 Act where the source to whom the authorisation relates is under the age of 18 at the time the authorisation is granted or renewed, section 43(3) of the 2000 Act is to have effect as if the period specified in paragraph (b) of that subsection were four months instead of twelve months.”
(9) The amendments made by subsections (3) to (8) to the Regulation of Investigatory Powers (Juveniles) Order 2000 (S.I. 2000/2793) are to be treated as having been made under section 29B(4)(c) or (10) or section 43(8) of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 as the case may be (and may be amended or revoked under those powers accordingly).”
“Criminal conduct authorisations: safeguards for vulnerable adults
After section 29C of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (inserted by section (Criminal conduct authorisations: safeguards for juveniles)) insert—
“29D Criminal conduct authorisations: safeguards for vulnerable adults
(1) This section applies in relation to the grant of a vulnerable adult criminal conduct authorisation.
(2) “A vulnerable adult criminal conduct authorisation” is an authorisation under section 29B for criminal conduct in the course of, or otherwise in connection with, the conduct of a covert human intelligence source where that source is a vulnerable adult (“the vulnerable adult source”).
(3) For the purposes of this section, a “vulnerable adult” is a person aged 18 or over who by reason of mental disorder or vulnerability, disability, age or illness, is or may be unable to take care of themselves or to protect themselves against significant harm or exploitation.
(4) In addition to satisfying the requirements of section 29B, a person may grant a vulnerable adult criminal conduct authorisation only if the person—
(a) has considered the results of an appropriate risk assessment;
(b) believes that the risks of harm identified by that risk assessment have been properly explained to and understood by the vulnerable adult source; and
(c) has taken into account the need to safeguard and promote the best interests of the vulnerable adult source.
(5) “An appropriate risk assessment” means an assessment which—
(a) identifies and evaluates the nature and magnitude of the risks of harm to the vulnerable adult source arising in the course of, or as result of, the conduct authorised by the authorisation; and
(b) is carried out in accordance with provision made by the Secretary of State by regulations under this paragraph.
(6) For the purposes of subsections (3), (4)(b) and (5)(a), “harm” means—
(a) physical injury; or
(b) psychological distress.
(7) No provision made by or under this section affects the power to make additional provision by order under section 29B(4)(c) or (10) in relation to the grant of a vulnerable adult criminal conduct authorisation.””
“(4B) In keeping under review the exercise of the power mentioned in subsection (4A), the Investigatory Powers Commissioner must, in particular, keep under review whether public authorities are complying with any requirements imposed on them by virtue of Part 2 of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 in relation to juvenile criminal conduct authorisations and vulnerable adult criminal conduct authorisations.
(4C) For the purposes of subsection (4B)—
(a) “a juvenile criminal conduct authorisation” is an authorisation under section 29B of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 where the covert human intelligence source to whom the authorisation relates is under the age of 18; and
(b) “a vulnerable adult criminal conduct authorisation” is an authorisation under section 29B of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 where the covert human intelligence source to whom the authorisation relates is a vulnerable adult within the meaning of section 29D(3) of that Act.”
“(ba) in the case of an authorisation under section 29B where the source is under the age of 18 (“the juvenile source”), the person—
(i) becomes aware of circumstances in which it is reasonably foreseeable that harm, within the meaning of section 29C(5), to the juvenile source would result from the authorisation,
(ii) is satisfied that the authorisation would no longer be compatible with the need to safeguard and promote the best interests of the juvenile source, or
(iii) is satisfied that arrangements for the juvenile source’s case that satisfy the requirements of subsection (3)(c) of section 29C no longer exist; or”
Baroness Williams of Trafford
That this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment 5A.
Lord Paddick
Leave out from “House” to end and insert “do disagree with the Commons in their Amendment 5A and do propose Amendment 5B in lieu—
“(6) If upon notification under subsection (3) a Judicial Commissioner determines that the authorisation should not have been granted—
(a) the person who granted the authorisation must be immediately informed,
(b) the Director of Public Prosecutions and the Director of Public Prosecutions for Northern Ireland must be immediately informed, and
(c) all further activities that will or might be undertaken pursuant to the authorisation are not “lawful for all purposes” under section 27(1).””
Lord Paddick (LD) [V]
My Lords, I have three things to say. First, I beg to move; secondly, I wish to test the opinion of the House; and, thirdly, please take into account my voice when taking soundings in the Chamber.
Arrangement of Business
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Duncan of Springbank) (Con)
My Lords, I will call Members to speak in the order listed in the annexe to today’s list. Members are not permitted to intervene spontaneously; the Chair calls each speaker. Interventions during speeches or “before the noble Lord sits down” are not permitted.
During the debate on each group I invite Members, including Members in the Chamber, to speak to the clerk if they wish to speak after the Minister. I will call Members to speak in order of request and call the Minister to reply each time. The groupings are binding and it is not possible to de-group an amendment for separate debate. A participant who might wish to press an amendment other than the lead amendment in a group to a Division must give notice, either in the debate or by emailing the clerk.
Leave should be given to withdraw amendments. When putting the question, I will collect voices in the Chamber only. If a Member taking part remotely wants their voice accounted for if the question is put, they must make this clear when speaking on the group. We will now begin.
Counter-Terrorism and Sentencing Bill
Tuesday 9th February 2021
(3 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Counter-Terrorism and Sentencing Bill 2019-21 View all Counter-Terrorism and Sentencing Bill 2019-21 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 129-II Second marshalled list for Committee - (4 Feb 2021)
“Review of sections 1 to 31
(1) The Secretary of State must arrange for an independent review of the impact of sections 1 to 31 of this Act to be carried out in relation to the initial one-year period.(2) The Secretary of State must, after consultation with the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation, appoint a person with professional experience relating to imprisonment for offences of terrorism to conduct the review. (3) The review under subsection (1) must consider but is not limited to considering any evidence as to any effects of this Act—(a) by the imposition of longer prison sentences upon the reform or rehabilitation of those offenders on whom they are imposed;(b) upon the reform or rehabilitation of those offenders required to serve a greater proportion of their sentences in prison and a correspondingly smaller proportion on licence;(c) upon the radicalisation of prisoners other than those upon whom longer prison sentences are imposed or who are required to serve a greater proportion of their sentences in prison;(d) on the degree to which those prisoners upon whom a serious terrorist sentence is imposed are segregated from other prisoners.(4) The review must be completed as soon as practicable after the end of the initial one-year period.(5) As soon as practicable after a person has carried out the review in relation to a particular period, the person must—(a) produce a report of the outcome of the review, and(b) send a copy of the report to the Secretary of State.(6) The Secretary of State must lay before each House of Parliament a copy of the report under subsection (5)(b) within one month of receiving the report.(7) In this section, “initial one-year period” means the period of one year beginning with the day on which this Act is passed.”Member’s explanatory statement
This Clause would require an independent review of the impact of sections 1 to 31 of the Act after one year, with particular attention to radicalisation in prisons and the effects of longer periods of imprisonment on reform and rehabilitation and radicalisation in prisons and of segregating serious terrorist offenders.
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD) [V]
My Lords, by the amendments in this group noble Lords from around the House seek reviews of the impact of this legislation on the operation of our criminal justice system. Such reviews would consider: how we are dealing with terrorist offences, including the effects on the Prison and Probation Service and, in particular, the effects on prison capacity; the financial impact of the legislation; and the effect of the legislation on Northern Ireland.
The very fact that so many noble Lords seek such reviews, each with different emphases, demonstrates that however much the Bill’s provisions may chime with the prevailing public mood, for many of us they nevertheless cause uncertainty and misgivings. While we all recognise that terrorism must be dealt with extremely severely, on any view the Bill provides for radically harsher sentencing than we have had before. I suspect that the Minister and the Government recognise that this approach is not risk-free.
I shall concentrate on the review called for in the amendment in my name and the names of my noble friends Lady Hamwee and Lord Paddick. Our amendment is concerned with Part 1 of the Bill. To remind ourselves briefly of the ground we covered on day one in Committee, Part 1 deals first with sentences for what I might call ordinary criminal offences, punishable by two or more years’ imprisonment but aggravated by a terrorist connection; then, with serious terrorism offences and minimum custodial terms for offenders; with increased extended sentences for specified violent offences; and with other special custodial sentences for offenders of particular concern. The common threads running through all these provisions are, first, that judges’ discretion to impose more lenient sentences than prescribed in the legislation is considerably limited and, secondly, that terrorist offenders will generally spend much longer in prison than has been the case to date.
The review called for by our amendment is to be concerned, first, with the effect of the imposition of longer prison sentences on the reform and rehabilitation of those who serve them; secondly, with the likely outcome that longer sentences will mean offenders spending a greater proportion of them in custody and a lower proportion on licence; thirdly, with the radicalisation of other prisoners by those who will now spend far longer in custody and may have the dangerous potential to radicalise others who come into contact with them while in prison; and finally, on the segregation of serious terrorist prisoners serving these very long sentences. I make no apology for the fact that Liberal Democrats start from the position that while punishment plays an extremely important part in sentencing and that the more serious the offence the greater the punishment element in any sentence, nevertheless reform and rehabilitation, even in very long sentences, is a central purpose of sentencing.
Hope of reform and rehabilitation should motivate all who work within the system, as well as society at large. That belief is in our DNA. We do not believe that we should give up on serious offenders, even terrorist offenders. Nor do we accept that the lives of at least some among those whom we punish cannot ultimately be turned around.
Importantly, the review we seek calls for a person with professional experience of imprisonment for terrorist offences to be appointed by the Secretary of State, in consultation with the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation. It was therefore heartening to note that on 25 January Jonathan Hall QC, the independent reviewer, issued a statement saying that he had decided to review the subject of terrorism in the prison estate in England and Wales as part of his annual review of the terrorism Acts. His statement said that he was particularly interested in criminal behaviour which effectively encourages terrorism within prisons, in the status and influence of terrorist prisoners within them, in any connection to prison gangs, and in how to secure evidence of terrorist offences or terrorism-related activity in prisons. He is clear that his focus will be on terrorism because there is, he says, considerable literature already on radicalisation and extremism in prisons. Nevertheless, I would be surprised if he did not feel driven to consider, as part and parcel of considering terrorist activity within prisons, the question of radicalisation and extremism, and its effect on the prison population as a whole. Inevitably, he will also consider how to achieve reform and rehabilitation for as many terrorist offenders as possible.
One of any reviewer’s main starting points will be the work and findings of the 2016 Acheson review of Islamist extremism in prisons, probation and youth justice, the recommendations of which many noble Lords mentioned earlier in the passage of the Bill. In setting out the context of his review, Ian Acheson wrote:
“Islamist ideology can present itself in prisons as a struggle for power and dominance in which perceived weaknesses are exploited by a gang culture which threatens or undermines legitimate authority and security”
and that Islamic extremism
“should therefore be a greater and more visible priority for NOMS, led by people with the time and resource to act swiftly and with authority.”
I make no apology for concentrating on Islamic extremism in the context of the type of terrorism that this country, and many others, have faced in recent years.
Perhaps the most significant of that report’s recommendations was that those few extremists who presented what Acheson called
“a particular and enduring risk to national security through subversive behaviour, beliefs and activities”
should be segregated in specialist units, where they would be given “effective deradicalization” programmes. It has been very disappointing that although the Government accepted this recommendation, as they did nearly all the Acheson recommendations, there has been so little action. When I have asked Ministers about this failure of promised implementation, I am afraid that the responses have been defensive or, worse, complacent.
In the wake of the London Bridge attack by Usman Khan on 1 December 2019, Professor Acheson wrote in the Times:
“I have evidence that the separation centres that I recommended be established to incapacitate those posing most risk are not filling up because of institutional timidity to deal with a terrorist threat that is more acute than senior officials want to admit.”
He then said that
“I remain deeply unconvinced that this service has the corporate leadership, competence or will to deal with terrorist offenders. I’m not sure any tangible progress has been made since my review concluded three years ago.”
My concern is that since the disastrous attacks in 2019, the Government have been so focused on tougher sentencing that other aims, just as important or even more so, have been sidelined.
Lord Morris of Aberavon (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I make a short intervention to support the amendment so ably moved by the noble Lord, Lord Marks; it is carefully put and more than adequate. I support it because it is important that a close look is had into the workings of these important sections. One year should be sufficient, with the emphasis on consultation, which is vital to get an independent reviewer to take the temperature of how the Act is working.
In my many visits to prisons in my professional career, I was deeply aware of how prisoners live cheek by jowl. Particularly in the absence of other subjects of conversation, I would have thought, as a lay man, that prisons were fertile ground for radicalisation. It goes without saying that expert advice is needed. We are considering longer sentences, reform and rehabilitation, radicalisation and segregation—all vital subjects—and we should look at how the Act is working. With those few words, it is a pleasure to commend the amendment.
Lord Paddick (LD) [V]
My Lords, as my noble friend Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames has outlined, our Amendment 16 in this group calls for a review of the impacts of Part 1of the Bill. Why is such a review needed? The Explanatory Notes to the Bill describe its purpose as being to better protect the public from terrorism, effectively by two main means: ensuring that serious and dangerous terrorist offenders spend longer in custody, and supporting their disengagement from extremism and their rehabilitation.
I am pleased to note there is no longer any pretence that longer sentences act as a deterrent to terrorist offenders. There was no such claim from the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay, either, when he introduced the Bill to this House on Second Reading. That will save some time.
The two premises on which the Bill is based appear to be these: that the public are better protected from terrorists if terrorist offenders are in prison longer; and that a range of tailored interventions while they are in prison will lead to their disengagement from extremism and their rehabilitation. In short, the longer they are in prison, the less likely they are to pose a threat to the public and the more time is available to deradicalise and rehabilitate them.
The first and most obvious problem with the first premise is that you cannot detain every suspected terrorist for the rest of their lives, despite the Government’s attempts in this Bill to achieve exactly that for some terrorist offenders. With an increasing number of exceptions were this Bill to be passed unamended, you cannot normally lock up suspected terrorists indefinitely or so curtail their freedoms as to effectively deprive them of their liberty indefinitely. We will come to the indefinite deprivation of liberty without charge or trial when we come to the changes to the terrorism prevention and investigation measures.
The Government’s current Prevent strategy, at paragraph 3.5, says that
“radicalisation is driven by an ideology which sanctions the use of violence; by propagandists for that ideology here and overseas; and by personal vulnerabilities and specific local factors which, for a range of reasons, make that ideology seem both attractive and compelling.”
Such propagandists exist in our prisons. The Government’s argument that the longer someone is in prison, the more time there is to support their disengagement and rehabilitation can also work against their deradicalisation and rehabilitation.
First, it provides more time for them to be radicalised, or further radicalised, by propagandists in prison. There is clear evidence that this is happening. On 25 January, the Times reports the current Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation, Jonathan Hall QC, as saying that there was an increasing “drumbeat” of links between prison and terror attacks, with offenders not being properly punished for owning radical material, preaching extremism and inciting violence. The Times notes that the man given a whole life sentence last month for murdering three men in a park in Reading in a terror attack last year was befriended by a radical preacher while serving an earlier prison sentence. Secondly, if these vulnerable people believe that the sanctions imposed on them are disproportionate, or that the system that led to their imprisonment was unfair, the ideology promulgated by these propagandists is made to appear even more attractive and compelling.
No one would argue against a proportionate sentence of imprisonment for someone convicted in a court of law of a terrorist offence, as my noble friend Lord Marks has just said, or that, for a limited time, a suspected terrorist who is believed to present a real and immediate threat should not have their liberty to carry out a terrorist attack prevented while evidence is gathered upon which to base a trial in a court of law. However, paragraph 3.6 of the same Prevent strategy says:
“There is evidence to indicate that support for terrorism is associated with rejection of a cohesive, integrated, multi-faith society and of parliamentary democracy. Work to deal with radicalisation will depend on developing a sense of belonging to this country and support for our core values.”
Disproportionately long sentences of imprisonment and indefinite deprivation of liberty without charge or trial would reinforce this rejection of our cohesive, integrated, multifaith society and parliamentary democracy. They would undermine any sense of belonging to this country and any support for our core values. Indeed, they begin to call into question some of our core values.
What evidence is there that it is easier to develop a sense of belonging to this country and support for our core values while someone is in prison, compared with when they are on licence in the community? The Times article I quoted previously reports the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation as saying that encouraging and inciting terrorism were being
“successfully combated in the community”,
unlike the failure to address these issues in prison. Although he is to conduct a review of what is happening in prisons, it appears to be limited to examining how terrorism is detected, disrupted and prosecuted behind bars and whether improvements can be made, rather than the comprehensive review called for in our amendment.
For all these reasons, there is serious doubt whether Part 1 of the Bill will achieve what the Government intend by it; therefore, our Amendment 16 is necessary. Other amendments in this group call for a review of the financial impact of the Bill and the impact on the prison population, both of which could hamper the effectiveness of any deradicalisation or rehabilitation strategy and any attempt to prevent radicalisation or further radicalisation in prison. Reviews are called for on the specific impact of the Bill in Northern Ireland and on the National Probation Service, and we support these amendments as well.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab) [V]
My Lords, we have had a wide-ranging introduction to this group from both the noble Lords, Lord Marks and Lord Paddick. As the noble Lord, Lord Marks, said in his introduction, the amendments in this group call for a series of reviews of different aspects of the system. He expressed his misgivings and uncertainty that the system as it currently operates is succeeding and concluded his remarks by saying that a more sophisticated approach is needed.
Amendment 16 is the first amendment regarding the independent review of provisions, to which the noble Lord, Lord Marks, has spoken. The second in the group, Amendment 34 in the name of my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer, is concerned with the financial impact of the changes. The amendment would require the Secretary of State to publish a financial impact assessment of the Act within three years of it coming into force, and this would include the financial impact of extended sentences, extended licence periods, and any additional staffing resources needed as a result of the Act.
Amendment 36 in my name calls for a capacity impact assessment. This amendment would require the Secretary of State to publish an assessment of the capacity of the system as a whole. In their 2016 White Paper, Prison Safety and Reform, the then Government committed to £1.3 billion to create 10,000 new prison places by 2020 and to renovate the existing estate. The 2020 target was later changed to 2022; so far, only 206 new prison places have been built, with 3,360 under construction. The main reasons for those failures and delays were the delays in agreeing and receiving funding to build new prisons. This meant that the construction work began later than planned. In addition, HMPPS was not able to close all prisons and replace them with new ones, due to high demand, which meant it received less money from the sales of old prisons.
Amendment 38, also in my name, proposes a review of the legislation as it affects Northern Ireland. All measures in the Bill as they pertain to Northern Ireland would be reviewed annually with the Northern Ireland Minister for Justice and the Northern Ireland Executive; a report would also have to be published and laid before both Houses of Parliament. This would ensure that the Government worked constructively with the Ministry of Justice and Northern Ireland Executive, and that all the Bill’s implications were subject to regular review through the prism of Northern Ireland.
Amendment 39 proposes a review of the National Probation Service. This would require the Government to commission and publish a review of the impact of the Bill on the National Probation Service within 18 months of it coming into force. The review would have to consider, among other things, the level of probation support offered to offenders, as well as the number of specialist staff employed by the National Probation Service, and their skills.
I have received some briefing material from Napo—formerly the National Association of Probation Officers —which makes the point that the probation service is in crisis and that many of the offender management teams are struggling to maintain a balance between experienced staff and newly qualified staff. It is not uncommon to find teams in the community where the most experienced officer has only two to three years of post-qualification experience. As recruitment increases, as it is projected to increase, the pressure on the frontline staff will grow, with more probation officers being moved into management and training roles to support the trainees. The point made by Napo is that a properly remunerated and supported expansion of the probation service is needed to face the challenges ahead.
The Advocate-General for Scotland (Lord Stewart of Dirleton) (Con)
My Lords, Amendment 16 would introduce a new clause requiring the Secretary of State to arrange for an independent review of the impact of Clauses 1 to 31 in the first year of the Act coming into force. I must respectfully disagree that this amendment is necessary. As the House has heard in Committee, the Government already have an Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation, Jonathan Hall QC, and his remit covers the Bill. Indeed, as the noble Lord, Lord Marks, referred to, he has announced his intention to conduct a review in prisons, which we welcome. He has already shown his expertise and engagement with the Bill in its entirety by providing detailed comments on its provisions—contributions that I know this House and those in the other place valued highly. We have every confidence that he will continue to provide valuable and important scrutiny following its enactment and through the prisons review which he will be undertaking. I therefore disagree that there is any need to appoint another reviewer to focus on just some of the Bill’s provisions.
That said, I recognise that the noble Lord, Lord Marks, and others indicated particular concerns by specifying the areas which such a review ought to consider. I shall take these points in turn, which I hope will assuage noble Lords’ concerns. First, there is the question of the impact of longer sentences—or a longer proportion of the sentence spent in custody—on prisoners’ rehabilitation as a result of the Bill. I start by reflecting that within a year of the Bill’s commencement, the impact of longer sentences will not yet be available for us to analyse. Importantly, however, the rationale behind longer custodial sentences for the most serious and dangerous terrorist offenders is one of public protection, which is this Government’s primary concern. Ensuring that these offenders are incapacitated for longer meets this ambition. The noble Lord, Lord Marks, spoke of the crucial importance of the hope of reform and rehabilitation, and we on this side share that hope. It is not that we consider that rehabilitation is unimportant; it will remain central to the work that is undertaken with terrorist offenders in custody.
Second is the question of the Government’s ability to protect other prisoners from radicalisation within the prison estate and the use of separation centres to this end. These issues are raised in reference to the Acheson review recommendations. I assure the noble Lord that most extremist prisoners are and should be managed in the mainstream prison population, with appropriate conditions and controls.
Across the entire prison estate, we have, and seek to maintain, robust case-management processes to manage the risks posed by extremists and to prevent them radicalising others, including co-located offenders. The Government, however, have designed separation centres to hold the most subversive extremist prisoners, preventing them spreading their malicious ideology to other prisoners. These centres were never intended for use with significant numbers of terrorist offenders, as this would undermine their main purpose: to separate the most dangerous from those most vulnerable to radicalisation. The Government use these centres only when it is necessary and, for reasons of national security, the Government do not confirm the numbers of prisoners in individual separation centres.
Finally, I note that the Bill will be subject to the usual practice of post-legislative scrutiny three years after the Bill receives Royal Assent, as is the case for all legislation. In light of this, and the existing position of the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation, who already has authority to review this legislation, I do not believe this amendment to be necessary.
Amendment 34, spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede, and in the name of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, would insert a new clause requiring the Secretary of State to lay a report within three years on the financial impact of the provisions of the Bill, specifically detailing the effects of extended sentences and extended licence periods; the expansion of the sentence for offenders of particular concern regime; the use of polygraph testing as a licence condition; and, as a result of these measures, any increased staffing resources required in Her Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service. I appreciate from the terms of the amendment that there is a concern to examine the cost of these measures when set against the impact assessment already published by the Government.
I make the point that numbers of terrorism offences are so low, comparatively speaking, that the impact of the measures the Bill puts in place is minimal. The impact of licence periods will depend on judicial discretion in setting them and, if the impact assessment carried out and published by the Government was inaccurate, that would be shown up by the process of post-legislative scrutiny. I cite to the Committee a number of figures to inform what I have just said. On 31 December 2020, there were 78,180 in the prison population. The impact assessment estimates the impact of the measures will be around 50 additional cases at any one time. On 30 September 2020, there were 222,657 cases on the probation caseload. The Bill’s impact assessment estimates that the impact of the measures will be around 50 additional case at any one time. The additional polygraph testing as a licence condition is estimated to affect fewer than 150 offenders at any one time, at a cost of about £400,000 annually in steady state.
Therefore, our impact assessment and the figures that support it estimate that the measures in the Bill will have a minimal impact on the prison population and the probation caseload of fewer than 50 additional cases at any one time. This impact, though small, will build up gradually over time and so will not be felt immediately. We are therefore confident that these changes will not have a substantial financial impact on Her Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service. I assure the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede, that the Government are already providing funding to support our legislative changes: an increase of £90 million in funding for counterterrorism policing this year; an increase in the resources dedicated to training front-line prison and probation staff through the counterterrorism step-up programme; and an immediate £500,000 package for the Victims of Terrorism Unit. The Government will continue to publish data on prison population and probation caseloads, and we will carry out an internal review on polygraph testing. I do not believe that a legislative commitment is required or necessary to review the financial impact of these measures.
The noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede, spoke also to Amendment 36, which would insert a new clause requiring the Secretary of State to lay a report on the potential impact of the Bill’s provisions on prison capacity. Again, I respectfully draw his attention to the impact assessment the Government published alongside the Bill, which has already made that assessment. The estimates I have already spoken of are based on recent trends in overall numbers of terrorist offenders being convicted. As the cohort of offenders affected by the Bill is small, these changes will have only a minor impact on prison capacity. We will always provide places, of course, for those sentenced to custody.
In addition to the impact assessment, as I have said, the Government routinely publish data on prison population statistics. I do not believe that a legislative commitment will provide any greater opportunity for scrutiny in this respect. It is worth underlining that the Government’s ambitious programme of improvement in this area—the counterterrorism step-up programme—will put more specialist staff in prisons, working directly with prisoners on rehabilitation, as well as providing intelligence and monitoring of such prisoners. This will make our prisons, and ultimately our streets, safer, an ambition that I am sure noble Lords will support. I know that that is a matter of agreement across the Committee. This programme will be important to ensure that prisons can manage any increased demand from terrorists serving longer in prisons in the near future. Therefore, it is not necessary for us to legislate for a further assessment of the potential impact of these measures.
The noble Lord spoke also to Amendment 38, which would insert a new clause placing a statutory requirement on the Government to review all measures in the Bill that relate to Northern Ireland, in consultation with the Northern Ireland Minister for Justice and the Northern Ireland Executive. This review would be required annually and to be published as a report and laid before Parliament. First, I assure him that in developing the Bill, despite the fact that terrorism is a reserved matter, we have carefully considered Northern Ireland’s unique history with terrorism and taken great care not to tamper with provisions enshrined in the Belfast agreement and, particularly, the Northern Ireland (Sentences) Act 1998. Furthermore, when we have found concessions viable, we have made them, as we demonstrated through our removal of clauses providing for polygraph testing in licensed conditions, following assurances from the Northern Ireland Executive that they are satisfied that the legislative power to use such measures exists already. That said, I remain of the view that we need to take a robust approach to terrorist offending wherever it occurs in the United Kingdom and whatever ideology it aligns itself to. We must avoid a two-tier approach to the sentencing and release of terrorists across the United Kingdom.
The most recent data shows that in 2019-20, there were just 14 convictions for terrorism-related offending in Northern Ireland, and just six in the previous year. With numbers at that level, I submit that there will be too little information on which to base an annual review. The same amendment was raised in the other place, and I respectfully remind the noble Lord that the opportunity already exists for the House to review the Bill’s impact in the relevant committee three years after it receives Royal Assent, through the post-legislative scrutiny process. A review clause of this nature is therefore not required. Reviewing the impact of a Bill after three years will provide a more meaningful opportunity for review. For these reasons, I am not persuaded of the benefit of an annual review of the Bill’s measures in Northern Ireland.
Amendment 39 would insert a new clause placing a statutory requirement on the Government to report on the impact of the provisions in the Act on the National Probation Service 18 months after its enactment. I assure the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede, that we have considered fully the impact on the National Probation Service of the measures in this Bill, which we consider to be low. We set out the impact in full in the published impact assessment.
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD) [V]
My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken and to the Minister for his detailed reply.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Morris of Aberavon, with all his experience, had no difficulty in recognising the need for the review for which we have called, and clearly set out why a review after a year was appropriate. My noble friend Lord Paddick emphasised the need for deradicalisation and made the point, which ought to be obvious but was not addressed by the Minister, that everyone will be released at some stage so working to help them to be safe on release is therefore crucial. He also highlighted the clear danger that keeping offenders in prison for disproportionately long sentences may make them more likely to offend rather than less by further radicalising them, depriving them of hope and undermining their prospects of reform.
The noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, in speaking to the amendments in his name and that of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, pointed out the risk of implementing increased sentences without a clear approach to making safe, new prison places available and to ensuring that the special implications for Northern Ireland are properly considered. Particularly important from my perspective, he stressed the role of the probation service.
In response, the Minister urged the Committee to accept that the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation is the appropriate reviewer of this legislation. I do not accept that. While his role is of course extremely important, it is not the same as someone tasked with a full review directed at the whole, overall impact of this legislation and focused on it. There is a well-established place for formal review after legislation is passed. Nor do I accept that it is necessary for reviewing the impact of this Bill that we should see, as the Minister appeared to suggest at one stage, what has happened on release at the end of offenders’ periods in custody or even after three years. What is necessary is to see, and see reasonably quickly, how these sentences are working and how they are affecting prisons and the prison population—including in particular how the presence of more, very long-term terrorists affects those already in prisons. We need to assess the financial and other impacts at an early stage and see how far the system is changed by the new long sentences.
The Minister questioned the impact of those long sentences because the number of prisoners is low—indeed, he went so far as to describe it as “minimal”—but that leaves out of account the impact of the number of prisoner years to be served by those on very long sentences and the importance of those prisoners within the system, including the danger of their glorification by other prisoners with an inclination towards terrorism.
For all the Minister asserting that enough review work and impact assessments have been done already, so that the reviews we seek are unnecessary, I disagree. However, in the hope that we will be able to discuss a programme for future review with the Government, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment at this stage.
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment and the amendment at page 29, line 14 are consequential on the removal of Clause 35.
Member’s explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement to the amendment at page 28, line 30.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Alderdice) (LD)
We now come to the group beginning with Amendment 19. I remind noble Lords that anyone wishing to speak after the Minister should email the clerk during the debate. Anyone wishing to press this amendment to a Division must make that clear in debate.
Amendment 19
Baroness Hamwee
“(4) In section 30 (use in criminal proceedings of evidence from polygraph sessions), in subsection (1), leave out “a released” and insert “any”.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment probes the use of information obtained through polygraphs against third persons.
Baroness Hamwee (LD) [V]
My Lords, I appreciate that the Committee dealt with some clauses regarding polygraphs on the previous day in Committee, to the extent of filleting the Bill so that certain provisions do not extend beyond England and Wales. I apologise to the Committee that I did not retrieve Amendments 19A and 19B, which were tabled at that time. I shall save my more general remarks about polygraphs for the next grouping, as this is a narrow point.
Section 30 of the Offender Management Act excludes the use of two matters as evidence in any proceedings against a released person. Those matters are physiological reactions and a statement made during participation in a polygraph session. The amendment would make it clear that those matters could not be used as evidence in proceedings against a third party, its purpose being to ask whether that is now the case. When dealing with terrorism offences, there must be a lot of interest in the contacts of individuals—and, perhaps, a lot of interest in finding evidence that can be used against those other people.
I was very grateful for the teach-in arranged by the MoJ on how these sessions are currently run for sex offenders. During that briefing, it was explained to us that the sessions are not fishing or trawling for information; they are not wide-ranging discussions to see what an offender might let slip. They use closed questions, to which the answer will primarily be yes or no. It seems to me that some questions can lend themselves to inquiries about situations which may be relevant to other persons: for instance, “Since our last session, have you had any contact with, direct or indirect, or any news of X?” or “Has your wife had any news of X’s family?” My amendment is to probe whether the answers can be used in evidence against X. I beg to move.
Lord Faulks (Non-Afl) [V]
My Lords, I regard this group and the next as essentially probing the Government on the use of polygraphs in relation to those convicted of serious terrorism offences. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, I attended the briefing last week, during which the potential use of polygraphs was explained; I also found it useful. As I understand it, polygraphs will be a tool—not instead of anything else—to assist in monitoring by the National Probation Service of offenders who have been convicted of serious terrorist offences and are considered at high risk of causing further serious harm.
I need a little convincing that their use in monitoring sexual offenders is really a terribly useful precedent for the challenge presented by serious terrorist offenders, who often have particular ideological convictions which may make detecting lies or inconsistences rather a different challenge from serious sexual offenders, although I understand that polygraphs have been used by the National Probation Service since about 2013.
I suspect piloting may not be particularly easy, given the numbers involved. We all know from the terrible events following, for example, what happened at Fishmongers’ Hall how challenging it is to assess whether someone has been successfully rehabilitated or not. During the last group, the noble Lord, Lord Marks, stressed how important it was for there to be “effective deradicalisation”. I am sure all noble Lords agree that is a desirable aim, but it is something of a holy grail. As we discussed in Committee last week, effective deradicalisation has been a significant challenge for those responsible for managing offenders, not just in this country but in many others where Islamic terrorists and other extremists have presented problems.
I understand the primary purpose of this Bill to be protecting the public from the very serious consequences of offences committed by these offenders. That does not preclude the possibility of rehabilitation, but I think the balance in the public’s view is very much in favour of protecting them.
I understand that there will be an internal review of this polygraph testing—the noble and learned Lord, Lord Stewart, said so in response to a previous group—and that it is considered that it may involve something like 150 offenders, a relatively small cohort. He also said the responsibility for these offenders might, as I understand it, eventually be transferred to a specialist branch of the National Probation Service—the NSD. Experience of handling terrorist offenders in particular would certainly be desirable.
Although I look forward to the Minister’s response, this process of assessing how best to assist in monitoring serious offenders seems very challenging. Those with that responsibility need all the help they can get, given the difficulties they will encounter. At the moment, I see considerable advantage in using these polygraphs.
Lord Thomas of Gresford (LD) [V]
My Lords, may I say how much I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, in his warning against equating too closely the use of polygraphs in monitoring sexual offenders with their use on terrorist offenders, who obviously pose a very different problem? The Minister should consider that.
Sixty years ago, in 1961, I was proudly driving my red and black little Austin A40—new car, brand new wife—along the twisting road from Mold to Denbigh in north Wales. It was a snowy day, just like today—that is what reminded me of the incident. We were not in a hurry. I approached a bend well on my own side of the road at a reasonable speed. There was a car parked on the bend; a large lorry coming from the opposite direction at speed saw it late, swerved out to overtake it on my side of the road and, as he pulled back, his rear end hit my car.
I gave evidence in the Denbigh Magistrates’ Court and found it very stressful. A police sketch of the accident was produced which purported to show where my car had ended up, with a 30-foot, perfectly straight skid mark. I told the chairman of the Bench I thought my car had finished some 20 yards short of where it was shown on the plan. He said, “Don’t you appreciate this is a carefully prepared police plan of your accident?” I said, “Well, it is entitled ‘rough sketch plan’.” Everybody laughed—except the chairman. The defendant was acquitted of careless driving, with the chairman commenting that the wrong person had been prosecuted —it should have been me. However, the lorry driver’s insurers paid me and my wife damages for personal injury without any questions.
The point of this lengthy reminiscence is that witnesses are giving evidence up and down the country in Crown Courts and magistrates’ courts every day, but nobody has ever thought to put a polygraph test on them as they are questioned. Your pulse may be racing, your blood pressure through the roof; you may be sweating, wishing you were anywhere other than perched in a witness box above the well of the court with myriad sceptical eyes looking you up and down—not because you are lying, but you may be afraid that someone, like the chairman of the Denbigh Bench, may not believe you. There are also those pesky lawyers paid to make you out to be a liar with their ridiculous version of the event. That is why the present Domestic Abuse Bill calls for special measures for victims and their witnesses and the present overseas operations Bill has a presumption against prosecution altogether, to save old soldiers the stress of recalling bad times.
The purpose of polygraph testing, as I said at our last meeting on 26 January, is to measure the physiological response of a person to questioning. It depends on the proposition that a person who lies will demonstrate it by changes in his blood pressure, perspiration, heartbeat and so on. I pointed out last time that these conditions are explicable by the stress of being questioned, by being thought to be lying, even by the state of your stomach-turning digestion, or by fear.
Because these physiological changes do not demonstrate that a person is lying, at least to the degree of certainty required for a conviction, evidence of the result of a polygraph test is excluded in court. It is therefore very good policy that, so far, the courts of this country have refused to accept polygraph results as admissible evidence.
We have already discussed whether such evidence should be used where terrorists are released from prison to monitor their continuing behaviour in the community. The purpose of this amendment is to probe whether the Government harbour any desire to go any further: whether this restraint will be maintained if the results of such a test appear to be relevant to a future terrorist trial in a court. That is when principle is put to the test—when there appears to be an indiscriminate danger to the public.
I support this amendment and I look forward to hearing the Minister’s comments on the proposal.
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD) [V]
My Lords, as my noble friend Lady Hamwee and others have explained, Clause 32 puts the imposition of polygraph conditions on serious terrorist offenders released on licence on the same footing as applies in the case of serious sexual offences. I say at the outset that I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, and my noble friend Lord Thomas that different considerations apply with terrorist offenders and sexual offenders.
Yesterday, in Committee on the Domestic Abuse Bill, we discussed the use of polygraph testing for domestic abuse offenders released on licence—and again, different considerations apply. Nevertheless, I said then that my outright opposition to the use of polygraph testing anywhere in our criminal justice system had become more nuanced when the proposed use was for the limited purpose of monitoring compliance with licence conditions on release from custody. My outright opposition hitherto stemmed from the lack of proven reliability of polygraph testing and from the perception at least that it is directed to providing binary answers, true or false, to complex evidential questions—hence the use of statements such as “He failed a polygraph test”. Lawyers naturally prefer a system which depends on the careful and balanced evaluation of evidence, often conflicting or inconsistent, rather than certainty.
In part, as I said yesterday, I have become more sympathetic to the use of polygraph testing with the help of the comprehensive and very helpful learning session organised by the MoJ last Thursday, which was attended by a number of Peers, including the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, and my noble friend Lady Hamwee, as they have said. In addition, I accept that there are legitimate reasons for the use of polygraph testing to provide information to the police and others investigating serious offences and, in the case of terrorism, often potential offences that threaten multiple lives. However, accepting polygraph testing for those limited purposes does not mean that we can accept polygraph testing in criminal cases, and that will remain our position unless and until the reliability of polygraph testing is far more conclusively established than it is now. I agreed completely with the observations of my noble friend Lord Thomas of Gresford on how stress can affect evidence given in a court and on how falsely polygraph testing may skew such evidence.
Our Amendment 19 would amend Section 30 of the Offender Management Act to ensure that evidence of any statement made by a released defender in a polygraph session, and any of his physiological reactions while being so examined, could not be used in a criminal prosecution of any person, not just the released offender. It is right that this amendment is billed as a probing amendment, but that is plainly right. However, at the moment, Section 30 does not say that. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wolfson, said yesterday in answer to me on the domestic abuse provisions:
“Section 30 of that Act provides unequivocally that any statement or any physiological reaction made by an offender during the polygraph session may not be used in criminal proceedings in which that person is a defendant.”—[Official Report, 8/2/21; col. 41.]
Therefore, the Government accept the principle that evidence obtained as a result of polygraph testing, or flowing from physiological reactions under such testing, cannot be used as evidence in a prosecution brought against the person being tested. It must be right that it should not be possible to use such evidence in the prosecution of anybody else, and the reasons mentioned by my noble friend Lord Thomas apply equally to that situation.
It therefore seems that, while this is a probing amendment, it is an amendment that the Government can and should plainly accept without compromising their position or anything that the Bill is trying to achieve, and that it is simply consistent with the position taken by the Government that polygraph-testing evidence cannot be used to secure a criminal conviction.
I stress, in the context of the danger posed by terrorism, that I take the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, that deradicalisation is difficult to achieve. He described it as a holy grail. I emphasise that nothing we say would prevent those administering polygraph testing to released offenders from passing on to the police for the purpose of preventing terrorism information revealed to them. Nor should the police be inhibited from using such information passed on to them in investigating and avoiding terrorist offences.
Amendments 19A and 19B would have the effect of insisting on the affirmative resolution procedure for regulations making provision relating to the conduct of polygraph sessions further to a terrorism-related offence. I suggest that the need for the affirmative resolution procedure is obvious. I would be grateful, however, if the Minister could confirm a number of other points about the regulations proposed, not just for the conduct of polygraph sessions but for using information obtained in the course of such sessions in relation to recall from licence.
My understanding is that, as with sexual offences, and as we were assured yesterday with domestic abuse offences, no decisions on recall from licence can be taken as a result of a test indicating deception. If the result of a test implies that an offender is lying about breach of a licence condition or about further offences, for example, I understand that investigators may ask the police to investigate further before taking any positive action. There is therefore to be no recall on the basis of a failed test, which will lead to recall only if the police find other evidence establishing that a breach has occurred. I hope that will be confirmed in a terrorist context as well.
I also have some concerns about cases where an offender makes a disclosure in a polygraph test, confessing to behaviour that is a breach, and who might therefore be recalled. I asked yesterday about this and was told by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wolfson, that recall in domestic abuse cases may follow if
“disclosures made voluntarily by the offender during the polygraph examination … reveal that they can no longer be safely managed in the community. Those circumstances would also lead to a return to custody. The important point to bear in mind in that regard is that that is no different from a situation in which an offender makes such disclosures without the polygraph licence condition.”—[Official Report, 8/2/21; col. 41.]
I take that point, but I regard it as important that, before a disclosure in a polygraph test can lead to recall, there should be a hearing where the disclosure is either admitted by the offender to be true or can be tested so as to ensure that it is voluntary, genuine and true before a recall based on it is affected.
Yesterday I posed a number of questions to the Minister in relation to domestic abuse polygraph conditions. They are reported in Hansard, but the same questions are pertinent today in connection with this Bill. They concerned in particular: first, a guarantee that the results of polygraph testing carried out under the clause could not be used to secure convictions of a criminal offence; secondly, that recall from licence on the basis of a disclosure in a polygraph test of a breach of a licence condition will not be possible without a further hearing—the point I just mentioned; and, finally, whether evidence of a breach of a polygraph licensing condition could ever be itself based on evidence from a failed polygraph test. It would be helpful to have those answers in the context of this Bill relating to terrorist offences as well.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton (Lab) [V]
It is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames. He has covered much of the area with which I am concerned in these sensible probing amendments. The next amendment, Amendment 20, which talks about piloting polygraph tests in this area, deals in effect with the same concerns.
My understanding of the position that the Government are advancing is that we are now concerned only with England and Wales because they deleted the Scotland and Northern Ireland provision that was there before. In effect, they are applying the principles in the Offender Management Act 2007 on polygraph tests. Therefore, the first question is: should one put a polygraph condition into the licence conditions of a terrorist offender? As I understand it, a polygraph condition is that the offender has to agree, if asked, to a polygraph. Will it be automatic that such a condition will be imposed for terrorist offenders? What will be the basis on which such conditions will be imposed?
We on this side are very keen that the authorities should have every reasonable tool that they can to try to prevent terrorist offenders, including those who are released on licence. I am keen to probe whether this particular provision contributes to that. As I understand it from the Government’s proposal, the purpose of the polygraph sessions that will be included in the licence condition will be only to monitor the offender’s compliance with the other conditions of his licence or improve the way in which he is managed during his release on licence.
In relation to the first of those two—monitoring compliance with the other conditions of his licence—does that mean that it will be used to see whether he is in fact complying? If he fails a polygraph test, could that be a basis for recalling him to prison on the basis that he has failed to comply with the other conditions of his licence? If it is the Government’s intention not just to rely on the failure of a polygraph test before recalling an offender to prison, where is that reflected in the statute or in the Bill?
In addition to those questions, to what extent is the Minister worried that, if somebody passed a polygraph test, it would lead the authorities not to make further investigations about an offender’s possible breaches of compliance of the conditions of his licence? Additionally, in relation to the second purpose of polygraph testing—namely, to improve the way in which he is managed during his release on licence—can the Minister give us some examples of what that would mean in practice?
Can I deal with the legal use of the answers to polygraph tests? Section 30 of the Offender Management Act 2007—this has already been referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee—says that evidence of
“any statement made by the released person while participating in a polygraph session; and any physiological reactions of the released person while being questioned in the course of a polygraph examination”
cannot be used against that released person for any offence. In answer to my question, that of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and that of the noble Lord, Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames, can the Minister confirm whether that means that those two things can be used in relation to proceedings against somebody else? It would appear from Section 30 of the Offender Management Act 2007 that they could be. Can they be used on their own for recall proceedings, or are recall proceedings simply an administrative act—in which case, the question of whether they can be relied on alone to justify a recall arises?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Wolfson of Tredegar) (Con)
My Lords, in responding to the amendment and the various points put to me, I will bear in mind and seek to avoid falling into the trap of being one of those “pesky lawyers” that, as the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, reminded us, still exist.
In that regard, let me turn to the substance of the amendments, particularly Amendment 19 put down by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. This amendment seeks to amend Section 30 of the Offender Management Act, which relates to the use of polygraph evidence in criminal proceedings. I understand that the noble Baroness and others may have concerns that evidence gathered from the conduct of polygraph examinations could be used against a third party in a criminal trial. I know that we covered this yesterday in the Domestic Abuse Bill, but I want to take a moment to record my thanks to those in my department who arranged the learning session for a number of noble Lords, including the noble Lords, Lord Marks and Lord Faulks, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. I understand that they found it helpful and informative, which perhaps indicates that those sessions could be used more often. I assure the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and the Committee that it is neither the intention nor the effect of the polygraph testing provisions of the Bill that they will be used in criminal proceedings against third parties.
In response to the specific point put to me by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, we do not harbour any desire to go further than the provisions in the Bill.
Polygraph examinations are now well established as a risk management tool in England and Wales. They have been used successfully, as the Committee has heard, with sex offenders since 2013. In the context of terrorist offenders, which I acknowledge represents a different cohort, they are—if I can put it this way—an additional tool in the toolbox. They will be used, to respond to the point made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, where it is necessary and proportionate to do so as part of the assessment of the risk offenders pose in the community while on licence and how that risk can best be managed.
As I made clear to the noble Lord, Lord Marks, yesterday in the Committee sitting on the Domestic Abuse Bill, Section 30 of the Offender Management Act makes clear that
“any statement made by the released person while participating in a polygraph session; and any physiological reactions of the released person while being questioned in the course of a polygraph examination”
may not be used in criminal proceedings in which that person is a defendant. While that section does not expressly provide for such information to be precluded from use against others in criminal proceedings, which is what this amendment seeks to achieve, I do not believe the amendment to be necessary.
This is because, although there may be circumstances where information obtained through the polygraph test relating to a third party can be passed from probation to the police to make further investigations, the polygraph material would not be suitable for use as evidence in its own right against a third party. Any allegation against a third party would ultimately need to be tested in court. The court would have to consider, among other things, whether the polygraph evidence was admissible in such other criminal proceedings and the effect of the hearsay rule. While that would ultimately be a matter for the judge in the particular case, noble Lords will appreciate the great difficulties that would be presented by the hearsay rule.
The noble Lord, Lord Faulks, said that sex cases are different from terrorism cases. He is of course right, but he was also right to say that what is presented by terrorism cases is a difficult and challenging task. That is why, to use my earlier metaphor, this is another tool in the toolbox which we would like the services to have available to them. In that regard, I can assure Members of the Committee that polygraph testing will not replace any other risk assessment tools or measures, it is an additional source of information that would otherwise not be available. On that basis, I would invite the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, to withdraw the amendment as it is unnecessary.
I turn now to Amendments 19A and 19B, which are tabled in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Paddick. The amendment to Clause 35 would require regulations relating to the conduct of polygraph examinations to be subject to the affirmative procedure. Perhaps I may remind the Committee that we have already tabled our intention to remove Clause 35 from the Bill, alongside Clauses 33 and 34 dealing with the introduction of polygraph testing as a licence condition in Scotland and Northern Ireland, as part of our efforts to secure legislative consent from each Administration. We covered this in the first sitting of the Committee. It does not reflect a change in policy for England and Wales. As I have said, we firmly believe that polygraph testing is an additional and useful tool.
In that regard, polygraph examinations will be used to monitor compliance with licence conditions based on what has happened and will not ask about future behaviour. I think it was the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, who put to the Committee an example of the type of questions that might be asked. She was right to frame those questions in the past tense. A polygraph examiner might ask, for example, “Did you enter those premises?”, if that was something which had been prohibited by the licence conditions. The question would not be, “Are you going to enter the premises next week?” The questions look at what has happened and past behaviour rather than future intent. They are not used as a way of trying to catch offenders out, but as a measure to identify the extent to which the person on licence is complying with the conditions of the licence.
Although I accept, as the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, reminded the Committee, that giving evidence in court can be a stressful experience, it was interesting to note that he pointed out that we have provided special measures for vulnerable witnesses in the Domestic Abuse Bill. As I understood it, he used that as an example of a case where we recognise that giving evidence can be stressful. Of course, we have also provided for the polygraph examination of the perpetrators of domestic abuse in that Bill. Just as it is in the Domestic Abuse Bill, it is also here; it is an additional tool in our toolbox.
I come to a question put to me by the noble Lord, Lord Marks, which I think was repeated by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton: if a person who is subject to a polygraph examination “fails” a question, can they be recalled immediately? There are two parts to the answer and let me give both. First, what do we mean by “failing”? We use the term as a form of shorthand, and the Government factsheets use it because they are written in what we hope is plain English so that members of the public can understand them, but it is not the correct professional term. The correct terminology that is used by examiners in reports is whether there is a significant response or no significant response. That more nuanced term makes it clear that we are not dealing with a question of passing or failing here; rather it is about whether the examination results indicate that the response has been truthful or not.
That is why, coming to the second part of the question, we do not recall offenders to custody on a significant response in itself. In answer to the question put to me by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, that is not in the Bill, but it is firm policy. Therefore, “failure”, a term that the Committee will now appreciate is a form of shorthand, does not by itself or by default trigger a recall. Where it is safe to do so—for example, with the addition of new licence conditions—the offender can continue to be managed in the community. However, if a disclosure is made which indicates that the risk has escalated beyond the point where the offender can be managed safely in the community, they can be recalled to custody.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Haskel) (Lab)
My Lords, I have received a request from the noble Lord, Lord Robathan, to speak after the Minister.
Lord Robathan (Con)
My Lords, I apologise for not adding my name, which I put down to speak but not on a particular group. Yet again, I find myself as the only person taking part in the debate who is not a lawyer. I shall come back to that later.
In layman’s terms, I joined the Zoom call on polygraph testing last week, to which other noble Lords referred, and it was extremely useful. I thank Heather Sutton from the probation service, Professor Don Grubin and others for laying it on because it explained to me what polygraph testing is. They explained straightaway that a polygraph is not a lie detector but an additional tool to enhance the safe and effective risk management of offenders and could not be used as evidence.
I did, in fact, ask why sex offending was used as the only precedent for using polygraphs on terrorists. I think that I sort of understood the response, which was that it was a question of denial. That is what they sought to find out. It was a very useful teach-in session.
That is why I am slightly puzzled that we are discussing these amendments. As I said, I am not a lawyer. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, reminded us that law can be a gift that keeps on giving. We were reminded of that only at the weekend. We heard from three Liberal Democrats. I think they all said—the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, certainly did—that you cannot use a polygraph test as evidence. If you cannot use it as evidence against the specific person against whom you have done the test, surely by implication it cannot be used as evidence against somebody else. My noble friend the Minister specifically pointed to hearsay. It seems that we are slightly arguing about angels on the head of a needle: it will not be used, so why on earth are we arguing about it? This was presented as a probing amendment, but it seems to be probing something that we do not really need to probe
The point of polygraph testing is that, as an additional tool, we would get away from the case of Usman Khan at Fishmongers’ Hall, who had convinced his mentor, Jack Merritt, that he was de-radicalised. Jack Merritt believed in him and his redemption, and Usman Khan killed him. Surely we should use these additional tools if they have any substance or credibility. From what we heard in the teach-in last week, polygraph testing has some credibility.
Let us please back the use of an additional tool until proved otherwise, because frankly we are dealing with something that I guess probably none of us in this Chamber or on this call understand. We do not understand why somebody would get into an aeroplane, train for months in the United States and then fly that aeroplane into the twin towers. We do not understand suicide bombers. We do not understand the radicalisation that takes place in these people, so surely we should give the Government every tool they can possibly have. I certainly back them on this.
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful for the question put to me by my noble friend. As I said, that is precisely what the Government seek to do: to provide an additional tool for the management of these offenders. The point he made regarding deradicalisation is, if I may say so, very perceptive. It is a difficult part of the overall structure we are putting in place in the Bill, as we have in other legislation.
I am delighted to hear that my noble friend found the teach-in session helpful. I am particularly grateful to him for putting on record the names of the people who presented it. I know that they put a lot of work into putting it together.
The only point I would respectfully disagree with my noble friend on is one that I had cause to point out to another Member of your Lordships’ House—I think last week. One must really stop apologising for not being a lawyer. I think my noble friend did it twice. I pointed out last week that what is regarded as a cause for apology in this House is generally regarded as a badge of honour everywhere else. The question put to me by my noble friend exemplifies how this is a matter for lawyers and non-lawyers.
Baroness Hamwee (LD) [V]
My Lords, at the briefing by the MoJ, I was one of those who volunteered—at some point when we are able to travel again—to undergo a test, because I would like to experience what it is like. I sound a note of caution about the use of private—sometimes confidential but certainly private—sessions. They are terrific and helpful, but only so far; I do not believe that they can take the place of public debate. I could respond at some length to the noble Lord, Lord Robathan, but it would be outside the scope of the amendment. The purpose of scrutiny and its place in the development of legislation mean that it must be undertaken in public. I do not mean to sound too pompous in saying that, but it is something that I believe very profoundly.
The Minister apologised for being a pesky lawyer, but I think that being a pesky lawyer or an activist lawyer is a badge of honour. I disagreed with the comment of my noble friend Lord Thomas that people would not want to apply polygraphs in criminal proceedings. I can imagine that there are a lot of situations when people in court think that they would very much like to apply a polygraph to some witnesses—but that is by the by. I have told myself that I would not take up too much time with this response, because we have a lot of amendments to get through.
Inevitably, perhaps, this turned into a more general debate. On the specific amendment, we are told that it is unnecessary, and that what one might take—I cannot think of the right term— from a polygraph would be unsuitable for use in court, because it would be hearsay. I shall have a look at that after today, but I think that there is a little bit of circularity in all that. Certainly, in the real world, the questions that might be asked would, I am sure, provide material for the police, if not the prosecution—but that is a common-sense response. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Haskel) (Lab)
We now come to the group consisting of Amendment 20. I remind noble Lords that anyone wishing to speak after the Minister should email the clerk during the debate. Anyone wishing to press the amendment to a Division must make that clear in the debate.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton
“Review of polygraph testing on terrorist offenders
(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of this Act being passed and before sections 32 to 35 come into force, conduct a pilot of the use of polygraph testing on terrorist offenders.(2) The outcome of the pilot must be reported to Parliament within 12 months of this Act being passed.(3) The report must include—(a) data on the number of terrorist offenders who have been subject to polygraph testing during the pilot;(b) an explanation of how the results of polygraph tests have been used during the pilot;(c) an analysis of the effect polygraph testing has had on the licence conditions of terrorist offenders;(d) data on the number of terrorist offenders who were recalled to prison on the basis of polygraph test results;(e) a recommendation from the Secretary of State as to whether sections 32 to 35 should enter into force following the pilot; and(f) evidence from independent research on the reliability and value of polygraph testing of terrorist offenders.” Member’s explanatory statement
This new Clause requires the Secretary of State to conduct a pilot test of the use of polygraph testing on terrorist offenders and report the outcome to Parliament, in addition to setting out evidence for the reliability of polygraph tests based on independent research.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton (Lab) [V]
This amendment proposes that the Secretary of State, within six months of the Bill being passed, should set up a pilot to see how the polygraph condition works in relation to terrorist offenders. It is a probing amendment. It may well be that a different or longer period would be required for the pilot, but the purpose of a pilot is to test a number of aspects of polygraph testing. We have gone through this on the previous group, and I do not want to spend too much time on it because we have already discussed it a lot, but I have three particular concerns that would be tested by a pilot.
First, how does polygraph testing operate in practice? I would be grateful if the Minister, who was very helpful on the previous amendment, would give us some indications about how it works in practice. By that, I mean the following. If one asks a question of an offender in a polygraph test, “Did you, in breach of your conditions, visit a certain place?”, and he gives an answer to which there is—to use the language of the Minister and the briefing—a significant response, does that mean that further investigations take place? If there is no significant response, would that mean, for example, that there would not be any further investigation? Does that give rise to risks that too much reliance will be placed on the answers in polygraphs to, for example, not undertake further investigations?
My second area of concern is the one raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, on Amendment 19. It would appear from the very helpful answer given by the Minister on the previous group that answers given would be admissible in proceedings against another offender, albeit that their admission would be subject to the discretion of the trial judge for the other offence. In certain circumstances I can see very clearly that they might be of real evidential value—for example, because they constituted an admission or because they constituted evidence of a conspiracy, depending on the content of what is being said. Can I take it that the Government are saying that they might in certain circumstances be admissible and that they are content for that to be the position? It is important that the Committee knows what the position is.
Thirdly, am I right in saying that decisions about recall are made not by a court but by a probation officer, and are there any reasons why he or she should not rely on a significant response—to use lay man’s language, a failure—of a polygraph test? I beg to move.
Baroness Hamwee (LD) [V]
My Lords, the questions that have been asked are important. We cannot assume that the rules that currently apply for use with sex offenders are going to apply in terrorism cases. Indeed, Clause 35(2) tells us that there may be particular rules for terrorism cases, and even if that was not in the Bill, we know that rules can be changed at any time, relatively easily.
Polygraphs do not have a great reputation with the public, and “The Jeremy Kyle Show” did not enhance it, which is another reason for wanting to explore details today. I made the point only yesterday on the Domestic Abuse Bill that operators have to follow courses accredited by the American Polygraph Association, and I was interested—I will try to use a neutral term—that we in this country are following American practice.
Under the rules, there are requirements about reports and records. I had a look at the 2009 rules, under which the operator is required to explain the requirements of the session: that anything disclosed might be communicated to the probation officer, and that there must be consent—or, rather, written confirmation—from the offender that these explanations have been given. I stopped myself calling it “consent” because, in that situation, I wonder whether the anxiety to which my noble friend Lord Thomas referred would preclude a complete understanding by the offender of what is happening. In that situation, knowing that refusal to take a test would amount to a breach of licence conditions, would you not sign anything?
The current reviewer of terrorism legislation has called for a pilot, and, if not a pilot, then post-legislative scrutiny. Not many Bills come along for post-legislative scrutiny by Parliament. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Stewart, painted a picture that I did not quite recognise. It sounded rather more like a departmental review—an internal review—than scrutiny by Parliament to see how an Act is getting on.
At last week’s briefing, I asked about the reliability of polygraphs used on subjects who have undergone some extreme experiences, such as having been in a war zone. I understand that that cohort is particularly in the Government’s mind at the moment. The professor of psychiatry—Professor Grubin, I think—who, I understand, advises the Home Office, realised that I was referring to trauma. I had not wanted to assume that they were subjects who had been traumatised, but he was right. I remain concerned not only about what might be perceived from offenders’ reactions but that the test itself might be retraumitising, so I think that the questions being posed are very helpful.
Lord Woolf (CB) [V]
My Lords, it has been a privilege to listen to the speeches this afternoon. I have benefited very much from what has been said by all noble Lords and I make these submissions bearing that in mind.
At the moment, I see Clause 35(1) as the most important provision dealing with polygraph licence conditions. What we have heard this afternoon indicates just how clearly we are engaged on a learning curve at present. As I read it, subsection (1) provides that the power to use polygraph licence conditions will be limited by the regulations made in that subsection. Therefore, it seems that the whole of this debate should be conditioned by that provision, and that is why I thought it right to intervene in this almost private party that is dealing with these issues.
It seems to me that we are on a learning curve not only with regard to the provisions of this Bill but generally on the use of polygraphs in this country. It is obviously very useful to have as much material as we can so that, before we give the Government such powers as we consider appropriate, we know what the limitations will be.
I of course recognise that the Ministers we have heard address the House today would have given the assurances they did only if they were confident that they would in fact be applicable. But the provisions will be in their final form only after the regulations have already been drafted and the limitations expressed. That is why I think the whole concept in the amendment proposed by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, should be treated as being very appropriate, because this is the mechanism by which those limitations are going to be defined.
Lord Thomas of Gresford (LD) [V]
My Lords, I was very happy with the Minister’s reply when he said that a significant response—not a failure—does not lead to a recall and to the loss of liberty of the person who is being examined by polygraph. That seemed to be a very clear statement. But the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, has raised some interesting questions and I would like to pursue them a little further.
He asked how it works in practice; I ask how it works in principle. For example, on 26 January I raised the point of the right to silence. The person who is obeying the conditions of his licence by taking part in a polygraph test is asked a series of questions. Nobody has suggested that he is warned that he need not say anything unless he wishes to do so. He does not have a caution, and he does not apparently have a right to silence, because if he refuses to obey the condition of his licence—regardless of anything he may or not say about his position—he is presumably open to be recalled to prison and to lose his liberty. That is a very important point that we should consider and address.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, also introduced an interesting concept in relation to the third person—namely, can the transcript of a polygraph test be used as evidence of a conspiracy? We would like a straightforward response to that from the Minister.
Finally, my noble friend Lady Hamwee revealed something that I had not appreciated: the recall to prison—the loss of liberty—is determined not by the court but by a probation officer. A probation officer takes the decision. “Well, he’s refusing to answer the polygraph test, he’s breached his conditions and I’m going to send him back to prison.” That, to my mind, introduces an important point of principle.
I wholly support the proposal in the amendment that there should be a pilot to investigate these practical and principled questions that have been raised.
Lord Morris of Aberavon (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I support this amendment in the name of my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer, who has asked some very important questions. I say immediately that I valued very much the teach-in that I attended on Microsoft Teams on the working of the polygraph, and I thank the Minister for arranging it.
We are in a new field in this context, and an issue of this kind, when it is embedded on the face of the Bill, demands very close attention. I raised the issue briefly in my speech at Second Reading, and I support the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, when he states that we are on a learning curve. Having assisted my Minister, Barbara Castle, many years ago, in piloting through the House of Commons the breathalyser legislation to tackle drink driving, which was a very controversial issue at the time, I would be the last to oppose innovation per se, and I do not oppose this proposal. All I am anxious to know, in the fullness of time, is how it is working.
I learned at the teach-in that the polygraph is a useful tool in the management of offenders. It only gives an indication of past conduct, but it could be used to pick up warning signs on what might be done in the future, and is a significant tool for the management of offenders. The important point above all else was that an offender could not be recalled for failing a polygraph test. I believe that the Minister confirmed this in his reply to an earlier amendment. It is not a magic bullet and it is not 100% accurate. The examples given of its use, in the course of the teach-in, involved such questions as, “Have you had contact with other terrorist offenders?” or “Have you used the internet for any purposes contrary to your licence conditions?”. The polygraph cannot predict future conduct, only past conduct.
At the teach-in, the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, asked whether the polygraph was used in other jurisdictions such as Canada, Israel and the USA. The reply was that it tended to be used for vetting purposes. It was not clear to me whether it could be used for other purposes. If I am wrong in my understanding of the observations that we have heard on this very helpful tool from a panel of experts, the Minister will correct me. However, the limited use of the polygraph is made clear in subsections (1) and (2) of the proposed new clause. It is important to put on the face of a Bill, as my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer of Thoroton has put in the amendment, the need for a pilot to be in use within six months, with a report to Parliament, in the terms of the amendment, within 12 months,
I will not take up the House’s valuable time in repeating the details that are set out in the amendment itself. All I will say is that, given the kind of problem that we face in the management of offenders, we should not shut our eyes to the possibilities of the actions now proposed. How important it will turn out to be will be a question of degree. Therefore, I support this amendment.
Lord Paddick (LD) [V]
My Lords, I wish either that this group had been grouped with the previous group or that I had spoken in the previous group, as we seem to be going over the same ground. Can I also push my luck, at the invitation of the noble and learned Lord, as an out and proud non-lawyer and wonder out loud whether lawyers feel somewhat threatened that there might be a machine more able to tease out whether someone is telling the truth or not, or even to tease out a disclosure, than a lawyer? I do not believe lawyers need to worry. I feel this group and the previous one turned into an extension of the teach-in. But I shall press on.
Amendment 20, moved by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, to which my noble friend has added her name, calls for a review of polygraph testing on terrorist offenders based on a pilot scheme. I take a slightly different view to my noble friends Lady Hamwee and Lord Marks, probably because they are pure Liberal Democrats, unlike me, who am contaminated by 30 years’ experience as a police officer.
Yesterday, in discussion on the use of polygraph testing in the Domestic Abuse Bill, the Minister talked about how polygraph tests were used. I join other noble Lords in saying how helpful the teach-in on polygraph testing provided by the Ministry of Justice was, and I thank the ministry for it. In that presentation, if I recall correctly, we were told that the tests are 80% to 90% accurate, on the basis of tests carried out on sex offenders. The tests measure physiological changes that occur if someone is trying to think of a wrong answer about an experience they have had in the past. People usually instinctively think of the truthful answer before they offer a dishonest alternative, and this produces physiological changes that the tests pick up. The evidence suggests a dishonest response cannot be used in court, and it is not used to recall someone to prison, but it might prompt further investigation by the police. Failing the test is not a replacement for any other form of risk assessment.
From the notes I made at the time, which take me back to giving evidence in court as a police officer, polygraph tests also prompt disclosures that might not otherwise occur. If such a disclosure indicates the subject has breached their licence conditions or is a threat to the public, this can result in prison recall. In short, disclosures can result in immediate sanction, but failing the test can only lead to further investigation.
Although polygraph tests have been used on a large number of sex offenders and have, therefore, been thoroughly evaluated, it will be more difficult, even with a pilot, to evaluate use with terrorists, as there are far fewer of them. My noble friend Lord Thomas of Gresford mentioned the right to silence, recalling what we were told in the teach-in. The difference here is that these are convicted offenders on licence, who have no right to silence. However, the science is the same whether we are dealing with sex offenders or terrorists, and polygraph tests are useful where there is a pattern of behaviour rather than a single act. It is, therefore, anticipated that their use in terrorism cases will be similarly effective. There has already been considerable experience of using polygraph tests and evaluating the results, somewhat at odds with the comments of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf. But in agreeing with the noble and learned Lord, I think that it is true to say there has been very limited, if any, experience of using polygraph tests in connection with terrorism offences.
I feel sure that the Government will use polygraph testing with terrorists and, as we will hear in a later group, those subject to TPIMs, on a trial basis, as they intend to do in relation to domestic abuse. But the opportunities to evaluate their effectiveness with terrorists will be more limited, because, as I said, the numbers are considerably smaller. I am sure the Minister will say whether I got that right.
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
My Lords, on the face of it the purpose of this amendment, tabled by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, is to provide for a pilot of polygraph testing for terrorist offenders in the UK and for a report to be prepared and laid with a recommendation on commencement before the provisions are commenced. I appreciate, however, that the debate has gone a little broader than that, and I will try to respond in my remarks to all the points put to me. I should say at the outset that I am impressed by the note-taking ability of the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, which has obviously not diminished with time. I hope that the notes which he took are consistent with not only what he was told at the meeting, as I am sure they are, but with what I said on the previous group and what I am going to say on this group as well.
Polygraph examinations have been used successfully in the management of sexual offenders by the National Probation Service since 2013, following an initial pilot. Offenders involved in the pilot stated that, although they did not like being tested, for many it helped them modify their behaviour and comply with other licence conditions. While I therefore respectfully agree with the comments of the noble and learned Lords, Lord Woolf and Lord Morris of Aberavon, that we are on a learning curve, we are in fact someway up the curve, if I may put it in those terms. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, was right to remind us of Clause 35(1), which provides for regulations in this context. The breathalyser is a good example, as put before the Committee by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Morris of Aberavon, of how we must always in the criminal justice field avoid being shy of using technology where it is available. The question is how it is to be used; it is in that context that I come to the questions put to me by the Members of the Committee.
Having put that provision in place for sexual offenders, the independent evaluation of mandatory testing on sexual offenders carried out by the University of Kent produced extremely positive results. As the Committee is aware, we have since rolled out polygraph testing in that context. We must therefore be wary of two things. First, we must be wary of the trap of saying that because something might or might not be used in “The Jeremy Kyle Show”, it should form no part of the criminal justice system. “The Jeremy Kyle Show”, which I think has now stopped, can look out for itself. My concern is to ensure that we have proper provisions for polygraph testing in the criminal justice system.
The second thing we must be careful of, if I may respectfully say so, is not to fall into the trap of thinking that anything which comes from the United States of America is inherently suspect in the criminal justice field. I would gently point out to the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, that the American Polygraph Association’s standards are those of an international professional association for polygraph examiners. That association carries out research and provides accredited training for examiners. It also provides mandatory professional development training, which all examiners must complete every two years to maintain their accreditation. Its standards are used by examiners across the world, and the Government want to ensure that those standards are maintained for examinations conducted on terrorist offenders.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Duncan of Springbank) (Con)
Noble Lords may be pleased to know that we have had no requests to speak after the Minister, so I call the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton (Lab) [V]
I am grateful to everybody who has participated in the debate, particularly the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, the noble Lords, Lord Thomas and Lord Paddick, and the noble and learned Lords, Lord Woolf and Lord Morris of Aberavon—all of whom, with the possible exception of the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, supported the idea of some sort of pilot. I am also very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson of Tredegar, for his response.
I take from this debate that there are very considerable issues and uncertainty around the use of polygraphs because they are quite new in this country. Like everybody else, I am concerned that, if they are a genuinely useful tool, they should be available to the authorities.
I am struck by what the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson, said about not having enough terrorist offenders on which to base a pilot, and I take note of that. I understood him to say that the Government will themselves carry out a review within two years. In light of what he said, I am minded to think that the right thing to do is to come back on Report with an amendment suggesting a pilot which can embrace all the terrorist offenders, because there will not be that many. That will not restrict the Government from using them now, but it will require them within two years—not the 12 months I have referred to—to come back with the information referred to in proposed new subsection (3) of the amendment. That would be good from the point of view of informing the public about polygraphs and, more importantly, informing the Government on how they do it, because they have to make a report on it.
I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson, for his response, and I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment, and the amendments at page 94, line 15, page 94, line 29 and page 94, line 41 are consequential on the removal of Clause 33.
Member’s explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement for the amendment at page 93, line 28.
Member’s explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement for the amendment at page 93, line 28.
Member’s explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement for the amendment at page 93, line 28.
Member’s explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement for the amendment at page 53, line 41.
Member’s explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement for the amendment at page 53, line 41.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Duncan of Springbank) (Con)
We now come to the group beginning with Amendment 27. I remind noble Lords that anyone wishing to speak after the Minister should email the clerk during the debate. Anyone wishing to press this or anything else in the group to a Division must make this clear in the debate.
Clause 37: TPIMs: condition as to involvement in terrorism-related activity
Amendment 27
Lord Anderson of Ipswich
“(a) for the first year of the TPIM, has reasonable grounds for suspecting; and(b) for any further years of the TPIM, is satisfied on the balance of probabilities,””Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would leave in place the existing standard of proof for the second and subsequent years of any TPIM notice.
Lord Anderson of Ipswich (CB) [V]
My Lords, TPIMs, or terrorism prevention and investigation measures, are the successors to, and relatives of, control orders. They may be imposed at the discretion of the Secretary of State, unless a court, on a preliminary look, considers them “obviously flawed”, if specified criteria are satisfied. They are summarised like this in the March 2020 annual report of the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation:
“There are up to 14 measures that can be imposed including overnight residence requirements; relocation to another part of the United Kingdom; police reporting; an electronic monitoring tag; exclusion from specific places; limits on association; limits on the use of financial services and use of telephones and computers; and a ban on holding travel documents. Breach of any measure is a criminal offence.”
It is common for all or substantially all of those measures to be imposed, severely limiting the basic freedoms of the subjects and impinging heavily on their families. Relocation—removed by the coalition in 2012—was reinstated in 2015. Additional measures are, of course, contained in the Bill.
The issue raised by Clause 37 and by these amendments, including Amendment 27 in my name and that of my noble and learned friend Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, is: how strongly must the Secretary of State suspect a person of involvement in terrorism before choosing to impose a TPIM on them? Since TPIMs succeeded control orders in 2012, the Secretary of State has been required to have a reasonable belief that the intended subject is or has been involved in terrorism-related activity—a belief, in other words, that the person has been involved in some capacity in the wide range of activity spelled out in Section 4 of the TPIM Act 2011. That range is not limited to the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism; it extends also to those who encourage, support and assist such behaviour. Nor need any specific act of terrorism be in prospect.
The “reasonable belief” formulation was amended in 2015 to one of satisfaction on the balance of probabilities, but the meaning is to all intents and purposes the same. The bottom line is that, before imposing this most extreme of all executive measures, the Home Secretary needs to have formed the view only that someone is, or was, probably involved in terrorism. That is already an easy standard to satisfy in the case of anyone who is likely to be a candidate for a TPIM—resource-intensive measures, as they are, that are not lightly applied for.
It is not a court that has to apply the balance of probabilities, on the basis only of admissible evidence. The judgment is entrusted to the Secretary of State, and she makes it, crucially, on the basis not just of admissible evidence but of the intelligence assessments with which she is provided by the Security Service and others. Such intelligence far exceeds what could be placed before a civil or criminal court. It is likely to include intercept material, or material supplied by foreign liaison partners who are unwilling to see it deployed in a public setting, or reports from a covert human intelligence source, whose existence could never be publicly disclosed. The Secretary of State sees all that in the form of documents, which, when I reviewed these things, I repeatedly described as thorough and conscientious. Everything is available to her, and she is required to conclude only that it probably demonstrates some involvement, past or present, in terrorism-related activity.
Baroness Hamwee (LD) [V]
My Lords, given the experience of those who have put their names to the amendments in this group, I wonder whether I should say nothing so as not to damage the arguments—but I will join in.
It will be clear enough to the Committee that we on these Benches have considerable concerns about this part of the Bill. I hope that the Committee will understand that this does not mean that we do not take very seriously indeed the threat and actuality of terrorism and the work undertaken by our agencies. I say that because our amendments to the Covert Human Intelligence Sources Bill, which we completed earlier, seemed to be heard by some noble Lords as opposition to covert sources period when we were directing ourselves to authorisations to commit crime by the mechanism of making the action not a crime. I do not want too much to be read into what I am saying. This is not opposition, as I say, to the work of those who keep us as safe as they possibly can.
We are not hugely keen on TPIMs, especially on their acquiring extensions that take them back closer to control orders. We consider it appropriate to test these administrative measures in terms of how they measure up to the presumption of innocence, fair trial, liberty and all the matters that we as a society hold to be important, knowing the damage that might be done by letting them slip. We are of course aware of the Government’s argument that it is not the TPIMs themselves that we should be looking to, but the application of particular measures. If you look at that from a slightly different perspective, it is a good argument for legislative safeguards.
At the time of the last three-monthly report to Parliament on 30 November, only three TPIM notices were in force, there having been six the previous May. That begs the question as to the need for these clauses. The Home Office fact sheet on lowering the standard of proof tells us that this would
“increase flexibility by making it more practical for operational partners to demonstrate an individual is, or has been, involved in terrorism-related activity.”
That requirement should indeed be more than merely suspected.
The noble Lord, Lord Anderson, referred to the statement in the Commons by the Minister. The current standard of proof does not seem to have prevented the imposition of TPIMs. The current independent reviewer has made the same point, so this is not even a matter of administrative convenience. These measures may be civil but they can, quite understandably, be perceived as a parallel system of punishment without trial, but currently on the basis of the civil standard.
The noble Lord, Lord Anderson, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, seek to meet the Government part way. We take the view that the alterations are not justified. I have referred to the current Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation. To quote from his note on this part of the Bill,
“it is inevitable from the nature of intelligence that mistakes may be made. The significance of an individual’s actions may potentially be misinterpreted; their adherence to a cause overstated; their intentions misunderstood, if only partially. A safeguard that requires the Secretary of State to consider the intelligence presented to her by officials, and decide whether the individual has actually been involved in the terrorist-related activity that is alleged against them, and which allows a court to review that decision in the light of all information presented to it, is not an impediment to safeguarding national security.”
We oppose this clause standing part of the Bill.
Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd (CB) [V]
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich, spoke with such eloquence in making all the points that I can confine myself to making four short points.
First, as he rightly stressed, this is an important part of the conditions for TPIMs because it enables a judge and the Home Secretary, when making the decision, to concentrate on the factual evidence in relation to terrorist activity. The other conditions are more difficult to establish, or it might be more a question of judgment, but this at least concentrates on the facts.
Secondly, the amendment seeks what some may feel is an overgenerous compromise. I do not think so; I think that it is right to say that, for the first and initial period, a lower standard can be acceptable.
However, thirdly, that cannot be acceptable when one is looking at longer periods where a person’s liberty is to be constrained—particularly with the amendment that we will come to next, which concerns the indefinite detention period.
Fourthly, and finally, it seems to me that there can be no justification for making such a change unless there is evidence. Indeed, what was said about the position in the other place has been clearly set out.
I ask the Minister to set out fully what he believes is the evidence for this change. If he cannot do so in public on this occasion, there must be a means of informing those who are interested in this matter of the evidence so that it can be carefully reviewed before we impose on people accused of obviously very serious issues a standard of proof that really is completely unacceptable in any civilised society.
Lord Faulks (Non-Afl) [V]
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, has given your Lordships a very clear and succinct history of control orders and TPIMs—as one would expect, given his experience. He pointed out very fairly that control orders had the very same test that it is now proposed in the Bill should be used to decide whether a TPIM is appropriate. It is also worth pointing out that control orders were highly controversial and subject to a considerable number of challenges in the courts to see whether they survived a proper challenge based on the European Court of Human Rights and the convention. They survived that, which will reassure your Lordships.
I accept that the amendment put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, which is supported by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, is relatively modest, and I understand the reasoning for it, whereas the amendment put forward by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, goes rather further and seems to involve a degree of subjectivity—although I will listen with interest to what he says—and that subjectivity might be difficult to satisfy.
The Lord Bishop of Manchester [V]
My Lords, I draw the Committee’s attention to my interest in criminal justice matters, specifically as chair of the Greater Manchester Police independent ethics committee, as set out in the register.
I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, for tabling Amendment 28. I also note with interest Amendment 27 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Anderson. His arguments are powerful, not least in distinguishing clearly between belief and a mere suspicion, a distinction which for me as a bishop lies at the heart of my day job.
As I indicated to your Lordships’ House in my maiden speech at Second Reading, this is a Bill that I welcome and support. My city of Manchester has all too recently suffered a terrorist attack that killed 22 innocent people and maimed and traumatised hundreds more. We remain deeply grateful for the support we received from members of this House, government Ministers and many others at that time and since.
What I seek from the Bill are provisions that will most effectively reduce terrorism across our nation. My concern, particularly with regard to this clause, is that sanctions that are deemed by particular sections of the British public as either too severe or to be based on insufficient evidence will prove counterproductive. Measures that are overly harsh or that can plausibly be presented as such breed a sense of injustice and resentment, and if those sanctions appear to be directed against particular sections of the community, that may deepen into alienation, and alienation remains one of the most effective recruiting sergeants for incipient terrorists.
We rightly demand a high level of proof for a criminal conviction and a lesser but still significant standard on the balance of probabilities for civil cases. What we are presented with in Clause 37 as it stands is far weaker. All we are offered as an evidential base for a TPIM is “reasonable grounds for suspecting” an individual. That turn of phrase, suspicion, has a somewhat troubled history. Large sections of our community have, I would argue “reasonable grounds for suspecting” that policing interventions justified by reference to that phrase have been used disproportionately against people of their colour, religion or lifestyle. To apply this suspect standard to something as significant as a TPIM, which may be extended for some years, will increase the very risks to our society that it is intended to address.
In his Amendment 28, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, offers us a modest strengthening of the wording to include a test of probability alongside that of reasonableness. I hope that the Minister will be able indicate to this House that some form of strengthening the clause, either through Amendment 28 or otherwise, will be supported by Her Majesty’s Government as we continue to debate the Bill.
Lord Strasburger (LD) [V]
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the right reverend Prelate, particularly because he and I are cuckoos in this nest of lawyers. I speak in opposition to the Question that Clause 37 stand part of the Bill.
The TPIM system is seriously problematic because it bypasses the criminal justice system to avoid the usual safeguards that protect liberty and fairness. The system allows a Government to rely on secret, undisclosed evidence while bypassing fair-trial rights and impose measures that severely interfere with the right to liberty, privacy, association and movement, and makes a breach of those measures a criminal offence. I do not expect to win the argument today about TPIMs per se but must object in the strongest terms to Clauses 37, 38 and 40. Between them, they make this troubling TPIM system far more constrictive while removing the main current safeguards.
The Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation, Jonathan Hall QC, called the combined effect of Clauses 37 and 40 a “double whammy”. Taken together, they significantly lower the burden of proof at the same time as allowing TPIMs to endure forever for a person who has not been formally charged or prosecuted. The independent reviewer made it clear that he supports not changing the burden of proof and advises that it be left as it is. To my knowledge, the Government have yet to come forward with any convincing evidence for hardening the TPIM regime in any of the three ways that these clauses, Clauses 37, 38 and 40, would bring about. Indeed, the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation said in his note on the proposed reforms that it is,
“not clear why there is any need to change the law in the manner proposed.”
Even a third-ranking police officer, an assistant chief constable, who was wheeled out to support the Bill in oral evidence to the Bill Committee, conceded that,
“there have not been occasions thus far when the current burden of proof has prevented the application of a TPIM”.—[Official Report, Commons, Counter-Terrorism and Sentencing Bill Committee, 25/6/20; col. 20.]
Therefore, my two questions to the Minister are: why have the Government ignored the independent reviewer’s advice and where is the evidence to justify that decision? I look forward to his answers. I hope that he can do better than the “another tool in the box” mantra.
Clause 37 will reduce the burden of proof to such a low level as to make it almost no barrier at all. “Reasonable grounds for suspecting” covers a host of situations where an innocent person could unjustly lose their liberty and other rights, perhaps on the basis of a single, flimsy and uncorroborated piece of evidence. The courts have interpreted the standard of suspicion as a belief not that the person is a terrorist, only that they may be a terrorist. If a Minister merely believes that a person may be a terrorist, that is sufficient justification under this clause to impose a TPIM on them. With the best will in the world, this is such a low burden of proof that it makes the ministerial decision to impose a TPIM into a rubber-stamping exercise, more or less, with no constraints on the action whatever. The implications of such a severe and unfettered executive power should worry every Member of this House.
Combined with Clause 38, Clause 37 would mean that a Minister would have the authority to severely constrain the liberty of a possibly innocent person for ever, on the flimsiest justification, possibly cooked up by a rogue policeman, intelligence agent or government official, or it might just be that someone in the chain of command made an innocent mistake. We cannot allow this proposed new power to deprive someone of their liberty and other rights indefinitely—possibly longer than if they were convicted of a terrorist offence in a criminal court—when the process that put them there is so wide open to errors and abuse. There must be a meaningful burden of proof, but Clause 37 removes that. It therefore must not stand part of this Bill.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con) [V]
My Lords, I am delighted to follow the noble Lord, Lord Strasburger. Like him, I have some difficulty with Clauses 37, 38 and 40. I am a non-practising member of the Faculty of Advocates, so I have no direct experience of these issues, but in preparing for today I have been grateful for the excellent briefing that the Law Society of England shared with me. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, for setting out so clearly the thinking behind his Amendment 27. We will hear in a moment the thinking behind Amendment 28 from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton.
It says something when the past Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation and the present one both have enormous difficulties with Clauses 37, 38 and 40 as they stand. Like my noble friend Lord Faulks, I would like to understand the thinking behind why, in the context of this Bill on counterterrorism and sentencing, the Government feel moved to introduce these provisions against the weight of opinion of the current Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation and, so it would appear, legal practitioners on the front line as solicitors dealing with these issues.
I am entirely in agreement with noble Lords who have explained the reasons behind their concerns about Clause 37 as it stands. It will deprive people of their liberty, as it contains measures that would relax the evidential threshold on imposing a TPIM, allowing the Home Secretary to impose one on the basis of having “reasonable grounds for suspecting” rather than being
“satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, that the individual is, or has been, involved in terrorism-related activity”.
I understand that TPIMs are not currently widely used and that only five were in force as of November 2019, so I struggle to understand why we are seeking to change the law in this way. As the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester said in his excellent contribution, we want to have confidence in the legislation. He expressed that his aim is to reduce terrorism and not give any cause to query the legislation before us.
I end my short contribution with a question directly to the Minister. Considering the issues that we have heard about in a number of contributions in this little debate, would he agree with the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, and share the misgivings of legal practitioners that this clause is not required? What guarantees can my noble friend give me today that the measures in Clauses 37 and 38 will not lead to an increased use of TPIMs in situations where they are not appropriate? With those few remarks, I look forward to the reply from my noble friend.
Lord Paddick (LD) [V]
My Lords, as my noble friend Lady Hamwee has explained, we wish to see the current arrangements for terrorism prevention and investigation measures remain as they are, despite having concerns about them existing at all. As the name implies, these measures were designed to prevent terrorism while an investigation takes place. As the noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich, has explained, intelligence is often received in relation to suspected terrorists that cannot be used in a criminal trial, either because it is not legally admissible or because it would reveal the source and potentially put the source’s life in danger. That needs to be balanced against Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights, enshrined in British law by the Human Rights Act 1998. It requires that, in the determination of a person’s civil rights and obligations or for any criminal charge against an individual, everyone is entitled to a fair public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law—this despite what the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, has said about control orders withstanding such challenges in the past.
The answer to these potentially conflicting obligations is TPIMs, which are supposed to be a means of protecting the public while an investigation secures the evidence necessary to convict a person of a criminal offence. They were not intended to be indefinite house arrest without trial. As we will see in the groups that follow, the Government seek to overturn this principle of a time-limited safeguarding tool during an investigation into effectively indefinite deprivation of human rights without trial.
The conditions imposed by a TPIM can be draconian, as the noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich, said. The subject can be told where to live and have to tell the authorities about anyone else who lives with them. They may need to get permission to stay somewhere else, they may not be allowed to travel outside a specified area without permission, they may have to surrender their passports and they may be prohibited from going to a particular place or area without permission or without being accompanied by a police officer. The authorities can have complete control over the subject’s bank and credit card accounts and they can be told that they cannot possess cash over a certain amount. The authorities can have complete control over the sale or transfer of any property that the subject has and complete control over transferring money to anyone, as well as complete control over use of phones, computers and any other electronic communication device owned or used by the subject or by anyone else who lives with the subject—these measures affect not only the subject but their innocent loved ones as well.
Authorities can have complete control over who the subject meets or communicates with and over where the subject works or studies. The subject may be required to report to a specified police station at specified times and to have their photograph taken at whatever time and location the Secretary of State requires and they can be electronically tagged. On the one hand, noble Lords will understand why the authorities might want to impose such conditions if the person is believed to be a terrorist threat, but they will also understand that TPIMs amount to interference with some of the most fundamental human rights of the subject.
These restrictions on someone’s freedoms and human rights have echoes of the sort of restrictions imposed by ISIS when it declared territory it once held a caliphate. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith, said in a Guardian article written when this House was considering the Counter-Terrorism Bill on 13 October 2008,
“we should fight to protect the liberties the terrorists would take from us, not destroy them ourselves.”
The first element the Government want to change through the Bill, which is covered by this group of amendments, is the standard of proof required before someone can be subjected to a TPIM. Originally, as we have heard, in the Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Act 2011 the Secretary of State had to “reasonably believe” that the subject is or has been involved in terrorism-related activity. This was changed by the Counter-Terrorism and Security Act 2015 to the Secretary of State having to be satisfied
“on the balance of probabilities”
—the standard required for a court to be satisfied in a civil case. The Government want to change this standard of proof to
“has reasonable grounds for suspecting”.
A police constable may arrest someone when he has reasonable cause to suspect, and I can tell the Committee from my own personal and professional experience that this is a very low bar indeed. Of course, we are not talking about a police officer detaining someone for a few minutes or a few hours but about restricting someone’s human rights for up to two years, or indefinitely, if the Bill passes unamended. That is a shocking and frightening prospect.
If noble Lords’ common sense and sense of justice are not engaged by my arguments, perhaps they will be convinced by the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation, Jonathan Hall QC, whom other noble Lords have mentioned. He has said:
“I am not aware of cases where the authorities would like to have imposed a TPIM if the standard of proof had been lower … If it is right that the current standard of proof is usable and fair, and I think it is, in a word, if it ain’t broke, why fix it?”—[Official Report, Commons, Counter-Terrorism and Sentencing Bill Committee, 25/6/20; cols. 6-7.]
That is actually seven words, but I think we understand what he meant. To which, no doubt, the Government will deploy the same argument successive Labour Governments used in trying unsuccessfully to extend the period that a terror suspect could be detained by the police without charge, initially under Tony Blair’s premiership to 90 days, and subsequently under Gordon Brown to 42 days. Operational partners argued that, although limits on the period a subject could be detained without charge had not been a problem up until then, they could envisage a situation where it might be an issue in the future. I suspect that is similar to the arguments the Government will deploy here. Both times, Parliament resoundingly defeated the proposals.
It is important that we consider the reputation of this country throughout the world for the effective protection of human rights. We should not allow such draconian limits on people’s civil liberties to be imposed on the basis of such a low standard of proof—lower than any court employs, even in civil cases.
The noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich, in his Amendment 27, offers a compromise, which he is developing a reputation for, trying to steer between what is arguably necessary and reasonable and what he, not without precedent, thinks the Government might accept. He suggests in his amendment that, for the first year, while intelligence-gathering is in its infancy, a TPIM might be imposed on the Government’s standard of “reasonable grounds for suspecting”. After a year, the authorities should have been able to gather sufficient evidence for the Secretary of State to be convinced on the existing balance of probabilities. I see where the noble Lord is coming from but, with the greatest of respect to him, I am with the current Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation on this one rather than with the former.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, was not only a member of the Labour Governments to which I have just referred but, from memory, was fairly central to the attempts to extend detention without trial. His Amendment 28 would substitute the standard of proof required with
“on the basis of reasonable and probable grounds”.
I look forward to hearing his explanation of how this differs from the existing and government-proposed standards of proof, as, I must confess and with the greatest respect to the noble and learned Lord, when I wrote this speech on Sunday morning I had neither the energy nor the required determination to work it out for myself. Having finished at midnight last night, I have even less energy this evening.
The current Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation thinks that we should leave the standard of proof where it is. We agree, which is why we believe that Clause 37 should not stand part of the Bill.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton (Lab) [V]
I am delighted to follow the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, as ever. I am sorry that he did not have the energy to get to my amendment, but I completely understand why that would be. The difference between my amendment and that of the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, is that mine seeks to unpack what the standard of proof would be; it requires an objective standard of “probable grounds”: in effect, balance of probabilities, but more spelled out. The difference between the amendments is that, in effect, the noble Lord’s amendment would give a year when the lower standard—namely, reasonable suspicion—could apply and thereafter insist on the balance of probabilities. The real difference is that first year of grace which the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, would give to the Government or the Secretary of State to have a lower standard of proof.
Our position on this side of the House is that the TPIM powers have utility to the Government for fighting terrorism. The noble Lord, Lord Paddick, indicated clearly the intrusive effect of TPIMs on those subject to them; for example, having to move to a different location, not being entitled to go to particular places, or not being able to associate or communicate with particular people. These are powers of utility for the Government. They are, however, intrusive and infringe against what would otherwise be people’s rights. Before those rights are taken away, it is for this House to decide what the right balance should be between those individuals’ rights and the protection of the public.
All those who have looked at it in any detail, in particular the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, and his successor as the terrorism reviewer, take the view that the higher standard of proof from that which the Government currently propose—namely, the balance of probabilities—has not caused them any difficulty in imposing TPIMs where they want to. As the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, put it, there is no need to lower the standard to keep the public safe.
In addition to the point that no change is required, a significant change is being made to the ability to roll over TPIMs indefinitely, so the consequence of the proposed amendments to the existing law being suggested by the Government in this Bill is to lower the standard of proof for no purpose and to do so on the basis of indefinite restrictions on individuals’ liberty.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester was, in my view, correct to say that the right approach is to ensure that the Government have the right powers but also to ensure that people are confident that they are being properly imposed. If people do not have that confidence, it will cause difficulties down the line.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, I thank noble Lords who have tabled and introduced their amendments and all the noble Lords who have spoken in this debate.
Following the dreadful attacks at Fishmongers’ Hall and in Streatham, the Government reviewed the range of disruption and risk management tools at the disposal of those agencies whose job it is to keep us safe and identified areas that could be strengthened to improve public protection. We are committed to ensuring that the police and Security Service have the necessary tools to support them in their vital work.
TPIMs are an important part of those tools available to our operational partners. They were, as noble Lords have said, introduced in 2011, replacing control orders as a tool to prevent or restrict an individual’s involvement in terrorism-related activity. TPIMs are a last resort to protect the public from dangerous individuals whom it is not possible to prosecute or deport and offenders who remain a real threat after being released from prison. Clause 37 will increase the flexibility of TPIMs by amending the Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Act 2011, lowering the standard of proof from “balance of probabilities” to “reasonable grounds for suspecting”.
Amendment 27 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich, would, as he outlined, require the Home Secretary to be satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, that an individual has been involved in terrorism-related activity when extending a TPIM notice beyond a second year. The standard of proof for initially imposing a TPIM under his amendment would be “reasonable suspicion”, the same as proposed by the Bill. I thank the noble Lord not only for the way he introduced his amendment but for his helpful outline of the background to TPIMs, control orders and the landscape against which we must examine these questions. Like everyone in your Lordships'’ House, I have immense respect for the noble Lord, who began his time as Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation before I started working as an adviser at the Home Office and was still in post long after I had left. With respect, however, we do not agree with the need for his amendment.
As the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, anticipated, I will point out that the 2011 Act requires that five conditions be met before a TPIM can be imposed. These are:
“Condition A is that the Secretary of State is satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, that the individual is, or has been, involved in terrorism-related activity.”
Clause 37 amends that condition so the standard of proof will be “reasonable suspicion”. The Act continues:
“Condition B is that some or all of the relevant activity is new terrorism-related activity … Condition C is that the Secretary of State reasonably considers that it is necessary, for purposes connected with protecting members of the public from a risk of terrorism, for terrorism prevention and investigation measures to be imposed on the individual … Condition D is that the Secretary of State reasonably considers that it is necessary, for purposes connected with preventing or restricting the individual's involvement in terrorism-related activity, for the specified terrorism prevention and investigation measures to be imposed on the individual … Condition E is that … the court gives the Secretary of State permission under section 6”
to impose the TPIM. This happens in advance of the TPIM being imposed, or shortly after in an urgent case.
The Government are amending only one of these conditions—condition A, regarding the standard of proof. Lowering the standard of proof does not mean that the Government will be able to extend TPIMs whenever there is a suspicion of terrorism-related activity. To address the question raised by my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering, this is not about the frequency of TPIMs but about their flexibility as a tool for our operational partners. All the other conditions will remain unchanged, and with robust safeguards. These require the Home Secretary to be satisfied that it is necessary and proportionate, to protect the public from a risk of terrorism, to impose a TPIM notice and the measures specified in it on an individual. The Government contend that proving past terrorism-related activity and demonstrating necessity are separate and distinct limbs of the TPIM test. It is also the Government’s contention that demonstrating necessity and proportionality is the key factor when considering whether a TPIM notice should be renewed beyond its first year, rather than the standard of proof applied to terrorism-related activity.
The Section 16 appeals process is particularly important in the context of longer TPIMs. I am certain that the court will take great care, when considering Section 16 appeals, that conditions C and D, which I outlined a moment ago, continue to be met. It may help if I offer a hypothetical case to demonstrate how an enduring TPIM might work in practice. Let us imagine a scenario in which a charismatic radicaliser has been relocated, has had an overnight residence measure imposed, is prohibited from accessing internet-enabled devices and is banned from associating with several individuals. Over time, it would be reasonable to expect the TPIM notice to contain ever fewer measures, so that, for example, only one prohibited associate remained. In that sense the TPIM might function similarly to licence conditions.
There is clear precedent from the control order regime which operated under a previous Government and which, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, will remember, allowed for control orders to be renewed without placing a limit on the number of renewals or increasing the standard of proof the longer they endured for the orders not to last indefinitely. Within the lifetime of control orders, 30 individuals were subject to an order for up to two years, eight for between two and three years, four for between three and four years, and only three for between four and five years. There were many cases in which the then Government either revoked or decided not to renew the control order on the grounds that the necessity test was no longer satisfied. A similar approach would be taken with TPIMs following the enactment of this clause. The Government have no desire to keep people on a TPIM any longer than is necessary and proportionate to protect the public. Removing the time limit is intended to address the risk of TPIM subjects riding out the current maximum of two years with no change to their mindset, and to address the risk of a cliff edge being created by forcing a TPIM to be removed when a risk to public safety remains. I am conscious that we will look at this issue in more detail in the next group, but I make those points because the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, said he would be keeping his ears open for a response.
As the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, said, the Public Bill Committee in another place, heard from Assistant Chief Constable Tim Jacques, Deputy Senior National Coordinator for Counter Terrorism, who spoke not just for the police but on behalf of the security services, and outlined some hypothetical cases where a lower standard of proof could make a substantive difference. I think it would be helpful to highlight the practical examples he gave. The first scenario is where significant concern about an individual’s behaviour or activities as a radicaliser has led to their arrest. There may be, however, insufficient material to reach the prosecution threshold and the individual would have to be released. As ACC Jacques says, the lower burden of proof may help to manage the risk posed by the individual while further investigative and risk-mitigation measures are pursued.
The second scenario ACC Jacques gave is where an individual’s risk profile accelerates rapidly in the form of their moving quickly from consuming terrorist material online to presenting a future risk of attack. We have sadly seen this in the case of many lone-actor terrorists. There will not always be sufficient evidence to prosecute in a scenario such as this, particularly where an individual does not have a long history of terrorism-related activity. While a variety of tools and controls to manage this risk will be considered by our operational partners, and a TPIM may not be the measure that is ultimately deemed most appropriate, lowering the standard of proof will help to ensure that a TPIM can be used where it is deemed the best tool for mitigating the risk.
The third scenario that ACC Jacques gave was where an individual has been to, say, Syria to fight for a terrorist organisation, but evidence of their activities while they are overseas is hard to gather. This addresses the point raised by my noble friend Lord Faulks. There will be a range of tools which the Government and their operational partners will consider using on a case-by-case basis to prevent or to manage that individual’s return to the UK and, if they return, prosecution will remain our strong preference. However, if there are evidential difficulties, as understandably there are when we talk about activity in theatre in places such as Syria, and we cannot meet the burden of proof required by a criminal court—that is, beyond reasonable doubt—but we do have a reasonable suspicion that a person has been involved in terrorism-related activity, then the lower standard of proof will ensure that a TPIM can be considered as a risk management tool to protect the public here in the UK.
I think it was worth setting those out in detail because these are credible and not unlikely scenarios for which we must be prepared. That is why we contend that setting the standard of proof at reasonable grounds for suspecting at the extension stage is just as important as at the imposition of a TPIM to maintain a TPIM for as long as necessary.
I now turn to Amendment 28 in the name of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton. His amendment would require the Home Secretary to believe
“on the basis of reasonable and probable grounds”
rather than have “reasonable grounds for suspecting” that an individual is, or has been, involved in terrorism-related activity before imposing a TPIM. Again, with respect to the noble and learned Lord, we do not agree with the necessity of this amendment.
The noble and learned Lord’s amendment proposes a mixture of recognised standards of proof within the TPIM regime. Specifically, it appears to blend the standards of “reasonable belief” and “balance of probabilities”. As the noble and learned Lord said, he has suggested this formulation with the intention of creating a new middle ground between those two standard—that is, a balance between the standard which applied when the 2011 Act was first introduced, and the current standard of proof following changes made by the Counter-Terrorism and Security Act 2015. Although I am not a lawyer and, mindful of the entreaties of my noble friend Lord Wolfson of Tredegar, I do not apologise for that—I speak as a non-lawyer—but I must suggest that the mixing of established standards of proof which are recognised by the courts and by decision-makers would not be helpful or appropriate. We are not aware of evidence that the recognised standards are, in and of themselves, inoperable as thresholds. Given the potential for confusion in the application of this amendment—that is, blending legal tests of belief and probability—we urge the noble and learned Lord to withdraw his amendment on this ground alone.
Additionally, the amendment would require a higher standard of proof than is proposed under the Bill. That goes against the policy intent of the Bill, which is to ensure that our operational partners can make use of TPIMs more flexibly in their efforts to protect the public. The pace at which the Security Service and the police must operate to thwart attacks and manage risk to the public is faster than ever before. The question of whether a person has carried out terrorism-related activity will often depend on an incomplete jigsaw puzzle of intelligence rather than hard evidence, as the noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich, outlined in opening this debate. In such cases, it is right that we give our operational partners the option of a TPIM as a risk management tool.
I have already referred to the evidence given by ACC Tim Jacques, which outlined the Security Service’s assessment of the benefits of lowering the standard of proof. The three scenarios he outlined—the activities of a known radicaliser, a rapidly escalating risk from someone who has consumed terrorist-related content online and a foreign fighter returning from Syria—all apply in relation to this amendment as well and form part of the Government’s justification for respectfully disagreeing with it.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Russell of Liverpool) (CB)
I have received one request to speak after the Minister and I call the noble Lord, Lord Paddick.
Lord Paddick (LD) [V]
I am grateful to the Minister for his explanation but I am somewhat confused. He cites the evidence given by assistant chief constable Tim Jacques and the three examples that he gave. I will carefully read his evidence in Hansard and what the Minister has said the assistant chief constable said.
From what the Minister was saying, the assistant chief constable was saying why TPIMs were necessary. It was because—I think I am quoting the Minister accurately—there was not sufficient evidence to reach the criminal standard of proof, but the criminal standard of proof is “beyond reasonable doubt”. From the examples that the assistant chief constable gave—as I say, I shall go back and read them carefully—I thought there was definitely evidence that the person may be involved in terrorism on the balance of probabilities. There would therefore be no reason in the three scenarios that the assistant chief constable gave for issuing a TPIM against those three people, on the current evidence.
The Minister has apparently ignored the history of this Parliament and its views on so-called future proofing, when it comes to the deprivation of people’s liberties and the severe imposition of restrictions on people’s human rights, as evidenced by the former Labour Government’s attempts to extend the period that terrorist suspects could be detained by the police without charge. Parliament does not take kindly to, “Well, okay, we accept that there is no evidence that a change in the standard of proof is necessary in this case, but it might be in the future, so we’re doing it just in case”. We cannot deprive people of their liberty to the extent that TPIMs do on the basis of “Well, it might be required in future”.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, there were a number of questions in the noble Lord’s intervention there. I certainly encourage him to reread the evidence given by ACC Jacques on 25 June 2020. Asked specifically about the proposal to change the burden of proof, he said:
“The Security Service points to three instances where it thinks this would have utility from an operational perspective.”—[Official Report, Commons, Counter-Terrorism and Sentencing Bill Public Bill Committee, 25/6/20; col. 20]
He then outlined the three scenarios that I have just repeated—but it is certainly worth looking at his evidence in full.
We are not ignoring the views of Parliament; that is why we are here in Committee, rightly scrutinising this Bill. But I repeat that we are talking about a burden of proof that has previously existed and been enacted by your Lordships’ House and the other place; it was repeatedly tested in the courts and found to be compatible with the ECHR, so I am not sure that I agree with the characterisation that the noble Lord gives.
Lord Anderson of Ipswich (CB) [V]
I am grateful to the Minister for his courteous response. I do not think I ever had the pleasure of meeting him in Marsham Street, although I had a good deal of respect for his boss. I am also grateful to noble Lords from all three main parties, the Cross Benches and the Bench of Bishops, who made such interesting and supportive contributions to this debate.
Those speeches will repay careful study and, after my long opening speech, noble Lords would not thank me for revisiting their many highlights. I will say simply that it was striking to hear the observation of a former Lord Chief Justice that the change now proposed, described by the Minister as “marginal”, is “completely unacceptable in a civilised society”. I defer to the right reverend Prelate on the theological distinction between belief and suspicion, while making a mental note to ask him some time where faith fits into the spectrum.
The central question, to which, with respect to the Minister, I received no satisfactory answer, is this: if, as Chris Philp said in the Commons, the current standard of proof has, in almost 10 years, not stopped a desired TPIM from being granted, why do we need to change it? The Minister spoke of “hypothetical” cases of, for example, a returning Syrian fighter. Well, we have had 15 years-worth of real cases under control orders and TPIMS, including several hundred returned Syrian fighters who were screened and considered for these measures, and it remains the case that this issue has not posed any problem in practice.
The Minister spoke of “flexibility”. Well, most of us are flexible enough to countenance some compromise, even of basic freedoms, if there is a pressing reason for it, whether that be public health or public safety. However, until I have seen that pressing reason—or at least fully understood what it is supposed to be—I cannot support Clause 37.
The point was well made by the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, that the hypothetical cases put forward in support of 90-day police detention were without foundation. We have managed perfectly well in practice for 10 years with the 14-day limit introduced by the Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition.
No doubt we will come back to these issues at a later stage. Before that, I shall reflect on the fair challenge from both the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, that, in formulating Amendment 27, I may, in the absence of evidence for its position from the Government, have been too ready to compromise in respect of the first year. As to that first year, the Minister said nothing very specific—unless I missed it. However, for now, as is usual at this stage of the proceedings, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Russell of Liverpool) (CB)
We now come to the group beginning with Amendment 29. I remind noble Lords that anyone wishing to speak after the Minister should email the clerk during the debate. Anyone wishing to press this or anything else in this group to a Division must make that clear in the debate.
Clause 38: TPIMs: extension of time limit
Amendment 29
Baroness Hamwee
“(za) in subsection (3)(a), after “met” insert “and the court gives the Secretary of State permission”;(zb) after subsection (3), insert—“(3A) In determining the extension, the court must apply the principles applicable on an application for judicial review.”
Baroness Hamwee (LD) [V]
My Lords, we have Amendment 29 in this group, and we oppose Clause 38 standing part of the Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Anderson, has Amendment 30. The clause allows for repeated renewals a year at a time, instead of the two-year time limit. I should perhaps acknowledge that the rubric or clause heading is “extension of time limit”. However, I noted that the Minister, in responding to the last group, referred to an “enduring TPIM”.
It is difficult to disaggregate the changes and their impact, because they will be cumulative, but this group of amendments is about the time limit. So, when he focuses on that, I hope that the Minister can share with the Committee real cases where the expiry of a TPIM has caused a problem. In other words, this is a parallel question to the questions asked and the points put in the debate on the last group regarding the standard.
TPIMs were originally intended as targeted temporary measures under emergency legislation that Parliament had to reapprove each year. As I have said, our concerns about the standard are compounded by the removal of the time limit with no additional safeguards. Even if the notice has been revoked and revived, or expired, it seems that it can be continued. Can the Minister help me by confirming whether, once subject to a TPIM—at any rate, one imposed after this Bill has been enacted—one is always subject to it being reimposed? I am intrigued that the extension cannot apply to a current TPIM but, presumably, there is nothing to stop there being a new TPIM. What is the difference between the current three measures in force, which I referred to in the previous group, and those which are expected to come within the scope of this clause?
The current Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation is critical in his notes on this, as on the previous point. He says:
“If there is an operational need … despite the fact that fresh terrorism-related activity cannot be shown … it should be possible for the Home Secretary”
to be satisfied that there is an “exceptional or compelling case” to go beyond two years. He comments on processes, described as a “tick in the box”, the absence of judicial oversight, and the lack of an upper limit to ensure that different cases are not parked—or, as he says,
“at the very least, a requirement to specify an exit strategy including how the severest measures … can be tapered off.”
The noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, referred to a reduction in conditions—for instance, being able to associate with more people as years go by. Combined with the comment about an exit strategy, that seems to be extremely important, but this is the first time I have heard about the reduction in conditions. It would be very reassuring to know that this is as much a part of the Government’s programme as the other points we are considering. References to flexibility and tools really do not meet the point; one would expect those who are operational to want as many tools as possible. I look forward to other comments on the time limits and to hearing more of the Government’s thinking on why they have included this provision in the Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Anderson of Ipswich (CB) [V]
My Lords, I will speak in this group to Amendment 30, which I have signed, together with my noble and learned friend Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd. Clause 38, to which all these amendments relate, seeks to return in another respect to the days of control orders by removing the maximum time limit on TPIMs. Though I oppose Clause 38, as I did Clause 37 in the previous group, I would accept that the issues in this group are less clear-cut and the right solution less obvious.
In a report on the control order regime published in March 2012, shortly after that regime came to an end, I described control orders as an effective means of protecting the public from a small number of suspected terrorists who presented a substantial risk to national security but whom it was not feasible to prosecute. I observed a conscientious administrative procedure, coupled with close judicial scrutiny, which ensured a substantial degree of fairness to the subject. However, I added that those individuals were placed under extraordinary and intrusive restrictions; that this could go on indefinitely; that legal review was far from immediate; and that when the hearing did come around, controlled persons spent crucial parts of it excluded from the court, oblivious both of the detailed accusations made against them and of the submissions made by special advocates, who were able neither to communicate fully with them nor to call evidence on their behalf. I concluded that only in the face of strong necessity could it ever be justifiable for the individual to be placed in such a position by the state.
As will be the case if Clause 38 is enacted, there was no limit on the number of times a 12-month control order could be extended, so long as the statutory test continued to be met. During the currency of the control order regime, from 2005 to 2011, 15 persons were subject to control orders for more than two years—three of them for periods exceeding four years. Each of the four who had been subject to control orders for more than two years at the end of 2011 were transferred to TPIMs, where, as I recall, they served an additional two years, which was the maximum under that regime unless fresh evidence came to light—it rarely does.
Experience shows, therefore, that where the law has permitted it, Home Secretaries have considered it appropriate to keep British citizens who have never been convicted of a terrorist offence under these kinds of extreme constraints for periods in excess of five years. Indeed, had it not been for the introduction of the two-year limit, as originally recommended for all save exceptional cases by my noble friend Lord Carlile —my predecessor as Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation—it is fair to assume that some subjects could have been detained in this way for far longer periods. That has been the experience with other, less all-encompassing executive orders, such as terrorist asset freezes. After all, who wants to be the civil servant or the special adviser to recommend the discharge of a control order, and who wants to be the Secretary of State to agree to it?
At the monthly TPIM review group meetings, at which all subjects were discussed, it became evident to me that the new two-year maximum limit was bringing some benefits. Since it was no longer possible for a TPIM to be used to warehouse a subject indefinitely, more serious and connected thought started to be given to an exit strategy: a suitable job, a suitable course of study, and the forging of new relationships away from the subject’s previous associates. However, as will be equally obvious, there could still be subjects who use their two years to lie low and who might still be adjudged to pose a threat when their TPIM comes to an end. That was the reasoning of those who had requested, agreed to and endorsed control orders for much longer periods than two years. I reported myself in 2013, echoing my noble friend Lord Carlile, that it was tempting to wish for longer than two years in the most serious cases.
If the goal is to minimise the potential threat regardless of the cost to civil liberties, the Government are justified in imposing indefinite executive detention. Yet that goal could also be used to justify warrantless searches of the home and general, suspicionless stop and search. All of us, surely, would instinctively recoil at such measures. I also note that, although they are notionally available in Northern Ireland, no control order or TPIM has, for whatever reason, ever been imposed there. I accept that TPIMs, although so far imposed predominantly, if not exclusively, on Muslims, have so far been only a minor rallying point for grievance: the numbers of TPIMs have been small, and the vast majority of British Muslims are only too glad to see dangerous extremists firmly dealt with. But the echo of internment can still be heard in Northern Ireland, nearly half a century on—a reminder that excess of zeal in this sensitive area can quickly become counterproductive.
There is wisdom in the words of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Clarke of Nottingham, who wrote, when Justice Secretary, in 2011:
“The primary role of any government is to keep its citizens safe and free. That means both protecting them from harm and protecting their hard-won liberties.”
Where is the correct balance to be struck? We no longer live in times when a Conservative Government could come into power promising in relation to counterterrorism law, as they did in 2010,
“a correction in favour of liberty”.
So my amendment does not seek a perpetuation of the status quo. Indeed, it would double the current maximum limit, in the absence of additional evidence, to four years, allowing plenty of time to work on TPIM subjects, while still requiring the authorities to focus on an exit strategy. Coupled with the amendment that I have already moved on standard of proof, or one of the other amendments in the previous group, it would represent a toughening of the present regime, while still at least attempting to combine the two imperatives that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Clarke, identified.
Terrorism in this country has cost us almost 100 lives since 9/11, and the threat level, although reduced only yesterday, is still “substantial”. However, as this pandemic reminds us, the existence of a threat cannot by itself dictate where the balance should be struck. The balance is for Parliament, and I suggest that a maximum of four years for these unpalatable measures—tough as it undoubtedly is—gets it about right.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Russell of Liverpool) (CB)
The noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, has withdrawn from this group, so I call the next speaker on the list, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd.
Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd (CB) [V]
I want to add only one point to what the noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich, has just said, because I agree with the entirety of it. That one point is derived from my own experience of dealing with people who were imprisoned indefinitely under the IPP regime. During the hearing of several appeals, it became apparent that indefinite detention often makes someone more dangerous because you take away hope. I very much anticipate that we would never get to the stage where we made TPIMs that lasted for a person’s entire lifetime. The TPIM would have to come to an end at some stage, and, to my mind, giving someone a clear expectation of when the period of restriction is to end helps in dealing with the individual and prevents making him more dangerous by depriving him of any hope.
Lord Strasburger (LD) [V]
My Lords, I wish to argue that Clause 38 should not stand part of the Bill. In my contribution on Clause 37, I mentioned my general worries about the TPIM regime and how it circumvents all the safeguards in the criminal justice system. Those safeguards are there for a very good reason: to ensure that our trials are fair and that we do not punish people without a high degree of certainty that they deserve it. However, for the purposes of this debate, I will focus on the process that the imposition of TPIMs follows in place of a proper criminal trial and how unsatisfactory that process is by comparison with the real thing.
For TPIMs, a criminal trial is replaced by civil proceedings before a High Court judge. The Government present evidence to support their case for the target person to have their liberty and their other rights curtailed. I have called them “the target person” rather than “the defendant” because they have not been charged with anything and they are completely unable to defend themselves. That is because the evidence against them is presented in private to the judge without the target person’s knowledge. They are unable to see, challenge or contradict the so-called evidence because neither they nor their lawyer is aware of it. This process, known as closed material proceedings, is a very poor substitute for a proper trial, where evidence is presented in open court and the defendant’s lawyer can challenge it, present other evidence that contradicts it and cross-examine the person who provided it.
I mention all this because Clause 38, if enacted, would mean that a person made the subject of a TPIM in such an unfair and unsafe manner and confined to their home and subjected to other losses of their rights could find themselves in this position indefinitely, for ever, even for the rest of their lives. That is extremely harsh treatment for someone who may be innocent and has not been convicted of any crime. This treatment is far harsher than if they had been convicted in a criminal court and been sentenced to a few years in prison. In the worlds of the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, when he was the Independent Reviewer of Terrorist Legislation:
“TPIMs … are as stringent as anything available in a western democracy.”
He considered the case for lifting the two-year cap, as Clause 38 would do, in his report on TPIMs in 2012. He concluded that the two-year limit was an acceptable compromise because two years was a serious length of time in the life of an individual and TPIMs should not be allowed to become a shadow alternative to criminal prosecution. Indeed, the Government themselves endorsed the two-year limit and in 2015 cited the observation of the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, that there was no need to “put the clock back”. The Government went further and said:
“The two-year limit is a reminder that executive constraints of this kind are no substitute for the criminal process, and no long-term solution”.
What has changed the Government’s mind such that they wish to turn it into a long-term process? I am hoping the Minister will enlighten the House when he responds, and I hope that this time he can come up with something better than a meaningless reference to flexibility or that there is no need for it now but who knows what we might need in the future. To abolish the two-year time limit and replace it with an indefinite period of successive extensions, without even troubling the court, there would need to be a compelling operational case, would there not? However, no such compelling case has been made. In fact, no case at all has been offered by the Government, so far as I am aware. Given that fact, and given, as I mentioned earlier, the flimsy and unsatisfactory nature of the TPIM process as an alternative to our proper and fair criminal justice system, we cannot countenance allowing TPIMs to be made indefinite by means of Clause 38. It must go.
Lord Paddick (LD) [V]
My Lords, as I said on the previous group, we wish the current arrangements for terrorism prevention and investigation measures to remain as they are. I also said on the previous group that TPIMs were designed to be a temporary measure to protect the public from terrorism while an investigation gathered evidence to put before a criminal court. Currently TPIMs are in force for one year and can be extended by another year only once, although the Home Secretary can impose a new TPIM if necessary. Clause 28 allows a TPIM to be extended indefinitely. We do not believe that Clause 28 should stand part of the Bill, and Jonathan Hall QC, the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation agrees.
As I described in the previous group, the restrictions that can be imposed under a TPIM can in some respects be similar to imprisonment, and in other ways more draconian than imprisonment. The Government do not normally seek to restrict those who can visit you in prison, or take control of your bank account. In important respects, it can be akin to detention without charge.
On the subject of detention without charge, my friend, the late Lord Lester of Herne Hill, also a former member of the Labour Party, said in a debate on a previous Counter-Terrorism Bill on 13 October 2008:
“To those noble Lords who say that the threat of terrorism is so appalling that we must do anything to counter it, logically their position is—or should be—in favour of internment”—
something that the noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich, has just mentioned—
“without any time limits, until the evidence has been forthcoming. That is what, at the height of the Second World War, Winston Churchill described as,
‘in the highest degree odious’,
and I think he was right … That is why this Committee has a peculiar responsibility today to strike a fair balance, as has been said, between the need to protect the lives of our people against a serious threat of terrorism and the need to uphold our tradition as a country which respects the rule of law”.—[Official Report, 13/10/08; col. 519.]
I think that they were both right. Were all the possible conditions available under TPIMs to be imposed, they would amount to internment. If they were imposed without time limit, it would amount to a breach of Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Jonathan Hall QC, the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation, has said:
“The Bill is conspicuous for its lack of safeguards. Safeguards are appropriate however carefully the Home Secretary and her officials consider TPIMs, and however much resource constraints inevitably limit the appetite for more and longer TPIMs.”
He suggests that the Home Secretary should be required to seek the court’s permission for any extension beyond two years, in the same way as she currently does when a TPIM is first made. Our Amendment 29 seeks to impose such a requirement on the Secretary of State.
The current Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation goes on to suggest that, at the very least, an upper limit be placed on a TPIM. The master of compromise, the noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich, suggests in his Amendment 30 that there should be a four-year limit, double the current limit but short of indefinite, as the Government seek. I have to say that the noble Lord’s speech this evening was authoritative and convincing.
We believe that this is not a question for compromise but a question of principle. TPIMs are and should remain a temporary means of safeguarding the public during an investigation, and not a form of indefinite detention without trial.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab) [V]
I am relatively new to these debates, but I remember making the point at Second Reading about the importance of rehearsing these arguments each time we make these types of orders. These orders are some of the most intrusive that we have in our country. Young people listening to these debates need to be convinced regularly of how important these orders are and that they are proportionate and protect our liberties.
In her introduction, the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, drew a parallel with the group; there are obvious parallels between the legal tests in the previous group and the length of the TPIMs that we have been discussing in this group. Interestingly, in responding to the previous group, the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, talked about a reduction in the measures within TPIMs as they progress in time. I hope that the noble Lord will be able to expand on that when he winds up the debate.
As I am now used to, the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, has given a balanced view. He has put forward another compromise, although I sense that the Liberal Democrats and perhaps my own party, the Labour Party, are less convinced by this type of compromise, but nevertheless he has set one out in his amendments. I thought that he put an interesting challenge to the Minister, who is a former special adviser in the Home Office. I do not think that it was a rhetorical challenge, but I would be interested to know the noble Lord’s response. Would he have felt comfortable about recommending a discharge to an indefinite TPIM when he was in that role? It would be a difficult thing for a Minister or a special adviser to do. If the orders had a natural time limit, that would not put people in such a difficult and invidious position.
The other point made by the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, was that excessive zeal can be counterproductive. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, also made the point when he drew an interesting parallel with the IPP regime and the importance of not taking away hope from people who are subject to orders, whether they be for imprisonment or a form of effectively indefinite house arrest. The noble Lord, Lord Paddick, summed up these arrangements very well. He quoted the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, who I remember well in the House, when he drew parallels with internment. In fact, I may have been here when he made that speech. The noble Lord, Lord Paddick, also quoted Jonathan Hall extensively when he said that there should at the very least be an upper limit to the time that a TPIM can be in place without a further court order.
For all these reasons, the amendments as put forward by the other speakers in this group are worthy of our support.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in the debate on this group. Amendment 29, in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, would require the Home Secretary to secure the permission of the court before signing a TPIM extension notice. We do not think that that is a necessary amendment to the Bill. To demonstrate why, it might be helpful to the Committee if I explain first the process by which the Home Secretary considers whether a TPIM notice should be extended, a process that will remain in place after the removal of the time limit as proposed by the Bill. I hope that that provides some reassurance to the Committee both about the thorough consideration which goes into whether the continuation of a TPIM is necessary and about the robust judicial oversight that is already built into the process.
At this stage, I should say in response to the question from the noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich, which I was certainly hoping to treat as rhetorical but which the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede, rightly picked on, these are rightly not matters in which special advisers are involved. They are questions for the Secretary of State and Ministers.
When extending a TPIM, the Home Secretary will consider the Security Service’s assessment as to whether it remains necessary. It is true that significant weight is placed on the professionalism and expertise of the Security Service, but the process is not simply a tick box exercise. The Home Office routinely challenges the Security Service’s assessments to ensure that they are robust. The scrutiny is demonstrated by the public comments which have been made by successive former Independent Reviewers of Terrorism Legislation, who, for instance, have noted that through the quarterly TPIM review group meetings all TPIM notices in force are reassessed, including whether the measures imposed or the TPIM notice itself are necessary and proportionate, and what the exit strategy is for the notice.
If the Home Secretary considers that the extension of a TPIM notice is necessary, she will then consider whether the current measures remain necessary and proportionate to restrict the individual’s involvement in terrorism-related activity, or whether any of them need varying. To address the point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, this can be in the form of a removal, a relaxation, or further restrictions.
This might be a good point to talk a little more about rehabilitation. To answer the question that the noble Baroness asked about whether somebody who has been subject to a TPIM could theoretically be subject to another, yes, they could, although that would have to rely on a separate national security case or evidence of terrorism-related activity. TPIMs are not designed as a tool of punishment; they are a tool of prevention and rehabilitation. Part of them involves encouraging subjects to attend what are known as desistence and disengagement programmes to assist with their rehabilitation and to turn them away from behaviour that leads them to be subjects of concern.
Decisions to extend a TPIM notice are not taken lightly but are based on detailed assessments by the Security Service and counterterrorism policing’s experience of managing the subject. The assessment that the Security Service provides will not only be based on the original national security case put forward for the imposition of the TPIM; it will also include the intelligence, both covert and overt, gathered over the course of the preceding 12 months. This could include evidence of further terrorism-related activity or non-compliance that does not reach the criminal threshold or which cannot be exhibited in open court. When extending a TPIM notice, the TPIM subject is invited to make representations before a decision is made. These are put before the Home Secretary.
As I outlined in our debate on the previous group, the 2011 Act established robust judicial oversight of the TPIM process. I will set out what that means. I hope to reassure the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, on some of the existing safeguards. The court will consider at a permission hearing whether the Home Secretary’s initial decision to impose a TPIM was “obviously flawed” and will overturn a notice or its measures where that is the case. This is known as a Section 9 hearing. If I understand the amendment, this is a process that the noble Baroness and the noble Lord would like to see replicated when a notice is extended beyond a second year.
Section 16 of the TPIM Act provides an appeal route for TPIM subjects to challenge any refusal to vary their notice or to extend it, in addition to the Section 9 hearing. The in-built appeal route available through Section 16 makes it difficult to see in practice what the amendment would achieve in establishing an additional safeguard beyond that.
In addition to the Section 9 hearing and the Section 16 appeal process, the TPIM Act also requires the Home Secretary to keep under regular review the ongoing necessity of a TPIM notice under Section 11. This responsibility is also taken seriously. It is why the Home Office runs the quarterly TPIM review groups, where all TPIM subjects are discussed, including the notices to which they are subject and whether these remain proportionate and necessary.
I turn to Amendment 30, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich. I thank him for outlining it. His amendment would amend the 2011 Act so that a TPIM notice can be extended on “one or more” occasions if the conditions in Section 3 of that Act continue to be met. Currently, a TPIM notice can be extended only once and therefore has a maximum duration of two years. However, we respectfully disagree with the noble Lord on the need for his amendment. It would prevent a TPIM notice being renewed for as long as it is necessary for the purposes of public protection. Instead, it would set a new upper limit of four years. While we disagree with the noble Lord’s amendment, I should say at the outset that we support its principle in so far as it recognises that there are circumstances where it may be necessary to impose a TPIM beyond the current two-year limit, which the Government contend is too short.
There are several policy and operational justifications for Clause 38. First, experience has shown that there are TPIM subjects who pose an enduring risk beyond the two-year limit. This has meant that a new TPIM has had to be imposed after reaching the current limit and, as a consequence, a dangerous cliff edge has been created while the individual is at large in the community without the appropriate risk management tools in place before a new TPIM can be imposed. That has happened on more than one occasion. ACC Tim Jacques spoke to this risk when he gave evidence to the Public Bill Committee in another place.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Garden of Frognal) (LD)
My Lords, I have received a request to speak after the Minister from the noble Lord, Lord Paddick.
Lord Paddick (LD) [V]
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister. I have two questions. First, he spoke about Section 9 hearings and the appeal route under Section 16 making our amendment unnecessary. Can he tell the Committee how many times TPIMs have been revoked or restrictions eased as a result of each of these types of hearing?
Secondly, terrorism prevention and investigation measures are, as their title describes, temporary means of preventing terrorism taking place while an investigation tries to establish evidence to convict the person in a criminal court. Control orders, on the other hand, have been used in the past for public protection. If the Government are changing the nature of TPIMs and abandoning them as a temporary measure to enable an investigation to take place in safety, why do they continue to call them TPIMs? Why not now call them control orders, which are in fact what the Government are trying to use here?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
I will take the questions in reverse order. Prosecution is always the preferred method of disrupting those involved in terrorism-related activity. That will continue to be the case even under this Bill. Under the TPIM Act 2011, the Home Secretary is required to keep prosecution under review. That will not change with the amendments we propose to the Bill. If it becomes clear that there is an avenue for prosecution, the Home Office will support the police and the Crown Prosecution Service in bringing that prosecution against the individual and seek to remove the TPIM notice if it is no longer necessary and proportionate.
On the noble Lord’s first question about the number of times that appeals have been raised, if he is happy it would be better if I write and provide that information to him and the rest of the Committee so that I can be certain that it is up to date and accurate.
Baroness Hamwee (LD) [V]
My Lords, I hope that noble Lords will forgive me if, in the interests of time, I do not comment on every contribution. I must say, I have edited my notes as we have gone along, and it is more or less the same cast of characters throughout the clauses and amendments on this part of the Bill.
I noted in particular two comments that I think are well worth keeping in mind: my noble friend Lord Strasburger saying that two years is a serious length of time, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas—who, as ever, put pithily and succinctly an issue that is at the heart of the case, as it were—saying that the effect of indefinite detention or what is perceived as indefinite detention, by the taking away of hope, is to create greater danger.
In response to the question about how many new TPIMs there have been because of the cliff-edge issue, we were told it was “more than one occasion”. If the noble Lord is able to expand on that, I would be grateful. I observe with regard to reviews—I use that term quite broadly—that it is difficult, if not impossible, for the subject to make effective representations because he does not know what points put to the Secretary of State he is responding to. It is worth saying one final sentence on the carrot—yes, that is what it is—of investing. One cannot even say that it is investing in rehabilitation, because no offence has been proved, but investing in managing the risk has to be worth it, even if you look at it coldly in terms of pounds and pence, because of the cost of enforcing and supervising TPIMs. I am looking at my screen to see whether the Minister will be able to respond to the question that I just put. As he has not leapt up—oh, he has.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
Only to disappoint the noble Baroness, but also to reassure her that I will add that to the information I provide in writing following the debate.
Baroness Hamwee (LD) [V]
I am grateful for that. We are in Committee, so it is appropriate that I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Garden of Frognal) (LD)
We now come to the group beginning with Amendment 30A. I notify noble Lords that at the end of this group we shall have a short break. I remind noble Lords that anyone wishing to speak after the Minister should email the clerk during the debate and anyone wishing to press this or anything else in this group to a Division must make that clear in debate.
Clause 39: TPIMs: variation of measures
Amendment 30A
Baroness Hamwee
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would prevent relocation for resource reasons.
Baroness Hamwee (LD) [V]
My Lords, this takes us to the issue of location and relocation. It was probably very naive of me to be taken aback at seeing the provision for variation expressed in resource terms, though perhaps I should acknowledge the Government’s transparency in doing so in the Bill. The Secretary of State already has wide powers of location and relocation so I would be interested in understanding the balancing factors to be taken into consideration. I ask this because the impact of being lifted from one’s community can be considerable. I realise that community connections may be the problem, but the support of the community can also be very positive.
I appreciate the powers are intended to have a considerable impact, but so might being placed somewhere utterly unfamiliar, where visits from friends and extended family are much more difficult because of distance as well as the deterrence of security clearance. There are more likely to be problems seeking work—if reporting and other conditions permit work—and from being cut off from one’s belief systems when one may have only a tenuous grip on reality. It could be that for that lone wolf—the lone actor, as he was referred to earlier—not being well established in the community is a significant part of the problem, which will be exacerbated.
If there is a family, what about the impact on the spouse and children? I have heard the words “depression”, “anxiety”, “enduring sense of injustice” and “stigma”, applied to how this might be experienced by children. Family cohesion breaking down is unlikely to be beneficial to the management of the subject. I have also heard relocation described as creating toxic social effects. The longer the restrictions go on, the more likely a breach is, because of the loss of hope, to which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, referred. The best course is positive engagement, and we have just been talking about that, but TPIMs seem to be the opposite, and relocation must often mean compounding a disaffection with society. I beg to move.
Lord Paddick (LD) [V]
My Lords, as my noble friend Lady Hamwee said, requiring a TPIM subject to relocate can have significant consequences, particularly, for example, if he or she has school-age children. It is a well-established fact in the rehabilitation of offenders that social ties are powerful in preventing reoffending. Relocating to another part of the country, presumably, would have the opposite effect.
Clearly, if there is a national security issue that requires the TPIM subject to be relocated somewhere they are not easily in contact with people they should not be in contact with, relocation should be considered. But to allow relocation simply to save police resources seems neither necessary nor proportionate.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton (Lab) [V]
This amendment does not address head-on the power under a TPIM to require somebody to relocate. This amendment is only touching on whether the Secretary of State should by notice have power to vary a relocation measure, in part, because
“the variation is necessary for reasons connected with the efficient and effective use of resources.”
While I recognise the intrusive effect that relocation can have, I accept that there may be cases where national security demands it. I am interested to hear from the Minister what test is to be applied where a variation of a relocation order occurs when it
“is necessary for reasons connected with efficient and effective use of resources.”
I do not know, but I suspect that this concerns the perception that someone should relocate for national security reasons. Where they relocate to might be affected by the circumstances in which such an order might be enforced; the amount of resources that would be required if it was to be enforced where they normally live becoming disproportionate; or the amount of resources that would be required where they had been located becoming disproportionate. If that is right, I would have expected the measure in new subsection (1A) in Clause 39(2) to reflect something about proportionality. But there is nothing in it, and I would be interested to hear what the Minister has to say. I hope he will indicate that resource relocations will occur only when it is effectively necessary to provide for national security.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, have explained, this amendment is intended to prevent the possibility, as proposed by Clause 39, of varying a TPIM subject’s relocation measure for reasons connected with the efficient and effective use of resources in relation to that individual. I hear what they say about wanting to understand and explore that through this amendment.
We do not believe that the amendment as drafted would have that effect in practice, and we think that it could inadvertently broaden out the application of the clause to enable relocation of the TPIM subject for the second time for any reason. However, as I say, I understand the questions which lie behind their tabling it.
The Government are committed to future-proofing the TPIM regime to ensure that our operational partners are fully supported to manage TPIMs efficiently and effectively. Clause 39 has an important role in doing that. It will allow the Home Secretary to move an already relocated TPIM subject to an alternative location, if necessary, for resource-related reasons, provided that the national security reason for requiring relocation still exists—that is key to note.
We want to ensure that operational partners, and in particular counterterrorism policing, are supported in their function of managing this small but significant cohort of high-risk individuals within the community. This clause seeks to ensure that there is a greater degree of flexibility in the system, so that there can continue to be effective management of a TPIM subject when operational circumstances evolve.
To provide a real-world example of where a police force finds that resources are affected, I draw the Committee’s attention to the Novichok poisonings in Amesbury, in Wiltshire, in June 2018, which suddenly and significantly diverted police resource in a small force for a considerable period of time to that important and high-profile investigation. In such a scenario, if a TPIM subject was residing within the force area, it might no longer be possible for counterterrorism policing to provide the same dedicated resources to ensure that the TPIM was being managed effectively and in a way that reduced the threat to the wider public.
The new ground to vary the relocation measure could also potentially be used to cover the following: first, a temporary move of the TPIM subject because all relevant counterterrorism officers with the necessary skills become unavailable at the same time due to illness or another temporary reason, such as during the current pandemic, for example, which I am sure will be on noble Lords’ minds; or, secondly, in circumstances where the presence of the TPIM subject becomes known locally and, as a result, there is increased pressure on counterterrorism resources to keep the subject both monitored and safe.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, asked about the test for the Home Secretary. When first deciding where to relocate a TPIM subject, provided there is a national security reason to do so, the Home Secretary takes into account various factors to arrive at a proportionate decision. These include but are not limited to: the personal circumstances of the individual; the availability of services and amenities, including access to employment, education, places of worship and medical facilities; the proximity to prohibited associates; and the demographics of the community. It is reasonable to apply a similar approach when deciding whether the police force area in which the TPIM subject currently resides continues to be the most appropriate area for them to be placed.
We do not anticipate this ground to vary the relocation measure being used except in exceptional circumstances. We fully recognise that the relocation of a TPIM subject —or the re-relocation of the subject, as would be the case if relying on this new ground—is a significant action to take given the potential impact on the individual and could be used only when necessary and proportionate to do so, taking into account their Article 8 rights. The Government understand that stability in a subject’s life is a crucial factor behind their rehabilitation and supporting them to move away from an extremist mindset, which, of course, we want them to do.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, rightly said that this amendment does not address head-on the question of relocation. However, as he raised it and noble Lords are interested, it is worth reiterating that the Home Secretary can relocate a TPIM subject only if it is necessary and proportionate to prevent and restrict involvement in terrorism-related activity, that consideration is always given to the subject’s Article 8 rights, and that, furthermore, a TPIM notice does not prevent an individual seeking or maintaining employment or study—in the past, TPIM subjects have pursued both of those. It is also worth reminding the Committee that TPIMs are different from the control order regime. Under control orders, somebody could be relocated anywhere in the country, whereas under TPIMs, relocation is up to 200 miles away from their home address.
We assess that, in most cases where a TPIM subject has been relocated but there is then a requirement to move them to a new place of residence, that is provided for within existing legislation. However, as with several of the changes we are seeking to introduce through this Bill, we deem it important expressly to create this flexibility for our operational partners within the TPIM Act 2011 as part of our mission to future-proof the system and to ensure that TPIMs can be managed efficiently and effectively.
Decisions to vary the relocation measure for resource reasons will be capable of appeal. As with other unilateral variations to the TPIM notice, the function of the appeal court will be to review whether the variation was necessary for purposes connected with preventing or restricting the individual’s involvement in terrorism-related activity. Additionally, however, for variations to the relocation measure on resource grounds, the appeal court will also review whether the variation was necessary for the efficient and effective use of resources.
Given the crucial tasks that we expect of our operational partners, we want to ensure that we support them as best we can in their effective management of TPIM subjects, as well as in their ability to respond to other high-priority work such as the examples I have given.
Amendment 30B is consequential on Amendment 30A, and the same arguments apply. I therefore invite the noble Baroness not to press her amendments.
Baroness Hamwee (LD) [V]
My Lords, I shall of course withdraw Amendment 30A and I shall not move Amendment 30B. The questions asked about proportionality and national security should be at the heart of this. The flexibility to which the Minister referred seems to suggest that subjects might be moved closer together for ease of management, which is the exact opposite of what I thought was one of the objectives of this regime.
I am still puzzled that
“purposes connected with preventing or restricting … involvement in terrorism-related activity”
in new Section 12(1A)(b) does not cover the Salisbury example that the Minister used, but, as one always does, I will look at the explanation, because I may well have missed it.
I did not miss the fact that my drafting was inadequate, but I do not take exception to that comment—that could be corrected later if necessary. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Garden of Frognal) (LD)
We now come to the group beginning with the Question that Clause 40 stand part of the Bill. I remind noble Lords that anyone wishing to speak after the Minister should email the clerk during the debate. Anyone wishing to press this or anything else in this group to a Division must make that clear in debate.
Clause 40: TPIMs: extension of residence measure
Baroness Hamwee (LD) [V]
My Lords, Clause 40 stand part is grouped with Amendment 31 in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Hunt and Lord Bach, which is very different. I shall confine my remarks to the clause. A curfew can be more than overnight. All the points about amendments we have debated this evening are relevant to the time—the hours of the day and night—during which a subject may be required to remain wherever he is living—plus, of course, in particular, engaging Article 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights, on the deprivation of liberty.
The ECHR memorandum published with the Bill is explicit that this provision is so that an individual can be required to observe longer curfew hours. That is not a justification, however. We have some case law, as I am sure other noble Lords may mention. In JJ, Lord Bingham said that account should be taken of
“a range of factors such as the nature, duration, effects and manner of execution or implementation”
of a measure—very much as noble Lords said on a previous group. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown, took the view that the absolute limit was 16 hours, and I understand that no curfew has been for a period longer than 16 hours since.
The ECHR memorandum makes the point that the principle of curfew does not breach Article 5, and I take that point, but the particular issue I want to raise in this connection is that the clause—that is, the change—makes it that much easier for the limits to be pushed longer and longer and throws on the individual the need to challenge them, rather than having clear limits set on the Secretary of State through legislation.
I am sure that noble Lords will understand, when it comes to the appetite, and indeed the ability, of an individual to challenge each measure, or extended measure, it is not an easy task. The balance—I think it is called “equality of arms”—moves completely out of balance through this clause. I beg to move.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab) [V]
My Lords, rather like the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, I am not sure that our two amendments have any connection whatever. None the less, it is a pleasure to be able to make this short intervention on the Bill and to probe just a little more than I did at Second Reading the role of police and crime commissioners.
I do support the strengthening of the TPIM provisions. That the Government would have to do so was entirely foreseeable in 2011, when the coalition Government insisted on the abolition of control orders, despite the warnings that I and other noble Lords gave at the time.
My amendment was drafted after discussions with the West Midlands police and crime commissioner, David Jamieson. Clearly, the provisions are potentially extremely resource-intensive and need to be used proportionately and only when absolutely necessary. I would like to make two specific comments.
As the thresholds for a TPIM are lowered and the range of measures extended, it is important that greater scrutiny and oversight are implemented to give reassurance to individuals and communities that the legislation is being used fairly. These are of course issues of grave national security concern. The oversight offered by a police and crime commissioner could help to give the Home Secretary reassurance that full consideration had been given ahead of any decision regarding a TPIM. Local oversight could also enhance the ability of the Home Secretary to make an informed decision when considering a TPIM application, variation or extension. It would enable PCCs to submit any additional information or make recommendations to the Home Secretary in respect of the community impact and the impact on local police force resources—which, as has already been discussed, can be intensive for a TPIM.
It is not entirely clear how police and crime commissioners are currently made aware of TPIMs within their local area. Certainly, the chief constable should advise the police and crime commissioner when a TPIM is being considered, but there are no clear guidelines on how this should take place. My amendment would formalise this process. We know that the number of TPIMs in place nationally is small, and therefore it should not be envisaged that this additional step in the process would present a burden for police and crime commissioners or forces. As part of this process, the information would of course have to be shared within the most appropriate, secure environment.
At Second Reading, the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, responded to that point by saying that the Home Office already works very closely with the police before a TPIM is imposed and during its lifetime. She went on to say:
“The process ensures that TPIMs are imposed only following engagement with the relevant local police force and that community impact assessments are kept up to date.”
She then said:
“The Bill already contains a clause that will allow a TPIM subject’s relocation measure to be varied where necessary on operational resource grounds.”
On those grounds, she considered that my
“proposed amendment for an additional role for PCCs … in TPIM processes is … not necessary.”—[Official Report, 21/9/20; col. 1653.]
That was disappointing. The key issue here is that TPIMs are an intervention that places significant restrictions on a person’s life, based on the balance of probabilities. Given that, PCCs could add value in the process by seeking reassurance that due process had been followed. I remind the Minister that they do this for other policing powers that might be regarded as controversial, including stop and search and the use of covert services, and it would be appropriate if it were extended to TPIMs. I commend the amendment and hope that the Minister will be sympathetic.
Lord Anderson of Ipswich (CB) [V]
My Lords, I have just a little to add to what has already been said about Clause 40.
The current requirement that a residence condition be “overnight” has acted as a limitation on the maximum length of the nightly period of house arrest that may be imposed under a TPIM; the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, referred to some of the case law on this subject. Confinement to the home during substantial parts of the day may sound almost familiar in times of Covid but it would represent a major reversal of past practice. I see that my own 2012 report, to which the Minister was kind enough to refer, confirms that even control orders featured curfews of only up to 16 hours.
In that context, I have three questions. First, if Clause 40 is passed into law, for how many hours a day will it be permissible to confine TPIM subjects to their designated residences if that is considered, in the Minister’s words, “necessary and proportionate”? Is there any reason why it should not be for 23 or, indeed, 24 hours?
Secondly, what are the specific circumstances that make it necessary for public safety to extend these already formidable powers in this way? If they are to be credible after 15 years of real-world experience, please may we have actual examples, even if they must be anonymised, rather than hypothetical ones?
Thirdly, and more generally, my sense from the last few debates is that the Government will have to work quite hard if they are to persuade noble Lords of the operational case for some of these changes—particularly as they appear not to have persuaded their own independent reviewer, with all his privileged access to classified material. What proposals does the Minister have in that regard?
Lord Bach (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I declare my interest as the elected and serving police and crime commissioner for Leicester, Leicestershire and Rutland. I have been in that post for nearly five years now but in three months’ time, if the 6 May elections take place as the Government propose, I will no longer have this interest to declare. I look forward to once again playing a greater role in your Lordships’ House.
However, when, as in this Bill, issues of delicate constitutional importance arise—issues that affect the relationship between the state, in the guise of the Home Secretary and the police, and the individual, in the guise here of the reasonably suspected person—surely it is important to examine with great care, as this House always does and clearly has done today, the implications for the rule of law and individual liberty. That is why I put my name to my noble friend Lord Hunt of Kings Heath’s Amendment 31, which, strangely, is in this group.
Amendment 31 suggests a practical and sensible way forward—one that balances the interests of all involved, I would argue. It suggests a role for police and crime commissioners that seems entirely appropriate and consistent with the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act 2011. When the coalition Government proposed the setting up of what I will call PCCs, they deliberately gave them considerable responsibilities and powers. Not only were they described as the “local policing body”; the Policing Protocol Order 2011 insisted that police and crime commissioners had a role in the “totality of policing”. Sometimes, it seems as though the then Government’s intentions, as contained in the Act passed by Parliament, have not always been fulfilled by succeeding Governments, who, although keen to support the legislation, seem to draw back from some of its consequences. I very much hope that the way in which the Minister deals with this amendment will show that I am wrong.
Of course, we all agree that strong powers are needed to protect society from those who would use, aid or support terrorism to get their own way. In this Bill, there is an obvious intention to strengthen the power of the state against the individual, pointed out repeatedly by noble Lords from all sides. This involves the removal of basic safeguards, as we have heard today: first, the need for there merely to be reasonable suspicion, rather than proof of a balance of probabilities, and, secondly, the open-ended nature of a TPIM. The dangers of that last approach were referred to by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, in the context of recent public prevention legislation. Immense executive power attaches to the Home Secretary and the police, who are tasked with TPIM powers.
Lord Strasburger (LD) [V]
My Lords, as we have heard, Clause 40 will allow the Secretary of State to extend the overnight curfew on a person subject to a TPIM to the maximum: every hour of every day. If the clause passes into law, it will mean that a person who has not been convicted of any offence can be condemned to full-time house arrest indefinitely, possibly until their death.
It so happens that we are all experiencing a very mild form of this regime right now during the Covid pandemic lockdown. I say a mild form because we are allowed to go to work. We can get out for exercise, to buy food, to seek medical advice or for a host of other exceptions. We know that this confinement, with all its exceptions, will last for only a few weeks, or at most months. Even so, cabin fever is rife and the increase in mental illness in the community is very real and alarming.
Imagine, if you will, how it would be if this serious constraint on our way of life and infringement of our liberties was permanent and without any of the opportunities to get out of the house that we have under lockdown. It would be unbearable. In some ways, it would be worse than a long prison sentence. In a maximum security prison, you still get some exercise outside your cell every day. But this is what the Government intend to be able to do to people who may well be innocent, whose incarceration has occurred without the Government even having to prove their guilt beyond reasonable doubt or on the balance of probabilities.
Under Clause 37, a Minister would merely need to suspect that they may be a terrorist—a truly flimsy threshold of proof, which is so insignificant as to be pointless and non-existent. Nevertheless, on this flimsy basis, Clause 40 allows a Minister to condemn a quite possibly innocent person to indefinite full-time detention in their home. Can the Minister please give a meaningful explanation or operational case for this change? In doing so, if he is going to deploy the flexibility argument again, could he explain who needs the flexibility, to do what and why? It is seriously unconvincing to me.
This change to the TPIM regime is cruel, inhumane and unfair. It must be seriously damaging to the subject’s mental health and that of those around him or her. This House must expunge this clause from the Bill.
Lord Paddick (LD) [V]
My Lords, at the risk of sounding like a broken record, we believe that the existing TPIMs are sufficient and are at the limits of what a country that has a reputation for upholding human rights should tolerate. The extension proposed in Clause 40 would extend the requirement to remain at or within a specified residence from “overnight” to what could amount to total house arrest. As the noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich, said, that is a requirement to remain at or within the specified residence between any hours. “As are specified” is yet another step too far, as my noble friend Lord Strasburger said.
On Amendment 31, I commend the noble Lords, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath and Lord Bach, for their relentless attempts to get police and crime commissioners more involved in operational policing decisions, including operations that may have national security implications. I accept that stop and search may be considered controversial, but it does not involve issues of national security of this nature, and I am not convinced that their amendment is necessary or desirable in this case.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab) [V]
My Lords, we have had two different debates in this group. The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, moved that Clause 40 should not stand part of the Bill, and I can do no better than the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, and his three questions, which I thought were very apposite and to the point. I will listen with interest to the Minister’s answers to those three questions.
My noble friends Lord Hunt and Lord Bach then spoke to their Amendment 31. As we have heard, the gist of the amendment is to formalise a relationship between the Secretary of State, PCCs and local chief constables to give more direct input by PCCs. In the words of my noble friend Lord Bach, PCCs are responsible for the “totality of policing” in their area. As we have heard, they are already involved in controversial matters such as stop and search and covert activities. Of course, I support my noble friends in trying to give the PCCs more formal involvement in TPIMs in their own areas.
I look forward to my noble friend Lord Bach playing a greater part in the proceedings of our House. He has for many years brought great insight into his many roles on the Front Bench, and occasionally on the Back Benches, but he will improve that even further when he comes back as a PCC. He may, of course, have to do extra time; we wait to see. I will listen with interest to what the Minister has to say, and I will support my noble friends.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate. As some have remarked, Amendment 31 might have as easily sat in the previous group as this one. I turn first to that amendment, in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Hunt of King’s Heath and Lord Bach. It aims to increase the oversight that local policing bodies, including police and crime commissioners, have of TPIM notices in their area. It would require the Home Secretary to notify the relevant local policing body when a TPIM notice is imposed in their area, and when a TPIM is withdrawn, ends or is relocated, so that it no longer falls within their area. It would also require the local policing body to provide six-monthly reports to the Home Secretary, which could include recommendations regarding variations to the TPIM and its continued necessity.
Because of the operational nature of the amendment and the impact that it would have on existing processes, officials at the Home Office have consulted colleagues in Counter Terrorism Policing Headquarters on it, and they support our view that it is not needed in the Bill. Engagement with police forces is already an integral part of the TPIM regime. The Home Office works very closely with CT policing, both nationally via CTPHQ and with regional CT units, before a TPIM is imposed and during its lifetime, including regular engagement at quarterly TPIM review group meetings chaired by the Home Office. This well-established process ensures that TPIMs are imposed only following engagement with, and ultimately the consent of, the relevant local police force. This existing practice also means that local community impact assessments are kept up to date, which supports the effective and efficient management of the TPIM subject by the Home Office and operational partners.
Given the current close working relationship that we have with operational partners in the ongoing management of a TPIM subject, there is no need for the local policing body to produce six-monthly reports; review meetings are already in any event held at more regular intervals than the amendment would require reports to be written, and those meetings already consider the types of issue that the amendment is seeking to ensure are included in any report. The amendment would also distort existing roles and responsibilities; it would be inappropriate for the relevant local policing body or police and crime commissioner to put recommendations for varying a TPIM or its continued necessity directly to the Home Secretary. Those judgments are, quite rightly, led by the Home Office in conjunction with the Security Service, which makes fully informed recommendations based on its expert assessment of national security risk. Like the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, I think the examples that noble Lords gave of stop and search and other decisions are in a different category from the imposition of a TPIM.
It is vital that TPIM oversight and management processes protect the highly classified information that flows through a TPIM regime, including the details of the TPIM subject and the underlying national security case against them. The Government, CTPHQ and the Security Service are concerned about how the amendment could work in practice with regard to sharing and disclosure of such highly sensitive information. The close working relationships already in place and well-tested processes on information-sharing between the Home Office, CT policing and the Security Service make it unnecessary.
I turn to Clause 40, which amends the existing overnight residence measure in Schedule 1 to the TPIM Act to strengthen the ability of the Home Secretary to specify certain hours when a TPIM subject must remain at a specified residence. Taken literally, the amendment in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and the noble Lord, Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames, would remove Clause 40 from the Bill altogether and prevent several operational benefits from being realised. That is why the Government cannot support it.
Having a residence measure at our disposal is vital in managing an individual of national security concern and the risk that they pose to the public. That has long been the case, but our engagement with operational partners has established that the existing overnight measure could and should be improved to allow for greater flexibility in the way in which it can be imposed—specifically, by introducing a requirement for a TPIM subject to remain within his or her residence at specific times during the day, as well as overnight, when this is assessed as necessary and proportionate to manage the risk that they pose. The updated residence measure that Clause 40 introduces will allow the Home Secretary to specify a period that could be longer than overnight or spilt into varying segments throughout a 24-hour period, if considered necessary.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Russell of Liverpool) (CB)
I have received one request to speak after the Minister, so I call the noble Lord, Lord Paddick.
Lord Paddick (LD) [V]
My Lords, unfortunately, the imperfection of the current system of remote participation means that one has to put in one’s request to speak “after the Minister” before the Minister has finished speaking. If the Minister in his last few sentences answers the question that you were going to ask, your question becomes obsolete, as is the case here.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Russell of Liverpool) (CB)
I now call the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, to respond to the debate.
Baroness Hamwee (LD) [V]
I am in much the same position as I was with an earlier amendment: I do not see what is not already provided for in current legislation. I would be interested to know whether the examples used by the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson—the radicalising threats to children and the case of someone who is suspected of being a not-yet-fulfilled attack planner—are examples of where the police have had a real problem.
I am not reassured that a measure is “likely” not to be over 16 hours. In response to various questions, we seem to be getting the answer, “It’s necessary because it’s necessary”. We will, of course, think about this particular aspect after today; tonight, I will not seek to oppose this clause standing part of the Bill.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Russell of Liverpool) (CB)
We now come to the group beginning with Amendment 30C. I remind noble Lords that anyone wishing to speak after the Minister should email the clerk during the debate. Anyone wishing to press this amendment, or anything else in this group, to a Division must make that clear in debate.
Clause 41: TPIMs: polygraph measure
Amendment 30C
Baroness Hamwee
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would ensure section 12 of the Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Act 2011 is not overridden.
Baroness Hamwee (LD) [V]
My Lords, we have Amendments 30C and 30D in this group, as well as the clause stand part debate. These take us to polygraph measures, where we were not so many hours ago in connection with terrorist offenders—those were, of course, “offenders”, while the individuals subject to TPIMs are not.
If a polygraph measure is imposed as a requirement of a TPIM and the subject refuses to comply, then one asks: so what? That becomes an offence, as I understand it, and the subject would be liable to imprisonment for up to five years and/or an unlimited fine. In an attempt to think about the “so what?” question, Amendment 30C refers to Section 12 of the 2011 Act. That section deals with the variation of measures, with some safeguards. I will not hold it against the noble Lord if he says that the drafting leaves a lot to be desired; I dare say it does. The point is to seek to be sure that what is learned from a polygraph, and so points the examiner and therefore the police in a particular direction, cannot override the safeguards in legislation.
On Amendment 30D, we know that polygraphs cannot be used as evidence in proceedings. Can they be used to point to where there may be evidence? I assume that they can, so will the Minister therefore confirm whether this can be used as evidence of a breach of a TPIM, or to extend or impose a further TPIM? I think the Law Society has made the point—I hope I am not misquoting it—that polygraphs should not be used as a route to impose a TPIM. I beg to move.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Russell of Liverpool) (CB)
The noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, has withdrawn from this group, so I call the next speaker, the noble Lord, Lord Paddick.
Lord Paddick (LD) [V]
My Lords, I do not have anything to add on the substance of the amendments which my noble friend Lady Hamwee has outlined. However, I would like to go back to something that my noble friend Lord Thomas of Gresford raised in relation to the use of polygraph tests on convicted terrorists who were subject to licence: the right to silence. Quite rightly, the noble and learned Lord who was the Minister at the time said that, because these people would be convicted offenders under licence, they had no right to silence. But TPIM subjects are not convicted offenders on licence; they are unconvicted. That is the whole idea of a TPIM, and so they do have a right to silence. The question for the Minister is: would it be a breach of TPIM conditions, which is a criminal offence for which the person could be sent to prison, if they refuse to participate in a polygraph test or if, in a polygraph test, they refuse to say anything?
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I have nothing of substance to add to the comments of the previous two speakers, the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and the noble Lord, Lord Paddick. I, too, was going to raise the point made by the noble Lord about the right to silence of someone who is subject to a TPIM, as they are not convicted of an offence. The noble Baroness adequately covered the other points, so I have nothing more to add.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, I thank noble Lords for their contributions and brevity in this group so that we can make as much progress as possible. All these amendments are in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee.
Clause 41 provides for the addition of a polygraph measure into Schedule 1 to the TPIM Act 2011. Doing that will, in circumstances where it is assessed to be necessary and proportionate, help our operational partners to assess an individual’s compliance with his or her TPIM notice and support the decision-making on whether variations to the notice are required. That could include relaxations as well as restrictions.
As with all TPIM measures, polygraphs will not be mandatory for all TPIM subjects. I should like to reassure the Committee that we anticipate this measure being used sparingly, in a targeted and proportionate manner. Operational partners will consider its utility in relation to each TPIM subject on a case-by-case basis and make a recommendation to the Home Office for its imposition where appropriate.
By way of example, the results of a polygraph test may indicate that a TPIM subject is meeting someone whom he or she is prohibited from seeing for national security reasons at a particular location. While any findings from the polygraph test will be considered in the round by operational partners—that is, without an overreliance on the test findings and considered against other available information—the findings could inform a recommendation for the TPIM measures to be varied to restrict the subject from frequenting that specific location. The results could also be used to inform an assessment of whether a subject’s engagement with rehabilitation programmes under the TPIM notice is genuine.
We recognise that the prospect of polygraph testing understandably creates questions about the way in which information gleaned from tests may be used. That is precisely why we have taken steps to ensure that the wording of the clause is clear on that issue. The polygraph testing should only be carried out with a view to monitoring the individual’s compliance with other specified TPIM measures and assessing whether any variation of their measures is necessary. We have also specified that such information cannot be used in evidence against the individual in any criminal proceedings.
To further reassure the Committee of the steps that we are taking to ensure that this addition is both proportionate and considered, the clause sets out that the new measure will not be used unless and until the Home Office introduces regulations to make provision for the conduct of the polygraph sessions. Those regulations are likely to include detail, for example, on the qualifications and experience needed by polygraph operators and how records of the polygraph sessions should be kept, thereby ensuring transparency on how this measure will be applied in practice. The regulations would be laid before Parliament for scrutiny in the usual manner.
As with all other measures contained in Schedule 1 to the TPIM Act, this measure will not be imposed unless the Home Secretary reasonably considers it necessary for purposes connected with preventing or restricting the individual’s involvement in terrorism-related activity. It is important that we harness available technology and provide our operational partners with the tools necessary to protect the public, and that is what the clause will do.
Turning our attention to Amendment 30C, as I have set out, Clause 41 adds the new polygraph measure to the list of available measures in Schedule 1 to the 2011 Act. Following Royal Assent, if the polygraph measures are imposed, a TPIM subject will be required to undertake a polygraph test. Failure to do so would, to answer the question posed by the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, be a breach of the TPIM measure. We appreciate the spirit in which the amendment has been tabled, but we respectfully disagree about the necessity of it. Condition D in Section 3(4) of the TPIM Act 2011 requires,
“that the Secretary of State reasonably considers that it is necessary, for purposes connected with preventing or restricting the individual’s involvement in terrorism-related activity, for the specified terrorism prevention and investigation measures to be imposed on the individual”
under a TPIM notice. In addition, Section 12(1)(c) of the TPIM Act requires,
“the Secretary of State reasonably considers that the variation is necessary for purposes connected with preventing or restricting the individual’s involvement in terrorism-related activity.”
Therefore, all the measures imposed under a TPIM notice and any subsequent variation must be considered to be necessary for those purposes.
Baroness Hamwee (LD) [V]
My Lords, I may have missed it, but I am not sure that the noble Lord answered the point about the right to silence. It is difficult to read body language from eight miles away.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
I apologise. I did not do so, but if the noble Baroness is happy, I will write to her and follow it up, along with any other questions that I might have missed.
Baroness Hamwee (LD) [V]
Equally, of course, we will go through the Official Report to see whether all our concerns have been addressed. For now, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Russell of Liverpool) (CB)
We now come to the group consisting of Amendment 30E. I remind noble Lords that anyone wishing to speak after the Minister should email the clerk during the debate. Anyone wishing to press this amendment to a Division must make that clear in debate.
Clause 42: TPIMs: drug testing measure
Amendment 30E
Baroness Hamwee
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would require reasonable suspicion before a requirement may be imposed under this section.
Baroness Hamwee (LD) [V]
My Lords, I think that, on the last grouping, the question which lay behind this amendment was answered—but let me just check. Clause 42 covers the drug testing measure. My first thought was whether a subject could be caught up in being tested and fail the test because someone else in the house was using drugs which were detected, perhaps under his fingernail. The amendment raises the issue of reasonable suspicion, but I think the noble Lord has confirmed condition D—that the Secretary of State reasonably considers, in this case, drug testing necessary for the purposes we have talked about. It is the “reasonableness” of that consideration; I think he has confirmed that that will apply. So that he can confirm it again, I beg to move.
Lord Paddick (LD) [V]
My Lords, our Amendment 30E relates to subjecting the subject of a TPIM to drug testing for class A and class B drugs only, at a police station by a constable only. I have rather different questions from those of my noble friend Lady Hamwee. The question I cannot find an answer to—and I cannot think of one myself—is, “Why?” One might cynically argue that a suspected terrorist high on cannabis might be too chilled out to conduct a terrorist attack; conversely, if the Government fear a suspected terrorist might do something stupid, for example being emboldened under the influence of a class A or class B drug, why not test for alcohol?
Bearing in mind the restrictions on the subject’s movements and communications and on who they can associate with, where do the Government think the subject of a TPIM will get his supply of class A or class B drugs? Indeed, if the subject is taking class A or class B drugs, under the noses of the police or security services, does this not raise questions about what else he might be getting his hands on, such as explosives? In short, what is the point, other than placing further restrictions, being even more intrusive and making the subject’s life even more difficult?
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I have nothing to add to the points made by the previous two speakers.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, through Clause 42 we are adding a new measure to the list of available measures in Schedule 1 to the TPIM Act 2011. If it is imposed, a TPIM subject would be required to submit to a drug test and provide a relevant sample.
Operational experience has shown that, in certain circumstances, drug use can exacerbate the risk of a subject engaging in terrorism-related activity. This new measure will support operational partners to mitigate this risk by confirming suspected drug use through a mandatory drug test and, where necessary, mandating attendance at rehabilitation programmes. They will want to follow up the questions raised by the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, about where those drugs were obtained.
We consider this amendment unnecessary because the TPIM Act already contains robust safeguards regarding the imposition of all measures on TPIM subjects. Section 3 of the TPIM Act requires that at the point that a TPIM is first imposed the Home Secretary must reasonably consider that the TPIM notice and the measures specified within it are necessary for purposes connected with preventing or restricting the individual’s involvement in terrorism-related activity. Section 12 of the TPIM Act also requires that variations of measures specified in an existing TPIM notice, which would include the imposition of a drug testing measure, cannot be made unless the Home Secretary reasonably considers that the variation is necessary for purposes connected with preventing or restricting the individual’s involvement in terrorism-related activity.
Given that existing requirement, the amendment proposed does not go further than the safeguards already in place. Furthermore, the existing requirements of the TPIM Act, to which I have just referred, apply to all measures rather than being confined solely to the drug testing measure as this amendment has it. For those reasons, we invite the noble Baroness to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Hamwee (LD) [V]
My Lords, one might expect the Home Secretary asked to approve the measure to respond by asking those requesting it what the hell—sorry—the police were doing if they had not spotted that the subject was getting hold of drugs. As I anticipated, my question had already been answered. I hope that the hours that will be imposed—to pick up my noble friend’s comparison, which is not a comparison: alcohol is a drug too—will make it impossible to get hold of alcohol as well as drugs. However, my underlying question has been answered. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Russell of Liverpool) (CB)
We now come to the group consisting of Amendment 30F. I remind noble Lords that anyone wishing to speak after the Minister should email the clerk during the debate. Anyone wishing to press this amendment to a Division must make that clear in debate.
Clause 43: TPIMs: provision of information
Amendment 30F
Baroness Hamwee
Member’s explanatory statement
This purpose of this amendment is to question the disclosure of information about an electronic device used by any other person.
Baroness Hamwee (LD) [V]
My Lords, Clause 43 is about the provision of information, including information about electronic communication devices—not just devices used by the individual, but those used by any other person in the individual’s residence. I have already referred to the impact of a TPIM on other members of the family. My recollection, which may not be absolutely accurate, is that a child’s lack of access to a computer was one of the things highlighted when control orders were abolished. The burden on children is, as I said, considerable, with bullying, confusion, being called a jihadi kid and all those things. This is presumably also one of the occasions when the condition about it being reasonably necessary will apply. Can the Minister confirm that this will not be invariable? In other words, will this disclosure requirement always be applied or will an assessment be made of its necessity? I beg to move.
Lord Paddick (LD) [V]
My Lords, the only thing that I will add to what my noble friend Lady Hamwee has said about this amendment is an assumption that, even if the subject of the TPIM provides the authorities with all the details of his or her communications equipment—computers, mobile phone and so forth—it would be possible that they could end up borrowing a device from somebody else in his or her household. That is what the authorities are seeking disclosure of, to ensure that they keep track of all the communications the subject of the TPIM is engaged in. As my noble friend Lady Hamwee said, the provisions contained within Section 43(2)(a) reinforce the fact that TPIMs can impact to a highly intrusive extent on innocent people living with the subject of the TPIM.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton (Lab) [V]
This amendment is probing the additional power given by Clause 43 of the Bill to allow the Secretary of State to seek disclosure of
“such details as may be specified of any electronic communication device possessed or used by the individual or any other person in the individual’s residence.”
Its purpose is readily understandable: namely, if the purpose of TPIMs is in part to prevent the subject of the TPIM communicating with anybody or receiving communications from anybody, the authorities should have the ability to look at all the electronic devices to which he or she has access.
However, as the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, have both pointed out, that means, for example, that the wife, husband or children of a subject become subject themselves to an intrusive order. I would be very interested to know whether the authorities are going to take a different approach to the question of the subject of a TPIM’s own electronic devices, as opposed to those of his family or those belonging to those with whom he lives. What is the standard going to be? Necessary and proportionate? Strong case? I would be very interested to hear what it is. Just before I depart, I will pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and the noble Lord, Lord Paddick. Although I have not agreed with every one of their amendments, they have shown indefatigable probing of this Bill and incredible good nature throughout.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, I wholeheartedly agree with the final comments of the noble and learned Lord; that is exactly what Committee stage is for. It has been thorough but good natured, and long may that continue.
Clause 43 amends the existing electronic communication device measure in order that a TPIM subject will be required, upon request, to provide details of electronic communication devices—also known as ECDs—which they possess or use, or any such devices belonging to other individuals in their residence. It almost goes without saying that in the digital age in which we now live there is vast scope for ECDs to play a key role in the conduct or facilitation of terrorism-related activity, including attack planning and the radicalisation of others in a bid to inspire them to carry out a terrorist attack.
Amendment 30F would prevent the Home Secretary from being able to require TPIM subjects to provide details of electronic communication devices belonging to other people in their residence. This would significantly undermine the utility of the changes we are seeking to make and would ultimately be to the detriment of national security. We have seen in the past that TPIM subjects will access or try to access devices belonging to others in their household, as the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, rightly noted.
Clearly, there is an important balance to be struck between security and civil liberties, particularly of family members such as children. But we are clear, particularly given how sparingly we envisage this measure being imposed, that any impact on those residing with the TPIM subject—such as their family members—will be proportionate.
Preventing the Home Secretary from being able to require the provision of certain ECD-related information, as this amendment would have it, would leave a gap in a potentially useful information source which can assist with the effective management of the TPIM subject. I am happy to reassure noble Lords that, as with all measures contained in Schedule 1 to the TPIM Act, this measure will not be applied unless the Home Secretary reasonably considers it necessary for purposes connected with preventing or restricting the individual’s involvement in terrorism-related activity.
The Committee has already heard during the course of today’s debate that the TPIM regime has inbuilt and robust judicial oversight. This includes all TPIM subjects having an automatic right to have a court review of the imposition of their TPIM notice and each of the measures imposed, as well as a right of appeal should a TPIM subject wish to challenge a variation to one or more measures contained within the TPIM notice. This oversight will of course apply to the updated ECD measure proposed in this clause.
I hope that that provides noble Lords with the reassurances that they were hoping to receive and I invite the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Hamwee (LD) [V]
My Lords, yes, I will seek to leave to withdraw my amendment.
I find it a bit difficult to understand in this connection how one applies proportionality. The question I asked of the Minister was whether this condition would be imposed in the case of every measure. Obviously, if there is nobody else living at the residence, it would be irrelevant. However—this is a bit rhetorical—how can one apply proportionality in this connection? Either you are concerned about communications through any electronic devices or you are not. I should probably leave that hanging, because it is really a rhetorical question.
I should not finish without thanking both noble Lords who have commented on our indefatigability and good humour. I am not sure whether the good humour showed throughout; I am glad that it appeared to. I acknowledge that picking up so many separate points must seem quite tedious, but quite a lot has come out, certainly that will help us to assess how to address these clauses at the next stage of the Bill, and reading every line and every word is what we are here for.
I apologise to noble Lords who had expected to be able to take part in the Statement on Myanmar, which is a very important and urgent issue. I am very sorry: it has nothing to do with any of us who are speaking and it is a great shame that that Statement was displaced from this evening.
I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Russell of Liverpool) (CB)
We now come to the group beginning with Amendment 32. I remind noble Lords that anyone wishing to speak after the Minister should email the clerk during the debate. Anyone wishing to press this or anything else in this group to a Division must make that clear in debate.
Clause 47: Persons vulnerable to being drawn into terrorism: timing of independent review
Amendment 32
“(1) In section 20(9) of the Counter-Terrorism and Border Security Act 2019 (persons vulnerable to being drawn into terrorism) omit the words from “within the period” to the end and substitute “by 1 July 2021”.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would reinstate a statutory deadline for the independent review of the Prevent strategy, which would have to report by 1 July 2021.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab) [V]
My Lords, my Amendment 32 would put into legislation a deadline for the Prevent review to be published. The Government commissioned the independent review in January 2019; it has been repeatedly delayed and postponed. The initial statutory deadline of 12 August 2020 will now be missed. The Government say that they intend to have the report by the summer of this year, but they will not commit to putting a date in the Bill. We have long campaigned for a wide-ranging and robust review, which we believe is the right approach. This amendment would reinstate a statutory deadline for the independent Prevent review.
Amendment 33 takes a slightly different approach, which is to put in place a timetable. It would ensure that the Prevent review and any recommendations were laid within 12 months rather than 18 months, as the Bill currently states. This issue has been mentioned a number of times in Committee, and I think I can guess what the Minister is going to say in response to these amendments. Nevertheless, we need to be as confident as we can be that we can get this deadline and have a reasonable timetable, because it is important that we get these things right and that people can consider the effectiveness of the Prevent programme. I beg to move.
Lord Thomas of Gresford (LD) [V]
My Lords, I pay personal tribute to the stamina and persistence of my noble friends Lady Hamwee and Lord Paddick. I pay tribute also to the Ministers. The noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, came off the bench half way through the second half, and my noble friend Lord Paddick put up a high one, which unfortunately he dropped: the clash between the presumption of innocence and the requirement to answer a question in a polygraph, which I raised earlier. I was not satisfied with the answer that I got—that it is appropriate to question somebody after conviction, when they face a further term of imprisonment, without any form of caution. I do not think that our law is that they have to answer.
The Prevent strategy, with its statutory duty for schools, NHS trusts, prisons and local authorities to report concerns, has received much criticism. It is clear that it has not been thought fit for purpose in the Muslim community, which regards it, rightly or wrongly, as discriminatory. A lack of trust leads to a lack of co-operation. Consequently, the Government should accept the burden of completing at the earliest opportunity the review that they have announced. Deadlines have already been passed. I have no wish to go into the appointments that have been made save to wonder to what extent those who are immediately affected by the strategy have been involved.
Lord Paddick (LD) [V]
My Lords, I completely agree with my noble friend Lord Thomas of Gresford’s comments on the suspicions that many communities have about the Prevent programme, which is why, in the Counter-Terrorism and Border Security Act 2019, this House required the Government to undertake an independent review and report on the Government’s strategy for supporting people who are vulnerable to being drawn into terrorism. A timetable was set in the 2019 Act for the Government to make arrangements within six months of that Act being passed and to report within 18 months. As my noble friend said, Clause 47 attempts to remove any timetable for starting, let alone completing, the independent review of Prevent.
As my noble friend said, and as I said at Second Reading, the most important and effective way to keep people safe from terrorist attacks is to prevent those at risk of becoming involved in terrorism-related activity doing so in the first place. It is vital that we know how effective Prevent is at identifying those at risk of being radicalised and diverting them away from potential terrorist activity, and that this is done as quickly as is reasonably practicable. Unless problems are identified and addressed, lives could be put at risk.
The noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede, suggests what might be described as a challenging and optimistic target of completing the review by 1 July 2021 in his Amendment 32. With the difficulties the Government have experienced over who should lead the review and the potential challenges ahead, there is a danger that a review within this timetable might not be thorough enough.
On 26 January, less than two weeks ago, the Government appointed a replacement independent reviewer of Prevent, William Shawcross. Mr Shawcross’s previous comments on Islam and the Iraq war have raised concerns in some quarters but, assuming he remains in post, the alternative timetable in our Amendment 33 should be achievable. This would give the Secretary of State six months to make arrangements for the review and for Mr Shawcross to lay before Parliament the report and any recommendations within a period of 18 months, beginning with the day this Bill is passed. I might be biased, but we prefer our Amendment 33.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, both amendments in this group would add a new statutory deadline for the completion of the independent review of Prevent. I certainly share the Committee’s firm commitment to the success of that independent review. It was clear in this short but important debate that our common objective is for a thorough and effective review to take place—one that will help us to learn how best to safeguard those who are vulnerable to being drawn into terrorism.
However, we must allow the new reviewer sufficient time to conduct such a thorough and effective review. These amendments would limit his options for reasonable flexibility, shorten the timeframe that he is given and put at risk his ability to do his job properly.
As the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, outlined, the review restarted two weeks ago, on 26 January, with the appointment of William Shawcross as the new independent reviewer. Our aim has been for the review to be completed by no later than August this year, but we will agree the precise timetable with Mr Shawcross shortly. We want to enable him to complete the review as swiftly as possible while affording him the consideration that his important task requires.
Of course, the uncertainties posed by the ongoing pandemic, such as the prospect of further ongoing restrictions on travel and face-to-face meetings, could, self-evidently, have implications for the reviewer, as well as for his team and all those who wish to provide input into the review. I am afraid that we therefore have to consider the potential impact of that on his ability to take evidence, including the vital work of engaging with different parts of the community. As the noble Lords, Lord Thomas of Gresford and Lord Paddick, highlighted, that work is vital, as is, for example, the reviewer witnessing for himself Prevent delivery in action so that he can deliver the thorough and evidence-based review, with practical recommendations for improvement, that we would like.
The Government believe that August this year is achievable, but this is of course dependent on the views of the new reviewer. He is independent, so I cannot speak for him at the Dispatch Box. We therefore recommend that the legislation affords the reviewer flexibility, should he feel that he needs it, to ensure that the valuable work of this review is not undermined. But we certainly hear what all noble Lords have said about the urgency, and I hope that they can hear that we share that. For those reasons, I urge the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, for the rhetorical flourish at the end of his speech, when he said that the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, had been asking, “Why?”, on many of the previous groups. In his speech today, the noble Lord, Lord Thomas asked, “When will we get the Prevent review deadline?”
The Minister gave his reasons for putting Mr Shawcross in place. He has been in place for only two weeks and I understand that the Government have had problems in getting this review off the ground. I will not take a partisan view. I do not think that the amendment in my name is better than the one in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, but it is important to try to get a realisable date or timetable in the Bill so that the Government are held to that.
I will withdraw my amendment, but we might come back with a similar one at a later stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Garden of Frognal) (LD)
We now come to the group beginning with Amendment 37. I remind noble Lords that anyone wishing to speak after the Minister should email the clerk during the debate, and that anyone wishing to press this or anything else in this group to a Division must make that clear in the debate.
Amendment 37
“Lone terrorists: review of strategy
(1) The Secretary of State must commission a review and publish a report on the effectiveness of current strategies to deal with lone terrorists.(2) A review under subsection (1) must be conducted by a person who meets the criteria for qualification for appointment to the Supreme Court, as set out in section 25 of the Constitutional Reform Act 2005 (qualification for appointment).(3) A review under subsection (1) must consider—(a) counter-terrorism policy;(b) sentencing policy as it applies to terrorist offenders;(c) the interaction and effectiveness of public services with respect to incidents of lone terrorist attacks.(4) For the purposes of subsection (3)(c), “public services” includes, but is not limited to—(a) probation;(b) the prison system;(c) mental health services;(d) local authorities; and(e) housing providers.(5) The Secretary of State must lay a copy of the report before Parliament.(6) A Minister of the Crown must table a motion in the House of Commons in relation to the report no later than three months after the report has been laid before Parliament.”Member’s explanatory statement
This new Clause ensures that the Government orders a judge-led review into the effectiveness of current strategies to deal with lone terrorists including, but not exclusively, current counter-terrorism and sentencing policy.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab) [V]
My Lords, Amendments 37 and 40 concern “lone terrorists” and the review of the strategy concerning them. Amendment 37 ensures that the Government will order a judge-led review into the effectiveness of current strategies to deal with lone terrorists, including, but not limited to, current “counter-terrorism policy” and “sentencing policy”. My right honourable friend Nick Thomas-Symonds has called for such a review, following the shocking and tragic incident in Reading on Saturday 20 June 2020, which was the third time in seven months that such devastation caused by a lone attacker has been seen on UK streets.
The review would undertake an assessment of the systemic response needed to address this threat, building on prior research and expertise. It would include an analysis of various public services: probation services, prisons, mental health services, housing providers and local authorities. Professor Ian Acheson, who completed a report for a Conservative Government, said last year:
“Our unsafe prisons provide a fertile breeding ground in which predators, peddling extremist and violent ideologies, can prey upon the vulnerable, creating significant risks to national security and the public at large.”
What steps are the Government taking to put forward a deradicalisation strategy in the prisons?
Amendment 40 looks at MAPPA—multiagency public protection arrangements—and its purpose is to encourage the Government to define which agencies are included within them. I have received a short briefing on this from Napo, and the point that the probation officers make is that the input into the MAPPA arrangements varies according to the individuals one is dealing with: it may be local faith-based groups, housing providers, social services, education providers or substance misuse agencies—a multitude of organisations could be called on to work within the MAPPA system. In this example—and, I have to say, in all examples that I have come across—the system is all about integrated working, and it would be helpful if the Government could offer some perspective on the agencies that they think should be working within the MAPPA system. I beg to move.
Lord Thomas of Gresford (LD) [V]
My Lords, the lone terrorist poses a particular danger. “We do not understand them,” said the noble Lord, Lord Robathan, earlier this afternoon. By definition, the lone terrorist is not engaged in communications of any nature that could lead to his apprehension through ordinary surveillance methods and techniques. His motivation may be obscure and entirely personal to himself.
Nevertheless, he can cause huge and unexpected damage, as we saw in the London Bridge episode in Fishmongers’ Hall. In that case, the attacker had been released in the belief that he was no longer a danger to the public—yet, without any obvious motivation, he launched himself against those who were trying to help him.
I support Amendment 37, on the basis that public safety demands that we burrow down into the causes and motivations of the lone actor. The threat to public safety is such that the appointment of a judge, with all the powers that a Supreme Court judge has, is very appropriate.
Lord Paddick (LD) [V]
My Lords, the imperfections of remote working have again unfortunately intervened. I did ask to speak after the Minister on the last group, and I hope the Committee will indulge me if I ask one question of the Minister about the former group. The Government are saying that they hope the new independent reviewer of Prevent will produce his report by August this year. In our amendment, by my calculation, we are setting a deadline of August next year. Perhaps when the Minister responds to this group, he could also answer the question of why a 12-month deadline beyond what the Government are proposing themselves is not considered a reasonable time for that review to be undertaken.
Turning to this group of amendments, Amendment 37 requires a review and report on the effectiveness of current strategies to deal with lone terrorists. Amendment 40 calls for a report on which agencies are included within Multi Agency Public Protection Arrangements—or MAPPA—for the purpose of managing terrorist offenders. Both amendments are in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede.
In December 2017, the noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich, published his independent assessment of police and MI5 reviews into the Manchester Arena attack and three other incidents in London—all of which involved lone terrorists—which killed a total of 36 people. The report made 126 recommendations, later consolidated into 104 things that could have been done better by counterterrorism officials.
In 2019, the noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich, published a stocktake of progress on the recommendations in his 2017 report, including multiagency centres for managing the risk posed by those suspected of being engaged in terrorist activity, which presumably includes lone terrorists. I am not sure to what extent the review and reports the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, is calling for overlap with the work of the noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich. Perhaps the Minister can advise the Committee.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Garden of Frognal) (LD)
I apologise to the noble Lord. The delay in getting messages to the iPad on the Woolsack meant that I did not get the message that he wished to speak on the last group. But I now call the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, continues to prove himself doughty in the face of technological challenges, and I am happy to address the question he would have asked in the previous group. He makes a valid point about the much longer timeframe proposed in his amendment, which we debated in that group. As I said, however, because Mr Shawcross is an independent reviewer, I cannot speak for him at the Dispatch Box. We must speak to him and see what he feels is the timeframe he needs. If we are able to have that conversation and he feels able to give a view before Report stage, we will of course come back and report it, but it is for the independent reviewer to make his assessment of how long he needs to do the thorough job required, as I hope the noble Lord will understand.
Turning now to this group, Amendment 37 would require the Home Secretary to commission a new, judge-led review of the effectiveness of the Government’s strategy to deal with lone-actor terrorists. While I welcome the constructive spirit in which the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede, tabled this amendment, I must respectfully disagree over the need to add it to the Bill.
I reassure the noble Lord that a great deal of work is already under way to combat the terrorist threat, including that posed by lone actors. My right honourable friend the Security Minister talked in some detail about this in a speech he gave at RUSI in November last year—particularly the term “lone actor” itself. If the noble Lord has not seen it, it is well worth reading. I would be very happy to provide noble Lords with a copy of that speech if they would like it.
The Government have been clear that we will not hesitate to act where necessary. Following the attacks at Fishmongers’ Hall and in Streatham, we brought forward legislation to address flaws in the way terrorist offenders were managed. The legislation we are now debating marks the largest overhaul of terrorist sentencing in decades. It follows on from the Terrorist Offenders (Restriction of Early Release) Act 2020, which came into force in February last year. That Act was, as noble Lords will remember, emergency legislation. One of its effects was to prevent around 50 terrorist prisoners being automatically released after serving only half their sentence, by amending their release point to at least two-thirds of their sentence and ensuring they are released only after an assessment by the Parole Board.
Following the attack at Fishmongers’ Hall in November 2019, the Lord Chancellor and the Home Secretary commissioned Jonathan Hall QC to carry out an independent review of the effectiveness of the Multi Agency Public Protection Arrangements, or MAPPA, when it comes to the management of terrorism, terrorist connections and offenders of terrorism concern in the community. MAPPA is the process through which the police, the Prison Service and the probation service work together and with other agencies—including children’s services, adult social services, health trusts and authorities, and youth offending teams—to protect the public by managing the risks posed by violent and sexual offenders living in the community.
That review found that MAPPA is a well-established process, and Mr Hall did not conclude that wholesale change is necessary. He made a number of recommendations on how the management of terrorists can be improved. In response to the review, the Government will shortly be bringing forward policing and crime legislation implementing a number of his recommendations, including new powers of premises and personal search, and an urgent power of arrest for counterterrorism policing.
This ongoing work builds on the response to the 2017 attacks. Three of the attacks in 2017 were carried out by lone actors, as was the attack in Reading, as the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, reminds us, which we sadly saw more recently. In 2018, the Government published a strengthened counterterrorism strategy, known as Contest, following operational improvement reviews overseen by the noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich. As part of that strategy we have piloted new multiagency approaches at the local level—in London, the West Midlands and Greater Manchester—to enable MI5 and counterterrorism policing to share more information with a broader range of partners, including government departments, the devolved Administrations and local authorities. This has enabled us to identify, mitigate and disrupt threats earlier. Our superb police, and security and intelligence agencies work around the clock to keep us safe: they have disrupted 27 terrorist plots since 2017.
There are now more than 20 government departments and agencies involved in the delivery of Contest, and we have worked to build strong relationships with the private sector, the third sector and the wider public. We will continue to invest in these relationships and drive greater integration, recognising that to reduce the risk of terrorism we need not only a whole-of-Government but a whole-of-society approach. In the context of the wide-ranging work already under way and recently completed, the Government do not consider that the noble Lord’s amendment is needed.
I turn now to Amendment 40. This proposed new clause would require the Secretary of State to lay a report within 12 months of the Bill being passed, defining which agencies are included within MAPPA for the purposes of managing terrorist offenders. The agencies included in MAPPA are already listed in Section 325 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003. As has been mentioned already, these include criminal justice agencies such as the police and the probation service, as well as other agencies, including mental health services, social services and NHS England. These agencies are placed under a statutory obligation to work together to assess and manage the risk presented by serious offenders.
Moreover, agencies with a legal duty to co-operate with MAPPA must have regard to statutory guidance issued by the Ministry of Justice. This guidance, which also sets out which agencies must co-operate, is publicly available. Agencies that do not have a statutory duty to co-operate with MAPPA are not obliged to engage. There are, however, no barriers in place to prevent this engagement for the purposes of assessing and managing the risks presented by serious offenders. It is our belief that the right agencies already have a duty to co-operate in place, and, as such, they are listed publicly in the Criminal Justice Act.
I have already mentioned Jonathan Hall’s recent review of MAPPA. On the question of the identity of the agencies involved in MAPPA, he raised no issues. He did, however, raise questions about the way in which MAPPA agencies share information with each other, and the Government have confirmed in our response to his review that we will clarify the position in upcoming legislation to put the matter beyond doubt. We believe, therefore, that since this knowledge is already publicly available and enshrined in legislation, there is no need for this amendment. I hope the noble Lord agrees and that he will be willing to withdraw it.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I thank everyone who has spoken on this short group of amendments. The Minister offered to send the RUSI speech of his friend, which I would indeed be happy to read. The gist of his comments on Amendment 37 was that a judge-led review is not needed because there are other government reviews currently under way. I hear what he says, but I will reflect on the view he expresses.
On Amendment 40, he listed the statutory bodies that are required to co-operate with MAPPA, but I thought it was interesting that the list he read out was a much shorter list than the one I got from the probation officers, who said it was very important to go wider than the short list he mentioned and include, for example, local faith-based groups, education providers and third sector substance misuse agencies. Those sorts of agencies may well be very useful and informative for the MAPPA system. I hear what the noble Lord says about Jonathan Hall and the plan to help the different MAPPA agencies co-operate with each other, which must be the right way to proceed. I will reflect on what he said, and I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Garden of Frognal) (LD)
My Lords, we now come to the group beginning with Amendment 41, which is all government amendments. I remind noble Lords that anyone wishing to speak after the Minister should email the clerk during the debate.
Schedule 13: Consequential and related amendments
Amendment 41
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar
“(b) in paragraph (a), for “that Act” substitute “the Counter-Terrorism Act 2008.””Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment makes a further consequential amendment to section 23A of the Terrorism Act 2000 needed as a result of Clause 1 of the Bill.
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
My Lords, I shall speak also to Amendments 42 to 65 inclusive and to Amendments 69, 71, 72, 74 and 76. I make four very short points. First, the hour is late and getting later. Secondly, these are all technical and consequential amendments. Thirdly, we have placed an explanatory note for each of them, which I am sure Members of the Committee will have looked at. Fourthly, I propose to set out in a letter, which I shall place in the Library, a more detailed analysis of the admittedly somewhat arcane and, in many cases, technical and consequential nature of these amendments. I hope that in those circumstances, I can draw my remarks to a close there. Obviously, if noble Lords have specific questions, I will attempt to answer them now, but otherwise, I beg to move.
Lord Thomas of Gresford (LD) [V]
My Lords, since requests to speak after the Minister are delivered to the Deputy Chairman of Committees by forked stick, perhaps I might comment on the earlier group concerning the review. Mr William Shawcross’s report on compensation for Libyan-backed terrorist atrocities in Northern Ireland was discussed on Monday. It was received by the Government last May but not published, as we have discussed. I hope that any review or report in the field that we have been discussing will not similarly be kept clutched to the Government’s bosom.
I have considered the government amendments to this schedule, and I am satisfied that they are consequential to amendments to legislation made necessary by this Bill and do not contain in themselves any questions of principle. I would not be surprised, given the complexity of the Bill, if other amendments emerged in the course of time.
Lord Paddick (LD) [V]
I am very grateful to my noble friend Lord Thomas of Gresford for doing the heavy lifting in looking at these amendments and reassuring me that there is nothing ugly lurking in the pile. I am grateful for the undertaking from the Minister to write to us with further details.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton (Lab) [V]
The only amendment I would like to mention is Amendment 60, which amends Section 250 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 so that, according to the explanatory statement,
“the Parole Board will set the licence conditions for all prisoners to whom section 247A of that Act applies (restricted eligibility for early release) whose release is directed by the Board.”
Is this dealing with licence conditions where there is no right to early release or with licence conditions where there is a right to early release? If so, what is the effect of the amendment? It is the only amendment in this group that looked as if it might be doing something substantive. If the Minister would like to write to me, I will quite understand.
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful for the comments of the noble Lords, Lord Thomas of Gresford and Lord Paddick. In response to the specific point put to me by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, in one sentence, the change is needed to ensure that there was clarity over the authority for setting licence conditions for terrorist offenders, whether serving standard, determinate, extended or other sentences. I shall include an explanation of the amendment in my letter. I hope that satisfies him; if he wants any further information, I would of course be happy to provide it.
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar
“Counter-Terrorism and Security Act 2015 (c. 6)
2A_ In section 44(2)(e) of the Counter-Terrorism and Security Act 2015 (provisions subject to review by the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation), for “Schedule 1” substitute “Schedules A1 and 1”.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amends the list of terrorism legislation which is subject to review by the independent reviewer to include the new Schedule A1 inserted into the Sentencing Code by Schedule 1 to the Bill.
Member’s explanatory statement
This removes a repeal to Schedule 2 to the Sentencing (Pre-Consolidation Amendments) Act 2020 that has already been made by the Sentencing Act 2020.
“(3A) In Schedule 22, paragraph 4 (prospective addition of offences to Schedule 1 to the Code), and the heading above it, are repealed to the extent that paragraph 4 is not yet in force when section 1 of this Act comes into force.”Member’s explanatory statement
This repeals a prospective amendment to the Sentencing Code made by Schedule 22 to the Sentencing Act 2020. The repealed amendment will be unnecessary if not yet in force when Clause 1 of the Bill comes into force.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the amendment at page 121, line 17.
“(6A) In section 255C (extended sentence prisoners and those not suitable for automatic release)— (a) for the heading, substitute “Prisoners not suitable for automatic release”;(b) in subsection (1)(a), after “prisoner” insert “or a serious terrorism prisoner (see section 255A(7) and (7A))”.”Member’s explanatory statement
This makes a consequential amendment to section 255C of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 reflecting the fact that those serving serious terrorism sentences will not be eligible for automatic further release after recall to prison.
Member’s explanatory statement
This removes an unnecessary amendment to the Sentencing Code.
Member’s explanatory statement
This removes an unnecessary amendment to the Sentencing Code.
“(21) In section 417(3) (commencement of provisions of Schedule 22 which relate to prospective abolition of sentences of detention in a young offender institution)—(a) in paragraph (a), for “38” substitute “38B”;(b) in paragraph (d), for “268” substitute “268C”;(c) in paragraph (f), after “paragraphs” insert “68A,”.(22) In Schedule 22 (amendments of the Sentencing Code, including in relation to the prospective abolition of sentences of detention in a young offender institution)—(a) for paragraph 36 substitute—“36_ In section 15 (committal for sentence of dangerous adult offenders)—(a) in subsection (1)(b), omit—(i) “of detention in a young offender institution or”;(ii) “266 or”;(b) in subsection (1A), omit “268A or”.”;(b) in paragraph 37 (amendments of section 59 of the Code)—(i) for “59(2)(h)” substitute “59(2)”;(ii) after “court)” insert “—(a) in paragraph (ga), for “sections 268B and” substitute “section”;(b) in paragraph (h),”;(c) in paragraph 38 (amendments of section 61 of the Code), after sub-paragraph (a) insert—“(aa) in subsection (2B), omit “268C(2)(b) or”;”;(d) after paragraph 38 insert—“38A_ In section 73(2A) (reduction in serious terrorism sentence for guilty plea), omit “268C(2) or, as the case may be,”.38B_ In section 74(4A) (reduction in serious terrorism sentence for assistance to prosecution), omit “268C(2) or”.”;(e) in paragraph 40 (amendments of section 166 of the Code), for “paragraphs 3 and 4” substitute “entries 3, 4 and 4A”;(f) in paragraph 46 (amendments of section 231 of the Code), at the end insert—“(d) in subsection (6A), for “sections 268C(2)(b) and” substitute “section”.”; (g) after paragraph 57 insert—“57A_ In section 282A (serious terrorism sentence of imprisonment: persons 21 or over), in the heading omit “: persons 21 or over”.57B_ In section 282B (serious terrorism sentence of imprisonment: circumstances in which required), omit subsection (1)(c).”; (h) in paragraph 62 (amendments of section 308(1) of the Code), after paragraph (a) insert—“(aa) in paragraph (aa), omit “268B or”;”;(i) after paragraph 68 insert—“68A_ In section 323 (minimum term order: other life sentences)—(a) in subsection (4), omit “268B(2) or” in both places;(b) in subsection (6)(b), omit “268B(2) or”.”;(j) in paragraph 70 (amendments of section 329 of the Code)—(i) after the opening words insert—“(za) in subsection (3), for “(4) to (5A)” substitute “(4), (4A) and (5)”;(ii) after paragraph (a) insert—“(aa) omit subsection (5A);”;(iii) in paragraph (b), after “(e)” insert “, (ea)”;(k) in paragraph 72 (amendments of section 397(1) of the Code)—(i) the words from “in the definition” to the end become sub- paragraph (a);(ii) at the end insert—“(b) in the definition of “serious terrorism sentence”, omit paragraph (a)(including the word “or” immediately after that paragraph).”;(l) for paragraph 73 (amendments of section 399 of the Code) substitute—“73_ In section 399 (mandatory sentences)—(a) in paragraph (b)—(i) in the opening words, omit “, custody for life”;(ii) in sub-paragraph (i), omit “, 274”;(iii) in sub-paragraph (ii), omit “273 or”;(b) in paragraph (ba), omit “268B or”.”;(m) before paragraph 80 (amendment of Schedule 18 to the Code) insert—“79A_ In Schedule 17A (serious terrorism offences), after paragraph 24 insert—“Space Industry Act 201824A_ An offence under any of the following provisions of Schedule 4 to the Space Industry Act 2018—(a) paragraph 1 (hijacking of spacecraft);(b) paragraph 2 (destroying, damaging or endangering the safety of spacecraft);(c) paragraph 3 (other acts endangering or likely to endanger safety of spacecraft);(d) paragraph 4 (endangering safety at spaceports).””;(n) in paragraph 101 (amendment of section 37 of the Mental Health Act 1983)—(i) in sub-paragraph (1), omit “, as amended by paragraph 73 of Schedule 24”;(ii) in sub-paragraph (2), for “273” substitute “268A, 273”;(iii) in sub-paragraph (3), after “(1B)” insert “—(a) in paragraph (aa), omit “section 268A or” and “282B(2) or”;(b) ”.”Member’s explanatory statement
This makes further amendments to Schedule 22 to the Sentencing Act 2020 (prospective amendments to the Sentencing Code in connection with the abolition of detention in a young offender institution) in consequence of the introduction by clauses 4 and 5 of serious terrorism sentences in England and Wales.
Member’s explanatory statement
This is consequential on the amendment at page 108, line 18.
Member’s explanatory statement
This is consequential on the amendment at page 108, line 18.
“(2A) The amendment made by sub-paragraph (2) does not apply where a person is convicted of an offence before the day on which this paragraph comes into force.”Member’s explanatory statement
This ensures that the transitional provision set out in Clause 21(2) in relation to the introduction of the new Schedule 13 to the Sentencing Code by that Clause also applies to the related consequential amendment.
Member’s explanatory statement
This leaves out an amendment to the Sentencing Act 2020 which is consequential on Schedule 8 to the Bill rather than Clause 21 (see also amendment at page 119, line 41).
“(a) in subsection (6A)(a), for “265” substitute “252A, 265”;”Member’s explanatory statement
This adjusts a consequential amendment to section 264 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 to reflect an amendment made to that provision by the Sentencing Act 2020.
“(25A) In section 417(3) (commencement of provisions of Schedule 22 which relate to prospective abolition of sentences of detention in a young offender institution), in paragraph (c), after “51” insert “, 51A”.(25B) In Schedule 22 (amendments of the Sentencing Code, including in relation to prospective abolition of sentences of detention in a young offender institution)—(a) after paragraph 51 insert—“51A_ In section 252A (special sentence of detention for terrorist offenders of particular concern aged under 18), in subsection (4), for “21” substitute “18”.”;(b) in paragraph 70 (amendment of section 329 of the Sentencing Code in relation to the prospective abolition of sentences of detention in a young offender institution), before paragraph (a) insert—“(zb) in subsection (4A), omit paragraph (b) (and the word “or” immediately before it);”.”Member’s explanatory statement
This makes further amendments to the Sentencing Act 2020 which are consequential on the introduction of the new sentence for offenders of particular concern aged under 18 at the time of the offence by Clause 22.
Member’s explanatory statement
This is consequential on the amendment at page 115, line 24
Member’s explanatory statement
This is consequential on the amendment at page 115, line 24
“33A(1) The Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 as it forms part of the law of Scotland is amended as follows. (2) In section 5 (rehabilitation periods for particular sentences)—(a) in subsection (1)(d), after “or section 209” insert “or 224B”;(b) in subsection (2F)(a)(ii), after “209” insert “or 224B”.(3) In section 5B (Table B - disclosure periods: service disciplinary cases), in the sixth entry of Table B, after “209” insert “or 224B”.”Member’s explanatory statement
This makes amendments to section 5 of the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 as it extends to Scotland, to ensure that section deals with the service equivalent of the new sentence for offenders of particular concern aged under 18 at the time of the offence, introduced by Part 3 of Schedule 8 to the Bill.
“(4A) In section 418 (commencement of provisions of Schedule 26 in relation to prospective abolition of sentences of detention in a young offender institution) after subsection (2) insert—“(2A) Paragraphs 13A, 20A and 24A (and paragraph 1 so far as it relates to them) also come into force at that time.”(4B) In Schedule 25 (amendments of Armed Forces Act 2006), omit paragraph 45(5).(4C) In Schedule 26 (further amendments of the Armed Forces Act 2006 in relation to prospective abolition of sentences of detention in a young offender institution)—(a) after paragraph 13 insert—“13A_ In section 219ZA (serious terrorism sentence for offenders aged 18 or over)—(a) in subsection (1)(e), omit “a sentence of custody for life or (as the case may be)”;(b) omit subsections (4) to (6);(c) in subsection (7), omit “Where the offender is aged 21 or over when convicted of the serious terrorism offence,”.”;(b) in paragraph 14 (amendments of section 219A of the 2006 Act), for sub-paragraph (a) substitute—“(a) in subsection (1)—(i) in paragraph (d), omit sub-paragraphs (i) and (iii);(ii) in paragraph (da), omit sub-paragraph (i);”;(c) in paragraph 15(a) (amendments of section 224A of the 2006 Act), after paragraph (ii) insert—“(iii) in sub-paragraph (iii), for “detention or imprisonment under section 268A or 282A” substitute “imprisonment under section 282A”;”;(d) in paragraph 18 (amendment of section 239 of the 2006 Act), after “pleas)” insert “—(a) in subsection (3A), omit—(i) “(4) or”;(ii) “268A or”;(b) in subsection (3B), omit “268C(2) or, as the case may be,”;(c) ”;(e) in paragraph 19 (amendments of section 260 of the 2006 Act)—(i) in sub-paragraph (a), after paragraph (ii) insert—“(iia) in paragraph (ca), omit “268A or”;”; (ii) for sub-paragraph (b) substitute—“(b) in subsection (4B)—(i) in paragraph (za), omit “268C(2) or”;(ii) in paragraph (a), omit “268(2) or”.”;(f) in paragraph 20 (amendments of section 261 of the 2006 Act), at the end insert— “(c) in paragraph (ba), omit “268A or”.”;(g) after paragraph 20 insert—“20A_ In section 261A(3) (life sentences: further provision)—(a) in paragraph (b), omit “268B(2) or”;(b) in paragraph (c)(i), omit “268B(2) or”.”;(h) in paragraph 21 (amendments of section 262A of the 2006 Act), for the words from “, in subsection (4)” to the end substitute—“(a) in subsection (2A), omit paragraph (b);(b) omit subsection (3A);(c) in subsection (4), omit paragraphs (d), (da), (e) and (f) treated as substituted in subsection (7) of section 329 of the Sentencing Code.”;(i) after paragraph 24 insert—“24A_ In section 304C (to be inserted by the Armed Forces Act 2016: reduction in sentence), in subsection (5A)—(a) omit “268C(2) or”;(b) for “section 219ZA(5) to (8)” substitute “section 219ZA(8)”.””Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment makes further amendments, to the provisions of the Sentencing Act 2020 dealing with the abolition of detention in a young offender institution, which are consequential on the provisions of the Bill dealing with sentencing under service law.
“(2A) In section 250 (licence conditions)—(a) in subsection (5A), in each of paragraphs (a) and (b), after “a prisoner” insert “, other than a terrorist prisoner,”;(b) after subsection (5A) insert—“(5AA) Subsection (5B) also applies to a licence granted, either on initial release or after recall to prison, to a terrorist prisoner in a case where the licence is granted following a direction of the Board for the prisoner’s release.”;(c) omit subsection (5BA);(d) after subsection (8) insert—“(9) In this section “terrorist prisoner” means a prisoner to whom section 247A applies, or would apply but for the prisoner’s having been released on licence.””Member’s explanatory statement
This amends section 250 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 so that the Parole Board will set the licence conditions for all prisoners to whom section 247A of that Act applies (restricted eligibility for early release) whose release is directed by the Board.
“Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968 (c. 49)
45A_ In section 6A(1)(d) of the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968 (inquiries into detention of children under certain enactments), after “44” insert “, 205ZC(5)”.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment enables an inquiry to be held under section 6A of the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968 into the detention of a child under the new terrorism sentence introduced by Clause 23.
“Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 (c. 53)
45B_ In section 5 of the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 as it forms part of the law of England and Wales (rehabilitation periods for particular sentences), in subsection (1)(d)—(a) for “Act 1975” substitute “Act 1995”;(b) for the words from “section 206” to the end substitute “section 205ZC(5) or 208 of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995;”. 45C_ In section 5 of the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 as it forms part of the law of Scotland (rehabilitation periods for particular sentences)—(a) in subsection (1)(da), after “section” insert “205ZA(6)(serious terrorism sentence for young offenders), 205ZC(4) or (5)(terrorism sentence for young offenders or children),”;(b) in subsection (12), in paragraph (b) of the definition of “custodial sentence”, after “44,” insert “205ZA(6), 205ZC(4) or (5),”.”Member’s explanatory statement
This makes amendments to section 5 of the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 so that it will deal with the new sentences introduced by Clauses 6 and 23.
“(1) The Prisons (Scotland) Act 1989 is amended as follows.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the amendment at page 122, line 18.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the amendment at page 122, line 18.
“(3) In section 40(3)(a)(arrest of absent prisoners: application of section to persons sentenced or ordered to be detained under certain provisions of the 1995 Act), after “205” insert “, 205ZC(5)”.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment amends section 40(3)(a) of the Prisons (Scotland) Act 1989 so as to make section 40 applicable in relation to children sentenced to detention under the new terrorism sentence introduced by Clause 23.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Garden of Frognal) (LD)
We now come to the group beginning with Amendment 66. I remind noble Lords that anyone wishing to speak after the Minister’s reply should email the clerk during the debate.
Amendment 66
Lord Stewart of Dirleton
“(1A) In section 1(3A) (release of short-term, long-term and life prisoners serving concurrent sentences), for “section 1A” substitute “sections 1A and 1B”.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the insertion of new section 1B of the Prisoners and Criminal Proceedings (Scotland) Act 1993 made by the amendment at page 123, line 6.
Lord Stewart of Dirleton (Con)
In moving the amendment in the name of my noble friend Lord Wolfson of Tredegar, I shall speak also to Amendments 67 and 70, also in his name. These amendments are intended to modify Scottish provisions on sentencing with the intention of providing that, throughout the United Kingdom, terrorist offenders serve the appropriate custodial period of sentences for terrorism offences. They are made necessary by an aspect of Scottish sentencing practice that does not appear elsewhere in the United Kingdom.
The three amendments, taken together, make provision for technical sentence calculation adjustment. They clarify how terrorism sentences will operate when served consecutively with non-terrorism sentences. The amendments come at the end of a positive engagement with the devolved Government; as a result of that engagement, the Scottish Government have now tabled a legislative consent Motion in respect of this Bill.
As I said in the course of these brief remarks, the amendments are technical in nature and I shall be happy to place detail of them and their implications in a letter in the Library of this House. I beg to move.
Lord Thomas of Gresford (LD) [V]
My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Stewart, for moving these amendments and for pronouncing “Tredegar” correctly. I am sure that the noble Lord who hails from, or has a connection with, Tredegar, will be happy with his pronunciation as well. I have looked at these Scottish provisions. I agree that they are technical, and I really have nothing to add.
Lord Paddick (LD) [V]
My Lords, I am minded to say, “Like the last lot”—but I am very grateful to my noble friend Lord Thomas of Gresford, and to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Stewart, for his offer to write with details. I would just say that I think it is rather cruel and inhumane to expect three government Ministers to be forced to remain to the end of the evening; perhaps they can come to some better arrangement on a future occasion.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton (Lab) [V]
Like the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, I too am grateful to the four Ministers for the care and good humour with which they have dealt with it all. Of the three amendments, Amendment 66 looks entirely technical. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Stewart of Dirleton, says, Amendment 67 deals with a situation where you have a non-terrorist sentence and then, consecutively, before or after, a terrorist sentence. I cannot work out how you deal with that situation for the purposes of licences as a result of this amendment. Hopefully, that will be explained to us—for reasons that may be entirely my fault, it is not entirely clear to me from the wording of the amendment. As I understand it, Amendment 70 again deals with the position of consecutive sentences; and again, the effect of that is not entirely clear to me. It might be significant, because what we are dealing with are very long sentences. So I hope that the noble and learned Lord will explain this when he comes to write his letter to us. I am very much obliged.
Lord Stewart of Dirleton (Con)
My Lords, I will undertake to provide that explanation on what are, as all the speakers who have kindly commented on the provisions have remarked, matters of a technical nature.
Lord Stewart of Dirleton
“(3) In the heading of section 1A, after “to” insert “certain”.(3A) After section 1A insert— “1B Prisoners serving consecutive sentences including at least one terrorism sentence(1) This section applies where—(a) a prisoner has been sentenced to two or more terms of imprisonment which are to be served consecutively on each other,(b) one or more of the sentences (the “terrorism sentence”) was imposed in respect of an offence within section 1AB(2), and(c) the sentences were imposed on the same occasion or, where they were imposed on different occasions, the prisoner has not been released under this Part at any time during the period beginning with the first and ending with the last of those occasions.(2) If the prisoner is serving a terrorism sentence and a sentence imposed in respect of an offence that is not within section 1AB(2) (a “non-terrorism sentence”), the terrorism sentence is to be served (or, where subsection (7) applies, treated as being served) after the non-terrorism sentence irrespective of when the sentences were imposed.(3) Where subsection (2) applies, the prisoner is to be taken to begin serving the custodial part of the terrorism sentence (or first such sentence) as soon as the prisoner has served the custodial part of the non-terrorism sentence.(4) If (but for this section) the prisoner would have been released on licence under this Part in respect of a non-terrorism sentence, the period during which the prisoner would have been on licence under this Part is to be served concurrently with the custodial part of the terrorism sentence.(5) The prisoner may not be released under this Part in respect of the terrorism sentence unless and until the prisoner has served the aggregate of—(a) if the prisoner is serving a non-terrorism sentence, the custodial part of the sentence, and(b) the custodial part of each terrorism sentence that the prisoner is serving.(6) Subsection (7) applies where—(a) a non-terrorism sentence is imposed on the prisoner (the “new sentence”), and(b) the prisoner has already served part of the custodial part of a terrorism sentence (the “served part”).(7) The prisoner is to be treated as having served—(a) where the served part is less than the custodial part of the new sentence, such part of the custodial part of the new sentence as is equal to the served part,(b) where the served part is equal to the custodial part of the new sentence, the custodial part of the new sentence,(c) where the served part exceeds the custodial part of the new sentence—(i) the custodial part of the new sentence, and(ii) so much of the custodial part of the terrorism sentence as is equal to the amount by which the served part exceeds the custodial part of the new sentence.(8) Nothing in this Part requires—(a) the Scottish Ministers to release the prisoner in respect of any of the terms of imprisonment unless and until they are required to release the prisoner in respect of each of the other terms of imprisonment,(b) the Scottish Ministers or the Parole Board to consider the prisoner’s release in respect of any of the terms of imprisonment unless and until the Ministers are or the Board is required to consider the prisoner’s release, or the Ministers are required to release the prisoner, in respect of each of the other terms. (9) If the prisoner is released on licence under this Part the prisoner is to be on licence, on and after the release, until the prisoner would, but for the release, have served a term equal in length to the aggregate length of the term of imprisonment of any non-terrorism sentence and the term or, as the case may be, terms of imprisonment for the terrorism sentence or sentences less the period mentioned in subsection (10).(10) The period is—(a) any period served concurrently in accordance with subsection (4), and(b) if (but for this section) the prisoner would have been released unconditionally under section 1(1) in respect of a non-terrorism sentence, the period equal to one-half of the term of that sentence.(11) Where a prisoner to which this section applies is released on licence under this Part (other than a licence under section 3AA), the release is to be on a single licence which is to be subject to such conditions as may be specified or required by this Part in relation to all the sentences in respect of which the prisoner has been so released.(12) In this section “custodial part”, in relation to a term of imprisonment means a period equal to the part of the term that (but for this section) the prisoner would be required to serve before—(a) the Scottish Ministers are required to release the prisoner under this Part, or(b) the Parole Board is first entitled under this Part to make a recommendation that the prisoner be released on licence under this Part.(13) In this section—(a) references to a non-terrorism sentence include references to two or more such sentences that are treated as a single term by virtue of section 27(5) (whether imposed before, after or both before and after a terrorism sentence), and(b) where subsection (7) applies, the references in that subsection to the “custodial part of the new sentence” include references to the custodial part of the single term.””Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment inserts new section 1B of the Prisoners and Criminal Proceedings (Scotland) Act 1993. New section 1B makes provision where a prisoner is serving consecutive sentences including at least one terrorism sentence to which section 1AB of the 1993 Act applies, including provision consequential on the amendment of section 27 of the 1993 Act made by the amendment at page 125, line 15.
“(5A) In section 3A (re-release of prisoners serving extended sentences)—(a) in the heading, after “serving” insert “certain terrorism sentences and”;(b) in subsection (1), for the words from “an” to “sentences)” substitute “a sentence mentioned in subsection (1ZA)”;(c) after subsection (1) insert—“(1ZA) The sentences are—(a) a sentence imposed under section 205ZA of the 1995 Act (serious terrorism sentence);(b) a sentence imposed under section 205ZC of that Act (terrorism sentence with fixed licence period);(c) an extended sentence under section 210A of that Act.”;(d) in subsection (3), after “term with” insert “the sentence under section 205ZA or, as the case may be, section 205ZC or”;(e) in subsection (4), for the words from “if” to the end substitute— “(a) where—(i) the prisoner is serving a sentence imposed under section 205ZA or 205ZC of the 1995 Act or an extended sentence under section 210A of that Act in respect of a terrorism offence, and(ii) the Board is satisfied that the condition in subsection (4A) is met (but not otherwise),direct that the prisoner should be released;(b) where—(i) the prisoner is serving an extended sentence under section 210A of that Act in respect of a sexual or violent offence, and(ii) the Board is satisfied that the condition in subsection (4B) is met (but not otherwise),direct that the prisoner should be released.”;(f) after subsection (4) insert—“(4A) The condition is that it is no longer necessary for the protection of the public that the prisoner should be confined.(4B) The condition is that it is no longer necessary for the protection of the public from serious harm that the prisoner should be confined.”(5B) In section 3B (review of decisions as to determinate sentences)—(a) in subsection (1)(a), after “from” insert “a sentence imposed under section 205ZC of the 1995 Act or”;(b) in subsection (1)(b)—(i) after “serving” insert “a sentence imposed under section 205ZC of the 1995 Act or”;(ii) after “sentence”, in the second place it occurs, insert “or extended sentence”;(c) in subsection (4)(b), after “relates to” insert “a sentence imposed under section 205ZC of the 1995 Act or”.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment amends sections 3A and 3B of the Prisoners and Criminal Proceedings (Scotland) Act 1993 in consequence of the new terrorism sentences introduced by Clauses 6 and 23.
“(aa) in subsection (5), after paragraph (a) (but before the final “and”) insert—“(aa) sections 3A and 3B of this Act apply to children on whom detention has been imposed under section 205ZC(5) of the 1995 Act as they apply to long- term prisoners;”;”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment amends section 7(5) of the Prisoners and Criminal Proceedings (Scotland) Act 1993 so as to ensure that sections 3A and 3B of that Act apply in relation to children who are sentenced to detention under the new terrorism sentence introduced by Clause 23.
(a) in respect of an offence within section 1AB(2), and(b) on or after the coming into force of paragraph 48(3A) of Schedule 13 to the Counter-Terrorism and Sentencing Act 2021.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment makes provision so that terrorism sentences to which section 1AB of the Prisoners and Criminal Proceedings (Scotland) Act 1993 apply will not be treated as a single term for the purposes of Part 1 of the Act.
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar
“(i) Part 3 of that Schedule, except as mentioned in subsection (3)(hb);(ia) Part 4 of that Schedule;”Member’s explanatory statement
This is consequential on the amendment at page 44, line 11.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the amendments at page 122, line 2.
“(q) sections 31 and 32;”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment will ensure that Clause 32 of the Bill (polygraph conditions for terrorist offenders: England and Wales) comes into force 2 months after Royal Assent (rather than by regulations).
“(i) Part 1 of that Schedule, except as mentioned in subsection (3)(ha);(ia) Part 2 of that Schedule;”Member’s explanatory statement
This is consequential on the insertion made by the amendment at page 44, line 11.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the removal of Clauses 33 to 35 of the Bill and on the amendment at page 43, line 27.
“(ha) paragraph 6(3)(a) and (3A) of Schedule 13 as they have effect for the purposes mentioned in paragraph (a) above (and section 48 to the extent that it relates to those provisions for those purposes);(hb) Part 3 of Schedule 13 as it has effect for the purposes mentioned in paragraph (f) above (and section 48 to the extent that it relates to that Part for those purposes);”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment ensures that consequential amendments made by Schedule 13, so far as they relate to provisions in the Bill which will be brought into force by regulations, will also be brought into force by regulations.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, with thanks to all noble Lords who have enabled us to complete the Committee’s scrutiny of the Bill this evening, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn.